IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)
/.
1.0
I.I
1.25
m Ki ■22
«s .^ iiii|2.o
1.8
1-4 1 1.6
m
w
VI
^<^
^
v:
•.%«^;> 4
^^^■^V A
^:^
/A
A
\
<v
<>
^<b
.V
^V'C>'^
%
%*^ ...*. "<*.
CIHM/ICMH
Microfiche
Series.
CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.
Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions
Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques
1980
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques
T
t(
The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checlced below.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Coloured covers/
Couverture de couleur
Covers damaged/
Couverture endommagde
Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e
Cover title missing/
Le titre de couverture manque
Coloured maps/
Cartes g6ot;raphiques en couleur
Coloi/red ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/
Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire)
Coloured plates and/or illustrations/
Plancheb et/ou illustrations en couleur
Bound with other material/
Reii6 avec d'autres documents
r~71 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
D
D
along interior margin/
La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la
distortion le long de la marge intdrieure
Blank leaves added during restoration may
appear within the text. Whenever possible, these
have been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte,
mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas dtd filmdes.
Additional comments:/
Commentaires suppl6mentaires:
L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la methods normals de fitmage
sont indiqu6s ci-dessous.
□ Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur
Pages damaged/
I I Pages endommagdes
Pages restored and/oi
Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es
Pages discoloured, stained or foxe(
Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqudes
Pages detached/
Pages ddtachdes
I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/
r~7| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
I I Pages detached/
□ Showthrough/
Transparence
□ Quality of print varies/
Quality indgale de I'impression
□ Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du materiel supplementaire
I — I Only edition available/
D
Seule Edition disponible
Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to
ensure the best possible image/
Les pages totalement ou partiellement
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fagon d
obtenir la meilleure image possible.
T
P
o
fi
G
b
tl
si
o
fi
si
o
T
si
T
VI
^
d
e
b
ri
ri
n
r~7| This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
|v I Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous.
10X
14X
18X
22X
26X
SOX
4
ka^Md
^am
1RX
70X
24X
28X
32X
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:
Ralph Pickard Bell Library
Mount Allison University
L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grSce d la
g6n6rosit6 de:
Ralph Pickard Bell Library
Mount Allison University
The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.
Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en
conformit6 avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.
Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page v/ith a printed
or illustrated impression.
Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.
The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol —^' (meaning "CON-
TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.
Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbole — »► signifie "A SUIVRE", ie
symbole V signifie "FIN".
Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The foHowing diagrams illustrate the
method:
Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre
film^s i des taux de reduction diffdrents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre
reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir
de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mdthode.
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
CHRISTIANITY AND HUMANITY.
'
%
B. MElKtiEJOHN AND CO
., I.EINTi:ilS, •:« WATEU STUEET, YOKOHAMA, JAPAN.
CHRISTIANITY AM) HUIANITY.
A COURSE OF LECTURES
DELIVERED IN MEIJI KUAIDO, TOKIO, JAPAN,
BT
CHARLES S. EBY., B.A.,
INCLUDING ONE LECTURE EACH BY
PROF. J. A. EWING, B. Sc, F. R. S. E.,
OF THE SCIENCE DEP.UITMENT, TOKIO UNIVERSITY, AND
PROF. J. M. DIXON, M. A.,
OP THE IMPERIAL COLLEGE OP ENGINEEBINO, TOKIO.
" Philosophy may make a crowd:
Christianity alone makes a people."
—Cnmminfj,
YOKOHAMA:
R. aiEIKLEJOHN & Co., 26 WATER STREET.
1883.
[All r'njhu reserved.']
Christ,
\\0\
£^5
1
i
i
;^ 2 t) .) b
Mount Allison Universltjt
Ralph Pickard Bell
Library
3
i
TO THE
YOUNG MEN OF NEW JAPAN,
IN THE HOI'E THAT
THE DECEPTHT. SHI5IMER OF NO
IGNIS FATUUS
SHALL LEAD THEM INTO WAITING QUICKSANDS,
BUT THAT THEY SHALL RISE IN POAVER AND BLESS THEIR NATION
THROUGH HIM WHO C.VME AS
"A LIGHT TO LIGHTEN THE NATIONS,"
THIS WORK
IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED,
k
\
\
PREFACE.
To explain the genesis of this course of lectures exhaustively
would be to give a description of the moral problem in Japan, a
task far beyond the limits of a brief prefatory note.
In short, however, the fact is patent to every observer, that
old beliefs in Japan have no moral power over the educated
classes of the Japanese, and are gradually losing their influence
with the masses. What shall replace these old beliefs as a
moral regulative force is becoming not merely an interesting
social problem, but a national question which must be faced
without delay to avert a moral catastrophe, which the clear-
headed among Japanese statesmen see all too clearly in the near
future. The sleepy, dreamy past is dead. Japan pulsates with
new and throbbing intellectual and political life. Forces are
awakened which are rapidly transforming the nation. Along
with the fossils of the past are vanishing not only religions out-
worn, but moral sanctions, before an efficient substitute has
been accepted.
The Christian is of course ready to prescribe, but the
patient does not ask his help. Old prejudice is still strong, " for
as concerning this sect it is known that still everywhere it is
spoken against." The works of Western unbelief are widely
read, science and philosophy are greedily devoured, especially
such as seem to antagonize the religion of Christ. Christianity is
counted in among the superstitions unworthy of even the con-
sideration of educated men. I do not wish to be understood as
saying one word against the grand work being done for the
elevation of Japan by her Colleges ; nor against the foreign pro-
fessors who, I believe, are accomplishing a good work for the
nation and who in many cases reflect honor upon the lands from
which they come. I refer in what follows purely to the present
vm
Preface,
relation of these schools to the question of the spread of positive
Christianity in Japan. The inliuencc of Christian professors in the
great schools can he exerted only in the capacity' of private men,
and the pri'ate influence of all who have come from Christian
lands is not always positively helpful to the advance of Christian-
ity. It is not to be expected that the national schools and colleges
of an emphatically non-Christian nation should encourage
an active propagation of Christian ti^aching, nor even that they
should be entirely neutral. Nor should it be a matter of surprise
that among teachers from foreign lands, who of course are chosen
for their proficiency in secular scholarship and whose religious
standing is not taken into account, should sometimes positively
antagonize Christian teaching.^ And much less, that Japanese
teachers in the national schools, and other great private
academies, superficially acquainted with Christianity or entirely
ignorant of its real teaching, Ita by such works as Tom Paine's
Age of Eeason, and Herbert Spencer's Philosophy, should
refurbish in Japanese style antiquated and rust-eaten weapons,
which a little further knowledge would render silly to those who
use them and harmless to those for whose benefit they are em-
ployed. And when we consider the tendency in Western Colleges,
in the callow minds of the first years of under-graduates, to look
upon the newest phases of Philosophy as having driven out of
existence old fogeyism in the garb of Christianity, it need not
be wondered at that Japanese students, being taught the
same science and the same a he oi philosophy, and being still
more profoundly, in fact almost entirely if not absolutely,
ignorant of Christianity, should also feel it incumbent upon
them to pass an adverse judgment upon the claims of the
Christian religion. Be the cause whatever it may, the fact
^ In such a way for instance as was persistently done by one specialist of
brief popularity, whose lectures on Evolution have lately been published in a
Japanese translation.
I
Prefaer.
IX
remains that Japanese stiulonts as a mass, and Japanese teachers,
\vith rare exceptions, are in the position of ir;noranco, intlif-
i'ereiice, or positive hostility to^var(^ - Christianity. And thus
it comes to pass that this eilucated chisses are growing up into
dreary atheism, or in one way or another still hang out the
sign — " Wanted ! a religion, not J'or me, hut for the Japanese
government, as a means to rule the people !" A short time ago
the cry was " No Ileligion !" The tide has turned, and n(nv the
voice cries "Give us some Ileligion,'' — echo answers "What
Ileligion \>" And this hook attempts a response.
The idea of a course of lectures which should appeal directly
to the educated ri[)encd in the mind of the writer into a deter-
mination to make the effort to reach those who might ho open to
conviction, or have an interest in hearing Christianity popularly
discussed from the standpoint of advanced thought. A small
committee kindly volunteered their assistance, a suitahle hall
was secured for the course, and a representative from each of
the two great colleges in Tokio kindly promised to contrihutc a
lecture. The foreign comnumity of Tokio liherally responded to
the appeal of the committee, and necessary funds were provided.
The delivery of the lectures in both ]']nglish and Japanese
on alternate Saturdays, extending from January to April 14,
awakened consideralde interest, the Japanese version especially
being very largely attended, and listened to Avith remarkable
attention. Evidences of good fruits were not long in appearing ;
naturally, criticisms and questions were forthcoming Avhicli
must yet be faced and fully answered. The English version of
the lectures appears in this volume substantially as they were
delivered. The author embraced the opportunity while putting
them through the press to make a few alterations, notably in the
Pieview of Spencer's "First Principles," and to add occasionally
a little supplementary matter, particularly in Lecture V.
With regard to the subject matter of the lectures, it would
w
X
7J.
reface.
iii
I .1
ii I
savour of the pedantic to say that the treatment of the themes
was not exhaustive. Wo have really only sketched an imperfect
outline map of a course of Christian Apologetics. We have
tried to some extent to obey the counsel : " Walk about Zion, and
go round about her : tell the towers thereof : mark ye well her
bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it" to the
people of this land. Each lecture opens up a new held, and
contains rather suggestions and incentives to thought than a
final and conclusive course of argumentation. The aim has
been to awaken an interest and excite thoughtful enquiry into the
subjects here treated of, which should then naturally elicit fuller
proofs in further discussions. If the course, whether as~
delivered or in published form, serves to awaken an earnest
spirit of enquiry, our work will not have been in vain.
I must acknowledge my indebtedness to the various works
of Dr. Hermann Ulrici, and the volumes of Ebrard's AjMlogctik,
as well as to many other authors, whose works have helped to
arouse and mould independent thought, have served to give
shape to incipient conceptions, as well as furnish much service-
able material.
I wish to record my personal thanks to the two gentlemen
who came to my aid with literary work ; to the committee whose
unselfish help relieved my hands and made the undertaking so
signal a success ; to the gentlemen who presided as chairmen on
the difterent occasions, giving the whole scheme a cosmopolitan
character ; to tb^^ Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, through
whose kindness the Hall was continued at our disposal after it
had become Government property, and lastly to the kind friends
whose contributions not only solved the financial problem but
linked to the enterprise the sympathy and encouragement of
many hearts, more precious than silver and gold.
CPIAS. S.'EBY.
Tokio, Japan, Jane, 1883.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
LECTURE I.
CHrJSTIANITY AND CIVILIZATION.
PAGE.
Hon. .J. A. Biiif,'Iiam".« Introductory
ricnmrks j
riiKr.ruK : antiqi'ity of max.
Stiuly and Practice 3
Search the Old 4
Test tlie New ^5
Grasp Truth, not Theory
The Limits of Hypotlicsis 7
rhenomena do not explain Ulti-
mate Causes 8.9
Is man an Evolved Ape ? 10
rrc-lustorlc Traces u
No proof yet of Tertiary Man 12 |
The Bible and true Science
agree 13 I
Both point to one God n \
THE LECTURE.
National Crises beget Progress . . 15
WHY Anr AT VROCIREHS ?
Growth is Normal, Necessary Ifj
Chinese Stagnation Abnormal .... 17
Bcvolopnicnt in Spots a Mon-
strosity ] j^
Originality always antagonized . . li)
WirAT If! CIVILIZATION ?
Definitions of Civilization 20 '
The Civilized Unit 2I
Truo Civihzatiou is Occult, In-
ternal , 22
Rooted in IMoral and Religious
Faculties
The Religious Faculty a Reality . .
Faith not unscientitic
Religion must be Scientiflcally
Tested
Christianity stands the Test ....
WHAT IS CnniSTIAXITY ?
I Christian doctrine, Science of
I Theology
I Christian Society, a Church
I Christian life. Ideal of Humanity .
Christian Peoples below the Ideal.
j Comparison of Civilizations
PEE-CIiniSTIAN CIVILIZATIONS.
I Defects of olden Civilizations
No Moral force, no true ideal ....
Christ gives a new Civilization . .
CIiniSTIAN CIVILIZATION.
Conflict of Elements
Produced development of new
Powcis
Defects of Modern Civilization . .
A Coining short of the Ideal
THE POTENTIAL TRINCIPLE.
Influence of Christianity twofold . .
The Laws of Moses, ever Truo in
Principle
Christ's doctrine Complete, flaw-
less, mighty
PACE.
2.3
21
25
26
27
28
2t)
30
31
32
33
3i
35
30
37
38
39
■10
■11
42
™l
Xll
Tahlo of Contents.
'I'
LECTURE II.
THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW :
THE DELATIONS OF THE CHI!ISTI.\N EELIGION TO NATURAL
ESPECIALLY TO THE TllEOllY OF EVOLUTION.
15y Tuof. J. A. Ewixci, B. Sc„ F, B. S. E.
:nce,
I'AGE.
Sir Harry S. Parkos' Introductory
llemurks 43-40
THE LECTURE.
Thn Easis of Science 47
Scicntilic Motliod 48
Elements of Religion 4'J
Three fundamental beliefs 50
The idea to be conibattcd til
How it has arisen r)2
Early folly of the Church 53
Draper's " History of the Conflict. 54
Between Religion and Science " . . 55
Nature her own Revelation 5(5
The Controversy has changed its
ground 57
The " Origin of Species " 58
Christian Natural Philosophers . . 59
The " I'opular Science" fallacy . . CO
Science does not make men irrc-
hgious 01
Clifford and Maxwell 02
Theory of Physical Evolution 03
Globe Development 04
The age of the earth 05
The final catastrophe 00
Evolution of itself determines
nothing 07
The indeterminate problem 08
Of Creation 0!)
PAOE.
Chemical Development 70
Marvellous similarity of the
molecules 71
They differ from iiroducts of evolu-
tion 72
Thomson's Vortex Atoms 73
Possible disappearance of gross
matter 74
Life Development by Artilicial
Selection • 75
Development of Species by Natural
Selection 76
Cellular Structure 77
Outogencwis 78
" Spontaneous Generation " 7!)
The Meteoric Transfer 80
What is Life? 81
Vitality perhaps mechanical 82
Consciousness certainly not 83
Mind the first reality 84
I am more than an organism .... 85
Science and Immortality 80
Summary of results . . : 87
The Telcological View 88
Miracle and Law 89
Animal Autoinatis}'! ad flO
Freedom of the will 91
Impossibility of proving 92
That the will is not free 93
•Conclusion 9 !
AN INTERLUDE.
REVIEW OF MR. H. SPe'nCER'S " FIRST PRINCIPLES."
High Claims of Philosophy 9<» i Scientists not always philoso-
Natural science not all Science . . 97 | phcrs 98
■
i
m
Table of Contents.
xui
Nor Theological Aiithorltics 'JD
True Scientists see the danger. . . . 100
Of the spread of rHeudo-scieuco . . 101
If Evolution ignores the Creator . . 102
It is Essential Atheism 103
And Essential Materialism 101
Apparent strength, concealed weak-
ness 105
Four radical fallacies 100
Anti-religious bias 107
Disci'cpancics arise from lOH
PAOE.
Imperfection of Science and
Exegesis 109
A cadaverous reconciliation 110
But Divine Light s'lines on Ill
Fallacy in assumed basis 112
ExtremeEvolution theory untenable 113
Detective Delinitions vitiate 114
Apparently logical reasoning .... 115
A selfish use of Logic 110
Becomes patent Sophism 117
Agnostic Land of Promise 118
I. — ANATA'SIS.
We want as Logical Basis 120
Patent Facts, not Assumptions . . 121
Man is Mind 122
Is he not matter ? 123
What is matter ? 121
Is there any matter :> 125
iMatter gives proof of Mind 12(1
Mind links man to liis Creator . . 127
Difference in forces 128
Life a Creation 120
Life an Executive Cause 130
A Coordinating Power 131
What is this building Unit ? 132
This seed of Body and Soul ? 133
The Unconscious and tlio Con-
scious I 131
What is Instinct ? , 135
Instinct is independent of Ex-
porienco 130
Lower nature perfect because
dependent 137
The higher blunders because self-
controlling 138
LECTUllE III.
A PSYCHOLOCHCAL VIEW :
Vv'HAT IS MAN ?
The Threefold Division of Higher
powers
Intuitions, mental framework ....
Moral and Spiritual Powers
Satisfied only by Christ
SYNTHESIS.
Gravitation, Physico-Chemical
Laws
Laws of Vitality and Instinct
" Man's Place in Nature "
Matter and Mind ditler
In Every Essential Particular ....
Tlio Higher Powers may bo Dor-
mant
Or Abnormally Developed
All may bo normally developed ..
Some Spiritual Instincts
The supply in Christ :
Christ's Power over Men
The secret of liis lufluouce
Spiritual Kcvelation to Man
The Man Christ Jcsua
Shows Mall's Eolation to God ....
189
140
141
142
143
144
145
140
147
148
14y
150
151
152
153
154
155
150
157
XIV
Table of Contents.
AN EXCURSUS.
FIEST TEINCirLES OF A PHILOSOrHY OF COMMON SENSE, SCIENCE
ANT) CIIEISTIANITY.
PAr.K.
CHAPTKR I. — THE UNITY OF KNOWLELiOE.
Knowledge the Operation of one
Mind 150
CHAPTEK II. — THE KNOWADLE AND THE
UNKNOWAIiLE.
What is Knowledge ? ICO
Three Laws of Knowlcdp;e Itil
Mr. Spencer's description 1(52
Of the " Unknowable." 1(;3
CIIAPTEn III.— IS KNOWLEDGE HEAL OR
HEIvATIVE ?
" Eelativity of knowledge " KM
The " Thing-iu-itself " fiction. . . . ICo
PAOE.
What we know is real or 100
Wo arc victims to lying Senses . , 107
CIIAPTEr. IV. — THE TREND OF KNOWLEDOE.
True Philosophy begins with Gud. KiS
Design or Chaneo ? lOi)
CIIAPTEK V. — OUR KEY TO THE ADSOLUTE.
What is Truth? 170
riiilosophical answers 171
rermancnt Satisfaction 172
Only in the God-man 173
" What think Ye of Christ ? " .... 171
The Prince of Peace and Progress. 17'j
t
LECTURE IV.
THE HISTOIUCAL VIEW :
CHRISTIANITY AND HISTORY.
By Prof. J. M. Dixon, M. A.
Hon. J. A. Bingham's Introductory
remarks 170-177
THE LECTURE.
Eastern and Western Conceptions
of God 179
Incompleteness of the Western
Conception ISO
Modern Advance upon it 181
Definition of History 182
How History should be Studied . . 183
Laws of tho Harmony of Morality. 184
Vice never beneficial 185
Good absolutely good 180
Religion a universal factor in
History 187
De Tocqueville on Eeligion 188
Cln'istiauity tho best Solution . . . .
189
Christianity of pedagogic value . .
190
The Theological attitude not a stage
191
Simple morality inadequate
192
Man's function is Service
193
Ingcrsoll's view of History
191
A distorted one
195
190
Liberty
Not a negation of law
197
198
French tcsUniony
To the need of religion
199
200
i
Philosophy inadequate
Saint Simon's testimony
201
^
Liberty cannot exist
202
i
Without religion
203
201
205
i
A parable
Reuan vemis Gilbon
4
II.
w
Table of Contents.
XV
LT3TE.
. 170
. 171
. 172
,. 173
.. 171
js. 17'J
189
190
ago 191
192
193
191
195
190
. 197
. 198
. 199
. 200
. 201
. 202
,. 203
.. 201
LECTURE V.
CliiaSTIANITY AND OTHEE llELIGIOXS.
TAGIC. I
lAOB.
I'UErATOUY.
Sock Funtlainuntal rrincipkH . . , ,
All Tnith i.s God's Lif,'lit
No man excluded from Salvation.
TLc Bible True HiHtoiy
i'iu:i.iJHNAi!Y,
The Human llacc one
Proved in various ways
Asian Cradle of man
Traditions Chan''o
STAIKMKNT OF THE AlailltENT.
licli<^ion universal
Whence the variety of mytliolof.'y?
All point to the Asian Centre
Mistaken Notions
As to the Origin of lieligions
Natural Development decay
Supernatural alone advances ....
Shemitc Tendency
Chfistianity a renovating power . .
A current nv take
20G
207
208
20!)
210
211
'212
2i;j
213
211
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
221
ALOXU TUE LINE 01' I'UOOi'.
Egypt.
Quotation from llenouf 222
Ancient Theology of Egypt 223
The purest 221
Downward lleligious Developmcut. 225
Cliina.
The Development of llcligion in
China 220-227
The God of " Shu " and " Shi " . . 228
Becomes " Heaven and Earth " . . 229
Aryan India.
NORMAL.
Indian lieligions 230
As traced in the Vedas 231
tiradual Decay 232
Brahma a riiilosophical God .... 233
Brahmauisni becomes Immoral . . 234
REACTIONAUY.
Buddhist Reaction
935
Successful Buddhism
286
A Jloral Failure
9137
Charge against Buddhism
238
Persia.
Persian Reform and Decay
239
European lieligions.
Europe tells the same story
240
Shemite Eeligiuits Development
NATDRAIi.
Shemite Commercial Prosperity . .
241
Degradation of God-idea
242
Filthy worship of Istar
243
KUPEHNATUEAL.
Biblical accounts
Agree with other History
Decay and Punishment
Biblical Theology Supernatural . .
DIVINE, rXIVEKSAL.
Humble beginnings
Augustine's Influence
Divine Guidance
For Jloral Development
Tlic Bible raises the Moral Standard
Ritual in the Old Testament ....
Illustrates Christ's Propitiation . .
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
Mohammedanism an anachronism. 255
Extract from Dr. Marcus Dods' . . 250
" Mohammed, Buddha and Christ". 257
XVI
Table of Contents.
I 1>
LECTUPtE VI.
CirrJSTIANITY AND MORALITY:
THE I'RACTICAL TEST.
I'AGE.
Sir II. S. Pai'lccs' introductovy re-
marks 258-2.)!)
THE LECTUllE.
Historical 2C1
A Moral Collapse feared 2()2
Can Pliilosopliy Avert it ? 2(13
Comparison of Philowopliica) .... 201
And Cluistiau Etliicn 2Cm
Greece Intellectually Great 2f)()
Produces Eminent Jloralists 2(17
13ut no Advance in morality .... 208
Modern Pagan Etliics 2()!»
Keprcsented by Spencer 270
Ignorance or Ignoring, which ? . . 271
" Influence " of an automaton .... 272
I'AOE,
Christianity and Natural Ethics . . 273
Illogical Evolutioii-cxplanaliou of
Consciousness and Morality . .274-.')
Spenccrian Moralists 270
More logical than Spencer 277
Mimicking of morality 27S
Acts without Character 27'.)
The true Data of l':thics 280
God's Will, true Order of all things 281
Willingly Following God's order,
true aiorality 282
The outcome of Spiritual Life .... 283
Justified by Eternal Hope 284
Made plahi in the Bible 285
Human Jarring and Divine Sym-
phony 28()
The Leaven Working in Japan . . 287
CONCLUSION.
SUMMARY AND RESULT.
God's Revelation in Nature and in
the Bible must agree 288
Christianity leads to perfect Civil-
ization 289
True Science and Scientists en-
dorse the Bible 2!)0
False Philosophy exploded by
thorough Criticism 2'Jl
Spencer's System a Philosophical
Eaii.re 2i)2
Its Ethical Fruitage, Moral ashes. 293
Man's Powers are finite but real. 204
And through Jesus may commune
with God 295
Jesus, the Fountain of Living
Water 2%
ERRATUM.
Page 255, line 1, for B.C. read A.D.
lAGK.
.. 273
of
.274-.)
.. 270
.. 277
.. 278
.. 279
.. 280
igs 281
cr,
... 282
, .. 28.3
, .. 284
. .. 285
. . . 28(i
287
LECTURE I.
CHRISTIANITY AND THE PEOGRESS OF CIVILIZATION.
The following remarks wero made by the Hon. J. A.
Bingliam, United States Minister to Japan, who presided on the
occasion of the delivery of the lecture.
Ladies and Gentlemen :
Honoured by the committee's invitation to preside on this
occasion, I beg leave to say that in my opinion the series of
public lectures proposed to be given in this place, the first of
which it will be our privilege to hear to-day, may be productive
of good, and can by no possibility work harm either to his
Majesty's government, his Majesty's subjects, or to the people of
any other nationality who may attend them. We have ample
guarantee of this in the high character of the gentlemen who
have kindly volunteered to give their time and best thoughts to
this service ; in the subjects to be discussed, and in the fact that
an invitation is extended to all to suggest such inquiries and
make such criticisms concerning each lecture as they may wish,
all of which will be kindly entertained and responded to. I thank
the gentlemen for this liberal invitation, thereby according to
others what they claim for tliomselves, and proclaiming that
error itself may be tolerated when truth is left free to combat it,
and affirming their faith in the utterance of another age, — " As
for truth it endureth and is always strong ; it liveth and con-
quereth for evermore."
■^
Iloii. J. A. Binrjlmm's Remarks. [Lect.
ill!
iil:^<
We arc to-clay to bo favoured with an introductory address
on the Antiquity of Man, and a lecture on Christianity and the
Progress of Civilization.
Being ourselves of the race of man, -whatever concerns
men, concerns each and all of us.
Christianity is a great central fact in the world's history.
It commands at this moment the reverent consideration and
approval of enlightened men in all lands. Of the general prin-
ciples of Christianity it is not for mo at present to speak, nor is it
needful that I should, as they speak for themselves ; l)ut I may
be permitted to say of them that they are largely incorporated in
the constitutions and laws of the European and American states.
Our modern civilization is largely the offspring of Chris-
tianity. It is the physical, intellectual and moral development
of individual and collective man, the citizen and the nation.
Its beneficent outgoings are to be seen in the science, literature
and laws, and in the history, past and present, of our race.
They are to be seen in the inventions of genius, which have
laid the elements of external nature under contribution and
made them minister to the wants and comforts of man, and in
the gentle wide-spread organized charity, which supplies so
much of human want, and mitigates so much human suffering.
In a word, civilization is the sublime march of humanity,
the progress of which no earthly power can stay or successfully
resist.
For Humanity sweeps onward : where to-day the martyr stands,
On the morrow crouches Judas, with the silver in his hands,
While the hooting mob of yesterday in silent awe return
To glean up the scattered ashes into History's golden urn.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it only remains for me to introduce
my greatly valued friend Mr. Eby, who will now address us on
the subjects indicated.
I.]
Study and Practice.
3
PRELUDE.
ANTIQUITY OF MAN.
engage
" Tlic proper study of mankind is man."
The most interesting and most important suhject that can
our attention as reasonable men is that of man
himself. What is man? Whence came ho? Whither is ho
hastening ? are questions discussed since history dawned, and
never more earnestlj' than now, and never were more
varied answers given. Momentous interests hang upon our
answers to these questions, involving not only the result of
scientific research or theological dogma, but also man's personal
woo or weal, the welfare of society, the political consolidation
or dissolution of the strength of empires. The present course
of lectures aims at the study of man in his manifold relations
to the universe, his past, present, and future, in such a way as
shall preclude a hasty and fatally one-sided decision, and shall
open the path to such a thoughtful weighing of all available
evidence, as shall culminate in a practical decision worthy of men
possessed of reason and conscience. These great questions are
of prime importance for the young men of Japan, and above all
things at this particular juncture in the development of your
country. In this time of transition from ancient forms to the
newer ones of a differing civilization, the impress given by this
generation of educated men to the plastic masses of the nation
Search the Old^
[Lect.
will affect your posterity and the welfare of your people for all
the ages yet to come. I would therefore ask j'ou to look the
matter seriously, solemnly in the face, and allow no petty side-
issues to divert us from the line of great principles which lie at
the foundation of true civilization, culture and progress.
Ag an introduction to the larger questions in hand it seems
proper that we should enquire as to the origin of man and how
long he has been on the earth. A vast number of answers to
this question has been given, nor has a satisfactory solution yet
been found : it is simply one of those open questions which arc
of great interest to us, but the answer to which, one way or the
other, is not of the greatest practical importance. Wo are often
reminded, by persons or books dealing with this question, of
the angry discussions and misrepresentations of theologians as
opposed to scientists and scientific research of prehistoric man.
But two very important facts seem often to be overlooked, viz.,
(1) That scientists who were by no means theologically warped,
have earnestly discussed the subject, and have as strongly
opposed, and do oppose to the present day, the teachings of other
scientists with regard to the antiquity of man ; and (2) That
many theologians, such as Mgr. Meignan, R. C. bishop, M.
I'abbe Lambert, and M. I'abbe Bourgeois and others have taken
an active part in pre-historic researches, and do not find the
teaching of the Bible or the dogmas of the church at all in the
way.
Now the fact is, there are scientists and scientists, and there
are theologians and theologians ; and you will generally find
that it is not the profoundly scientific man but the superficial
sciolist who claims that science is destructive of faith, and who
shouts, " down with religions and creeds." On the other hand,
it is not the profound and thoughtful theologian, but the narrow-
minded and half-educated alarmist only, who decries science and
research into every nook and corner of nature, as an enemy of
1
1
I.]
Test the Neir.
theology and religion. One of the sayings of a theological
teacher under whom I studied many years ago remains in my
memory, and has been the guide of my thoughts and studies
ever since, and I would recommend the same words to you, for
in fchem is a whole heritage of wisdom. " Young men," ho
used to say, " Young men, the world of thought is moving on ;
do not accept a thing simply because it is new, and do not bo
afraid to accept a thing because it is new." That seems simple
enough, but it indicates the path to sure and lasting progress,
and a moans to avoid disaster and disappointment. There are
two classes of extremists, both of which wo should avoid with
equal care, and these are, if you will allow me to coin for you a
pair of new English words, neomamacs and neophohists. Neoma-
nics are thoee who search for what is new, and accept it because
it is new, rejecting the old landmarks, simply because they have
been there so long. In this class are a great many young
people whose ambition is more powerful than their judgment is
mature, and who are to be found amongst both scientists and
theologians. Neojihohists represent a class who stick to the old
and despise the new because it is new ; they will have nothing
to do with your new fangled ideas, and are constantly praising
the past and pointing back to the old landmarks. There are
a good many specimens of this species in olden lands, and
amongst elderly people in every land, including old women, in the
garb of both science and religion. Avoiding both extremes, our
way must be to " prove all things and hold fast that which is
good " and true. I presume you will not object to that, though
it is a doctrine of Christianity and the very words of the Bible.
Test the new, test it fully, and if it is true it must be good, and
you must accept it or commit mental suicide. Test the old, test
it well, be sure you are right ; but if the old is not true, it
cannot bo good : you must reject it or deprave your intellectual
being. The object of these lectures is to urge you to search for
6
Grasp Truthi not Theory,
[Lect.
I
IP
fl
and grasp, not what is new, not wlmt is old, as sucli, but abovo
all things to " Buy the truth and sell it not " — as Solomon tolls
us to do.
But you ask, — Does not the Bible commit you to a fixed
chronological limit for tho origin and existence of man upon tho
earth ? Some would-be scientists who knew more about rocks
than about tho Bible which they were affecting to criticise, and
some theologians, who knew more about old musty traditions
than about tho scripture they thought they wero teaching, have
said so. But (1) no theological truth depends upon our under-
standing of those ancient chronological tables ; and (2) among
students of that chronology there are one hundred and forty
distinct and different opinions as to tho date of the beginning of
the historical sketch in the Bible, differing to tho extent of over
8,000 years. Thus the Bible assorts nothing positive with regard
to that point, and it makes absolutely no difference to the teach-
ings of Christianity whether man has been on the earth 4,000
or 400,000 years before Christ.
Again it is claimed that the Darwinian theory of evolution
set the world on the right track in the study of man, and
putting him into his proper place as one of tho mammals in the
animal kingdom, explains the whole mystery of man's origin,
position and destiny. While on the other hand physiologists
and other scientists of equal note and authority declare that, on
Darwin's own theory, it is as impossible that man should have
developed out of any known line of apes as out of cats and tigers.
It must ever be kept in mind that the doctrine of evolution is
still a theory, a hypothesis : one among scores that fiave been
set up by science, some few of which have been proved true, but
most of which had to be eventually abandoned as they proved
to be untenable. It is well, nay necessary, to have some
hypothesis as an outline in which to set facts as they nre brought
to light ; but it is going too far to ask the world to accept any
I.]
The Limits of Uyyothcs'iH,
hypothesis as inith, which wo must belicvo as a scientific
deduction, until it shows itself true, by a perfect adjustment to
a sufiicient number of facts, and not to be vitiated by too many
exceptions. Now the theory of evolution seems to gather a vast
amount of facts, and placo them in such an order and harmony
as to show that there is a ^'rcat deal of truth in it as far as it
goes. And as far as facts attest the truth, so far must wo of
course promptly accept it, only we must be careful not to
Bupi)oso that one ingredient in a compound of many forces and
facts fully explains the whole. The dispute is one of science
purely, and it scorns that the majority of the best and most
unbiassed thinkers look u.-ju evolution in bolic form and within
certain limits, as the law according to which things have come
into being. But a vast deal remains yet to be done before it
can bo substantiated as the Copernican system or the Keplerian
laws. And whatever the result may be, whether the hypothesis
bo true or not — unless it can be shown that matter evolves
itself without a Creator — it makes absolutely no difference io the
principles of the Christian religion or the teachings of the Bible.
But when men in the name of science, of which they arc
not the best representatives, overstep their sphere of empirical
research, and attempt to teach us what are the ultimate causes
of things, and tell us that there is nothing in the world but
matter and force and evolution, we cry — " Hold ! now you are on
ground that is common to us both. We accept your facts as far as
you bring us proof; but when you begin to philosophise on those
facts, and attempt to construct a system of thought, we too have
the same right to enquire into the metaphysical bearings of the
case." "But," reply certain extremists again, "there are no
metaphysics ; that is a region of fancy. There is nothing in the
universe but matter, and mechanical force, and evolution." We
reply that such a position, ancient though it is, is too narrow, too
shallow, to allow room for all the facts of the case, and con-
8
Phenomena do not
[Lect.
Ill
'."ill
111
li:
'-■ \i
tradicts all the analogies of our experience. You take a little
acorn, plant it, up springs a tiny tender shoot ; the forces of the
soil, and sunshine, and air develop its latent powers and in-
crease its bulk until eventually you have the majestic oak with
colossal trunk, gigantic branches, unnumbered twigs, a wealth
of foliage and perennial crops of new acorns. Now, does the
acorn, that little seed alone, account for that development and
productiveness ? Am I to be blamed if I tell you I do not believe
that that seed could have produced an oak, even with all the
other forces of soil, and air, and light, and heat combined, if
there had not first been involved into the acorn the life and
powers of a perfect oak tree from which it sprang ? Evolution
cannot bring out of matter and mechanical force what is not
actually involved in them.
Again you see this watch (not Paley's old watch this time).
I ask you to explain to me the philosophy of this watch. Well,
you say, here are gold and silver, and steel and enamel, and
jewels, and all combined make up the watch. Yes; but all those
things might be, and still there be no watch. How does it come
to be a watch ? Why, there are the properties of the elements —
inertia, malliability, ductility, etc., and there is adjustment of
part to part, the hands indicating the hours. Yes, but how does
it come that these form a watch ? Well, there are cog wheels,
and springs, and balances, and regulators, and mechanical
forces, and — Yes, but you have not yet told me about the watch
as such at all, and whole volumes of such explanations would
not give me a true philosophy of that little instrument. I must
be metaphysical and talk of forces that I cannot see, cannot
touch, cannot know. But do you blame me for believing — yes,
having faith, that all the matter and mechanical forces in the
universe could never have produced this watch without the
addition of mind? Matter, and properties of matter plus
mind, produced this watch. At least so I believe, although I
li
I.]
Explain Ultimate Causes.
9
don't know how, or when, or where, or hy whom the watch was
made. Am I unscientific because I confess to you my I'aith in
the existence of a watchmaker who had a mind '?
And can you bhame me if, following these analogies, I find
it impossible to believe that without the addition of creative
mind, matter and mechanical force combined ethereal atoms into
molecules, and these into suns and systems and stars, each set
in its place and moving Avitli more than clock-like regularity
along its self-appointed way '? Or that this earth hardened into
a sphere and raised the mountain chains, and gave the sea her
bounds, and hollowed out a way for the rivers, and prepared a
soil for the child it was about to produce ? Or that matter and
mechanical force brought life into being, by which chemical
action is reversed and made to Ijuild up by transformation of
appropriated matter, and by the loss of which those chemical
forces bring forth rottenness and decay ; a power which clothes
the plains and hills with verdure, secures seed time and harvest,
and makes all nature rich and beautiful with the unbounded
opulence of forest and field and fiower? Or that matter
and n.echanical force acting in the vegetable world brought
forth animal life, by which the dark sea was peopled with tiny
creatures and monsters great ; by which the worm of the sod, tho
beast of the forest and field, the songsters in tho sky and tho
soaring eagle were brought forth '? Or that matter and mechani-
cal force alone working through the lower animals brought
forth man with his ideas of moral good and evil, his conception
of spiritual unseen things beyond, his longing for immortality '?
Do you blame me when I tell you that as my philosophy of this
watch demands the existence of an unseen mind to account for
it, so my philosophy of this marvellous universe demands the
existence of a mind adequate not only to produce it out of matter
and force, but also to produce matter and mechanical force
themselves from a something still behind them ? Is it not just
;2
10
Is man an Evolved Ai)o ?
[Lect.
!i I
mi
f 1
^11
i'!
possible that this, the highest arc in the sec/'ion of iuiinity which
comes within our reach, the mind, intellect, spiritual longings
of man, may give us a clue to the mysterious pro])lem ? Onward
it reaches to spirit worlds and higher possibilities still, away on
to the infinite mind the climax of all, and is it not possible that
when we reach that point, apparently the fintipodes of matter
and mechanical force, we will find ourselves at the fountain of
infinite being, tlie point from ^A■hich all else has sprung, the
infinite cycle there complete ? The infmito mind projecting itself
in all the vast laws of matter, and mechanical forces, and vital
phenomena, is the one unseen and necessary agent that makes
oven evolution possil)le and holds the universe in harmony.
Bat what has all this to do with the antiquity of man ?
Much every way. Where does man come in, in this evolution
or creation or whatever it m;iy l^e '? ]\Ian is of simian origin,
say the most of evolutionists, or have so said until lately, some
of the links of course being missing; but the point of departure for
the development of man seems to be driven back step by step and
the missing links to become more numerous than ever. Morpho-
logists, those who study outline and form and resemblances
there, tell us that there is a general similarity between the
skeleton of the man and the higher apes. Anatomists who study
the parts more fully tell us that • there is a radical difference in
every bone of the body, and every muscle shows a different
adaptation. Physiologists tells us that the viscera of man arc
carnivorous, and those of the ape herbivorous, and that we can
as easily have been evolved out of bears and lions as out of apes.
Again wo arc reminded that in the series of phenomena of
individual development of the body, the inverse order is observed ;
moreover apes are climbers and men are walkers. Now, say
many scientists, "it is evident that when two organised beings
follow an inverse order — especially when otherwise antagonistic —
iu the courac of their growth, thu more highly developed of the two
-.;?
-:'ii
■■■?:
vl
I.]
PrcUhtorlc Traces.
11
can not have descended from the other by means of evolution."
So that even scientilicall}- viewed, man's pLace in cvohition
has not .yet been defmed. It is well to notice that thus far, in
all developments of apes, from lowest to highest, there is notliinj^
but ape and no approach to man ; and in all the degradation of
man, there is always man and no approach to apes. Nothing is
known to science of man and his progenitors, excepting as
essentially and perfectly man, and any talk of his simian origin
is pure imagination.
Just here comes in another phase of the question : "When did
man first appear ? Sufficient proof has been given that man
existed in the quaternary period along with the mammoth
elephant and cave tiger, before Europe was last sul)merged and
covered with glacial ice and arctic cold. But it is also roundly
asserted that man lived in tertiary times, that is in geologic
time — or 500,000, or 1,000,000 years ago. Now the supposed
proofs of this assertion in Europe arc confined to a few scratches
on some bones, and a dubious flint or two, so that cautious
scientists there hesitate to accept the assertion as fact. But it
is said that there is proof positive of the fact in America, remains
being found under lava beds in gravel layers which belong to
this ancient age. This find in the region of Table Mountain in
California has been used even here to illustrate, above all other
illustrations, the stupidity of theologians and the vast age of
man. Let us look at this illustrious example more closely. I
have at hand information rospectiiig the implements found in
those gravel beds, and either the asserted facts are wrong, or
there is something hard for evolution to explain. As to the
facts, (1) doubts are entertained as to the age of the sublava
gravels. They may be no older than the early quaternary. (2)
But admitting their pliocene age, there are doubts as to the
authenticity of the findings, no competent scientist having seen
them there. (3) Admitting their authenticity, there a regravo
12
No Froof yet of Tertiary Man.
[Lect.
i:iiii
I
iiiiii !i
doubts as to the non-disturbance of tlie gravels previous to the
time of the findings, for auriferpus gravels are peculiarly lial)lo
to disturbance, and there is good reason to think that those of
California had been worked by other races before the whites. (4)
The character of the implements said to have been found gives
great force to the last (3rd) doubt, for they are mostly mortars and
pestles, and other neolithic implements, such as are in common
use among the Indians and Mexicans of to-day. — The very idea
of neolithic implements in pliocene times is enough to make even
the wildest extremist among believers in prehistoric man gasp
and stare : it would be like talking of specimens of railways and
telegraphs found among remains of the stone age. — So that
Favre, and Evans, and Huxley and Dawkins, and Lubbock all
say the existence of tertiary man is "not proven."^
The second difficulty however is here, if, as we have been
told in this house, tertiary man existed in America, there is
certainly something loose about evolution or man must have
had an evolution all to himself, i (|uote from a professor in
California. " Not a single existing mammalian species can be
traced back beyond the quaternary. The higher the organism
the more rapidly species change. Existing mammals can bo
traced back only into the quaternary molluscan species, a small
percentage to the early tertiary ; protozoan species even to the
cretaceous. Is it possible then that man, the highest of all,
will be traced back to the middle tertiary ? Why, since that time
the whole mammalian fauna has changed five or six times ! Shall
man be an exception to all the laws governing the evolution of
the animal kingdom."^ Man 500,000 years ago, and man to-
day on the same spot precisely the same ! ! and the universe
moving to the march of evolution ! ! Why such an exception ?
The fact is there is less talk about the vast antiquity of
'Le Conte in New York Independent.
».r*wit.s»«8nev'»»ir»'«i*"«iWitfWW M |i ra ai
I.]
The JVihlp, and true Sciencn agree.
13
man to-day than there was twenty years or ten years ago, and all
reliable evidence is bringing him more and more within
hailing distance of historic times.
To conclude this subject I will just point out a few facts
that seem to be established, not theories or scientific guesses,
1 at facts which seem to have proofs behind them, and sec how
they compare with the Bible account of the first races of
man.
1. — Fossil remains of quaternary man tell us, and all traces
of prehistoric man confirm it, that from his beginning man was
as perfect a man physically as the ordinary man of to-day, and if
the brain is an indication of intellectual strength, equal to the
ordinary intelligence of the present race of men. This cannot
bo shown to conflict with the Bible.
2. — Science tells us he probably first appeared in Central
Asia, and thence gradually peopled the globe. So the
Bible.
3. — Every thing seems to show that the present human
races all belong to one species, i.e. descended from one original
pair. So the Bible teaches.
4. — Science tolls us that man was naturally naked from the
start, and had to clothe himself in leaves or bark or skins. So
teaches the Bible.
5. — Science teaches that the first race of men were savage
in the sense of being groat in strength of passion, but children
in reason and personal control. So teaches the Bible.
(). — Science tells us that pre-historic man was ignorant of
art, and music, and metals for a time. So tolls us the Bible,
giving the names of inventors and teachers.
7. — Science tells us that ho must have been without in-
herent legal fibre — that the law faculty had to be developed. The
whole story of the first laws in the Bible would show the same
fact of legal childhood.
14
Both imint to one God.
[Lect.
8. — Science would indicate that the first races were unmoral,
perhaps sadly immoral. The Bible tells as that they were
inexpressibly vile.
9. — Science tells us that they lived before a general sub-
sidence of land, by which continents were covered with water
and glacial ice and arctic cold, destroying almost all animal
life, including nearly the whole of the human race. The Bible
records some such disaster, and it may be found that these
traditions preserved by men agree with the records of geology.
That is yet to be settled.
In conclusion let it be distinctly understood (1) that not a
single fact regarding prehistoric man has yet been established
contradictory of the Christian's Bible. (2) That it is a matter
which does not touch the Bible or Christianity whether man bo
proved to have been a longer or a shorter time on the earth ; (3)
that Evolution has not established a single fact affect ng the
truth of the Bible ; (4) that all established facts regarding
prehistoric man agree with established biblical teaching where
they cover the same ground — in fact nothing has yet appeared
to shako my confidence in the Bible or my faith in a personal
God.
" t
I.]
National Crises hcr/et Progress.
15
THE LECTURE.
i
" These that have turnccl the world upsiilo down arc come hither also."
Nothing is more interesting to the 3'oung Japan of to-day
than the questions of civilization and progress. The customs
of the past, old forms of government and law are changing,
along with dress and food and language. Some things seem
to be changing more rapidly than others, and some changes do
not always appear to be for the best, or at least entail a
momentary loss. Every crisis in a nation's history brings with
it a certain amount of trouble, confusion and suffering ; but if
jirogress be true, every crisis brings to birth a better future.
There arc often well meaning individuals, short-sighted and
fearful, who, seeing only the momentary disadvantage, decry all
change, all progress, as a curse and a wrong. Many doubtless
there arc to-day in Japan, though their number is decreasing,
who look baclv fondly on the good old times of settled routine
and fixedness of custom, and who look towards the future of the
restless present with feelings of dread or dismal forebodings of
coming disaster for the state and for society.
I.
WHY AIM AT TROGRESS '?
Is civilization a blessing ? a thing to be desired ? is a
question often asked, as we are reminded of some sad remnant
of evil or abnormal outcome of artificiality, as though that were
the legitimate fruit and sign of civilization, giving the impression
that it is not an unmixed good. Now in reply to this question I
will give a Scotchman's answer by asking another question —
"Is manhood as compared with childhood a blessing '?" How
often we look back ou the frolics of our childhood, its wild,
• I,,,)
W
16
Gi'ovih is Normal^ Necessary.
[Lect.
i'''
unfettered, careless freedom, and compare it with the life of toil
and disappointment, and sorrow perhaps, that wo have in
maturer years, and in moments of Aveakncss we almost wish
ourselves hack in our childhood again. IJut what man of sober
mind, of widening thought, and aspiring soul would in reality
wish himself ])ack in the narrow though pleasant hounds of
child-life ? Away such a thought. Life's aim is not pleasure
and earth-born joy, but a grasping after a something higher than
our past ; — a mastering, ruling of something without us, that
shall minister to the enlargement of what is within us, though it
bring its burden of sorrow. There is no rose witliout its thorn ;
shall we therefore cast away the rose ? Nay, rather avoid the
thorn. Nor shall we cast away the heritage of our manhood,
but seek with its increase of strength to lessen its burden of
pain. Civilization is the growth of nations into social maturity
and political power, when many of the frolics and liberties of
olden barbarisms fall away, and new duties, new cares, new
burdens come along witli enlargement of mind, the out-reachings
of commerce, the developments of social duties and political
entanglements, and that pride which is the natural meed of
conscious power. Is there a civilized land on the face of the
earth to-day that would willingly go back to the ages of savage
freedom, of feudal pageantry, or the stagnation of lands that
have forgotten to grow '? Away with such a puerile thought ;
better by far the manliness of civilization with its cares, than
the childish pleasures of any fancied primitive land untouched
by modern progress.
Advancement is the normal law of life, a natural necessity of
a healthy living organism. The child that grows not is an
abortion of being, a failure, physically. The mind that grows
not, but is content with a life of routine and custom, is a mental
abortion which no one can either admire or choose. A state
that does not advance but contents itself with a perpetual look-
1.1
Chinese Stagnation Ahnormal.
17
ing back at the past, as the highest possible aim of life, will
Btagnatc, decay and bo left far behind in the race by those who
look forward and struggle onward for a something better in the
future than they have known in the past.
Progress to a higher cizilization is or should be the normal
fact in all nations ; but there are nations which seem to have
made advance for a time, to have reached a certain degree of
development, and then to have stopped, stagnated, decayed, or
to have maintained an existence only l)y accumulations of
primitive elements rather than by a growth into manlier forms.
This is the case with nearly all the civilizations of Asiatic
nations ; and China, your ponderous neighbour, gives us a
tangible example. Thousands of years ago, while the world's
civihzatiou still was young, China invented written characters —
even while her language was in its first syllabic stage ; and all
the growth of these many centuries since then has been to ac-
cumulate in rich but unwieldy exuberance, a mass of those
primitive characters, representing a language still in infantile
form. Ethics, laws, customs, patterns were fixed. All her laws
and ethics revolve around the one simple thought of the earliest
form of government, that of the father having control over his
household, and of children obeying their parents ; an idea which
is made to do duty in every phase of official life, even to the
Imperial Throne where sits the father of his people, and her
indigenous religion centres in the worship of ancestors.
Not a growth of social and political ideas, you see, but a vast
accumulation of varied applications of the one idea of the rela-
tion between a father on the one hand, and an ignorant woman
Avith babies on the other. For the idea of the relation of f> li .r
and son in China is that of father and little child, and has not
even advanced to the idea that when the son has grown to
manhood, he is one man and his father is another ; but the child
is a child for ever. The manly strength of the full grown
B
18
Bcveloimicnt in SpotSj a Momtroslti/. [Lect.
(Icvoloped soil must bow to the word of liis father, or tlio
mumbling of a dotard grandfather ; and thus a whole hcmispliero
of ideas, of duties, is unknown while the other half is developed
and strained, and stretched to monstrosity.
A relationship prior to that of parent and child — the grand
l)rinciple of all true sociology, given in tlio very beginning of
the Bible, and fundamental in all progressive civilization — is
ignored, milaiown, viz., the essential equality of the sexes, the
husband being first of the two in household rank, and that when
the child has become a man he is no longer a child, but a man
who may take to himself a wife and these two then set up a new
family. In China the w-oman is but a supplement to the man,
and the child an appendix.
The natural duties and relationships of parents and children
arc reciprocal, like the two arms of the body, which should l)e
balanced, though one may be a little more expert than the
other. But in China the relation of father to child is so
exaggerated that it is as if the right arm had been developed
into a limb six feet long ; while on the other hand, the relation
of child to parent, from the standpoint of parental responsibility
and duty, is so minified that it is as if the left arm had been
dwarfed to an inch ; and thus as a feeble, flabby body with one
arm of an unwieldy length and the other inliiiitesimally small,
would be a monstrcbity, so the ethics of relationships in China
have grown into a social caricature of a fundamental truth.
And then the result of this state of affairs is to preclude all
growth. The law of advance is that each generation is like the
one preceding it, with some little variety. Now if the variety is
an improvement and the little change be allowed to live and
grow, it wall increase until, in a few generations, there is seen
to be a great advance for the better. If, however, all variations
from the primitive form be prohibited, all advance is impossible,
and a dead uuiformity of type results.
LiECT.
or tlio
sphere
eloped
grand
iiing of
ion — is
LCS, tlio
it when
a man
) a new
10 man,
!liildrcn
lould 1)0
lan the
d is so
iveloped
relation
nsibility
ad been
nih one
small,
in China
il truth,
oludc all
like the
ariety is
live and
e is seen
ariations
possible,
I.]
Oi'iginallbj nhrays Antagonized.
19
The tendency to suppress originality is universal. Tlio
difficulty in civilizing the world is not to get a people to submit
to lixed laws, but to get them out of fixedness of law into a
living, growing organism. The tendency is seen even in the
west. A Pennsylvania Dutchman of my grandfather's day had
a boy who was not satisfied with the old way of carrying wheat to
tho mill, with the wheat at one end of the sack on one side of
the horse and a stone to l)alance it at the other end of tho sack,
at the other side of the horse, and put half of the wheat on one
side and half on the other. He came running to his father,
*' Fader, sec ! I haf put one half on one side and one on die
oder, and it cocs just as cood." Ilis father scolded him, saying,
" What are you thinking about ? Do you dink yourself better
as your fader and grandfadcr ? You sliust go and put in tho
shtoiic, as pcfore." Now in civilized lands, the progressive boy
becomes his own master before ho quite loses his new idea, and
he develops it independently to practical results, which even his
old father by and by comes to approve, though if ho had had his
way, it never would have been done.
But in China each rising generation is kept in the rut of
its predecessors by the almost absolute control of father over
son, until ho in turn loses all tendency to vary, and himself
becomes conservative. And thus by the tyranny of the past over
the present the one typo is perennially perpetuated.
II.
WHAT IS CIVILIZATION ?
This is a crucial question, the proper understanding of
which will materially affect our discussion. One cause of tho
endless round of polemical warfare, and the bitter wrangles in
the world of thought, is the defectiveness of definitions of
20
Definitions of Cidlimtion,
[Lect.
cardinal points. Let us try at tlio start to understand wliat
truo civilization is '?^ Dr. Mitcliel says it is tlio ar.vestinjj; of tho
principle of natural Hcloction in the process of evolution, by
which man comes to control himself and his destiny. Bucklo
makes it out to be the sum or outcome of physical causes, the
moral element beinj^ insip;nilicant, the mind itself the product of
matter. Bagehot tells us that tho progress of civilization results
from creations of mind conserved and propagated by physical
or lower causes. Guizot — whom you all know, and cannot study
too much, whoso work on European civilization is a masterly
philosophy of history — tells us that civilization in its most
general idea is an improved condition of man resulting from
the establishment of social order in place of individual in-
dependence and lawlessness of barbaric life, the progress of
the human race towards realizing the idea of humanity.
Now, in attempting to formulate for ourselves a definition
of what civihzation really is, we must not forget the following
facts : — (1) The state is an aggregation of individual elements,
and that there can be no civilized and progressive land without
civilized and educated masses of people. (2) No true civilization
is in spots or partial developments. A state in which there are
few troubles, — all things nicely arranged for everybody, but
where the people do not think for themselves, being led by
officialdom, like a flock of sheep in intellectual and moral
childhood, — is not a civilized state. A state that has acquired
♦considerable moral and intellectual advance, but where the
masses have little physical comfort and no political liberty, is
not a civilized state. A land in which the people have almost
perfect liberty, but where might is right, the weak oppressed
and violence rules, is not a civilized land. A people in which
every individual has almost perfect liberty, and inequality or
' These deiinitiona are rather in substance than in tho words of the authors
jucutioncd.
I
Lect.
!•]
Thcy Cirillzed Unit.
21
I wliat
; of the
ion, by
liucklo
^cs, tlio
)cluct of
results
>liysical
:)t study
lastcrly
ta most
ng from
dual in-
gress of
dift'orenco in rare, but whore ihero is no national sentiment, no
cohesion of state, simply an ever-llowinj^ muss of human in-
dividual — is not a civilii^ed people. A land in which refinement
and culture make a sort of paradise for the favored classes,
but where morality is rare, where oft'eminacy characterizes
the public spirit, where no noble idea or lofty sentiment
permeates the masses of the people, cannot Ix; called a civilized
state. Thus no one principle alone can make a civilization.
(3) Civilization is not a tliinj,' that can bo manufactured to order,
or imported ready made, — a something that men or nations can
choose and change, put on and oil' like a suit of clothes. It is
the life and growth of a people, the outcome in social and
political life of the principles which actuate and control the
individual character. Keeping these points before our minds, it
will be seen that a true form of civilization is only to be found
in those lands where civilized individual men combine on
compatible principles, and evince a matured character in all
the various phases of social and political life.
Now what is the character of this unit, this civilized man ?
It is a man in whom all the elements of human nature are
matured, or are progressing in harmonious development towards
legitimate maturity. A man in whom the physical alone is
developed makes a magnificent savage, but is no complete man.
A man may cultivate his mind and possess all the external
refinement of the scholar and the gentleman, and yet have in
his private life a moral foulness to which he would never dare
to introduce his mother or sister, and thus make himself a
representative, not of true civilization, but of that gangrene by
whose rot many a nascent civilization has fallen into irrecover-
able ruin. A man whose moral sense has been aroused, and
who follows the bent of his higher nature, who cultures himself
into philosophic calm and heroic virtue, but whose soul is still
unlightcncd by eternal hope and the confidence of faith, in
22
True Clvilkatlon is occult, intovnciJ. [Lect.
regions where faith alone is rational, is a man -whom we can
admire, but whose gloomy type is impossible as| the ideal of a
true civilization. The man whose religious instincts have been
so warped and misled as to make him a recluse oi a cynic, an
ascetic neglecter of physical, mental, social, or pohtical manhood,
is an egregious failure as a man, and far from the ideal after
which we seek. Our ideal man is one in whom all the elements
of manhood have full room for development, nothing suppressed
or removed, depriving humanity of any legitimate heritage ; the
lower, however, subject to the higher powers, and all in conscious
subjection, not to any man or combination of men, but to Him
who has created the universe and is Father of our spirits. A
man who cares for the physical as a valued inheritance, who
takes his place as man amongst men in social and political life,
whose mind is ever open and earnest in the search after truth
in every realm of nature and of thought, whose moral impulses
and actions are pure, whose spirit rises unsullied in hope of
immortality and in scientific trust upon God, is a civilized man.
Let this become the ideal unit, the aim of a people, fully realized
perhaps by few, and that people will surely advance in all that is
true and abiding in civilization.
What strikes the mind first of all in a country called
civilized, is the external refinement, the comforts and con-
veniences of life, the power of machinery in manufacture, the
ramifications of commerce and the engines of war. A step
further and the school house and college, the spread of education
and its influence, become palpable. It requires deeper penetra-
tion, however, to sec the occult but still more powerful moral
and religious forces behind it all.
That there can be no true civilization without morality is
a truism so thoroughly accepted by all that I need spend no
time in arguing the point. History tells us, and no one in
Japan would doubt the fact, that no amount of outer refinement,
I.J Booted in Moral and lldlglous Faculties.
23
or advance of commerce, or engines of war or education could
save a nation weakened by moral rot. In so far as a nation is
immoral, just as far is it weak, and unless morally regenerated
it will assuredly perish.
But my next point many be disputed by many, and that is
this : — There is no pu1)lic or private morality possible without
religion, and then of course no true civilization without a
religion. Man has a religious instinct that must be satisfied,
which unmet by a something true to match it degenerates into
dark superstition and cruel rites, and which untaught may
be wrought upon by designing men to enslave the mind and
block the wheels of progress. If, however, this faculty yearning
for the unseen, supreme, and absolute being, the author of
our nature and the universe in which we dwell, is met by
a revelation which our reason tells us is worthy of belief, it
lifts man, not out of the present world in which wo live, but
gives him the consciousness of superiority and authority over all
that is temporal, and of an heirship to that which is eternal.
Man is a worshipping animal, " deifies and adores the first thing
he meets rather than cease to adore. "^ This religious faculty
is the most fundamental of all our faculties, if developed
healthily, ennol les, impels our whole being forward and upward,
the soul of all true progress. True religion, meeting the most
fundamental faculty of man's nature, is the most expansive and
elevating power in the world. Corrupted, it is indeed comiptio
optbnij)essima, the worst of all debasing evils. To attempt to
discard all religion because of its frequent abuse, and the
errors believed and the crimes committed in its name, is as
illogical as the asceticism of the monk, which curses the
world because of the evils wrought in it. The man of well
balanced mind is neither monk nor intidel ; he is religious and
social ; he neither exiles himself from man nor seeks to repudiate
1 Coqucrel.
\
A
24
The llellfjloiis Faculty a Ueallty. [Lect.
''1%
God. And it often happens that as men drift away from a
religious life, some low superstition develops within the soul.
'Tis very true that in individual cases, the rehgious instinct
seems to be educated away. But blindness in many an indi-
vidual does not'prove the non-existence of light, and the atheism
of a few abnormal individuals is as nothing compared with the
overwhelming testimony of all lands, of all ages, proclaiming
with the united voice of every language, the hunger cry of the
human soul for the infinite, that feeling after God, which must
have something in which to trust.
Nor is this religious faculty a mere sentiment which can bo
cultivated by philosophic speculaLion, or by almost any land
of thing called a religion. The universal hunger of the human
heart after God, this mysterious longing for supernatural
sympathy, those hopes and fears for the unknown hereafter,
can never be satisfied with milk and water disquisitions on " the
true, the beautiful, and the good " in the abstract. The sin-
struck conscience with forebodings of wrath, and seeking the
pardon of a loving Father, will never be satisfied with learned
discourses about the evolution of conduct, the evanescence of
evil, and the comparison of relative with absolute ethics. The
soul that yearns after personal conscious immortality, and looks
upon that hunger as a prophetic instinct of future life, will never
be satisfied with any lean theory of transmission of influence ;
nor will it be much hurt by the small talk of w^ould-be philoso-
phers about this hunger being selfish and low. As well might
they tell the common sense of mankind that the desire for food
was low and selfish and animal. And what if it is ? Whatever
you like to call it, it is there, and it must be satisfied at any
cost, philosophize as you may, and so with the hunger of the soul.
The world's religious instinct will not be satisfied with more
hints and suggestions and theories ; this faculty demands
something definite, something authoritative, which will compel
I
I
I.]
Faith is not unscientific.
25
the heart's belief. But now as soon as faith or belief in autho-
rity is spoken of, up rises the wrath of a certain class of people
who call themselves scientists but are not trulj' so, and they
cry out " faith is suicidal of science !" " belief is destructive of
reason!" Noth g could be more unscientific, more absurd,
than such assertions as these. We ask no one to study the
sciences by faith, or to allow belief to take the place of thought,
although the doctrines of Euclid are as really founded on faith
as the doctrines of Christ. There is a place for the microscope,
and another for the telescope, and they cannot bo interchanged.
It would be absurd for the astronomer to ridicule the micros-
copist, because he cannot see the mountains of the moon with
his little instrument that was made for an entirely different
purpose; and ecjually absurd for small thinkers to ridicule
faith, because it is not adapted to a sphere for which it was
never intended. We are subj to laws, to limits, to authority
on every hand, obeying which we have freedom, as fish in their
natural element ; and outside of which is death, as to the fish
thrown upon land. All matter is subject to physical laws,
the individual is subject to social law, the citizen is subject to
political laws, the mind is subject to mental laws, the soul is
subject to spiritual laws, and being a conscious personality seeks
a conscious personality, as the source of that law to which it
feels itself subject. Religion is the attitude of man to that
supernatural authority, and any communications which may
come from him. And here microscope, and telescope, and
crucible, alembic, scalpel, and test acids and whole laboratories
of instruments and experimentalists cannot help one iota — a
revelation must come in ; nor is it a region of blind acceptance
of every thing presented by any class of men. But if any man,
or any book, or any system of doctrine, be it Koran, Zendavesta,
Pitaka or the Bible, comes asserting a right to proclaim to ua
eternal verities, the will of the Supreme, or the facts of the
If
I
*
26
Religion omist be scientifically Tested. [Lect.
future world, before we believe, we must ask for their credentials
and submit these credentials to human reason. And now you
may call in your microscope and telescope and alembic and all
the army of scientific experimentalists, with all their facts and
specimens and knowledge, and let them test those credentials
for you. Don't be afraid ; those credentials are very important ; if
they are false it will be the height of folly to believe the message
they bring ; if they are true, it will be still greater folly not to
accept the message they offer. Test them well, for they are the
scientific links between the natural and the supernatural, which
if proved to be true will make your faith as thoroughly scientific
as any other exercise of the reasonable mind.
No religion that cannot produce its credentials and trium-
phantly present them to the test of reason, can stand before the
onward march of science, can for a moment be considered as an
element in true civilization. No religion which debauches the
mind can produce thereafter true morality of heart and life, and
in the march of science must go to the wall.
And that brings me now to a statement which I do not ask
you to accept on my authority, or on the authority of the
Christian church, but which I ask you seriously to consider,
and to test scientifically. It is indeed the centre of my thesis,
and to prove which this course of lectures is being delivered.
And the statement is this : you have seen that there is no true
civilization possible without the salt of morality, and that there
can be no general morality without religion ; I now make the
statement that there is no religion but Christianity that can
stand the testing of science, the probing of advancing thought,
and that can be the torch, the sun-light if you will, of true
civilization of modern times. In every religion there are
elements of truth, but the large proportion of palpable error
brought to light by modern education, vitiates the good, and
those religions that are unscientific are doomed to perish.
1
I
a
u%
K-tt»'V»'>'»^"-3l*".
[Lect.
I.]
Christianity stands the Test,
27
lentials
ow you
and all
cts and
dentials
ftant; if
message
<f not to
' are the
1, -wliicli
scientific
But amid all the crash of falling creeds, Christianity stands out
as the one exception, the soul of all true progress, whose path
is heing cleared hy the march of intellect, and whose power is
being more and more unfolded by the magnificent triumphs of
modern mind. And the reason is twofold : (1) its credentials,
when tested, are found genuine, and thus it demands and
obtains a hearing from the thoughtful mind of man ; and (2)
it is the only known force by the help of which the higher
elements in the perfect unit of a true civilization can be pro-
duced, and all its legitimate influences tend in that practical
direction.
1 trium-
efore the
'cd as an
ches the
life, and
not ask
^ of the
consider,
ly thesis,
delivered.
no true
ihat there
make the
that can
; thought,
1, of true
there are
able error
good, and
10 perish.
III.
WHAT IS CHKISTIANITY ?
And now the question properly arises, what is Christianity?
Just here let me ask j'ou to dismiss from your minds for a
moment all definitions and representations made by opponents
of Christianity, whether found in the scurrilous refuse of Tom
Paine or Robert Ingersoll, in the superficial pages of a Draper
when he leaves his proper sphere, the partial statements
of pseudo-scientists or the ponderous but defective philosophy
of Herbert Spencer, and bear with me while I give you the view
from within, from the Christian stand-point.
Very briefly then, we hold that Christianity is (1) a rev:\v'
tion of the mind of God to -the mind of man through Jesus
Christ, and of the means by which man may be in eternal
harmony with God ; and (2) an unfolding to us of the Creator's
ideal of a complete man, in the man Christ Jesus, and of the
way by which mankind may reacli this ideal ; the following of
which is the progress of the truest civilization, and the attain-
■ i
28 Christian doctrine, Science of Theology, [Lect.
ment of -wliicli its grandest culmination. This revelation
is contained in the Bible ; in the Old Testament, which
prepared the world for the advent of Christ and the recep-
tion of his teaching; and the New Testament, which tells
the story of his life, and unfolds his practical doctrines.
This revelation simply puts into the hands of men that
which they could not by any other means obtain, and only so
far as will be of p.ractical value for the elevation of man. It is
put, however, into the hands of men that they may use it accord-
ing to the intention of its Author, in harmony with every other
revelation of God which science or thought opens to our view,
that they may disseminate its benefits among their fellow men
and impart its unfolding riches of mr. turer understanding to
succeeding generations. This practical development of
scriptural revelation for human use is three-fold. First, we
have Christian doctrine ; secondly, a Christian church ; and
thirdly, a Christian manner of life.
As it is necessary in studying the facts of nature to put
nature's laws into some system that can be comprehended by
the human mind, and be taught to the enquiring student, so the
moral and religious truths of the Bible, imbedded in its history
and poetry and narrative and letters, unfold to those who search
for them, spiritual laws and facts which must be systomatised
so as to be apprehended as a whole, and taught to the young
and those who aire busy with other lines of life. Hence a system
of Christian doctrines or the science of theology is a matter of
course. Now you may have been told that the dogmas of the
Christian church are illogical, childish, unscientific, absurd;
and if you should cal? Christian doctrine everything that has
been taught in the name of Christianity, I would have to agree
with the verdict ; for men calling themselves Christian teachers
have, in their ignorance, taught many a falsehood, many an
unscientific tradition, many a childish absurdity, many an
I.]
Christian Societij, a Church.
29
atrocious caricature of the truth, and were ready to damn any
one' who would dare to doubt their dogmas. I am not ignorant
of these things and am profoundly ashamed -not of Christianity,
but of men who have banished Christianity, and in her name
have set up the foul evolution of their own ignorance and cor-
ruption, or have overlaid the fair face of truth with the hideous
mask of falsehood. Be pleased to understand that doctrine and
theology are intended to show forth the laws and facts of revela-
tion, just as natural science is intended to show forth the laws
and facts of the natural world. And just as false science does
not affect the facts and laws of nature in themselves, so false
doctrine docs not affect the facts of Christianity excepting to
belie them. Christianity is not dogma. You test science by
experiment, by natural facts ; you must test doctrine by the
standard of the Christian Bible, " to the law and the testimony,"
any doctrine or tradition that cannot be easily deduced there-
from is not Christian — is alien — is a human addition. With
the Bible I take my stand, and I challenge any one to state a
single doctrine that is childish, absurd, or false, that can be
fairly deduced from the teachings of this standard.
For the conservation of doctrine, for the social wants of
religious people, a society is necessary, and hence we have a
Christian church ; but you will please remember that a Christian
church is a combination of human being — of fallible men — but
if true must combine on the line of biblical principles. But
you have been told that the Christian church is a machinery of
priestcraft, designed to keep men in ignorance and mental sub-
jection, whose fetters must be thrown off by all men of science
and thought. I beg 3'our pardon, gentlemen ; that is not the
Christian church at all, but a foul usurper of the name of Christ,
under whose guidance men have duped their follow-men ; have
robbed them of liberty of conscience, and 'the heritage of free
thought ; have become instruments of political corruption and
i
80
Christian life, Ideal of Enmam'fy. [Lect.
i I
degraded all that men hold dear ; have trod on the neck of kings,
and been tolerant of every crime but that of opposition to them-
selves. A whole hideous range of dark deeds of oppression and
blood stands out before my eyes, until I shudder and blush for —
not Christianity, for she has done none of these things, — but for
those human beings who could prostitute a thing so holy for
ends so vile. Gentlemen, Christianity is not that thing which
has often gone by the name of the church. Every thing that
men have added to that which can be fairly deduced from
Christ's own teachings, is not Christian, and I challenge you to
produce any scriptural, biblical principle that in any sense
antagonizes the soundest principles of individual freedom, of
mental enlargement, of social advancement, of political economy,
or any element in the noblest civilization !
Christianity aims also at producing a Christian character,
which shall be the normal type of a Christian civilization, the
elements of a Christian nation, nay of a Christian world. There
are two ways in which the out-working of this aim may
be seen in individuals. In the first place, in the character
of people who intelligently and consciously strive after the
Christian ideal. In these you may find many a weakness,
many a defect arising from various human imperfections. In
so far as they approach the Christian type, the man Christ
Jesus, they are found to approach the perfect ideal of complete
humanity. In so far as they vary from that type in principle
they cease to be Christian. A second way in which this tendency
works is in introducing a sort of moral fibre, imparted to
national character, to public opinion, to the working of thought
and social sympathies ; tendencies which may be seen in many
a man who discards the restraints and the sanctions of the
Christian religion, and who may even be far from the standard
of purity in morals, so that there is often much more of frank-
ness and fairness, and of the fundamental framework of noble
'5«
-^
I.]
Christian Pcoi^cs hdoio the Ideal.
31
' kings,
I them-
on and
;li f or—
■but for
[lolj' for
[T •wliicli
ing that
3d from
e you to
y sense
3doni, of
conomy,
laracter,
,tion, tlio
I. There
im may
laracter
ifter the
.realaiess,
ions. In
n Christ
complete
principle
tendency
jarted to
thought
in many
ns of the
standard
of franli-
L of noble
humanity than one ^Y0uld at Ih-st suspect, in these characters in
which tlic Christian ideal is not yet evolved, where much that
is doubtful, or even repulsive and insolent, appears on tlie
surface. But let it be distinctly understood that what is
doubtful, and insolent, and repulsive is not due to Christianity,
unless you can find it in our standard Jesus Christ, but is due
rather to the absence of the best elements of Christianity. But
are not all foreigners who come from Christian lands specimens
of the Christian type ? Alas no, some of us are very far from it.
And how docs it come that if Christianity is such a boon, any
one can reject it ? Simply because men are free and fallible,
and " men love darkness rather than light " in these things,
and for the same reason as in Christ's day, " because their deeds
arc evil." Christianity invites men to the highest good, but
God himself cannot, will not, force the unwilling heart to love
him. But you speak of " Christian nations ;" permit me to ask
you to say " so-called Christian " nations ; for history, neither
past nor present, can show us a single nation in which the
Christian ideal has been fully developed. Christian nations so-
called do a great many things as nations which are repudiated
by the Christian element therein, and every national crime,
unless 3'ou can trace it to Christian principle, is a new evidence
that the Christian ideal has not yet been reached, and must not
bo laid to the charge of Christianity but to its partial repudiation.
And yet the wonderful results achieved by the still partially
evolved Christian civilization arc so strikingly magnificent,
and so pregnant with promise, of future good, that we look
forward with confidence and hope to the time when it shall
permeate the world's peoples, and humanity's highest ideal shall
be realized by all mankind. This superiority of a civilization
influenced even partially by Christianity, can be understood only
by a comparison of civilizations that have not been influenced by
Christianity, with those other lands where Christianity has to
I
\
I
82
Goiiiqmrlson of Civilkatlons.
[Lect.
some extent exerted her power. To such a comparison I now
call your attention. But first let me ask you to rememher that
Christianity is not to be measured by the defects of pretended
followers, but by principles, facts, legitimate influences ; and
also that Christian civilization is not to be judged by any
isolated action or age, but to bo traced in the combination of
facts and ages through which the iuliucncc of its principles is
being gradually unfolded in practical life.
IV.
PRE-CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATIONS.
We glance first at the history of nations in which civiliza-
tion made advances before the rise of Christianity. We pass by
the partial civilizations of Asia, where in historical times, one
type has ruled, change has been rare, and advance the exception;
merely calling attention to the fact that this unity has tended
to despotism and tyranny on the one hand, and truculent
ignoble submission on the other. Eut let us look at the stately
march of those six great empires which successively rose and
fell, each bequeathing to its successor all the advance it had
gained, bringing, at about the time of Christ, the known world
to the magnificent zenith of the noblest civilization possible
without the regenerating influences of a supernatural religion.
The oldest historical nation is the Egyptian, the monuments of
whose greatness of resources, of scientiflc advance, are standing
to-day in stately pyramid and silent sphinx, but whose land has
for centuries been the home of a beggarly remnant, without a
rag even of moral or political greatness. The Assyrian Empire
was vast in extent, splendid in its conquests, its triumphs
written on stone and clay that are being deciphered to-day, its
T'
p
I.]
Defects of olden Clinlkations,
33
1
■i
great capital Ninevali unsurpassetl in magnificence. The
Babylonian wave of Empire absorbed all the acquired strength
of Assyria, inherited its provinces and rose to greater glory.
All the Avealth of the Babylonian Empire, and its civilization,
became a part of the Persian wave of splendour, which drew
from still wider sources a still greater opulence, and grew to
vaster grandeur. The keen life of the Greek, in the brief time
of the supremacy of the jMacedonian Empire, infused a rich
element into the conquered world ; and in her fall, transmitted
her enterprise and intellectual superiority as a heritage to her
Ivoman conquerors. The vast organization and iron strength of
the Eoman Empire had, at the time of Christ, brought the
accumulation of all the preceding millenniums into one vast
civilization, which was the culmination of the progress of the
preceding ages, and the climax of triumph for human intellect
and political power.
The intellectual greatness of those ages is the marvel of
to-day ; so far as human genius goes, in philosophy, poetry,
sculpture, oratory, statesmanship, they are still unsurpassed.
In magnificence and luxury they are unapproachable.
But I dare not linger. Let me point out one or two facts.
(1) All of these nations rose from a state of partial barbarism, in
which were many virtues arising from lack of opportunity for
vice, or the earlier impetus of a young religion, and as a natural
consequence this virtue, with physical strength, gave them
military heroism and manly courage. So they conquered, and
grew wealthy and refined and civilized ; and in proportion as
their civilization and refinement grew, so vanished their virtue,
their heroism, their courage, until they became unspeakably im-
moral, completely effeminate and an easy prey to the next
conqueror. These new conquerors were barbaric, heroic, enter-
prising, until they in course of time, along Avith ever rising
intellectual and physical civilization, sank into still deeper
I
3
34
No Moral force, no true ideal.
[Lect.
moral degradation and pitiable effeminacy, becoming an easy
prey to the next healthy barbarian, with a now religion to
replace or add to the old one that had become effete. And so it
went on in ceaseless rounds, each empire rising higher in refine-
ment, philosophy and civilization than the preceding, but as a
result of that civilization, sinkhig to still lower depths of moral
rottenness, until the rude barbarians of Europe shattered into
fragments the vast Eonian Empire, the heir of all that had
preceded, the culmination and the linis of that stylo of civiliza-
tion, revealing at once its power and its signal failure.
(2) Another thing worthy of notice is that when these
empires began to decay, nothing could impede tlie downward
tendency. Advancing thought had undermined the religious
faith ; old forms and ceremonies had no longer a moral
power ; philosophers sought in vain to formulate ethics, and
prescribe for the peoples' malady, but the incurable leprosy went
on. There was absolutely no morally regenerative force ; and
for want of that, moral death brought political ruin, which in
every case was inevitable. (3) Another fact is that in all these
civilizations there was an ideal and a unity of purpose, but the
ideal was too low, too narrow, and under none of them, though
abundantly realized, could the complete man be evolved. Take
for instance the Greek type, in some respects the most attractive
of all. Its type is human, its ideal the physically and mentally
developed man, combined in a democracy where all shall be
equal and the state supreme. A type which naturally resulted
in the Athenians poisoning Socrates, because he taught their
children to be more virtuous than their fathers, and banishing
Aristides because he had earned the title of " the just," thus
imperiling the uniformity of the state. And just as defective
the brutal heroism of the Eoman type with its gladiatorial
shows, its exposure of infants, and general disregard for human
life.
I-J
Christ gives a new Civilization,
85
And what waa it that put a stop to thin long scries of revohi-
tions from harbaric strcnj^th to civilized weakness and pitiable
collapse ? Why did not the barbarians who conquered Home
adopt IJoman civilization, as conquering liorao had adopted that
of conquered Greece, and so on down the long story of the past?
Why, because the world had turned over a new loaf, and instead
of borrowing from Rome, modern civilization owes its radical
dilfcrence, humanly speaking, to a despised and fce])le people,
the Jews, and its perennial vitality, its universally admired and
elevating ideal to a village carpenter — crucified when little more
than a lad.
V.
CnmSTIAN CIVILIZATON.
And now let us try to discern the cardinal facts and causes
of the new civilization of Europe. Those of you who have read
Guizot's History of European Civilization will remember his
masterly delineation of the three great forces contending with
each other at the downfall of the lioman Empire, and for ages
afterwards. These were, (1) the shattered wrecks of Roman
Civilization, which were more an impelling memory of the magni-
ficence of monarchy and of law than anything tangible ; (2) the
Christian church, which had grown up from a mere handful of
poor Christians in the first century, to a vast imperial hierarchy,
a great political power ; and (;3) the Barbarian element of in-
dividual freedom and brutal coarseness and cruelty. I am not
prepared to say that the fact of the church, having at that ter-
rible time considerable political powder, was an unmixed evil.
Of course the wielding of direct political power by the Church is
alien to the spirit of Christianity, its province being to trans-
fi
i
id.*'' '■
36
Conflict of Elements,
[Lect.
form and elevate the individual, and through the unit elevate
the whole ; yet those ferocious half-savages, whose blood flows
in the veins of many of us here, needed a stronger check than
kind words, and that check they found in the political power of
the church which had survived the overthrow of the imperial
throne.
You will of course understand, from what I have already
said, that I do not look upon the Christian church of that time,
or of any time, when she directly mixes herself with politics, as
synonymous with Christianity. The Christian church was a
combination of men who had certain political aims in view, and
used as instruments the name, the history, the accumulated
social influence, some of the doctrines, the promises and thrcaten-
ings of Christianity, as a means to obtain political sway. Thus
the church became one of the struggling factors in a new
civilization, with some grand divine elements behind her, which
she often prostituted, so that she was frequently a hindrance
rather than a help to the spread of Christianity and Christian
influence.
There were then these three elements, monarchical tendencies
inherited from the Roman empire, the politico-ecclesiastical
tendencies of the church, and the wild brutal democracy of the
conquering Barbarians. These three elements struggled to-
gether, none ever having the upper hand so completely as to
destroy the others ; none ever so weak as not to influence the
others ; each one modifying the others, repelling, advancing,
clashing, uniting, exploding, fusing, imparting, increasing ; and
the struggle goes on to-day, but on difterent lines, on higher
principles, and with less destrrction ; and will go on until all
hearts are fused into one brotherhood around our ideal Christ
Jesus.
To the quiet contemplative mind, such a series of perpetual
conflict would seem to be evil and only evil ; and yet that series
m
I.]
rroduced develoiwwnt of new Poicers.
37
of war and combat has given birth to a civilization which is
vastly superior to all the civilization that pre edecl it in type,
in character, and in power, and in promise for the future. J
must condense a vast amount of facts into a very few sentences
now, to show the salient points of this new civilization, and the
potent cause which makes it differ so completely from every
other type. Let us recall the three great facts respecting the
former civilizations. (1) It was seen that as civilization and
refinement and philosophy advanced, religion died; and im-
morality, political effeminacy, weakness, collapse, resulted. On
the other hand as modern civilization advances, pure and noble
religion lives on; while superstitious trappings fall away,
immorality is more and more branded with shame and driven
into sewers ; along with comfort and peace, there is ever an in-
crease of military strength; and along with this increase of
military strength, there is a commensurate decrease of military
vices. Old civilizations gradually made men unfit for war ;
modern civilization puts in new energy, and when needed, pours
out from farm-house, and manufactory, and commercial offices,
and mechanics' shops, deluges of men who need only a little
training to make them as steady of nerve, as indomitable, as
the most famed veterans of a heroic age. This was seen in the
late American war, and can be seen in any w^ar that England or
Germany wages. The old civilizations fell before barbarian
power ; in presence of modern civilization all barbarisms droop,
are poT erless, their day seems to be done, they must become
civilized or die. The old civilizations, when warlike, aimed at
conquest ; not so the new. Though the war energy is there, it is
turned into an impulse to further the products of peace, and the
death of barbarisms is more like the melting of snow under the
warmth of the sunshine of spring.
(2) We saw also that the empires of pre-Christian times,
their civilization being only a superficial shell of refinement
m
i
I'M
'iilnii:;!::
38
Defects of Modern Civilizatioii.
[Lect.
Is
and culture, with a heart weak with the putrescence of moral
decay, could not be saved from irretrievable ruin. On the
other hand the civilized nations of modern times have their
chief defects on the surface ; many an undesirable thing is
prominent, many a wrong still unrighted, many a lack still to
fill, but at heart there is solid soundness and living force, so
that repulses and defeats are followed by resurrections and
grander growths. Division means only multiplication, as in the
case of the United States separating from Britain. Great
Britain is vastly greater than before, and the United States
almost as big as her mother. And before long Canada and
Australia will be nations greater than any old empire, while
Britain herself, from which they all sprang, seems younger,
fresher, than ever, not yet having reached her prime, and
without a sign of decay, although already older than any empire
of pre-Christian times.
(3) We saw also that there was a sort of national type or
ideal in the olden civilizations, which though realized fully, was
entirely inadequate to the powers of man or the needs of a na-
tional life. On the other hand the ideal of Christian civilization,
whether in the individual or in the nation, is still very far from
being realized ; but as we strain every nerve and every power of
complex humanity to reach it, it advances still, and every rise
we make serves only as a vantage ground from which to behold
the heritage of our children, the vaster possilulities of progress.
It points us forward to a time foretold more than 2,500 years
ago, when in poetic language of figure, Isaiah sang of a time
when " the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb and the leopard
shall lie down with the kid, and the calf, and the young lion, and
the fatling together ; and a little child shall lead them. They shall
not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain — for the earth
shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover
the sea — " meaning that when our ideal man shall have become
I.]
A coming short of the Ideal.
39
realized as the actual unit of a pure world-civilization, armies
will be disbanded, their occupation gone, and the accumulated
energy of freer, perfecter man shall be held in moderation and
turned to the production of the blessings of peace, and of good-
will among men. I know that this culmination seems still far
away ; but let me remind you that amid all the din of armaments
of war, men are gradually growing ashamed of the business of
murder. I can scarcely conceive of circumstances that would
necessarily bring war between Britain and the United States.
And just imagine to yourselves a general civilization, a moral
development in all, or even most lands, equal only to that of
these nations at present, with Canada and Australia, and you
Avould see that the army would be nothing but a police force.
And why should not the evolution go on until soldier and
policemen both became interesting only to the historian and the
antiquarian ?
VI.
THE POTENTIAL PRINCIPLE.
And now what is the potential caure of this reversal of all
preceding civilizations, similar in fact to the introduction of life
into the natural world, reversing many of the processes of
former ages, and leading to marvellous advance ? Just as in
the change of the inorganic world into organic, nothing absolutely
new was required buL life, so in the change from the lower civiliza-
tions of those old times to the better one of to-day, there is no
absolutely new element, only the introduction of a living
spiritual power, — the Christian religion ; and you may be still
more surprised to learn that the most active assistant in the
spread of Christian iniluenco is the colossal advance of motlern
;!>rili
M:
40
Influence of Christianity, twofold. [Lect.
'i
■]' l:'i
science. Science has done much to remove incumbrances of
old pagan traditions that had fastened themselves like parasites
on Christianity, and I hope and expect she will work on the
same line until every shred of superstition, and human tradition,
and useless form shall be done away, and the golden Christianity
of Christ alone remain. Another thing she has done, and that
is to nourish and stimulate a state of mind that is not credulous,
which advances only where the way is firm. And may she still
go on strengthening the intellectual powers, for then the faith
of the heart will be more strong. But let her be careful to
avoid that most fatal of human mistakes ; the going to extremes —
let her not seek in removing the parasites to amputate +1'.e
the limbs, nor in strengthening the mind to harden it against
evidence and reason. The influence of Christianity has been
exerted in two ways. (1) The politico-ecclesiatical corporation
called a church, exerted as a political power a considerable
influence in curbing the violence of the barbarian element, and
introduced into European laws some vital principles unknown
before, or at least not incorporated into the old civilizations.
Such for instance as. —
1. The fact of a Supreme Lawgiver to whom all human
law should be tributary.
2. The importance of the individual man in presence of the
fact that each is immortal.
3. The obligation of man to man as being all equal in the
eyes of the Supreme.
4. The sensitiveness to human life, proclaiming abortion to
be murder, abolishing the gladiatorial combats, forbidding the
exposure of children, etc.
5. Judging of the enormity of crime by the » lent of inten-
tion, and so on.
The other way in which Christianity worked, its more
legitimate sphere, sometimes with the help of the church and
; I
I.] The Laws of Moses, ever true in Princij^le. 41
sometimes in opposition to the church, was in transforming
individual man by the teachings of the Bible, so that he might
become a properly developed unit among men, the basis for the
highest civilization. To show how this was done, and is being
done, is outside of my present task, and to explain which would
lead me to the wide field of Christian doctrine ; suffice it to say
that Christianity has satisfied the human heart with the revela-
tion of a God whom all can adore and love, and with an ideal
man whose suprem ^, ?vcellence is acknowledged by all, and is
still an inspiration for the noblest among men. The world was
taught to believe in the enormity of sin, and the necessity of
internal holiness as the fountain for purer action. Religion
was made to be identical with practical life. The marriage
bond was made sacred, the home was elevated, and vast and
innumerable streams of charity were sent flowing to the lowest
and the farthest of the human race, ameliorating man's present
and pointing to a better future. These influences working
together have been little by little transforming, elevating men,
and through the individual man, ^^ations and civilizations.
I shall now close with the statement of a momentous
series of facts, and leave you to consider the problem the
contain. The Christian religion is the rehgion of the Bible.
The two cardinal points in the Bible are the laws of Moses,
and the facts and words of Christ. A family of shepherds
were taken to Egypt, where their descendents were enslaved
in bitter bondage for centuries. They escape to the desert,
wander for forty years before settling down in a little land called
Palestine. During those forty years of wanderings, Moses, their
leader, elaborated a system of laws. The time was more than
three thousand years ago, and from that time 'until now, by
every advance of civilization and of philosophy and science, not
one single element, fundamental principle of law, has been added
to what Moses gave to those escaped slaves. Can you tell me
VifJ
■ HI: ■ ,
m
thai I'lj,
Ml ■;!■'
i! . .
■
I
i'
\
42 Christ's doctrine complete, flawless, mighty. [Lect.
why or how it came to pass that Moses, nearly one thousand
years before Confucius was born, laid down every true principle
that Confucius taught, and did not teach one of Confucius's
blunders ? And also how it comes that no civilized constitution
or code of laws to-day, contains a single principle that was not
known to Moses, and applied by him wisely to suit the time and
the people that he had to deal with, and that in all his code
there is not a single principle now found to be false ? Another
fact and problem. Palestine has become a miserable province
of Eome, as immoral as any other. Out of a wretched mountain
village comes ^ young man of 30 years, who calmly contradicts
the spirit of his times, and at the age of 33 is ignominiously
crucified. But he leaves behind him a system of doctrine in
which every truth contained in every other religion is contained,
in which none of their errors are found, and which proclaims
vital truths unknown to any other ; more wonderful still, from
that day to this, through these nearly two thousand years,
no new ethical or religious truth has been added, and though he
taught only three years, yet he left behind him an influence
which has revolutionized the very meaning of civilization, and
set the world on the track of its grandest, fullest development,
infusing also the propelling power.
Tell me, can you explain these facts with reasons pm-ely
human ?
LECTURE II.
THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW:
m
THE RELATIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION TO NATURAL
SCIENCE, ESPECIALLY TO THE THEORY
OF EVOLUTION.
Sir Harry S. Partes, K.C.B., G.C.M.G., Her Britannic
Majesty's Minister to Japan, on taking the chair made the
following remarks : —
Ladies and Gentlemen :
I have taken this chair with considerable hesitation, because
I feel that it is not in my power to contribute by any remarks of
mine to the value and interest of the lecture we are about to
hear. I have been induced to do so, however, because I think
that the plan of these lectures has been happily conceived, that
they are specially recommended by their practical and instructive
character, and that the gentlemen who are gratuitously giving
so much time and labour to their delivery should readily receive
any minor support that others may be able to render. I have
also been influenced by the reflection that laymen, by evincing
an interest in these lectures, may assist in demonstrating to our
Japanese friends that the great subject of which they treat is
not regarded among ourselves as the affair of a particular class,
but as affecting all classes and conditions of men, and that,
though the teaching of Christianity necessarily devolves upon
those who devote themselves to that high and benevolent work,
its practice concerns the well-being of every individual. The valuo
of religion consists in. its being a vital motive which may servQ
Sivi'l
1,1
44
Introductory remarJcs
[Lect.
as a guide in life as well as a solace in death; and if it lead, as
it should do, to self-denial and self-control, to probity, peace,
and good-will among men, its beneficial influence not only on
the individual, but on the family, on society, and on the State
is self-obvious, and can scarcely be over estimated whether
considered from a moral or from a political point of view.
The subject of the present lecture is the Relations of
Christianity to Natural Science, especially to the Theory of
Evolution. The religion of the Christian differs from science in
this, that it is not a matter of demonstration from external,
observation, but has its origin in the heart ; it is therefore a
work that has to be undertaken afresh by each individual,
however humble or however elevated his position, in order to meet
a personal need that no science can supply ; and it is not a matter
of the progress of the species, or the progress of any science in
which those who follow can profit by the labours of those who
have preceded them. Religion may be said to deal with the
moral field of man's nature, and science with the material;
but a knowledge of the true conditions of the latter is a most
important aid to a right appreciation of the aspirations of
the former. It is therefore wholly a mistake to suppose, as
some would have us suppose, that science is opposed to
religion, or that religion shrinks from the researches of
science ; both aim at Truth, the one as a guide to knowledge
in the seen and finite world, the other as a guide to conduct
which shall best fit us not only for our duties here, but
also for future life in the Unseen and the Eternal. The great
truths of the scriptures are not to be impugned by the interpre-
tation or misinterpretation which falUble man may place on
some of their figurative passages, such as those which relate to
the so-called six days of the Mosaic cosmogony, or those which
are said to assert, though in a technical sense they do not assert,
the immobility of the earth. Why, science itself now supports
11.]
% the chairman.
45
the mighty epochs figured in that cosmogony with a sublimity
and a simplicity unapproached in any other description of
creation ; and we in this day are not to be charged with error or
ignorance because we speak, inaccurately in a technical sense,
of the sun rising or setting, or of the ascension or declination of
the heavenly bodies.
Man, prone at all times to magnify his own learning, and
sometimes forgetting by whom he is endowed with those mental
powers which distinguish him so widely from the brute creation,
and of which endowment with its attendant responsibilities no
theory of Evolution can either deprive or relieve him, is
occasionally inclined to attach too great weight to his own
deductions, and to claim for his last hypothesis the authority of
fact. On the other hand, the fallibility of human assumption is
as observable in some of the dogmas and doctrines of men as it
is in some of their scientific conclusions. There have been many
views of revelation which have proved to be erroneous, and if
science be opposed to such views, and aids us in correcting them,
we should thankfully accept its teachings.
While on the one hand the Christian religion has been
attacked with crude theories, so also have some of its believers
shown a want of faith by fearing such attacks. They, in common
with all professing Christians, should rather from the past take
confidence in the future, remembering that the progress of
human knowledge is the illumination of revelation, and that the
discoveries of science have ■■: ^atly contributed to the intelligent
advancement of the Christian cause. And as fresh light is
permitted, by means of man's research, to break from time to
time on our limited perceptions, and to reveal to us a deeper
insight into the illimitable magnitude and minuteness of the
order of the universe, the more reason have we to recognise in
this vast work the finger of a divine Creator, and while sensible
of our own littleness, but also of our great hope, to exclaim with
g
46
Introductory remarlcs.
[Leot.
the Psalmist of old, in the spirit both of religion and of science,
" How manifold are Thy works Lord ; in wisdom hast Thou
" made them all, the earth is full of thy riches."
It remains for me to introduce the lecturer to the meeting,
and in doing so I feel that it would be superfluous for me to make
any personal allusion to Professor Ewing, whose scientific
acquirements have been so long and so favourably known to this
community, both foreign and Japanese.
II.]
The basis of science.
47
THE LECTURE.
1'
Before discussing the relations of natural science to religion
we must make sure that wc icnpw what is meant by science and
what by religion. It is very certain that a great many quarrels
have sprung up for no other reason than that the contending
parties have given different meanings to the same word. If
they had settled their definitions they would have found there
was nothing to fight about. Now I think that a great deal of
what has been said about the relations of science to religion
would not have been said if the speakers had taken the trouble
to lay down for their own guidance and for the guidance of their
hearers, just what these words mean. To avoid, then, the danger
of beginning with a misunderstanding, we shall try to do this in
as few words as may be consistent with clearness, only pre-
mising that a consciousness of the difficulty of the task is no
reason for shirking it.
The materials out of which we build up science are the facts
which we learn through our senses. But these in themselves
are not science any more than a pile of tiles and timber is a
house. We must not only observe; we must measure and
compare ; we must collect those facts together which have some-
thing in common, and decide what that common feature is, and
we must try to cxplavi them by pointing out that they follow
from some simpler or more general results of our experience.
For this is the only kind of explanation that science can ever
give or ever hope to give. She can only tell j'ou how a complex
fact is to be expressed in terms of simpler facts, and if you ask
her for an explanation of these simpler facts, she will perhaps
lead you a step, or even two or three steps, further back, so that
5
!^
48
Scientific method.
[Lect.
you come to simpler facts still ; but these, as much as the first,
are results of experience. And if yon ask impatiently to be led
to the bottom of things and to be told why these primitive ex-
periences are just what they are and not otherwise, science tells
you she can give you no further guidance, and hands you over
to the metaphysicians.
Take an example of scientific method. There must have
been some very early student of nature, though his name has
not been preserved, who observed that a stone when let go or
thrown from the hand falls to the earth. His widening ex-
perience soon showed him that the same thing was true of other
stones, and not of stones only ; and after a great deal of com-
parison, men came to see that all bodies near the earth's surface
have what we now call weight. A long time later Newton
showed that the motion of the moon was to be explained by her
weight ; that she is in fact always faUing towards the earth in
just the same way as a stone does. An easy step further led to
that magnificent generalization which we call the Law of
Gravitation, in which, going by analogy quite beyond the bounds
of our direct observation, we say that every particle of matter
in the universe attracts every other particle with a certain force.
In this general result we are able to find a common explanation
(in the sense I have just described) for the falling of a stone to
the earth, and for the structure of the solar system. But you
must notice that this law, like all natural laws, is no more than
a generalization from experience ; and while it explains much,
itself requires an explanation. To give it one has been attempted
by Lesage, and if his explanation be the right one we should be
able to deduce the law of gravitation from the simplest laws to
which we know the motions of all material substances conform.
Beyond these laws of motion, which would seem to be the
ultimate goal of all scientific " explanation," we are unable
to go.
II.]
Elements of religion.
49
Tho orderly uniformities of Nature, which it is the l)usines8
of science to discern, and which in our blindness wo call laws,
must not be supposed to carry the force of necessary truths. Wo
have no right to assume that the generalized result of our
limited experience will bo found free from exception in the light
of a wider knowledge. While wo strive to bring apparent ex-
ceptions within tho circle of sciontitic order, we should bo
abusing the authority of science if wo asserted that no real
exceptions could occur. Extensive as we find the reign of law
to be, wo cannot logically conclude that interference has not
happened in tho past and may not happen again in tho
future.
Turning now to Religion, and -moro particularly to the
Christian Religion, we find, I think, four elements which are
combined under that name. These are (1) certain beliefs ; (2)
certain moral precepts ; (3) certain rites or observances, with an
organization which carries these into effect ; and (4) a certain
habit of mind which for want of a better name we may call
devout. To convey any clear notion of this last to a
person who has not felt it for himself is scarcely possible ;
nevertheless it is perhaps tho most essential factor in
the making of a Christian. It is not enough that he should
believe that there is a God, who has revealed himself, and a
future life ; that he should act towards his neighbour as he
would wish his neighbour to act towards him ; that he should
belong to a society whose objects are to worship the supreme
Being and to carry out the law of benevolence. Belief in God
as the Maker and Ruler of the universe would be little to us did
we not love him as a Father, and the practice of Christian
charity would be scarcely more than a haphazard kind of poor-
relief, were it not based on a deep sense of tho brotherhood of
men.
But for our present purpose we need not consider any
m
m
•[
■5'
,?■(
ifl
M
50
jT/irc/? fundamental hrlirf>i
[Lect.
except the first of these four elements of which Christianity is
built up. For it is clear that science has nothing to do, one way
or other, with ethical codes or devotional sentiments or church
organizations. If she has anything at all to say about
religion, it must be about beliefs. What, then, are Christian
beliefs ?
If we compare the many answers which have been given to
this question at different times and by different men, we find
that while they disagree widely in minor details, three grand
statements stand out as the essential, because common, features
of all Christian creeds. These are : — (1) the belief that there
is a personal God who is the Creator and Euler of the universe,
and that its history is tlie continuous unfolding of his eternal
purposes. (2) That he has revealed himself to us througii the
minds of men, and more especially in the person and life of
Jesus, whose precepts and example form our noblest rule of
conduct, and in whom our highest aspirations find their satis-
faction and our best ideals their embodiment. (3) That the
obvious incompleteness of this life will be supplemented by a
life continued after the death of the body, in which our
individuality will somehow be preserved ; — a life to which the
present is no more than a brief and scarcely intelligible
preface, suggesting many problems which would be intolerably
burdensome did we not look elsewhere for their solution. These
three beliefs — in God, in a revelation, and in a future state — are
the tripod on which c""!' system stands, the necessary and
sufficient conditions of Christian stability.
Comparing now the two forms of thought. Science and
Eeligion, you will see that they both tell us something of
om'selves and of the world about us ; but the things they tell are
very different, though by no means antagonistic. Science shows
us the order of nature, its method and history ; religion shows
its origin, uud, to some extent, its purpose or destiny. If we ask
nm
IL]
The idea to he combatted.
51
how tilings happen, we appeal to science ; if we ask ichy they are
so, science cannot help us, but religion is ready with at least a
partial answer. You will see, too, that the growth of science
need not involve the decay of religion, unless indeed we can
prove on scientific principles that our fundamental beliefs arc
false — unless we can prove that there is no God, that a revelation
is physically impossible, and the future life a dream. Neverthe-
less, I think I am right in assuming that there is in the minds
of many now present, if not a definite belief, at least a vague
idea that the relation of science to religion is esentially one of
antagonism. You hear much of the ' conflict ' of these jtwo
great departments of human thought, and you are perhaps led,
without well knowing why, to imagine that while physical science
is continually extending its dominion over the minds of men,
religion is being driven from the field. You picture to yourselves
religion as a moth-eaten and ragged garment, which has no
doubt served its uses in the history of humanity, but is now fit
for no higher oftice than to clothe the intellectually naked, to bo
cut down and adapted to the intellectually childish, or to bo cast
into the fire of destructive criticism. You fancy that religious
faith has been abandoned by scientific thinkers, and survives
only as the superstition of the uneducated. You have no doubt,
and rightly, as to the vitality of science : j'ou see its practical
fruits and profit by them, while some of you have entered more
or less deeply into its spirit. Ecligion you scarcely even care to
know, and perhaps in your own minds place the faith of the West
side by side with the Buddhist creed from which you have broken
loose. You are ready, nay eager, to assimilate everything in
Christendom except Christianity. " Sensible men do not
" believe it over there," you say. '/ We will not fetter ourselves
" with chains which they are laboriously casting off. The pro-
" gress of science is every day discrediting it more and more. Wo
" will not waste time in examining ita claims." And if I were to
I
M-i
52
Hoif) it has arisen.
[Lect.
ask yon whii* part of your scientific studies has led you to this
conclusion, you ^YOuld probably refer me to the theory of
Evolution.
This, if I am not mistaken, is the present attitude of young
Japan. Forgive me if I have misstated the position ; if these
are not your ideas so much the better, for they arc wholly false.
It is not enough to call them inaccurate : I hope to show
you by a dispassionate review of the subject that it is an
entire misunderstanding to suppose that the science and the
Christianity of the present day are anything else than friends.
For in that first place, as a matter of mere statistics about
which no difference of opinion is possible, wo find that of those
men living and recently dead who have done the most in
scientific discovery, of the great leaders and exponents of
physical science, a very large proportion hold or held the
Christian faith. And if we turn from this statistical aspect of
the ij[uestion to the subject matter itself, and examine as fully as
we can the results and tendencies of modern scientific thought,
I venture to say that we shall find nothing to contradict or dis-
credit, but even something to suggest a confirmation of the
fundamental articles of the Christian creed.
How then comes it, you will naturally ask, that the
impression has arisen in the minds of many men that
there is essentially war to the knife between religion and
science ?
To ai swer this question, we must glance very briefly at the
history of tl:o Christian Church. During the very earliest stages
of that history, in the life-time of Christ and his apostles, and
for some time after, wo find no materials even for conflict between
students of natural phenomena and the exponents of the new
faith. But the Church soon lost her primitive simplicity and in
many ways wandered strangely away from the ideal of her divine
Founder. She amassed enormous wealth, acquired a political
II.]
Early folly of the Church.
53
influence which placed kings at her command, and (what is
important to our immediate purpose) she formulated as dog-
matic truth not a few statements which were not only absent
from the teaching of Christ, but were wholly alien to the spirit
of his revelation. In many cases those dogmas were nothing
more than definite crystallizations of the popular opinion, or
superstition, or quasi-philosophic theory of the time. During the
period of intellectual darkness which we now call the Middle
Ages, a period during which the Church was in fact the guardian
and, one may say, the monopolist of all knowledge, those
dogmas received that sort of confirmation which comes from
never being called in question. The greatest dogmatists are
those who never have the good fortune to be contradicted ; and,
in the case of the Church, what was conceived to be philoso-
phically true received the stamp of a theological dogma. The
popular notion that the earth is flat, and that the sun, planets
and stars are insignificantly small bodies revolving round it,
became, in the writings of the fathers, invested with the authority
of a religious truth. No scriptural sanction for such a doctrine
existed — in fact, when we think how universal this view must
have been in the early stages of natural knowledge, it is most
surprising that the biblical cosmogony docs not in any way con-
tain it. Nevertheless this merely popular opinion, destitute as it
was of scriptural authority, became a part of ecclesiastical belief,
and when, at the dawn of the scientific renascence, Copernicus
came forwnrd with rational ideas al)out the solar svstem, the
Church, in foolish alarm, opposed the new doctrines with all the
forces at her command. For a time the question remained un-
settled, until the telescope of Galileo decided it by discovering the
moons of Jupiter, when the Church renewed her useless struggle.
At last peace came, and with it the conviction which so often
comes when the heat and passion of conflict give place to calm
reflection — the conviction that the whole affair had been a grand
I
9
54
Draper's " Tlistorij of the Conflict [Lect.
ir.iiHA'i. j-a,^
mistake, and that after all there was nothing whatever to fight
about. The Church discovered that the spade of science, which
she had thought to be under mining her foundations, had in fact
done no more than clear away a rubbish-heap ; and notwithstand-
ing her violence and folly, the greatest intellects of the new
philosophy, Kepler and Newton, were to be counted amongst the
followers of Christ.
The story of this and other similar episodes of ecclesiastical
history has been told by the late Dr. J. W. Draper in a
book which has, I believe, obtained a large circulation in
Japan, and to which for this reason, rather than because of
its intrinsic importance as dealing with the question before
us to-day, I shall devote a few words. To a reader who does
not possess much independent knowledge of the Christian
religion, the title of that book cannot fail to be misleading.
For the history it narrates is not a conflict between Science and
Religion, but rather between Science and th e Church, and indeed
we might say the Eomish Church, since (as ho admits) that
organization has been specially selected as the object of Dr.
Draper's attacks, on the extraordinary ground that " extremists
determine the issue" (preface, p. x). The struggle, he says,
"commenced when Christianity began to attain political
power;" and again he compares the primitive form which
Christianity adhered to during the first three centuries of
its existence with the adulterated and paganized type it
assumed under Constantino, and expressly says that these
modifications "eventually brought it in contiict with science"
(p. 39). To speak then of the conflict of science with religion is
to give the name of religion to that deposit of semi-pagan error
which during thirteen conturi ^ thered undisturbed on the
fair temple of God — gathered so tliickly that priests and people
alike forgot the difference of dust and stone until the trumpet
of Luther shook the walls. Ho would be a rash man who would
II.]
between lleUgion and Science."
55
even now pronounce complete the work of cleansing which was
then begun ; and in that work science has lent no unimportant
aid.
The misconception of the struggle which the title of
Dr. Draper's work implies, appears frequently in other ways
throughout the volume. In the words of a philosophic critic
who is a fellow-countryman of the author, and who will not be
accused of any pro-c}iristian bias, "religion" is to Dr. Draper
" a symbol which stands for unenlightened bigotry or narrow-
minded unwillingness to look facts in the face ; " the title of his
book " keeps open an old and baneful source of confusion ;" and
the same critic concludes that there is no such * conflict ' as that
of which Dr. Draper has undertaken to write the history.^ To
give you an idea of the way in which the impression of conflict
is needlessly fostered, I may quote from the headings to Chapter
VI, where we And the antithesis : — " Scriptural view of the world,
the earth a flat surface : Scientific view, the earth a globe."
Now, as I have already said, it is not the scriptural view that
tlie earth is a flat surface. It was, if you like, the popular and
even at one time the ecclesiastical view, but you will not find
it either in the Jewish or in the Christian scriptures. In the
same chapter Dr. Draper goes on to say that " on the basis of
this view of the structure of the world great religious systems
have been founded " (p. 153). The implication would seem to
be that Christianity is one of these, and if so, could we conceive
any more ludicrous mistatement of its "basis?" Again, Dr.
Draper speaks of Copernicus as " aware that his doctrines were
totally opposed to revealed truth" (p. 107), though Copernicus
was probably enough of a biblical scholar to be aware of just
the opposite. Perhaps, however, the drollest climax of historical
distortion is reached where Dr. Draper speaks of the origination
I
S
^Fiskc. The Uiueen ]Vorld and Other Enmys, p. 138 et scq.
56
Nature her oum Uevelation.
[Lect.
is,,;
and rise of Mohammedanism as a "reformation" — "the first or
Southern lleformation," while the movement of Luther is "the
second or Northern Eeformation."
liesuming now our brief historical review, we find that after
the lleformation (the " second or Northern" one, I mean) the
relations of the Church to science became much more friendly,
although in a number of more or less conspicuous instances the
Church was compelled to abandon certain outlying and quite
unimportant positions by the advancing tide of scientiiic discovery.
Views regarding the age of the earth and the method of creation,
the antiquity of man and other points, which were in part at
least based as a too literal adhesion to the Jewish scriptures, had
to be rejected ; and the truth became more fully recognized that
Nature is her own revelation : that the revelation which forms the
basis of religion refers to no matters concerning w hich knowledge
can be otherwise obtained. "While some theologians endeavoured
by a certain elasticity of interpretation to remove the apparent
inconsistencies, others saw in these only an additional reason
for modifying i^aoir views as to the inspired character of the
books (additional, I mean, in the sense that the same conviction
was borne in upon them as a result of biblical criticism, apart
altogether from the bearings of scientific discovery). Indeed
scientific discovery has in a measure tended to confirm rather
than discredit the authority of the ancient Jewish scriptures, by
showing their singular freedom from scientific blunders as
compared with other writings claiming to be sacred. It is a
fact hard for the opponents of revelation to explain, that the
order in which living beings are named in the biblical account
as appearing on the earth, is that which the theory of evolution
requires, and the evidence of geology proves. Even so unfriendly
a critic as Ilaeckel, in speaking of the so-called Mosaic
cosmogony, cannot refrain from bestowing his "just and sincere
admiration ou the Jewish lawgiver's grand ingight into
II.J The controversy has changed its ground. 57
nature :"^ and a scientific thinker of a very different school, Dr.
Joule — to whom more than to any other man we owe the doctrine
of the conservation of energj- — says " it appears to be impossible
to give a clearer, and at the same time an equally succinct, account
of the dynamical theory of creation, than that which is comprised
in the second and third verses of the first chapter of Genesis."
It would be pleasant to linger over the entertaining spectacle
of the modern historian of creation complacently patting
his venerable predecessor on the back. But the point is one
on which we need not dwell ; for, if I am not mistaken, the
views regarding inspiration which theologians generally hold
are such as would not preclude the possibility of historical or
scientific mistakes on the part of those writers whom they
regard as the vehicles of a spiritual revelation. In fact the
controversy, so far as there is a controversy, proceeds now on
wholly other lines. Scepticism has thrown aside such rusty old
weapons as the story of Galileo. That they were ever used is a
matter of no more than antiquarian interest ; to us now the
questions which have a living reality are very different from
those. If you think that Christianity is to be resisted by the sort
of attack for which Dr. Draper's book furnishes you the materials,
you are making the same kind of mistake as a soldier would
make who should choose a bow and arrows as his equipment in
an age of torpedo-boats and rifled guns. Compared with the
questions of to-day, the old case of Genesis versus Geology is as
a fossil to a living organism, scarcely less a fossil than the
much older conflict of the inquisition with astronomy. In this
connection, however, one noticeable episode in the relation of
the ecclesiastical world to scientific thought is so recent as to
deserve : lention. Twenty-three years ago the late Mr. Darwin
propounded a theory of the origin of species, applicable to the
IB
5
i
P
Si
Si
3
1 Ilistori/ of Creation, Vol. I, p.
68
The " Origin of Species.''
[Lect.
descent of man, whi rtling as it then was even to most
scientific men, has nc .. .'eceivecl at the hands of those best
able to judge, a very general although in some cases a
qualified assent. At its first statement, and for some time
afterwards, many theologians found in it a contradiction of
certain popular conceptions which had been worked into the web
of their religious faith. The tradition that the several types of
animal life as we now find them proceeded direct from the hand
of the Creator was, like the flatness of the earth, a popular
notion rather than a legitimate deduction from the Biblical
narrative. But in the minds of some religious men it had become
a p vt of their conception of a creator, and they held fast to it,
a|t."..rently with the idea that if it were abandoned there would
be no room left for belief in God. Darwin himself had indeed
anticipated this objection, and replied to it very truly, when at
the end of his work on the Origin of Species he said : —
** There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms
or into one ; and that whilst this .planet has gone cycling on
according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and
are being evolved." But it was not until after much profitless
struggling that this wise judgment of his was generally
admitted to be just ; and indeed, though the din of this recent
controversy no longer fills the air, we may still hear an
occasional exchange of shots between outlying combatants.
But I think I am scarcely anticipating events when I say that
the Christian Church is settling down with the assurance that
whatever be the ultimate verdict on the views of Darwin, it is a
verdict which the scientific world alone must give, without help
or hindrance from preconceived notions, and that, be the result
what it may, the position of Christianity is no whit disturbed.
Once more let mo briefly repeat that this whole subject of
si.
f
11.]
Christian Natural Philosojyhcrs.
59
the historical relations of science to religious thought finds its
key in the fact that where there has been conflict or opposition
it has proceeded from ideas which are not essential parts of the
Christian system. " The real contest is between one phase of
science and another; between the more crude knowledge of
yesterday and the less crude knowledge of to-day."^ The
abandonment of traditional ideas has been a process of purifica-
tion and restoration, not of mutilation. It has been aptly
said that every individual Christian and every organization
of Christians may be regarded as a mirror which reflects
the figure of Christ and His Church. But the mirror even
at its best is warped and dull, and the image is distorted
and dim ; and if wo see in it features whose divinity we cannot
recognise, our first care should be to turn from the image to
the object, where, haply, we shall find nothing to repel. If
history shows us, and there is no denying it, that the Church's
public relations to science have been in great measure a series
of blunders which were sometimes crimes, it also shows that,
bad as these have been, they have never had the power to alienate
fiy)m Christianity the men whose names shine brightest in the
annals of scientific discovery. Not to mention a host of minor
workers, we find amongst the Christians Newton, who supplied
the key to the solar system ; Boyle, " the father of modern
chemistry"; Dalton, who discovered the laws of chemical com-
bination ; Young, one of the great developers of the undulatory
theory of light; Faraday, the prince and pattern of all ex-
perimentalists. And if we extend our view to the present day,
we find that very many of the most distinguished students and
the ablest interpreters of the dynamics of nature take their
place on the same side. You will admit, even those of you to
whom Christianity is no more than a name, that a religious
3
' Fiske, loc. cit.
60
The " Pojmlar Science " fallacy, [Lect.
WWil
1-1 ^s
■i
system which, distorted and misapplied though it has heen, has
shown itself capable of acceptance by many of the greatest
intellects of all ages, past and present, has a marvellous
vitality and power.
Apart from the historical attitude of the Church, another
cause is at work to produce this erroneous idea of conflict. A
few really scientific writers and a numerically mighty host of
quasi-scientiiic ones, who have not accepted Christianity,
have referred to it in their writings or lectures in a way which
has led many people to suppose that the rejection of Christ is a
necessary result of pursuing the scientific method. Partly
because of their anti-christian bias, such writings and lectures
have received an amount of popular notice which more purely
scientific ones cannot command. The latter appeal to a smaller
public — outside of which we generally find the most grotesquely
distorted estimate of scientific men, their works, and the
tendencies of their enquiries. It you were to ask a hundred
ordinary Englishmen or Americans to name the man whom they
regard as the special representative of physical science, ninety-
nine of them, perhaps, would name Professor Tyndall. Now»I
have no wish to say a word, and it would be highly unbecoming
in me to say a word, derogatory of Dr. Tyndall' s standing as a
contributor to the solid structure of scientific truth, and there
is no one but must admire the clearness and eloquence with
which he can exhibit its beauties to those who have no eyes
for its technical details; but at the same time it is the
simple truth that his position with respect to Christianity is,
amongst the greater living English physicists, not a represen-
tative but rather a singular and isolated position. Put him in
one pan of the balance, and put Thomson, Stokes, Joule, Tait
and Stewart in the other, and those of you who know anything
of the recent history of physics will have no difficulty in
deciding on which side is the weight of scientific authority. In
II.] ScicncG docs not make men irreViglous.
Gl
this connection I may appropriately quote the words of a
distinguislied chemist, Dr. J. 11. Gladstone, himself a fine
example of the not rare combination of scientific eminence with
earnestness of Christian life. In denying tho popular fallacy
that there is a divorce between scientific and religious thinkers,
ho says : " A singularly largo proportion of the highest men of
science of this and preceding times have been devout believers,
or at least have acknowledged the truth of the scriptures ; while
if we descend to men of the second and third ranks we find, at
least in my experience, about the same proportion of Christians
as in most other professions." ^
Of course it is not suggested that scientific study will make
a man religious : my purpose in these remarks is the much
humbler and more rational one of showing that it does not make
men irreligious. "Whether a scientific man is religious or
irreligious, he is so not because he is scientific. Of this we have
abundant evidence of a kind whose value can be appreciated
even by those who know little of science and loss of Christianity,
the evidence, namely, which is presented in the lives and opinions
of scientific men. If by some instances they teach us that
knowledge of nature has gone along with unbelief in religion,
by many more do they prove that there is no essential discord
between the spirit of enquiry and the spirit of reverence,
and that the wisest of men's sons have often put aside their
wisdom, and become even as little children, that they might
know the truth.
Two men have recently died, in each of whom science has
sustained a loss which it is easier to deplore than to estimate,
and who, at once by their likeness and unlikoness, illustrate what
I have just said. One, Clifford, died so early that his achievements
were potential rather than actual; the other. Maxwell, was taken
» Trans. Vict. Inst. Vol. I, p. 391.
M
ij''.!:''i
62
Clifford and MaxircU.
[Lect.
from tho midst of a life of Bplendid performance. Of the two,
Clifford was an unboliovcr in Christianity ; Maxwell an earnest
Christian. If tho life of Clifford gives a now illustration of tho
old truth that man cannot by searching find out God, tho life of
Maxwell may bo said to show that man cannot, by searching, find
God to be impossible. He Imew, as few men have ever known,
tho possibilities of matter, and penetrated into the mysteries of
nature more profoundly than many men can even follow. It is
difficult to speak of his services to science or tho depth of his
philosophic insight in language which a general audience would
not think extravagant and unreal. Just before his death he said
that he had examined every system of atheism he could lay hands
on, and had found, quite independently of any previous know-
ledge he had of tho wants of men, that each system implied a
God at the bottom to make it workable. lie went on to say
that he had been occupied in trying to gain truth, that it is but
little of truth that man can acquire, but it is something to
'know in whom we have believed.'^ The life of such a man as
Maxwell would suffice to give the lie to the popular fallacy that
science conflicts with religion, even if he stood alone ; in fact,
however, his place is with Newton and Faraday, alike as a pillar
in the temple of natural knowledge, and a stone in that grander
temple whose corner-stone is Christ.
To a certain extent, however, we may cast ourselves loose
from the fetters of authority, whether ecclesiastical or scientific,
and examine, each man on his own account, the bearings of
modern scientific thought on belief. I shall therefore endeavour
to place before you, with as much clearness as tho shortness of
time at our disposal will permit, some of those more recent
developments of scientific discovery and speculation which may
be expected to come into contact with religious thought, and in
^Nature, Nov. 13, 1879.
:■»,.•
II.]
Theory of Phi/slral Ei^ohit'ioa.
68
particular to give a brief summary of the theory of physical
evolution, in order that wo may test whether it contains
anything so fatal to Christianity as some of its local exponents
seem to imply.
More fully than in any earlier age, scientific thinkers now-
aday recognise an orderly procedure in the whole of natural
phenomena. They soe that the actual state of things, in all its
manifold complexity, is but one link in a great chain of develop-
ment — one step in a slow but inevitable progress from a wholly
different past to another wholly different future. They have
abandoned the old notion that things as we find them now have
been in their chief conditions the same for ages in the past and
will remain the same for ages in the future. We now know, as
far as any scientific truth can be known, that the story of the
universe is in this respect like the story of a man's life or a
plant's growth : a simple beginning, a complex present, a future
of necessary death. From the brief moment of its existence
which is given to us to study, we have learnt that which enables
us to cast our vision backward to a time when no life was possible
on the earth — to a still earlier time when sun and planets were
a nebulous cloud ; and forward to a future when sun and planets
shall be joined in one huge inert mass, and all life shall have
ceased to be. This ceasless progress from beginning to catas-
trophe, one little step of which has brought us all here to-day,
has been of late studied in various portions of its vast extent, with
results which are included- under the general name of theories
of evolution or development. The idea of the univerro as a great
mill, which grinds out all things by a process of unvarying
sequence, is older that the Latin poet Lucretius, but its exact
scientific form belongs to recent times. To Kant, and subse-
quently to Laplace, we owe the tlieory of globe development,
while Darwin has endeavoured to trace the progressive changes
of living things, and Mr. Herbert Bpenccr has systematized the
i
64
Globe Development.
[Lect.
idea of §volution and carried it into domains which lie outside
of physical science, and therefore outside of our consideration
to-day. The whole subject is essentially a progressive one:
it is continually receiving additions, and combines much
that is still unproved hypothesis with much that rests on as
sure a basis as any other scientific doctrine. In examining
its relations to Christianity, however, I shall not hesitate to
include hypotheses on whose truth or falsity it will be the
business of the future to decide.
First then as to Globe development. The nol)ular theory
of Laplace assumeo that the material which now forms our sun,
the earth and other planets, and their moons, was a long time
ago diffused in very much smaller pieces throughout a vast
extent of space. Those particles attracted each other by
ordinary gravitation and therefore fell together, but besides this
motion towards a common centre we must suppose they had a
motion of rotation about that centre. In rushing together they
generated heat by their collisions, or, in more learned language,
their potential energy was changed to heat. As the condensing
mass cooled by radiation it split up partly, and portions became
detached from the main body which repeated the process for
themselves on a smaller scale. These formed the planets, while
the main body continued to co"flensc into the sun. As the
planets condensed they, in like ii^^nner, threw off, or rather I
should say left behind, moons, or rings as in the case of Saturn.
Owing to its vastly larger mass, and partly perhaps on accoimt
of its originally higher temperature, the sun has cooled less com-
pletely than the smaller bodies of the system. It is still enor-
mously hot, so hot as to be a grand dispenser of radiant energy,
but it is a spendthrift living wastefully on its capital : it is
radiating out energy without receiving anything like the
equivalent of what it gives, so that its store is steadily diminish-
ing. Tho earth, though still enormously hot in its interior, has
»i'.
IL]
The ar/c of the Earth.
65
long ago cooled sufiiciently to admit of life on its surface. T, o
know, however, with much certainty that it was formerly in a
molten state, far too hot to admit of life. The question then
arises — and it is a question of no small interest — how long ago
did the earth cool down sufiiciently to be a habitation for living
beings '? Sir AVilliam Thomson has succeeded in giving an ap-
proximate answer to this question. Three independent lines of
reasoning have led to the conclusion that something like fifteen
millions of years is the longest time during which life can have
existed on the earth. The calculation is at best a rough one, and
perhaps wo should say fifty millions instead of fifteen. At any
period much earlier than that, the surface of the globe must
have been too hot for tho existence, not only of such living
things as wo now find on it, but of any conceivable form of
organic life.
And now, if we look forward instead of looking back, wo
sec that the separation of the planets from tho central mass,
which occurred during the original contraction, is only a
temporary thing, only a postponement of their ultimate fate.
Their speed of rotation round the central sun diminishes
continually, and they tend to fall in towards it with a slow
spiral motion. The earth will by and by be engulphed, and
when it falls in, it will at least serve this good purpose, that it
will supply the sun with a largo addition to the stock of heat
energy which is radiated out for the use of such of tho other
planets as will still bo outside to receive it. I need not say
that this catastrophe would put an end to all terrestrial life ; if,
indeed, that had not died before from an altogether different
cause. The processes of growth and nourishment depend
essentially on tho radiation which wo receive from the sun ; and
if that were greatly diminished no life could exist on the earth.
Now, the sun is a hot body in the act of cooling, «o a time must
come when, even if the earth bo still pursuing au iudepcndeut
)fd
';«P'
66
The final catastrophe.
[Lect.
%
•u
path, the sun's rays will ho too feoblo to keep up animal and
vegetable li'e. Life, then, may be frozen out or it maybe burnt
out ; but one way or other it will come to an end within a finite
length of time.
We may regard this grand process of cosmical development
either as a history of globe structure, that is of aggregations of
matter, or as a history of transformations of energy. We believe
it to be in the main a true history, not only of our solar system,
which forms a mere speck in the immensity of the visible
universe, but of all stars, individually and collectively. Con-
sidered as a structural change, it is a progress from a state of
very widely separated particles to an accumulation of everything
into one vast lump. And the very fact that the large masses
now visible to us are of finite size is held by some physicists to
be a proof that the process has not been going on forever — in
other words, that the visible universe has had its origin in time.
Considered as a history of the transformations of energy, it is a
progress from the potential form, due to the distribution through
space of gravitating matter, to the form of heat dissip ♦^^cd into
space, or uniformly diffused in a manner which makes impossible
all farther transformations, all \ ital and mechanical actions. We
may form a mental picture, however imperfect, of this action, by
comparing the universe to a clock, M'hich has been running for
some time since it has been wound ud. If it receives no further
supply of energy from outside, the clock inevitably runs down,
that is to say, after a time its activities cease. A few more ticks
of the pendulum, and all is silence and rest. And so, looking
back, we can infer a time when a hand must have interposed to
wind up the weights and start the wheels in the orderly routine
by which they carry out their maker's purposes. I do not
mean to imply that the creation of the energy of the
universe must have taken place within a iinite limit of
past time : that would, I think, be a I'uir iufereucu only if
II.] Evolntiony of itself, detennines nothhirj.
67
tlio universe were, like the clock, a finite system. But we
do not get rid of creation by pushing it back into the past ;
and the whole process, whether wo regard it as a structural
change or a transformation of energy, is nothing more than a
statement that something follows when we have given something
else. We may go back and back, still we shall always come to
a state of things which requires explanation as much as does
the present. In thiit early state, wherever we pause to regard
it, we may see the worlds as they now exist potentially contained,
and the question of why they arc there will bo just as difficult —
as hopeless of scientific solution — as the question of why they
are here now. To say that things have assumed their
present forms by a process of evolution is no contradiction
of the Christian idea that they are what they are because it
is God's will that they should be so. Evolution is no
more than a certain method of change, and a method of
change does not of itself make worlds ; to do that requires a
method of change working on materials which already exists in
certain states. We only shift the direct action of the Creator a
step further back, for if wo conceive that in the original configu-
ration of the material whose development we have been tracing,
the complex activities and results of Nature as we know them
were latent, then of course we may fairly ascribe them to the
will of the Creator, just as much as if they were direct results of
his action. The truth is, that law of itself determines nothing ;
it must have an original structure to modify ; and the same law,
acting on an originally difterent form, would have given wholly
different results. When we say that the development of suns
and planets is the necessary result of the law of gravitation, we
say what is perfectly true ; but it is just as true, I conceive, to
say that their development is the continuous unfolding of the
purposes of God. If wo choose so to regard it, science can say
nothing against the statement. And thus it has been truly
98
as
3
68
The indnterminate ^^rohlom
[Lect.
B 'i
I
.J
4
I
said that, even if we adopt the most strictly mechanical view of
natural events, the whole outcome of the universe is the reeult
of will acting by law.
This point, which I hold to be an immensely important
one, has been treated with much clearness by the late Professor
Jevons in his admirable work on the Principles of Science, and
I cannot enforce it better than by quoting his words : — ** Even
assuming that all matter, when once distributed through space
at the Creation, was thenceforth to act in an invariable manner
without subsequent interference, yet the actual configuration of
matter at any moment, and the consequent results of the law of
gravitation must have been entirely a matter of free choice.
" The original conformation of the material universe was,
so far as wo can possibly tell, free from all restriction. There
was unlimited space in which to frame it, and an unlimited
number of material particles, each of which could be placed in
any one of an infinite number of different positions. It must
also be added that each particle might bo endowed with any one
of an infinite number of degrees of vis viva [kinetic energy]
acting in any one of an infinitely infinite number of difi'erent
directions. The problem of creation was, then, what a mathe-
matician would call an indeterminate problem, and it was
indeterminate in an infinitely inihiite number of ways. Infinitely
numerous and various universes might then have been fashioned
by the various distribution of the original nebulous matter,
although all the particles of matter should obey the one law of
gravity.
" Lucretius tells us how in tho original rain of atoms some;
of these little bodies diverged from the vectilinenl direction, and
coming into contact with other atoms gave rise to the various
combinations of substances and phenomena which exist. He
omitted, indeed, to tell us whence the atoms came, or by what
force some of them wore caused to diverge, but surely these
iH
II.]
of Creation.
69
omissions involve the whole question. I accept the Lucrctian
conception of creation when properly supplemented. Every
atom which existed in any point of space must have existed there
previously, or must have been created there by a previously
existing power. "When placed there it must have had a definite
mass and a definite energy, kinetic or potential as regards other
existing atoms. Now, as before remarked, an unlimited number
of atoms can be placed in unlimited space in an entirely un-
hmited number of modes of distribution. Out of inlhiitely
inlinito choices which were open to the Creator, that one choice
must have been made which has yielded the universe as it
now exists." ^
The position hero laid down by Jevons refers not merely to
the recognition of Globe Development as the action of an
intelligent Creator : it has a much wider application than that.
If we conceive, as some persons do conceive, that all natural
events, even those which seem to be determined by the free
action of living beings, are simple dynamical results of the
previous positions and motions of material particles — if we take
this extreme view of the universe as a gigantic mechanism — the
idea which runs through the passage just quoted has an
immensely important signilicance. For then, while wo recognise
all pht .rmcna as latent in the primeval configuration and
motion of the atoms, we must also regard them as being the
necessary thougli indirect results of the will of the Creator, to
whom that primeval arrangement is ascribed. And let no one
say that by such a conception wo bani.sh the Creator from the
world he has made — that our God is a god who sits with folded
hands, while the wheel-work he luis set in motion grinds on
lioedless and unheeded. " An infinite mind must of necessity
foresee all the infinite results and outcomes, and foresee them as
i
> I'rinciplcs ol Science, Vol II. p. 133.
i.-^
f^^. !
70
Chem leal Dcvcloijvicnt.
[Lect.
.1'
i
I,
tliG results of the original constitution, and therefore all the
subsequent effects are really (ktermincd by that mind. The
objection which is sometimes urged against this mechanical
view, that it throws the Divine action into an infinitely distant
past, and excludes Ilim from the present, argues an imperfect
conception of the Divine mind, which is equally present through-
out all time ; and every effect of a perfect machine is as truly
the effect of will, when it is comprehended in the original design
of the machine, as when it is produced by the will of the work-
man acting through the machine. So that even on this strictly
mechanical view it must be admitted that the whole outcome of
the universe is the result of will acting by law."^
Returning now to the development of the universe as we are
able to study it by scientific methods, we come to the question, —
Do the different kinds of stuff* or matter out of which sun and
planets are alike made up, differ from each other in a way
which we can account for by supposing them in their turn to
have been developed from some simpler, more universal stuff' ?
In other words, docs our knowledge of the structure of matter
favour the idea of Chemical Development ? To deal with this
question fully would take up far more time than we can spare ;
but we may briefly notice one or two points.
To the old question, arc there atoms (things which cannot
be cut), or can we imagine the subdivision of a piece of matter
to be carried on without limit ? physical science has not supplied
an answer. But we do know that if the process of cutting up,
say a drop of water, were repeated over and over again often
enough, we should after a finite numl)cr of cuttings come to
pieces which were no longer pieces of water at all, but something
different from water and from each other. The smallest parts
into which wo can divide a substance without causing it to lose
> Dp. Cottcrill. Transactions of (be Victoria Institute, Vol. XII, p. 329.
II.] Marvellous similarity of the Molecules
71
its characteristic properties are called molecules, and we have
good grounds for believing that all substances possess a molecular
structure. In fact, by making this supposition wo are able to
explain a great many of the observed properties of gross matter
by reference to the simplest principles of dynamics.
Now, in following out this theory, we lind that the molecules
of any one substance are alike to an extraordinary degree of
exactness. By the help of the spectroscope wo are able to ex-
amine the molecular structure of the materials of the stars and
the nebul.T), and wo find, not only that these materials are
substantially the samo as those which build up our own earth, but,
more than this, the molecules of which they are composed possess,
with a marvellous precision, the same forms and properties as
the molecules which compose the same substances here. We
know, for example, that any one of the millions of molecules of
hydrogen in Sirius vibrates in (as far as we can measure) precisely
the same periods as any one of the millions of molecules of
hydrogen in the sun, or as any one of the millons of molecules of
hydrogen in the flame of a lamp ; tind when we Ihid that two elastic
structures vibrate alike, not only in one fundamental mode,
but in many, we may safely conclude that their forms must
be very exactly alike. Of course we cannot prove absolute
identity; indeed, even if there were absolute identity in the period
of vibration, the motions of the molecules amongst each other
would cause slight variations in the frequencies of the waves of
light which reach an observer. But we may certainly say that
we have experimental proof that the molecules of any one sub-
stance, enormously numerous and widely distributed as they
are, possess an identity of form far exceeding that which by any
process of manufacture wo can give to industrial products. The
molecules of hydrogen or the molecules of sodium, whether we
bring them from the depths of the earth or examine them in the
most distant star, resemble each other far more closely than do
is
J}
a
72 They differ from inQdnds of EiwhUlon. [Lect.
coins struck from the same die, or bullets cast in the same mould.
Now it is cliaractcristic of tho i)ro(luct8 of evolution (so far as wo
can tell what arc products of evolution by watching the process
itself) that they possess a certain considerable unlikencss as
well as a certain considerable likeness. Variation amidst
similarity — that is the very condition on whose existence the
process of development depends. ]iotli in the development of
worlds from nebulous mist and in the transformation of species
by natural selection (as wo shall see presently) the products arc
decidedly not all alike. But amongst the vast numbers of
molecules of any one substance which we find scattered through
space we can detect no dissimilarity, and it seems a fair — at least
R probable — conclusion that they are not results of evolution.
So far as wo can judge, tho molecules are " the only material
things which still remain in the precise condition in which
they first began to exist. "^ Or if in their formation there has
been any process to which we can give the name of development,
it must have been of a kind very different from the process
which we sec at work in the structural changes of gross matter
and in the progression of organic forms.
There appears to be some prospect that the old chemical
separation of the various kinds of matter into a certain number
of elements, incapable of further resolution, may in time be
abandoned. We may perhaps come to recognise the so-called
elements as composite structures, built up of some one primitive
substance. The chemical speculations of Prout and the recent
researches in spectroscopy of Lockyer favour this view* ; but in
that case the remafks which have just been made as to tho
manufactured character of tho molecules would apply with
undiminished force io the primitive pieces whose simple
combinations give rii^e to the so-called elements.
t~- -■ r'
H ■
I: ■:
V >
^ Maxwell. Theory of Ucat, p. i>12.
%
II.J
Thomi^on's Vortex Atoms.
73
I must not leave this subject of the structure of matter
without mentioning the remarkable suggestion wliich Sir
William Thomson has made as to the possibility of having true
physical atoms, pieces which cannot bo cut, without ascribing
to them the inconceivable property of infinite hardness. The
idea is that an atom is a vortex ring, or other form of vortex
movement — the same kind of movement as a smoker sometimes
produces in the smoky air which issues from his lips — but the
vortices which form the atoms of nuitter exist, according to
Thomson, in a continuous lluid iilling all space, and destitute of
inti'rnal friction. If this is the character of the atom, nothing
short of an act of creative power could produce it, even when
the raw material, so to speak, that is the continuous lluid,
was given. And, again, nothing short of a miraculous or
non-natural intervention could bring the vortex to rest after
once it was set in motion. On this theory, even if we were
supplied with as much of the raw material of atoms as wo
chose to ask for — the clay of which our bricks are made — wo
should be ])owerkss to add one to the number of atoms already
existing or to reduce their number l)y one. This is l)ecause
the lluid in which the vortex movement is supposed to exist
is frictionless : but if wo suppose instead that 'i is nearly but not
quite frictionless, we get two very curious results. For then, in
the iirst place, can wo conceive of the development of matter out
what is not matti;r (I say conceive of it — nothing more than
that, for we have no means of picturing the process to our
minds, and not a particle of evidence that such a process ever
occurs). And further, we should then be able to extend our
vision into the future of the universe in a very wonderful way :
for if the atoms are vortices in a lluid which possesses ever so
little viscosity, they must in time die out altogether, and so wo
should be able to predict the total disappearance of matter
itself! The doctrine of the dissipation of energy has led us,
lU
I', '
74
Possihlc dUnpppiirnncc of (jross laaiter, [Lect.
with much certainty, to conclude that the end of gloho develop-
ment will be a huge inert mass, in which all the matter of the
worlds shall ho gathered together ; hut the speculation I am
now reproducing takes us a long way further than that. It
takes us to a time when, one after another, the atoms shall molt
into space — to a time when "we shall have no huge useless inert
mass existing to remind the passer-hy [if there he a passer-hy]
of a form of energy and a species of matter that is long since
out of date "^ — to a time when the universe shall have buried
its dead out of sight. It will at least serve to bring vividly
before us the feebleness of our faculties, if wo conceive of the
visible universe itself as nothing more than a collection of
tiny whirlpools, which a little while ago were not, and a little
later will sink to rest ; and yet in their brief moment of being
we find the best help we know of in our attempts to realize that
infinite duration which is an attribute of God.
But we must come down from those high regions of physi-
cal dream-land to more sober ground. "We find on the surface
of the earth many different khids of living things, and it is a
part of the business of science to trace the historical connection
between what we see now and the much earlier stage in the
earth's existence to which a consideration of globe development
brought us — the stage, namely, when the surface had just cooled
sufficiently to allow animals and plants to live. In other words
we must consider the evolution or development of life. And the
question at once arises, were the various forms of living things
which now exist separately created, or were they developed from
some more primitive form, as the suns and planets have been
developed from nebula)? Long before the time of Darwin,
naturalists advanced the hypothesis that the various species
have sprung from a common stock ; but it was left to Darwin
^Tbo Unyccu Uaivcrac (Stewart und Tuit), p. 110.
m
II.] Life Development hij Artificial Sotection, 75
and Wallace, and especially Danvin, to take the truly immense
stop of reducing the speculation to a scientific theory, and to
show how, hy natural means, such a process of descent may
have occurred. The theory of descent, and the explanation of
that theory hy reference to natural selection, are contrihutions
to science whose importance cannot easily he overrated. For tho
))onelit of those now present whose knowledge of Life Develop-
ment is even more imperfect than my own, I shall endeavour to
give an outline of it, though, as the suhject is one out of tho
range of my own studies, such an outline will most likely he
faulty as well as incomplete.
Along with the fact that children resemhle their parents, we
find that tlii.^ reserahlance is not exact, that they differ more or
less from their parents and from each other. Tho fact of tho
likeness to parents is called Heredity, the fact of the unlikeness
is called Variation. Thus, amongst say tho descendants of a
pair of sheep, wo will find some with longer hodies and shorter
legs than others. And it will occasionally happen that tho
difference is so great as to have a large inlluenco on the
hahits of the animal. For example, if a sheep is horn with an
unusually long hody and short legs, it will not ho ahle to jump
over fences which other sheep can jump over, and some of its
children will share this peculiarity while others will not. Sup-
pose, then, that the farmer who owns tho sheep sees the henefit
of having a flock which will stay at home; he can take advantage
of heredity to hreed a race with long hodies and short legs.
He can do this hy letting the common kind die without off-
spring, and encouraging the hrceding of the long-hodied sheep ;
and in course of time all his flock will he of the long-hodied
kind. Now this is not a fancy picture : it is the real story of
what a real farmer once did, a ' 'cute ' Yankee of Massachusetts.
Wo see here how a new and permanent variety of living
heings may arise by a process of artificial selection ; but when
e
ai!
fSStm
ml
mm*
ftmm
?
Mount Aiiibun Univfcfiiiji.
Ralph Pickard BeU
Library -
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)
!!!
1.0
I.I
1.25
*^ 1^ ill 2.2
Sf 1^ lllllio
1 1.8
U IIIIII.6
V]
<^
4V^
L<S>
''1:1 I
if; '■
76 Develojmicnt of Sj^ecies hy Natural Selection. [Lect.
Ave attempt to explain all the actual distinctions of species and
genera as accumulated results of similar small changes, we
must look for some determining agency other than New England
farmers. Darwin supplies the want hy pointing to the Struggle
for Existence, the battle of life in which individual fights with
mdividual and race with race — fights simply to live, and the
weaker goes to the wall. Now, if small variations occur which
give to the possessors of them some advantage, however little,
in this universal struggle, these individuals will stand a greafcer
chance of success than their less fortunate neighbours. They
are more likely to thrive and propagate their kind. Any
peculiarity which makes an animal or a plant better suited to
the circumstances of its existence will tend to become permanent
and to be incensified in succesive generations ; while those
individuals, otherwise similar and exposed to the same condi-
tions, but who do not possess the same peculiarity, will tend to
die out. And besides the changes which occur from generation
to generation, it is observed that within the life-time of a single
individual there is an adaptation of its organism to the condi-
tions of its life, and this too, by heredity, tends to be passed on
to its successors. You will readily see that this process of
Natural Selection takes advantage not only of such considerable
variations as those we had an example of in the case of the
sheep, but also of such minor variations as occur at every birth
and in the lifetime of every individual. And as time goes on the
successive small differences are added together, and hence it is
easy to imagine that in the course of ages very great changes
will result. In this way, then, it is conceivable that a man, a
bird and a fish may have had a common ancestor, one of whose
progenitors Avas perhaps also the remote grand-parent of a star-
fish or a worm. And, indeed, so ill-defined — so impossible of
definition — appears to be the boundary between plant and animal
life, that wo need not be surprised if the pine and the bamboo
IL]
Cellular Stnicture.
77
succeed in making good a claim to cousinsbip -with man. Tims
the more advanced followers of Darwin have endeavoured to
trace the pedigree of the human species down through lower
forms of animal life, forms not necessarily the same as those
now extant, to a primitive creature belonging to the class which
Haeckel calls " not only the simplest of all observed organisms,
but even the simplest of all imaginable organisms."^
But this is not by any means the whole of the story.
Biologists tell us that if we examine a very simple form of living
creature — the Amocha, we shall find it to consist of a little lump
of soft material, which perpetually changes its form in response
to the stimuli which reach it from outside. A central part
somewhat firmer than the rest, called the nucleus, is its only
apparent approach to organization. But this being is able to
perform the three great functions of life : it is irritable, that is, it
responds to external influences ; it nourishes itself by stretching
out parts of its own soft substance as temporary hands to gather
in food; and it produces other creatures of its kind, by the simple
process of splitting up into two pieces, each of which thenceforth
lives an independent life.
Now every more complex organism is found to be built up
of a great number of simple pieces grouped together. These
simple pieces are called cells, and each of them resembles to
some extent an Amceha. Each of them consists essentially of a
little lump of the same soft substance, with a firmer nucleus,
and each of them is believed to possess a certain degree
of individual life. But they are not wholly independent, for the
myriads of cells in the body of one individual work together to
maintain the life of that individual, just as the myriads of
officials in Japan are component parts of the central govern-
ment, while each one possesses a certain amount of separate
el*
'SI'
as
■MM*'
at:
'History of Creation, Vol. I, p. 343.
1
f'' "
Hi'
»
''HP
i.'(,f Jl,.'
m
■'Pi '
78
Ontogenesis.
[Lect,
authority. The cells do this by grouping themselves into
parties, which divide the labour of living by performing different
functions. Some cells carry on the work of digestion. Some
cells form the nerves which carry stimuli up to the brain;
some cells make up the brain itself ; some cells form the nerves
which carry the messages of the brain to the muscles ; while
other cells compose the muscles whose duty it is to translate
those messages into action. And all organisms, plants and
animals alike, consist of a greater or smaller number of cells :
in very low forms, such as an Ama-ha, there is only one cell
which constitutes the creature ; in the higher forms, such as
man, there are countless millions.
Next, if you take any individual of the many-celled kind
and trace its own separate life-history backwards, you will find
that it began to exist as a single cell. The egg or germ in which
a plant or an animal begins, in general, its individual life, is a
single cell, and the earliest stage of its development consists in
this cell multiplying itself as an Amonha does, by splitting up
into two cells. Theea two cells, however, remain together as
component parts of the one animal or plant, but they nevertheless
possess enough independent vitality to multiply themselves, in
their turn, by splitting up each into two cells, making four in
all. These again divide, and so the process goes on, the cells
becoming more and more numerous and more and more various,
their variety suiting them to the various kinds of work they have
to do, in promoting the unity and welfare of the being whose
parts they are. It is at least conceivable that any single complex
organism is built up as the result of a process of natural selection
in the struggle for life amongst individual cells, just as t)ie sum
of living beings on the earth's surface is, according to Darwin,
the result of a similar process acting amongst individual
organisms.
We have, then, two aspects of life development: the develop-
mmf^
11.]
" S^wntaneoKS Generation."
79
ment of different races from a common stock, and the development
of an individual composed of many cells from a single cell.
About this latter process there can be no doubt ; naturalists tell
us that it takes place under their very eyes. And we can easily
understand that any one who has watched the marvellous
changes by which an egg or germ grows into a highly organised
animal, or a seed into a tree, will have little difficulty in
accepting as possible and even very probable the theory which
asserts that in the course of ages beings like Amcche have been
gradually transformed into man. Nor need we wonder that the
development of an animal from its primitive germ has been
regarded as a brief repetition of the long process by which an
ancestral race of beings like the germ were changed into the
species to which the animal belongs ; so that the atory of the
individual's early growth is a history in miniature of the evolu-
tion of its race.
Supposing then that we recognise the multitude of species
now inhabiting the earth as descendants of some very simple
race of beings, say even of a single germ, the question at once
faces us, — Whence came that germ ? And the answer which
some naturalists, though by no means all, would give, is that
it arose by what is awkwardly called spontaneous generation,
out of common lifeless matter. This of course leads to the
further question — Have we any experimental evidence to show
that a living being is ever produced out of not-living matter ?
To this question the answer is decidedly "No;" in all cases where
we have seen livin" beings produced, they are the descendants of
other living beingL. At first sight it might seem to be otherwise.
If you take, say, a solution of sugar — not a living thing — and
let it stand for a time, you will find it soon swarm with simple
organisms. But it has been proved with great certainty that
in all such cases the organisms really come from germs, carried
by the air or by other means to the liquid in which life appears;
ri
?ii *>■
t
80
The Meteoric Transfer.
[Lect.
and if you take sufficient care to keep the germs of life out, the
liquid will remain lifeless as long as you choose to preserve it.
Of course, to say that we have no evidence that life ever comes
except from life, is not the same thing as to assert that life
never under any circumsi,an has come or can come except
from life : but I think I am right in saying that most naturalists
incline to the belief that the doctrine omne viviuii ex vivo is true
throughout all space and all time.
Now we saw that some fifteen or it may be fifty miu'ons of
years ago the earth was too hot to permit of life on its surface.
And when it cooled, if life did not originate on it by spontaneous
generation, must wo suppose an act of creation to have taken
place ? Not necessarily ; for as Helmholtz and Thomson have
suggested, the germs of life may have come to the earth from
other globes, borne by those stray fragments which we know
sometimes strike our planet. And indeed it is not impossible
that meteoric stones may have more than once been the carriers
of creatures, in different stages of development ; so that we may
to a certain extent imagine that the process of evolution of
species, whose results we now witness, did not all happen on
the surface of the earth in the comparatively short period during
which terrestrial life has been possible, but took place partly
throughout the wider theatre, during the far longer ages, and
under the more various atmospheric conditions, which other
worlds have doubtless afforded. Even taking this view, however,
of the origin of terrestrial life, it is scarcely possible to suppose
that living beings have existed in the visible universe for as
long a time as dead matter.
When we attempt to conceive of the formation of a living
being out of dead matter by any natural process, we are l^rought
face to face Avith the grand problem, — What is life ? Are its
characteristics essentially different from the characteristics of
matter, or can we suppose that a suitably arranged collection of
I
II.]
What is Life?
81
common molecules would possess the qualities of a living
being ? To put the question in other words : Is an animal a
machine in the same sense in which a nteam engine with its
boiler is a machine ?
As a matter of definition it is, I believe, usual to call a
thing living when it has three characteristics. It must feed
itself ; it must respond to stimuli ; and it must possess, at
least potentiall}^ the capacity of producing others of its kind.
Now we could certainly imitate any one or all of these actions
by a sufficiently complex mechanism. We could make, or
rather we could assert that a clever engineer, with plenty of
materials, men, time and tools at his command, could make
a machine which would kick when it was pricked, so to speak;
which could stoke itself with energy, provided a supply of energy
was put within its reach ; and which could even go on turning
out other machines like itself. In fact, the visible phenomena
of vitality are conceivahhj nothing more than mechanical.
Please do not suppose me to say that they are nothing more
than mechanical : all we can say is that the actions which
are performed by an Amccha or by any higher organism, in
response to any stimulus, are conceivably not different in kind
from the actions which take place when a touch is given to the
valve of an engine or to the contact- making key of a telegraph.
And therefore the passage from not-living matter to a living
being is thinkable, so far as the merely visible qualities of that
being are concerned : I say it is thinkable, although we have
no evidence to show that such a passage has ever occurred.
Now let us pursue this very important point a step farther.
Suppose one of you were to run a pin into me : you would find
that I possessed the property of irritability, which is one of the
essential properties of a living being. For I should respond to
your stimulus by giving a start and perhaps making a sound.
Those actions, however, would not prove that I am essentially
11
iS
"SIS'
■Minv
mm
as
Cm*'*
Si
82
Vitality ■perhai)S mechanical ;
[Lect.
ii-fl.
different from dead matter : they would only i)rove that I am
possessed of a very complex structure. For you might fairly
say that the mechanical disturbance which the prick produced
caused those mechanical actions through a perfectly mechanical
chain of sequence. You set a sensory nerve throbbing : its
vibrations travelled up until they came to a point of communica-
tion with motor nerves. The message passed down these to
the muscles, w^hich consequently contracted, and movement
and sound were the results. Of course you cannot rigorously
trace the sequence, nor see exactly how each motion happens
as the dynamical consequence of those which precede it ; but
still, here is a series of events which perhaps follow each other in
as strict a mechanical order as the movements of an engine
follow the touching of its valve. So far then as ijoii can judge
from this pin-pricking experiment, you see nothing about me
which cannot, possibly, be explained as matter and the motion
of matter.
But I know better. I know that, besides all this train of
physical events, there has been something else which is of a wholly
different kind. / u'cis conscious of your pin-prick, I felt pain.
And so we find that, in addition to the effects of the prick
which were visible to you, there were others of which I alone was
directly aware. Now the question is, are these latter — the facts
of consciousness — explainable as matter or the motions of matter ?
Or, to put it more generally, are they in any possible way physical
in the sense that matter and electricity and chemical actions
and energy generally are physical ? For if so, then clearly we
should have no room for any other gospel than a gospel of
matter, and the idea that the death of the body is not the end
of the individual life would be on the face of it absurd. If
we could express thought and feeling in terms of the things
which physical science deals Avith, then the only possible
philosophy for us would be materialism. From the clash of dead
II.]
Consciousness certainly not.
83
and senseless atoms would spring the whole universe, including
ourselves, our hopes and loves and pains, our grand capacities
for good or ill. If this were the verdict of science, then indeed
we should be compelled to believe that she stands to all religion
in the attitude of a deadly enemj' — nay, of a conqueror who gives
no quarter.
But, happily, we are driven to no such tremendous conclusion.
For it is the clear and unanimous verdict, alike of modern
science and philosophy, that there is not only no analogy, but no
conceivable analogy, between the phenomena of dead matter, or
even between the visible phenomena of living matter, and tho
phenomena of consciousness. We can see in the vital acts of an
animal or a plant enough resemblance to the properties of
inorganic structures, to say that perhaps there may be no
essential difference between the phenomena of living matter and
those of lifeless matter. But when we attempt to pass from the
visible manifestations of life to feeling and thought, we find a
gulf over which science has thrown and can throw no bridge.
AVe are forced, each of us for himself, to conclude that this body
with its functions and possibilities is not all : that there is
something else, called mind, which is the seat of these higher
activities, a something of which the body itself is but the
clothing and the instrument. Thus in his own consciousness
every man possesses an avenue leading out into the unseen,
away from matter and the properties of matter, away from
organisms and the functions of organisms, into a region where
science is powerless to follow.
We have good reason to believe that every thought which
passes through the mind is associg-ted with some movement or
physical notion of the cells which build up the brain ; and that
if those cells were removed, the mysterious link which connects
consciousness with the body would be broken, although certani
vital functions might still be exercised. And it might seem
iB
84
Mindt the first reality.
[Lect.
tt
natural, to a superficial view, to conclude that thought and
feeling are nothing but those ph5'sical actions, and that the
mind is nothing but the brain. I am well aware that a too
exclusive study of the material universe and a realization of the
fact that perhaps all visible vital actions are purely physical ,
may tend to make a man rush to the conclusion that material-
ism is a true or at least a possible philosophy ; to exclaim,
"everything is matter, or the affections of matter." But
when I come to examine the grounds of my knowledge of
matter and the affections of matter, I find that the point
from which I start — the postulate Avhich I take without proof
as the basis of my system — is none other than this : I am a
conscious thinker. I know the universe only as it affects my con-
sciousness. These things which I call matter and the motion of
matter are no more than assumptions which I have made to
account for certain of my states of consciousness ; and a state of
consciousness cannot exist without a thinking mind. To my
own mind, then, I must ascribe a reality far greater than any
reality I may choose to ascribe to the external universe. Indeed
you could not contradict me if I were to say, with Berkeley, that
the external universe has no reality at all — " its being is to be
perceived or known." I do not say that ; but if you will think
how impregnable even that extreme position is, you will easily
realize how absurd would be the statement that a state of con-
sciousness is an affection of matter, when all we know of matter
and its qualities is learnt by postulating consciousness first
of all. In fact " if I were obliged to choose between absolute
materialism and absolute idealism, I should feel compelled
to accept the latter alternative." These last are not my
words : they are the words of a deservedly honoured teacher
of science, a great physiologist and a thorough-going apostle of
evolution — Professor Huxley,^ who has in the same place ex-
^ Critiques aud Addresses, p. 3U aud p. 293.
II.]
I am more than an organism.
85
pressed his conviction of tlie " great truth," " that the
honest and rigorous following uji of the argument which leads
us to materialism, inevitably carries us beyond it."
Obviously in all this we have no proof of a future life :
what I contend is merely that science does not disprove it.
What she teaches me is that I am more then a countless
aggregate of molecules, more than a collection of cells, more than
a highly organized individual unit of vitality. She teaches me
that there is something which is more truly myself than any of
those, and transcends them all.
That this something is connected by ties of closest union
with the outward and visible part is certain : that it may not
be capable of living on when those tics are broken we dare not
say. And if we feel, as some have seemed to feel, the need for
imagining an embodiment by which in the future life a memory
of the past shall be preserved, a physical link between the future
and the present, science is even able to suggest how such an
embodiment may be supplied.^
My knowledge that I am a conscious being is a kind of
knowledge which I can have with regard to myself alone. My
knowledge of other men is entirely derived through physical
channels, and cannot directly teach me that they too are
conscious. But when I find an essential similarity between
their visible characteristics and my own, it is a natural and
proper step to conclude that they, like myself, are the habitations
of conscious minds. Here, however, the analogy stops. We
recognise each other to be conscious without the smallest
hesitation ; but we cannot be certain that the lower animals
are so : we can scarcely deny consciousness to a dog or a horse ;
on the otlier hand, we have a great deal of difficulty in
imagining the mind of an oyster or a mushroom ; still more
*See " The Unseen Universe," by Profs. Stewart and Tait.
86
Science and ImmortaUtij.
[Lect.
ill
\U
1
in conceivin,q of any liiglier attributo than vitality as the
separate possession of the colls which build up any complex
organism ; while it takes an unusually bold speculator to fancy
that a molecule thinks and feels. And so we have no scientific
means of tracing the development of our invisible jart in the
Fame way we have traced the development of on;- bodies. Wo
may speculate about cell souls, and a rudimentary consciousness
inherent in matter, provided we do not fall into the error of
calling our speculations science : and I am not aware that they
will in any case have special interest to the Christian. For him
it is enough that he has a soul — how evolved he docs not know ;
his concern is with its character and its destiny. And he cares
little whether in the after life ho shall find othsr messengers
from earth than the souls of his fellow men, and whether he
shall inhabit a form whose parts are the projections into futurity
of the dead vital fragments of which his earthly body Avas com-
posed. In truth, the absence of all likeness between the spiritual
and the bodily side of our nature precludes us from applying to
the former the results of our study of the latter, and bafHes all
speculation which would trace continuity in the development of
mind as we seek to trace it in the development of body. In his
longing for a future, in which he may go on towards that perfec-
tion he sees to be so unattainable here, and yet so supremely
worthy of attainment, man stands alone, apart from all the
brutes ; and it may well be that he, the only aspirant, is the
only possessor ; that his alone is the gift of eternal life.
The attitude of science towards the doctrine of the im-
mortality of the soul has been admirably summed up by Clerk
Maxwell in a single sentence : — " The progress of science," ho
says, "so far as we have been able to follow it, has added nothing
of importance to what has always been known about the physical
consequences of death, but has rather tended to deepen the
distinction between the visible part, which perishes before our
II.]
Summarij of results.
87
f
eyes, and that which we are ciirselves, and to show that this
porsonahty, with respect to its nature as well as to its destiny,
lies quite beyond the range of science."^
We have now taken a brief but comprehensive glance over
the field where evolution may with more or less distinctness be
discerned in the physical world. And it onlj' remains to indicate
what I hope many of you have already seen for yourselves — that
there is absolutely nothing in the idea of physical evolution, extend
it as we please, to afifect the fundamental articles of Christian
belief. I have already pointed out that it leaves the question of
the immortality of the soul exactly where that question was before
evolution took to itself a name. It gives no cli^e whatever as to the
purpose of the universe, and leaves us as free as we have always
been to see in all events the expression of the Divine will. Let
us take the extreme mechanical view, which an acceptance of
the evolution theory in its most extended shape would lead us
to take. Let us say that the whole physical world, including tho
living beings \i\ it, is at any moment the necessary result of tho
position, motion, and physical properties possessed by the
primitive atoms of which the cosmic mist was composed ; then
we have just as much need as ever of a First Cause to account
for that initial arrangement ; and the more clearly we recognise
the sum of actual events as potentially contained in the
primitive cosmic mist, the more surely may we assert that
everything happens of set purpose. I am glad in this
connection to be able to quote Professor Huxley, who, in
criticising Haeckel, has remarked that " the teleological and
the mechanical views of nature are not, necessarily, mutually
exclusive. On the contrary, the more purely a mechanist
the speculator is, the more firmly does he assume a primordial
molecular arrangement, of which all the phenomena of the
1 Nature, Vol. XIX, p. 143
m
mn
1
88
The teleological view.
[Lect.
universe are the consequences ; and the more completely is he
thereby at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always
defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular arrange-
ment was noL intended to evolve the phenomena of the
universe."^ And let me cite another witness, of the thoroughness
of whose evolutionism you will entertain no doubt. "We are
obliged," says Herbert Spencer, "to regard every phenomenon
as a manifestation of some Pow^r by which we are acted upon ;
though omnipresence is unthiUi ble, yet, as experience discloses
no bounds to the diffusion of phenomena, we are unable to
think of limits to the presence of this Power ; while the criticisms
of science teach us that this Power is incomprehensible. And
this consciousness of an incomprehensible Power, called omni-
present from inability to assign its limits, is just that conscious-
ness on which raHgion dwells."^
I can fancy that at this point some of you may saj^ — " this
conception of design in the arrangement of the primitive world-
stuff reconciles the idea of God, the Creator and. Ruler, with the
theory of evolution and the orderly procedure of nature : but we
fail to see how this God can be a God who hears and answers
prayer." To this I would briefly reply, that the more thorough
a believer j^ou are in evolution, the more readily you will admit
that the prayers we offer up are themselves potentially contained
in the original design, and that there is no scientific reason why
an answer to them should not be there also.
The time which remains is far too short to allow us to con-
sider fully this as well as many other subjects which crowd in
upon us. Two of them only I shall speak of very slortly:
namely, the relation of those events which are called miracles
to the order of nature ; and the physical aspect of the old
philosophic question of the freedom of the will.
^Gritiaues and addresses, p. 2H.
^First Principles, p. 99.
Mi
I'll it:
II.]
Miracle and Lair.
89
If bj' miracle wo mean an occm-rence wliicli lies outside of
the order of nature as that order is determined by our common
experience, then there are two ways in which we may reconcile
a belief in miracles with the teachings of science and the
scheme of evolution. In the first place, it may be that our com-
mon experience has led us to a conclusion which, though true
in general, is not universally true. The mathematician Babbage
showed that a machine — a mere collection of wheels and levers — •
might be made which would grind out results according to one
deiiuite law for any assignable time, and would at some fixed
instant (determined by the originjil construction and setting of
the machine) produce one exception to the general law, after
which it would return to that again, and all this without
any interference from outside. Now there is nothing incon-
ceivable in the idea that the primordial arrangement of atoms
which the extreme theory of evolution assumes may, like
Babbage's machine, in general give results following one observed
method, which, because it is usual, we call the law of its action,
and may also give occasional results of an exceptional character,
which we regard as violations of law only because we have
generalized too rashly. Or, to take another view : — there is
nothing in science to negative the idea that creative intelligence
may really interfere with the course of events, in the sense of
introducing a new action not dcducible from the preceding states
and actions of the system. There may be, from time to time,
real influences proceeding from the unseen, like those which, in
fact, we are forced to believe occurred at the creation of matter,
probably also at the first appearance of life, and possibly also
(as some scientific men maintain) at the first appearance of man.
The will of a higher being may, for all we can tell, affoct the course
of events, and tlie exercise of its influences may or may not bo
subject to conditions like those under which (as most of us
believe) the will of man has a real determining power.
BE
ais
m ■ i
mum
hmiim
as
6?!
i;-
12
90
Animal Automatism and
[Lect.
And this brings me to the last point to which I must ask
your attention — the relation of the human will to the course of
natural events.
Many actions that are performed by the body are per-
formed quite apart from any conscious volition — such as the
beating of the heart, or the ordinary act of breathing. And
when you wink your eyelids in response to a clap of the hands,
or the falling of a hammer on an anvil, or a sudden flash of light,
your body performs this action of its own accord. So far
as we can judge, such actions, done without the consciousness of
will, are strictly mechanical : a stimulus travels up a nerve, is
reflected, so to speak, down another, and starts the movement of
the appropriate muscles. Hence these actions are called reflc.v,
and in performing them the body is said to act automatically —
that is, like a machine which merely responds in a determinate
manner to mechanical influences. Now physiological observations
and experiments have shown that a great many very complicated
actions may be performed by the body of an animal or a man
under conditions which forbid us to suppose that there is either
volition or consciousness. A man, for instance, whose spinal
cord has been divided becomes incapable of feeling any pain in
the parts of his body below the place of injury, or of moving his
limbs at the dictation of his will. But these limbs are neverthe-
less able to move of themselves, and if you tickle his foot with
a feather you will find it is drawn up as vigorously as if he felt
the irritation, and as if he purposely sought to escape from it.
But he does not feel it, and even if he wished to draw up his
foot he could not do so : the leg literally moves of itself in
response to the stimulus : the action is apparently as truly
mechanical as the action of a telegraph instrument when the
operator touches its key. And it is astonishing to find what
complicated actions — actions which we should certainly hold to
be conscious uud intentional did we not know them to be un-
d2
II.l
the Freedom of the Will.
91
conscious and mechanical — can be performed by the animal
organism, or portions of, it in a purely reflex way. Take a frog
whose spinal cord is severed, and which therefore does not feel
pain in the lower ^f^-^ of its body, and cannot move them (if
we may reason by analogy from the case of the man), and touch
it with a drop of vinegar on one side below the point of injury.
The foot on the same side will rise and rub the place : and if
you hold the nearest foot down so that it cannot move, by and
by the other foot will rise, cross the body, and b'^gln to rub.^
Now if an action so apparently purposive and voluntary as
this can be done in a way which we are compelled to believe is
purely automatic, it is not out of the question to suppose that
even more complex actions may be so performed, or indeed that
all the movements of, say, a dog or a horse are nothing more
than mechanical consequences of mechanical influences. "We
cannot in fact be sure that the dog or the horse even feels and
knows what he is doing, still less that he wills and carries his
will into action. Descartes' speculations led him to assert that
beasts had no consciousness — that a horse does not feel the
whip although it starts in him a definite set of actions, as his
driver has learnt by experience. For the sake of the miserable
creatures who pull your omnibuses in the Ginza, I could wish
that Descartes were in the right. But then I know that I feel,
and since the part of my body which I have learnt to regard as
the organ of consciousness exists in a less developed condition in
the horse, it is a more probable and also a much safer view to
suppose that t' e horse docs feel too. Granting that an animal
feels, there is of course the other question, whether it also is
capable of determining what it shall do, by free volition. For all
wo can tell, its actions may be like the winking of our eyes when
a flash of light falls on them — a conscious but quite involuntary
wmem
Ihwim
as
SI
P
'Huxley. Nature, Vol. X, p. 3Ci.
92
Imfossihility of p'omir;
[Lect.
.,'i,j ' ;
act. And now we come to the practical aspect of the subject :
how does all tins hear on the actions of man ? I know that I
am conscious, hut am I really free, or simply a conscious
machine which goes by itself, the body keeping the mind in-
formed of its movements, but performing these just as a machine
would do, without finy control or interference by the mind ? Is
my body speaking these words by itself, by motions which are the
mere retiectiuns in my organism of certain physical influences
proceeding from outside, or the necessary results of certain
physical states of the machine itself ? Is this lecture as purely
a mechanical product as the tune of a barrel-organ ?
In support of this view it is urged that so many very complex
movements have been proved to be reflex that mere complexity
is no evidence of freedom. Some writers have even said
that the idea of the will influencing matter is nonsense ; that the
only thing which influences matter is the position of surrounding
matter or the motion of surrounding matter.^
On the other hand, it is asserted that our sense of freedom
of action (in certain cases and within certain limits) is as strong
and direct as any of our other facts of consciousness, and that
since all science is built up from our recognition of the facts of
consciousness, we should be in error if we were to deduce from
one set of these facts a conclusion which flies in the face of
another set. And it is also urged that we are ourselves conscious
of a distinction between certain acts which are merely reflex find
others which wo feel to be deliberate.^
Between the two views I shall not presume to offer a
decision. But if you say that the notion of will influencing
matter is " nonsense," it seems to me that you make the mistake
of carrying a conclusion derived from experience in one region into
iClill'oi'd, Lectiu'es and Essays, Vol. II, ]}. 50.
^Cai'pcutcr. Mcutal riiysioloyy, Tiefacc to the foui'tli edition.
II.]
that the Will is not free.
93
another region where the conditions are essentially different.
Our conclusion that the motion of matter is the only possihle
cause of other motions of matter is derived from observation of
matter where it is free from the influence of the human will — of
matter, in fact, which lies apart from any organism; and we have
no right to extend it to the very case which we purposely uvoid
in selecting the conditions of our experiment. Of course no one
believes that when a man's will acts he violates the doctrine of
the conservation of mfitter, or the conservation of energy, or the
conservation of momentmn. The will may nevertheless have a
true determining action subject to all these conditions. You
have only to imagine a stress between two particles of matter
which are moving in opposite directions in parallel lines, a stress
namely at right angles to the motion of each, to see that we
should then have a change of this motion, and conseciuently an
indefinitely large influence, without any change of the matter
or the energy or the momentum of the system. And if we
believe that certain molecular movements in the brain cause
states of consciousness, it seems unreasonable to deny that
the converse relation may also hold — that a state of conscious-
ness may be the cause of physical movement. No scientific
test that we can ever apply to an organism can prove
that an undetermined will has not a true determining power
over the actions of the organism — no test short of the
complete prediction, in all cases, of the actions which the
organism will perform. No one will be bold enough to say
that wc shall, with any practicable extension of our knowledge,
succeed in forecasting men's deeds as American meteorologists
succeed in forecasting the weather ; and hence there seems no
reason to hope that the old question of freedom or necessity
will ever find a solution at the hands of science.
In any case we may feel sure that our sense of freedom,
and with it ovr seneo of moral responsibility, will survive
r-'
SS6
aiis
MWI*
as
S:
K;,-5
,i^j
94
Conclusion.
[Lect. II.
j« It IS; 'fe
any intellectual speculation on or even conviction of physical
determinism. The distinguished men who have advocated
this view of human activity would be the first to repudiate
the idea that they are on that account less alive to the dis-
tinction of right from wrong, or less earnest in their efforts
to abhor evil and cleave to good. Their case is curiously
parallel to that of the Calvinists, who hold, as part of a religious
philosophy, that all our acts are not only foreknown but
predetermined by God. Far from letting this belief lessen their
sense of moral responsibility, the Calvinists furnish many of
the noblest examples of Christian faith and practice the world
has ever seen. We need have no fear that physiology or any
other science will make men either immoral or irreligious : if
it drives them into Calvinism they will, after all, liave small
reason for complaint.
We have gone over so much ground that your patience
must be grievously overtaxed, but the time will not have been
wasted though you carry away nothing more than my text, that
the study of nature does not conflict with the worship of God
through Christ. I have tried to show this in two ways : — by
reference to the opinions of scientific men ; and by an examina-
tion of those parts of science which have a bearing on religious
ideas, especially the theory of Evolution, which you are some-
times taught to regard as acting on Christian beliefs in a manner
like that in which carbolic acid acts on cholera germs. With that
kind of teaching you are more than sufficiently familiar, and
I would have you take it for just what it is worth. To give you
the means of doing this has been my object, and, if I have suc-
ceeded, you will be able to judge for yourselves how widely
removed from the true scientific spirit is the temper of those
who outrage the name of science and prostitute her authority,
by attempts to discredit a religion which they do not
understand and cannot injure.
^•^•i-
AN INTERLUDE/
t.-
REVIEW OF Mil. H. SPENCER'S *' FIRST PRINCIPLES."
Hold thou the good : define it well
For liar divine pliilo.soi)hy
Should push beyond her mark, and be
Procuress to the Lords of Hell. — TennyHoii.
You have seen that modern science, when true to itself, is
no enemj', but rather a friend to Christianity-. It remains yet
for us to face the question, whether the new philosoply of the
present day is equally friendly or is antagonistic. I have no
hesitation in asserting that all truth is essentially one in the
midst of great variety, whether the truth in common every-day
life, in science, in art, in poetry, in philosophy or in religion.
What is true in one cannot clash with or destroy that which is
true in another department of thought. If there is clashing
1 The immediate cause of the preparation of this interlude was the reception
of a letter from a Japanese student in response to our invitation to the public to
make criticisms or enquiries. This letter contained a number of objections to
Christ anity, so obviously inspired by the " New Philosophy " that I thought it
wise to answer not only tho questions contained in the letter, but to expose
the fallacy of the fountain from which tho youth of Japan are now so largely
drawing their intellectual stimulus. There seems to be a good deal of temerity
connected with such an undertaking. To bring a " great philosophy " to task
should bo the work of one deeply read and widely experienced in fields of thought.
No criticism sliould be second-hand ; to avoid the seeming of this I have tried to
leam Mr. Spencer's meaning from his own works ; to avoid the charge of
impertinence on account of limited years of experience, I quote the thoughts of
others whose years and philosophical standing place them beyond the possibility
of such a charge, and whoso thoughts have contributed largely to the consolidation
of my owu independent opinion.
.vm
SSKS
RMS'*
SSlM«
fim»A
96
High Claims of Pliilosoiyhj
[Inter-
f-^
that cannot be explained simply by the imperfection of our
knowledge, and that may not be removed in time, — an an-
tagonism of fundamental principles which cannot by any
possibility both be true, then of course one must be rejected
as false.
Now, thus far a great many philosophical systems have
risen in antagonism to Christianity, every one of which in so
far as that antagonism extended, had to be abandoned, and is
now known chiefly to the historian of thought. A new
philosophy, or what calls itself a new philosophy, has come to
the front with great vdat, which professes to herald in a better
day over the ruins of a shatter' "" Christianity and of all existing
religious systems — the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. If the
first principles of that philosophy are true, I see no place for
Christianity in human hearts. If Christianity is true, that
philosophy must be a mistaken view of awful questions. It
now remains for us to enquire whether this philosophy can
scientifically claim the homage of our reason, and replace in
civilized lands the Christianity which, if successful, it must
destroy. Or, will it, like the long line of its predecessors,
come up and flash for a moment, and then be consigned by the
common consent of mankind to the philosophical antiquarian,
along with its unnumbered forefathers, while Christianity still
marches calmly on, advancing from high to higher honor ?
Mr. Herbert Spencer has been hailed by many as the
apostle of a new era of progress for human thought — as having
reconquered for England the foremost place in philosophy. His
works are widely read in every civilized land ; and, if I am
rightly informed, his philosophy is moulding the mind of young
Japan. And there can be no doubt as to the colossal powers of
the man who has for a quarter of a century held imperial sway
over thousands of thoughtful men ; who aims at, and to many
seems to succeed, in giving philosophical consistency, to the
LUDE.] Natural Science not all ScIgiicc.
97
constitution of the universe, as seen through the lense of motlevn
natural science. But when essential elements are ignored, and
at the start a slight deviation from the truth is allowed, the
greatness of the ultimate error will he in exa^t proportion to the
strength which speeds along the deviating path, the crash of
ultimate fall will be proportionate to the heights ascended.^
The vast advance of physical science in these modern times
has been lauded and emphasized as the dawn of a brighter era,
having in its forces the "promise and potency "of all things
worthy of consideration, and beyond whose reach there could
be no thought worth thinking, no fact worth knowing. I would
be the last man in the world to decry the legitimate work of
natural science, or to minify her splendid achievements. But
natural science unlocks only one of the many avenues of
research and effort, fits and satisfies but one phase of mind and
of humanity, deals with but one side of truth. Most men with
brains enough to become first class specialists in their chosen
branch of science, are able also clearly to see that their science,
and all natural science combined, does not remove the necessity
for logical philosophy and the study of metaphysics ; and does
not make them authorities in matters outside of their sphere,
and they may themselves take high ranli as thinkers. But the
study of the natural sciences as they come within the reach of
the great multitude, does not tend to strengthen the faculties
for philosophical thought, rather the contrary ; producing in
many who claim to be scientists, — and are so as far as their
capacity gives them scope, but having none left for other pur-
poses, — an aversion to metaphysical philosophy, and revealed
religion. And these men prophesy the death of metaphysics,
1 Bacon shrewdly remarks that " a cripple on the right road will beat a racer
on the wrong," adding language which at times might be applied to Spencer :
" This is farther evident that he who is not on the right road will go the farther
wrong the greater his flcetueas and ability."— il/cCo»7i.
tag
HW1M
&
ifiSS'S
MIHI|
18
'1^
iVl^
98
Scientists not necessarUi/
[Inter-
■•5.:,;/! .1,'
m:
:.': i.-i:
i
which they cannot gi'asp and whose logic is inconveniently in
the way of their theorizing, along with religion which they fail
to appreciate and whose power they have nover known.
Now this is not the work of true scientists nor of pure
scientific literature. The works which have value as real
contributions to pure science are very few and read by a
comparatively limited class of cultivated students. But these
additions, whether theoretical or actunl, are seized upon by a
multitude of writers and lecturers, who make a business of
reproducing the same materials over and over in text books,
and magazine articles, and story-books, and lectures, and lay
sermons, heaping facts and theories and shallow speculations
into one ever-increasing mountain of so-called science, from
which the gaping multitudes, unthinking, feed themselves.
There are \X'ry few scientists who are likewise good philo-
sophers ; and many who have gone out of their regular line,
have succeeded only in demonstrating anew the fact, so often
forgotten apparently, that proficiency in one branch of study
does not make a man an authority in another. Huxley has
made himself the laughing-stock of logicians by his " Life of
Hume," and Draper, the butt of historians by his reiteration of
dead and buried issues, based on facts which he has distorted
in his mis-named " Conflict of Science and lleligion." And can
you conceive of any sadder example than trembling, dying,
hoary-headed, honor-crowned Charles Darwin, who after a life
of what men call splendid success, when asked by an ardent
youth as to his opinions of revelation, replies, " I'm an old man
and have no time for such enquiries ; but scientific investigation
makes a man cautious about accepting any proofs, and as for
myself I do not believe in a revelation." Two or three very
serious thoughts arise in connection with this. Charles Darwin,
through a long life of toil, has given to the world many
a contribution of value, many a speculation that has proved
LUDE.] rhilofiophical or ThroJof/leaJ (mthoritics.
09
untrue, a vast hypothesis which only lacks proof to mako
it universally accepted. But he has not had time to in-
vostif,'atG the claims of a revelation ; ho is cautious about
proofs ; and yet he ventures a judgment, backed with his
authority, but confessedly based on his ignorance and his doubt
of proofs. "What is to become of the world of law and of com-
mon sense if we are to doubt all things which can be sustained
only by proofs, but cannot l)e tested in a laboratory or approved
of l)y some natural scientist because its proofs have not como
within his narrow field and he has not time to go out of his rut
to find them ? Nothing is left for us but to embrace with
unquestioning faith a great number of interesting and useful
facts brought to light by science, linked together in a vast
hypothesis, which for lack of fixed proof often changes its form,
and is rejected by many first class scientists. My advice on
the head of this is, — Young men, don't accept the dictum of any
man, especially on subjects that he has never investigated ; don't
imagine that science can make a man a universal authority any
more than theology can make a man a scientist ; and don't be
cautious about proofs excepting to test them well, but do bo
cautious about putting faith in any theory that is lacking
in proofs. What we need most of all to-day is a little honest
skepticism that will not swallow down as undoubted fact every
dictatorial utterance that is noised iibroad in the name of a pros-
tituted science. Test your science and see if it has proofs ; test
your philosophy and see if it has proofs ; test your religion and
see if it can produce proofs ; test Christianity, and see if it has
proofs. And in so far as proofs exist, l)clieve ; in so far as proofs
are lacking, suspend your judgment ; in so far as proofs are
opposed, you must reject or be untrue to the scientific method.
But this is not the tendency to-day ; unproved theories are taught
and blazed abroad as truth, transforming the very character
of our schools and colleges and professions. Where classic
100
True Scientists see the danger
[Inter-
literature and exa,ct thought made men in former days, now riilo
tho laboratory and physical sciouce and tentative theory ; and
along with apparent advantage, already tho bane is being felt
in a decadence of thought. None too soon can tho warning
voice be raised to save our world from such a degeneracy of tho
thinking powers, as will lay mankind open to a credulous
unthinking faith in tho lowest and worst kind of materialism,
which is equally destructive of logic, of philosophy, and of
religion. Dr. Bealo, who, though first and foremost as a
biologist, still retains his philosophy and his common-sense as
well as his religion, thus speaks of the tendencies of modern
decaying thought : — " People have been misled in times past
by false teaching, and large numbers have become steeped in
ignorance, bigotry and fanaticism. But I do not believe that
the most lamentable instances on record have led to results
more disastrous, or so likely to prove more injurious to the in-
terests of individuals and possibly to nations than this attempt
in our own time to establish the weakest and worst form of
materialism ever advanced is calculated to produce in the future.
It is bad enough when numbers of people become converts to
a system founded on truth more or less perverted, o'* misinter-
preted, owing to the ignorance or mistaken zeal of its exponents ;
but the evils resulting nre harmless and evanescent indeed as
compared with those which must result from inculcating a
system which professes to be founded on reason, but which
really rests upon fictions and arbitrary assertions. A system in
which fact is appealed to, but is not to be found. Look at it how
you may, you will not discover the smallest speck of firm ground
of truth upon which to build any form of materialistic doctrine."^
Dr. Dawson thus writes of the same tendency : — " There
can be no doubt that the theory of evolution, more especially that
phase of it which is advocated by Darwin, has greatly extended
^Victoria Institute.
LUDE.]
of the spread of pffendo-scwnce.
101
its influence, especially amonf,' young English and American
naturalists, within the few past years. Wo now constantly sco
reference made to these theories, as if they were established
principles, applicable without question to the explanation of
observed facts, while classilications notoriously based on these
views, and in themselves untrue to nature, have gained currency
in popular articles and even in text-books. In this way young
people are being trained to bo evolutionists without being aware
of it, and will come to regard nature wholly through this
medium. So strong is this tendency, more especially in
England, that there is reason to fear that natural history will
be prostituted to the service of a shallow philosophy, and that
our old Baconian mode of viewing nature will be quite reversed,
so that, instead of studying facts in order to ai'rivc at general
principles, we shall return to the mediicval plan of setting up
dogmas based on authority only, or on metaphysical considera-
tions of the most flimsy character, and forcibly twisting nature
into conformity with their requirements. Thus * advanced '
views in science lend themselves to the destruction of science,
aud to a return to semi-barbarism."^
The evolution philosophy has also taken hold of many in
Germany, and there Dr. Haeckel, its greatest living exponent, a
very few years ago, at a meeting of natural philosophers, told
the assembled doctors that " the two principles of inheritance
and adaptation, explain the development of the manifold existing
organisms from a single organic cell; dispensing forever with the
need of a Creator, and moreover a creature composed of only one
of these omnipotent cells, by certain zoological inquiries, is
shown to be possessed of motion, sensibility, perception and will.
The cell, then, consists of matter called protoplasm, composed
chiefly of carbon, with an admixture of hydrogen, oxygen, nitro-
gen, and sulphur. These component parts, properly united,
^Victoria Institute.
36
'!B!
jlWItl'*'
GSTa
1
^
■ 'ivi
^
: -Jii
.''J;l*fa
102
If Evolution lijnores the Creator [Inter-
<IM
U\
m
m
n
<
if
produce borly and soul of the animated world, and suitably
nursed, become man." And here Haeckcl waxes eloquent: —
" with this simple argument the universe is explained, the Divinity
annulled, and a new era ofiniiuite knowledge ushered in," — and
then as a fit conclusion to this scientific proclamation, he insists
that these incontrovertible doctrines of cells and organic evolu-
tion should be taught in every school of the land in place of an
exploded Bible. Of course, in a previous part of his speech he
had acknowledged that organic evolution could not be experi-
mentally proved — but a mere deficiency of proofs cannot tell
against this theory, nor shake Herr Haeckel's credulous faith in
matter.^ For, forsooth, it must be so or Evolution will be
swamped.
Following in his wake rises a disciple of Haeckel, waxing
still more bold, exclaiming, "You must deny God and trample
the cross under foot before you can become even a scholar, far
less a master in natural science."
Now this is the essentially atheistic materialism to which,
with the aid of Tyndall and Huxley, and a numberless throng
of applauding bt lievers in matter, Mr. Herbert Spencer is, un-
wittingly it may be, but none the less surely, leading the way,
impelled himself by the unseen force of false premises, on to
the inevitable logical conclusion, the destruction of all that has
given life to modern civilization.
But, you exclaim, these men disclaim, one and all, the
charge of being atheists or materialists: they are only agnostics.
Perhaps so ■ but what is materialism ? Sir William Hamilton
points out a twofold evil influence of the too exclusive study of
the physical sciences. First, " It diverts from all notice of the
phenomena of moral lil)erty which are revealed to us in the
human mind alone." Second, "By exhil)iting merely the pheno-
iThe Tivm, 1877.
a
LUDE.]
it is essential Atheism.
103
mena of matter and extension, it habituates us only to the
contemplation of an order of things in which everything is
determined by the laws of a blind or mechanical necessity, and
leads us to think that the mechanism of nature can explain every
thing." If we liold such views a^ those last expressed, we have
duly arrived at the materialistic goal.^ And this is the goal to
which these men would lead the world of thought. They may
shrink from the ultimate legitimate conclusions of their teaching,
but their disciples will not, and the great uncritical multitude
will not, and will carry out into practical 1" " what these teach
as science. At times they one and all use strong words against
materialism, for they know what a revulsion of feeling that
would create in English lands, as I am glad to say Haeckel's
utterances did in Germany; and yet when you search their
systems you fail to find anything but matter and mechanical
force, and an emasculated ghost of an unknowable, inconceivable
something, on which they rely to save their system from the
charge of being what Carlyle called a " gospel of dirt." And
in unguarded moments their true tendency is made exceedingly
manifest. Mr. Huxley tells the Medical College that " the
simplest particle of that which men in their blindness are
pleased to call 'brute matter,' is a vast aggregate of Piolecular
mechanisms performing complicated movements of immense
rapidity and sensitivity, adjusting themselves to every change
in the surrounding world. Living matter differs from other
matter in degree and not in kind ; the microcosm repeats the
macrocosm, and one chain of causation connects the nebulous
origin of suns and planetary systems with the protoplasmic
foundation of life and organization." Here are particles of
matter scusitiveJi/ adjustiiKj themselves — and then again vital
actions are "nothing but changes of place of particles of
matter." Mr. Huxley says man is "like a machine of the nature
!|6
•SB*'
SI
^See also " Modern Matciialitiui " iu Kew Euglauder, July, 18d2.
104
and essential Materialism.
[Inter-
s
I
■ij
of an army, each cell a soldier;" and " vital phenomena like all
other phenomena of the pli3'sical world, are resolvahle into
matter and motion and effected without external agency," i.e.
without a God or mind. Now passing hy the fact that in that
chain of causation from nebulous matter to suns, and vital
phenomena, no two consecutive links have yet been discovered,
and that these comparisons and metaphors serve only in placo
of proof for otherwise bare assertions, its seems that matter and
motion suffice for all things physical, living and conscious.^
Mr. Tyndall's famous Belfast address is perhaps nearly
forgotten, but his matter witb the " promise and potency " of all
possible things has passed 'nto history. He says : — " Strip it
naked, and you stand face to face with the notion (please notice
that it is " a notion," and yet Mr. Tyndall asks you to put faith in
that "notion") that not only the more ignoble forms of animal-
cular or animal life, not alone the nobler forms of the horse and
the lion, not alone the exquisite and wonderful mechanism of the
human body, but that the human mind itself — emotio)i, intellect,
will and all their phenomena — were once latent in a fiery cloud. "
And not so very long ago, building on this fundamental notion
of his, he told an audience in Birmingham that the robber and
the seducer and the murderer were no more responsible for their
crimes than tigers were for their feasts of blood. It surely needs
no words of mine to point out the essential materialism and
the practical tendency of such teaching as this.
And now comes Mr. Herbert Spencer, who with almost
superhuman intellectual efforts, carrying out the same notion,
attempts to reduce the world of thought and matter to a unit.
Denying a personal God, calling creation a " carpenter theory,"
the talk about design " fetichism," he undertakes to reconcile
Science and Eeligion. But in all the tomes of thousands of
^See also Dr. Lionel S. Scale's "Dictatorial Scientific Utterances and tbo
Dccliuo of Thmghi."— Victoria Institute,
LUDE.l Apparent strength, concealed 'weakness.
105
pages published by Mr. S[)encer, nlthongli he writes the Power
working in the universe with u cnpittil P, I fail to fini.l the recogni-
tion of oiything that can be called a God, or of anything in the
universe that h;i,s any relation to man which is not assumed to be
evolved by a necessary law out of matter and inherent mechanical
force. If there is no place for God in his teachings, surely they
are atheistic; if matter and force grind on and jn'odiice all things
without an Intelligence to guide them, surrly wj have materialism.
But what if it is true ? Well, if atheism, and materialism
are true, or the new philoso^ihy of Mr. "S[iencer be true, why we
must believe it, of course, — believe it though the heavens fall and
the human heart be left desolate, though human society be
blighted and all hope vanish in despair.
To one unaccustomed to rigid logical discipline, and v;ith a
very slight anti-thcological bias, these "First Principles," u[)on
which is erected a vast philoso[)hical system, must appear a verita-
ble fortress of polished granite witiiout a breiik in its solid
masonry. But when examiniHl by the hamjnering of logical
criticism, and in the light of consistent thought, what seemed to be
impregnable rock proves to be, in an appalling number of places,
a superiicial plastering over great gaps extending from foundation
to summit; and when through these gaps the light of the outside
world is let in, the whole structure proves to be a strange medley
of old and olten-used, and as often-exploded, fallacies, covered
over with the glamour of modern scientific productions — facts and
fancies — a veritable niiize of " WaJtrhett itiid Dichtiiur/,'' So much
so indeed is this the case, that if it had not been the custom of phi-
losophies to do so from time immemoriiil, one would scarcely
believe that a man of large powers could be in earnest in propound-
ing such vagaries in the name of science and philosoph3\ But
Mr. Spencer is terribly in earnest, and I believe perfectly honest,
giving in his immense work a further evidence of the blinding
influence of an initial fallacy, and the colossal blunders which a
14
iiS
c;3»
iwitov
IASn
im
106
Four radical fallacies.
[Inter-
gigantic intellect maj' commit. It is of course impossible to criti-
cize in minutisB the whole of his sj'stem, nor is it needful so to do ;
for if only one or two essential fallacies can be exposed in the
foundations, the whole system must coUapse, and a multiplication
of arguments and criticisms would add nothing to the overthrow.
There are four points which I will attempt to make clear,
any one of which, if substantiated — and I believe they can all
be substantiated beyond a doubt — would be sufficient to condemn
any system of teaching. These points are as follows: —
1. Mr. Spencer, from the start, raises an absolutely false
issue, and proposes a suicidal solution.
2. The premises which he assumes require too great a strain
on human faith to be accepted as a true basis for philosophy.
3. The definitions which he sometimes makes can never be
accepted by his opponents, rendering of course resultant argu-
ment either harmless or suicidal.
4. He plays fast and loose with the syllogism to such an extent
as to vitiate the cogency of his reasoning where really legitimate.
1. The supposed issue is nothing else than the falsely so-
called Conflict of Science and Religion, wdiich Professor Ewing
showed (Lect. II) to be an essential falhicy, and unworthy of
educated men. Mr. Spencer seems to know of no religion
but the vagaries of men that have ever been in conflict
with science. All religious superstitions are bundled together
into one heap along with Christianity, and all are equally
unworthy of belief. Mr. Spencer's ideas of the rise and progress
of religious beliefs are such that Geldwin Smith, a real
authority in historical studies, thus describes them : " Scientific
the theory niiiy be, and on questions of science the utmost
deference must be paid to the inventor's authority ; that it is
historical must be denied."^ Mr. Spencer goes on to say: "Of
all antagonisms of belief, the oldest, the widest, the most
'Contemporary Koview, Feb. 1882,
LUDE.l
xintl-relUjlous bias.
107
profound and the most important, is that between Eeh'gion and
Science."^ " An unceasing battle of opinion like this which has
been carried on throughout all the ages under the banners of
Kehgion and Science, has of course generated an animosity fatal
to a just estimate of either party by the other. "^ And then
assuming the role of a mediator, he continues : " Preserving as
far as may be this impartial attitude, let as then contemplate the
two sides of this great controversy."^ If Mr. Spencer, instead of
writing Religion, had said " ignorance and superstitions, oft-
times assuming the garb of Iicligion," he would have spoken
the truth ; but making lioligion to include Christianity as taught
in the Bible, he states what is the antipodes of truth, as was
well demonstrated in the last lecture.
The way in which Mr. Spencer views the * contest ' may be
seen in his statement of the position of the parties in this
imaginary battle. '• Thus, however untenable may be any or
all existing religious creeds, however gross the absurdities
associated with them, however irrational the arguments set forth
ui their defence, wo must not ignore the verity which in all likeli-
hood is hidden within them. ... In that nescience which
must ever remain the antithesis to science, there is a sphere for
the exercise of this (religious) sentiment. . . . We may wo sure
therefore that religions, though even none of them be actually
true, are yet all adumbrations of a truth."* Now contrast the
tone with regard to science: "To ask the question which
more immediately concerns our argument — whether science is
substantially true ? — is much like asking whether the sun gives
light. "^ ** Be there or be there not any other revelation, we
have a veritable revelation in science — a continuous disclosure,
9S
iMrtar
mill''
WW"!
••"J i
1" First Principles," p. 11.
8 "First Principles," p. 12.
'" First Principles," p. 19.
2" First Principles," p. 12.
* " Fii-at Priiiciplcs," p. 17.
108
Vlscrejiancies arise from
[Inter-
0.
SI:,-
through the intelligence with M'hich we arc endowed, of the
established order of the universe. This disclosure it is the duty
of every one to verify as far as in him lies ; and, having verified,
to receive with humility."^ I am afraid if a Christian were
to use the language of these extracts, exchanging the places of
Science and Eeligion, he would be charged with having a " bias.'
Again on page 100 he tells us : " Though from age to age, science
has continually defeated it wherever they have come into
collision, and has obliged it (religion) to relinquish one or more
of its positions, it has still held the remaining ones with
undiminished tenacity." It would be just as true and as honest
for a Christian to say that Pioligion has from age to age defeated
Science wherever they came in collision. But neither would be
a correct statement of the fact. Error in the garb of science
has been rebuked and defeated by Eeligion, while error in the
garb of Pieligion has been exposed and dissipated by the help
of true science. In either case both true science and true
religion have no conflict with each other, but rejoice together
in advancing Truth.
That there should be apparent discrepancies between science
and men's interpretations of the Bible, is not to be wondered
at Avhen Ave remember that neither science nor exegesis is
perfect. But there are no greater discrepancies between the
Bible and advanced science to-day, than there are between the
results of the studies of scientists in different fields of research.
The revolution of one of the satellites of Mars about that planet
in less than one-third of the time required for the planet's axial
rotation, together with other astronomical observations, seems
entirelj' irreconcilable with the nebular hypothesis so generally
accepted.^ Dr. Andrew Clarke thus writes, corroborating the
position of many another scientist : — " It is growing more
1 " First Principles," p. 20.
«Seo Stallo's Modern Tbysics, 1882, p. 281 and all tlirougb the volume.
LUDE.] ImjH'vfcctlon of Science and Exegesis.
109
evident (1) that the progress of chemistry is hecoming more
and more irroconcihihlo Avith the theory of the atomic constitu-
tion of matter. (2) That there is no haw of physics, not even
the hiw of gravitation, without great and growing exceptions ;
and no theory of physical phenomena, not even the undulatory
theory of light, which is not hecoming more and more in-
adequate to explain the facts discovered within its area of
comprehension. (3) And that therefore the hoasted accuracy
and permanency of so-called physical laws and theories is
unfounded ; that very probahly the greater part of the so-called
axioms of modern physics will be swept away as untenable ;
that the theories of natural phenomena apparent!}' the most
comprehensive and conclusive are merely provisional ; that at
present finality in this region is neither visibly attainable nor
clearly conceivable."
At the same time the facts of science which seem to be most
permanently establishc d are found to be increasingly in accord
with the Bible. What there is of science in the Bible could not
of course have come at the time of writing it, from scientific
investigation, for science as such was not ; yet " although no
other Book has been assailed so ably, so critically, maliciously,
constantly as this, it survives, not because of protection, but
because its opponents have been beaten along the whole line of
argument. The Book did verily arise amongst men ' alike
unfamiliar with the conceptions of physical causation and unifor-
mity of law, and ignorant of the requirements of a valid scientific
hypothesis' (Fiske), but that is a part of the marvel; and though,
as Sir Thos. Brown saith — 'Time sadly overcometh all things,'
this book has conquered time; and in proof of utter folly in those
who revile it as containing 'the superlative nonsense, known as
the doctrine of special creation,' is received as the Book of God by
all nations eminent in arts, in wealth, civilization, refinement. " ^
Uiejuolds, Tiic Supernatural ia Nature, p. 49
!!ie
iMiiia*
;ais
IWWMV
IMMW
:^
fMdiJ
1
PI
;)"•?.
, i
^*i?
no
A cadaverous reconciliation.
[Inter-
But we must hasten on to Mr. Spencer's theory of recon-
ciliation, lleligion he allows to contain a likelihood of a verity —
to be the possible "adumbration of a Truth," while Science was
assumed to be true as sunlight. And now there must be a place
where the two can bo shown to be in harmony. "Pieligion
has, iVom the first, struggled to unite more or less science with
its nescience ; Science has from the first kept hold of more or
less nescience as though it were a part of Science." ^ But a slow
differentiation is going on, all of nescience (ignorance) is going
over to Eeligion as her portion, and all of Science (knowledge)
is going over to Science as hers. " And a permanent peace will
be reached when Science becomes fully convinced that its ex-
planations are proximate and relative, while Eeligion becomes
fully convinced that the mystery it contemplates is ultimate and
absolute." " Religion and Science are therefore correlatives. As
already hinted, they stand respectively for those two antithetical
modes of consciousness which cannot exist asunder. A known
cannot be thought apart from an unknown, nor can an
unknown be thought apart from a known. And by consequence
neither can become more distinct without giving greater dis-
tinctness to the other. They are the positive and negative poles
of thought; of which neither can gain in intensity without
increasing the intensity of the other. "^ That is, Science is
knowledge ; Eeligion is nescience, the absence of knowledge.
Science is light, Religion is darkness. As the light of Science
increases, the darkness of ignorance of Religion increases. Her
Bublime aim, according to Mr. Spencer, is to stand beside an
abyss in which lie buried forever all her thoughts of God and Im-
mortality, the tomb of the soul with its hopes and fears, and to
proclaim to Science the momentous fact that she does not know
everything ! Truly sublime are the hopes of man, and awe-
^ Page 106.
2Pagel07, 108.
LUDE.]
But Diolne Light shines on.
111
inspiring the inheritance of "verity" graciously granted to
Eohgion ! ! " The dumb wonder of ignorance or the grovelling
awe of the supernatural, as it is exhibited in the fetish-wor-
shipper, is the nearest approximation to the religion of the
Unknowable."^
Strange to say, however, the conception of the Inscrutable
One was as clear and strong in the hoariest antiquity as it is
to-day or ever can be. But the fact that to the new-born babe
a parent's powers are inscrutable does not prevent a communi-
cation to the babe of the knowledge of a parent's existence and
sympathy and help and love, which becomes increasingly clear
as the months pass on ; so the fact that the Infinite All-father
is inscrutable to infantile man, does not prevent His revealing
to man his love, his will. Before Him bowing we can render
homage to a Being " in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge," all the iuexhaustable wealth of that boundless
realm of truth in Avhich thought finds ever-increasing stimulus
to aspiration, ever-growing food for wonder and delight. Not an
inane grovelling before an agnostic bottomless cavern, but in-
telligent reverence. Instead of ignorant wonder we have in-
telligent admiration ; instead of blind submission to necessity and
fate, we have trust and sympathy and love ; instead of paralysis
of thought before a portentous, an insoluble enigma, the
ennobling and ever-renewed impulse to thought which arises
from the assurance that the illimitable realm of truth is open
to us, that " God is light and in him is no darkness at all," and
that for the human spirit it will be life eternal to know God.^
He wlio is susceptible of that wisdom catches the spirit of His
word in the Bible, finds lessons for childhood, strength for
manhood, and the capabilities of heroes and prophets. Thousands
know by actual experience that the Book grows with their growth ;
and, as knowledge of it increases, deeper depths of wisdom are
;1B
Jini:«|
m
^ Caiid. luttod. to Fbil. of Beligiou, p. 30.
a do. p. 32.
fli'.ei»f
112
Fallacy in assumed basis.
[Inter-
rcvealed. Paul utters their experience, — " the depth of the
riches hoth of the wisdom and knowledge of God " ! At present,
none but religious men accept, as a fact, the continued
revelatory character of the Book to their souls; but every candid
in(iuirer will ultimately acknowledge it, as the word of God to
a world to which, if left to its own wisdom, He must ever have
been the Unknown and Unknowable.^
2. The next point is the fallacy contained in the premises
which Mr. Spencer assumes as the basis of his philosophy. At the
base of all true reasoning there must be axiomatic truths which
lie bej'ond the region of doubt ; without these we would find
ourselves building on the sand. There can be no mathematics
without first truths which are above all demonstration, no
geometry without axioms and postulates accepted by all. Any
philosophy which lays claim to be scientific must begin in the
same way. Its first principles should be axiomatic, beyond
reach of cavil. AVe have seen that Mr. Spencer's position with
regard to the Unknowable is not accepted as a necessary
truth. And in the region of the knowable we find, instead of
necessary truths, or well-proved facts, the assumption of the
absolute truth of an unproved theory run to a most un-
warrantable extreme, — the Evolution Theory ; or if his aim is
to prove the philosophical truth of Evolution, he perpetrates
an equally unworthy fallacy by perpetually "begging the
question," and so the theory is made to help out the argument,
while the argument supports the theory. My charge of fallacy
here is not against the Evolution Theory, but against the use
to which Mr. Spencer puts a mere hypothesis. The Evolution
theory may be true, but the fact that it also may not he true,
or may not be true in the sense in which Mr. Spencer holds it,
is sufficient to condemn it as a basis upon which to build
^See Supernatural ia Natui-e, pp. ^8, 49.
LUDE.] Extreme Evolution Theory untenable
113
a pliilosopby which claims to unify all knowlpclge, and take the
place of Keligion as an ethical rogiilativo system. The Evolution
theory as such is rejected by many of the most eminent men of
science, such as Yon Baer, Agassiz, Barrande, Yirehow, and
others. It is propounded with certain limitations even by Wallace,
one of its authors. Theistic Evolution, or the theory that
Evolution is the plan according to which the Creator brought
things into being, and guides the physical world, is accepted by
an immense number of thoughtful men, theologians as well as
scientists. But the number of eminent scientists is very small,
who accept Spencer's view of an evolution of eternal matter and
force out of nebular mist into worlds and suns, into rocks, plants,
animals, men, thought, mind, affections, death, dissolution,
annihilation, back into the inconceivable absolute again, to be
re-evolved out again in some future ason. AVith Mr. Spencer
everything in his whole system depends absolutely on the truth
of this evolution of matter and force, in which there is no God,
no soul, no immortality.
The aim of a philosophy, Mr. Spencer tells us, is the
unification of knowledge. Now if in his system we find
unbridged chasms, breaks in the continuity over which Evolu-
tion can give us no satisfactory guidance, his vaunted unity
is broken and his system falls to pieces. But there are at
least two such unl)ridged chasms, the attempt to cover over
which are enough to make logic blush. The first is that
between solar heat and life, or the transformation of energy in
inorganic substances into vital energy. The statement and
argument he gives in his chapter " On the Transformation and
Equivalence of Forces," (pp. 208, etc.) passing by the fact that
Mr. Spencer maintains a continual confusion between force and
motion, — light, heat, etc., being modes of motion and not
forces, a confusion indeed of cause and effect, — we find the gist of
his meaning to be this : without suushiuo there can be no plant
15
Sill
•ml*
•UMK
vMtm
tiitiitt
ins::
MM 4
r-
I K
114
DefectioG definitions vitiate
[Inter-
m^i
m i
'i'i;'
5 .
In
i
r
r
»
I
n
or animal life, licneo sunshine and life are one. Without heat
the chicken cannot be hatched, therefore heat and vitality are
identical. Is the argument conclusive? He has proved nothing
more than that heat is a necessary condition of vital action,
and has not touched the vital power at all. The railway iron track
is a necessary condition of activity for the locomotive, but the
rails do not usually constitute the locomotive or generate the
steam. Then going on to the next chasm between nerve- vesicles
and consciousness, we find solar heat translated into mental
energy, by some slight of hand which scorns all use of logic.
Time would fail me to expose these fallacies in detail. I would
simply refer you to Bowne's Ileviow of Herbert Spencer, to the
criticisms of Ground, McCosh and others, where the argument
is carried out in detail. The fact, however, is this : Mr. Spencer
produces an amazing amount of facts ^vith which scientists
have furnished him ; he attempts an explanation on the line of
evolution and fails in producing a unification of knowledge.
His philosophy, judged thus by his own standard, is seen
to be an abortion. We may accept every fact which he
produces, and thousands more shown by science, but which
he ignores, and with the central unit of an intelligent creative
mind produce a system which satisfies all the requirements of
logical philosophy without such prodigious assumptions, or
patent fallacies.
3. The next point is his defectiveness of definitions. Unless
our definitions are correct, our reasoning will be a beating of the
air ; unless opponents can agree in definitions, all argument is
wasted breath. We have seen that Mr. Spencer's definition of
Religion would never be accepted by any man who had a religion
to define. And the same is true of many other places, but one only
I will cite, — one emphasized by Mr. Douglas, in The American
Church Review for March, 1883. In his statement of the Theistic
argument, he nowhere describes God as an orthodox Christian
LUDE.]
cqyparenthj logical reaHoning,
115
would, and liencc his statoraont is unfair. Take one statement,
" the eternity we ascribe to God is time multiplied to infinity ;
hut we cannot conceive time multij)lied to infinity : therefore wo
cannot conceive a God who has existed from all eternity." Any
one could- tell Mr. Spencer that to describe God as existing
through infinite time or infinite apace, is to do just what Thcista
strenuously repudiate. The definition of thcists is quoted in
the Review mentioned above.
** God exists altogether apart from what we call time. God
does not exist in time. The eternity of God is no more time raised
to infinity than the love of God is human love raised to infinity.
Time implies change, and God cannot change. Time implies
succession, and in God there is no succession of months or days
or years. Time implies movement, and God, while His existence
is one of the most mtense activity, is at the same time one of
the most perfect repose. In time there is past, present and
future ; and for God there is no past, no present, no future. Time
is the measure of the existence of created things : it varies with
their nature : even in ourselves it is affected not a little by the
circumstances and the condition of our body and mind. To the
sick man it passes slowly ; to the joyous how quickly ! Active
employment lends it wings, ^.nd the dull monotony of enforced
idleness makes it creep along more slowly than the snail. The
measure of angelic existence, as S. Thomas tells us, differs
altogether from the measure of human existence. The measure
of our life in heaven will be very unlike the measure of our life
on earth. Time therefore is something relative, not absolute ;
and as in God all is absolute, time has no meaning in respect
of His existence. God does not exist in time — no, not in infinite
time. He is above all time, and before all time, and beyond all
time."
This is the orthodox description of God. Mr. Spencer may
not accept it, but at least he cannot ignore it, nor dismiss it in
SIB
fwi«r
mttrm
vt'T
•llHl|
ml
|i
I
{
ft
I
II
i
,.,. t
^
s
t
'A'
«
k
116
A selfish use of Loqic
[Inter-
silence. If Mr. Spencer pretends to criticize the Christian creed,
he must at least represent it correctly. But this he has failed
to do, and my point is established.
4. The fourth point is one of great logical importance, and
would require for its full description rather a volume than a
paragraph or two. There are essential fallacies in Mr. Spencer's
syllogisms. Take one : —
^\ hat we cannot imagine, we cannot think.
We cannot imagine the eternal self-existence of God.
Therefore the eternal self-existence of God is unthiiikahle.
That is, the ability to picture to the mind is taken as the
criterion of the knowable and the unknowable. But what picture
can we paint on our imagination of love, mathematics, or
power '? Are these things unthinkable ? But it is by means of
such arguments as this that he annihilates all religion ; if
consistent, the very same arguments must also make all science
impossible.^ " The ideas involved in religion are, in the last
analysis, no less conceivable than those involved in science.
If, then, the inconceivability of these ideas is a sufficient
reason for discarding religion, it is also warrant enough for
discarding science. But if the fundamental reality can so
manifest itself as to make a true science possible, there is no
reason whv it should not so manifest itself as to make a true
religion possible — no reason in the argument I mean ; the needs
of Mr. Spencer's system are reason enough for him.
The claim that the limited and conditioned nature of
our faculties renders religious knowledge impossible, tells with
equal force against all knowledge. The limited nature of
our faculties does> indeed, confine us to a limited knowledge — but
a limited knowledge may be true as far as it goes. If so, we
1 See also Eownc's Ecview of H. Spencor, from whose work I draw some of
these seutcQCCs.
LUDE.]
becomes patent So]}ldsm.
117
may trust the knowledge we have ; if not, all truth disappears.
To condense, just contrast the following productions of Mr.
Spencer's logic : —
Religion is impossible, because it
involves untLiukiible ideas.
God must bo conceived as self-
existent, and is, therefore, an
untenable hypothesis.
God must be conceived as eternal,
and is, hence, an untenable hypo-
thesis.
To atrirm the eternity of God
would land us in insoluble con-
tradictions.
Science is possible, though it
involves the same unthinkable ideas.
The fundamental reality must be
conceived as self-existent, and is
not an untenable hypothesis.
The fundamental reality must be
conceived as eternal, and is not an
untenable hypothesis.
To affirm the eternity of matter
and force, is the highest necessity
of our thought.
These examples are sufficient to show the trend and value
of a philosophy which teaches us that our highest wisdom is to
recognize the mystery of the ahsolutc, and to ahandon the
" Carpenter theory " of creation for the higher view, that all
things came about by an " Evolution, which is a change from
an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent
heterogeneity, through continuous difierentiations and integra-
tions." This is what is offered us in place of a consistent
philosophy linked to the " King eternal, immortal, invisible,
the only wise God " —
Whose love is as great us his power,
Anil neither knows niensure nor end.
Mr. Spencer's Evolution, even if accepted as true, ex-
2)lains nothing; it only shows how the complicated machine
with blind force within grinds on ; and he tells us him-
self: "I will only further say, freedom of the will, did it
exist, would be at variance with the beneficence recently
displayed in the evolution of the correspondence between the
awiii*'
won*
iiinllP
9I10I"
118
Agnostic Land of Promise. [Interlude.
'mi
. '. ,1 :
f
organism and its environment. . . . There would be a
retardation of that grand progress which is bearing humanity
onward to a higher intelligence and a nobler character." Thus
to believe that we are not free but slaves of fate, is given as
ennobling and inspiring to higher things, although the highest
aim of each individual is simple annihilation. It should hardly
seem necessary in the nineteenth century to undertake to refute
such a position as that, and arguments are unnecessary. These
doctrines have been taught in their essential elements in
various philosophies for thousands of years, and all history shows
that where they prevailed they brought forth moral decay,
social corruption, and political catastrophe, and their tendency
is the same to-day, for lapse of time has not changed the
essential elements of human nature.
LECTURE III.
A PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEW:
WHAT IS MAN?
I. — An.\lysis.
" Know thyself," said Socrates. " Teach me to know
mine end," prayed a greater than he. To understand the
personal prohlem, a general understanding of the nature of
humanity and of man's relation to the Unseen is of very great
importance. In our search for these general principles, let us
lay down first of all a foundation of things that must be accepted
as true, and avoid all questionable assumptions. Then after
laying our foundation stones, let us build as we have evidence
sufficient to satisfy our reason, and still be careful of accepting
anything on authority : and then if we have to go farther and
tread where science cannot go, let us still retain our common-
sense and the scientific method. If we take a few steps farther
with philosophy and find her faltering — for her work is really to
systematize what science provides, — let us lend her the light of
our new revelation — a revelation which prolongs into the
unseen that truth of which science had given us an alphabet,
and which throws back over all that true science gives us the
light of a higher endorsation. In these regions science may
give suggestions, and sift our evidence for us, but cannot lead
and cannot stop us : philosophy may learn something more for
her system building, but cannot teach and dare not hinder.
Here we walk by faith, but still keep our common-sense and our
iiifillB
aatwm
JIB'S
ml
StCt
Mirtlf
120
We want as logical Basis
[Lect.
Ml'
'If :
r
»
scientific method in our search for deepest, highest truths —
testing all by that ultimate criterion of common sense, by asking
how it works practically. Many a beautiful system has split
on this rock and been lost forever, and any system that cannot
stand that test ought to perish.
I.
Now, what fundamental truth can we lay down in our
philosophy, which cannot be called in question, without turning
the world into a lunatic asylum and all men into idiots ? Every
man may speak for himself, and say I tliink, I am a thinhing
being ; and I know I think, I know I am a thinking being. If
I use the jn-onouu "I" a good deal here, you will of course
remember that it is simply in a representative sense. I take it
for granted that I am a man, and if I can find out what I am
and M'hat I ought to be, and make the same plain to you, I
presume I shall have answered the question " What is man?"
in its general outlines at least. Well, I-the-thinker know that
I think. You cannot tell what I am thinking about ; I cannot
tell what you are thinking about ; but I know that I am thinking
of this or that, or tbe other. Sometimes my " think " seems to
run away from my " know," when I fall into a reverie for
instance, but I can bring the " think " l)ack when I choose.
But here are two words in this last sentence, "can," and
"choose" — what do they mean? They show me something
more about the me-the-thinker : there is a certain something in
me which can act, and which waits for orders from within, viz.,
from a something which wills, decides. I have will-force, and
with my will-force I can control my thinking-power.
While cogitating this lecture I walk to the window of my
study in my cottage by the sea, and my eye takes in the pleasant
view of Yedo Bay with its sparkling water, its lumbering junks
and white sails afar, the hills beyond. But unhindered there,
I spring across the broad Pacific, and find myself again under
III.]
Patent facts, not asswnjitions
121
the gorgeous canopy of a Canadian maple forest, radiant in
autumnal splendour, and once more in a little log scliool-iiouse
learn c-a-t cat, d-o-g dog. And then with another bound,
I Ihid myself beyond the Atlantic, walking in academic groves
of grand old Germany, learning from giant minds my a, b, c
of philosophy. But my rest-time is up, and I know it ; I call
back my think-force ; glance for a moment at the hills, the water,
the ships, that have never ceased to be reflected in the retina
of my bodily eye, but till now unheeded ; listen for a moment
to the street cries and the sighing winds which all unheard
have been thumping on the tympanum of my bodily ear. I will
to put my think-force to other work ; so I sit down, and take a
book, by means of which my antipodes and the dead speak to
me ; and again, oblivious to a thousand physical attacks upon
eyes and ears I try to walk with my German giants in teeming
fields of thought.
But my will-force is not confined to my think-power. It
can move what men call matter. I go to bed when body grows
weary and mind cannot lash it into further work. " Tired
nature's sweet restorer, balmy sleep," calms the nerves, and
tired body grows strong again. Meanwhile, the vagrant think,
unguided of will-force, wanders through the universe and the
ages. Morning dawns ; I am conscious of my surroundings.
My lim])s and muscles all lie flaccid, unmoved ; my eyes even do
not open. Absolute rest. The day's work passes before my
mind's eye ; my heart kindles at the thought of it ; and as soon
as I choose, I give notice to my will-force, that gives notice to
nerves, muscles, limbs, and I find my body out of bed, and in
a little while pen in hand my will-force ^uits down what my
think-force has been cogitating.
I can control the law of gravitation and make it serve me.
I lift my hand, and hold my arm horizontally because I uill. I
can do it or not do it as I please. In a word I am free, — free
16
mm
tin Htm
mis
KltH*'
JlW'*
mi
utta
ml
m
•»
I
at
a-
i:
122
Ifo,?! is Mind.
[Lect.
within the limits of the element in which I live and for which I
am created. My will-force is free to determine my actions ;
my actions which I can do are free as far as ability extends ;
that within me which thinks is free, miboimded by the universe,
unfettered of the ages.
And now what have wc found ?
1. There is in me that which thinks, and I know I think.
I am a personality, an individuality.
2. There is that in me which wills, determines, decides.
I am an agent, a Cause, — in a certain sense a First Cause.
3. There is that within me which chooses between al-
ternatives ; may repent and choose another way, or may not.
I am a free agent, and responsible for my actions ; for the use
of my powers which think and know and act.
We have seen phenomena, things, actions, and have estab-
lished these common-sense facts of forces in me-the-thinker. And
you cannot deny these things, without denying man's sanity and
responsibility and the possibility of morality. A man who
cannot think is an idiot ; a man who has no will is worse — is a
fool : a man who is not free, has no freedom of choice, ?s either
a machine or a slave. You will allow me to call these
three things united. Mind. And we come to the conclusion
that
MAN IS MIND.
n.
But, you say, that is only a part, and the least evident part
of man. What then am I besides Mind ? Eemember we must
make no hasty assumptions here. Why, you reply, you have a
body, — a body composed of matter, and some say that your
mind is nothing but the adjustment and motion of that matter.
Oh, indeed ! And what then is this matter ? But before we
begin to discuss the point, let me just say that behind the, I
I
III.]
7s he not Matter?
123
fear, unanswerable question — Wliat is matter ? another equally
perplexing and perhaps unanswerable question lies, viz. — Is
there such a thing as matter ? In the meantime we may use
the word in the usual sense.
I have a matter body, have I ? and yet this matter body
changes continually. According to what the scientists tell me,
this is not the body I had ten years ago ; not a particle of that
body is left in me ; the whole of what I now have is as new as
any resurrection body could be. And yet my consciousness
remains an unbroken unit. Growing, of course, but not by
means of matter but by exercise of mind ; using body as neces-
sary complement and servant, but not wholly dependent on
bodily changes, — often wholly independent. Where is that old
body? or where are those old bodies ? for I have had several.
Gone, for they were dissipated (not figuratively let us hope),
changed into other forms, they tell us. Let us try to get some of
the matter of the old body and see what it is. We are told
that the body is largely made up of water, and now as we cannot
be sure of the water of the old body we may take any water in
any form as a specimen. Common sense would perhaps
take a handful of that snow now lying in heaps in your streets^
as a tangible illustration, and pressing it into an ice-ball, throw
it at my head by way of giving a striking proof of the existence
of matter at least, before entering upon the study of its nature.
Isn't that a sufficient proof that matter exists ? says he. No,
I reply ; I have evidence of forces, of your will-force that pressed
the ball and threw tlie ice : of force in the ice, and force in my
head, and that is all I can yet grant you.
But let us examine your specimen of matter, j'our ice-ball.
Why, how is this ? It is changing its form : hand me a vessel
TmiiMPi
KKIM
iiiri B
./J
KlMlf
^At the time of the delivery of this lecture an unusual quantity of snow had
fallen and almost blocked up the streets of Tokio,
h
124
What is Matter?
[Lect.
,■ M
■*
,m
or it will be gone. And now in the vessel, as we test it and
expose it to heat or to sunlight it vanishes completely, and we
cannot recover it. Certain forces changed or let go, and the
material ice-ball has become to our unaided powers as nothing.
Let us try something else, — a bone, a sinew: those of any animal
will do, for they are materially the same as those of the Imman
frame. We search them also with other tests in the laboratory
and the very same result occurs. We liberate the matter from
certain forces, and it eludes us. Well, says common sense, snow
is real snow, a table is a real table, and a bone is a real bone,
whatever becomes of them. Very true ; we may hold to that
and not go far wrong. But if there is any matter in the bone,
or snow or table, I want to have that matter produced, and to
learn what it really is.
Let apply to the Materialist, that thorough-going believer in
matter, and ask him to define it so that we shall know when we
find it. He tells us, that is easy enough. — Matter is any thing
you can touch, weigh ; any thing that has length, breadth, or
thickness ; it is more or less hard, solid, liquid or gaseous ; it
cannot move unless it is moved by some force ; it cannot stop
unless it is stopped by some force ; it has cohesion and — But
what is cohesion ? Why, a force which holds it together. But
I want to find what it holds together. I find everywhere forces
in abundance ; but what does this cohesion-force hold together,
for that I presume will be matter '? You take away the cohesion
of any particular substance and you have the smallest possible
speck of the same substance, that you can hardly catch a glimpse
of with the most powerful microscope, but it retains all the
properties of the body. It is a molecule, and molecules
combined by forces make the substance you handle. But what
about the molecules,' — have they any cohesion, or force in them
holding them together ? Oh yes, they are made up of atoms.
The molecule dissolved, the substance changes, it goes back into
III.J
7s there any Matter ?
125
a more primary elemental form. But what about the atoms ?
Can tliey be seen ? No. Can they be touched, weighed,
measured? Not by any power of man. Arc they round or
square, hard or soft '? No one can tell ; many guesses have been
made. Chemistry proposes one explanation, and physics another,
but it is all a process of metaphysics, — pure reasoning. Have
the atoms any of the properties of matter ? We can tell of none.
Are they matter ? or is that from which they sprang, matter ?
No one can tell scientifically, assuredly. Where then is your
matter ?
Herbert Spencer tells us that matter in itself is a phase of
the absolute, inconceivable, unknowable fundamental reality,
but according to the laws of the relativity of knowledge we may
assume the existence of matter until it is verified. Or in plainer
words, we know nothing about matter, but phenomena ; but we
must pretend that wo do in hopes that some day its real
existence will be verified — and even if it is not ever verified it
makes no great difi'erence any way. That may do very well for
an assumption philosophy, but it does not help us much in our
search for the truth. The fact of the matter is, we are no
nearer an understanding of what matter is than men were 2,000
years ago. We look everywhere — even when we grow me-
taphysical with Tyudall and " prolong our gaze across the
boundary," though helped by all tlie aids that science can
give — and yet we fail to find any absolute proof of the existence
of matter, let alone that vaunted matter which should have
" the promise and potency " of all phenomena. Science has
chased matter back and back in unbroken unity, reducing
variety into simplicity, turning uiaturiality into immateriality,
and is forced to assume the existence of atoms and of ether, the
proof of which is nothing more nor less than that they are
thought to be necessary to account for certain phenomena.
And now granting the existence of atoms and ether. We can
IS
t»ffngj
111?
IIBflW
kvihk
iivnV
m
"ffl
126
Matter gives proof of Mind.
[Lect.
;t:
WW-
■{mi
If.'
E
easily conceive of the process being carrictl on a step further,
when all of the forces are withdrawn from what men call
matter, and it not only becomes apparently immaterial, but it
vanishes from thought — it can not exist so far as we know
apart from forces.
On the other hand I can conceive of forces existing apart
from matter, existing potentially in the Infinite Mind, in which
lay also the design of the Universal All. We know the
power of mind in our limited microcosm ; we can comprehend
the mystery of the wider macrocsm only by postulating
the existence of Creative Mind. This postulate may be as
little capable of proof as the postulates of geometry, and yet be
as immovable as they as a foundation for true logical thought.
If there is such a thing as matter, it has a certain volume.
The amount is fixed; matter is indestructible they say. Who
or what fixed the amount ? Matter could not determine it.
If the amount changes, then there is creation. Who creates ?
who destroys ? Matter cannot do it.^ If matter and force are
united in just such exact proportion as to produce just such
a universe, who united them ? and who controls them ?
They cannot control or determine themselves. To call it a
" fortuitous concatenation of circumstances " does not throw
any light on the subject. And Mr. Spencer's homogeneity
differentiating into heterogeneity, with aggregations and segrega-
tions, and polarities, etc., make the darkness of the problem only
more visible, without leading us a step nearer the solution.
All these attempted materialistic or agnostic solutions
reduce themselves ultimately to pure chance. The universe
as it is, accidentally came into being out of the chaos of matter
and forces. As for instance when we put paper and ink, and
type and presses, and cloth and thread, etc., into one chaotic
1 See Bishop of Carlisle's " Fallacies of Materialism," Nineteenth Century,
Deo. 1882.
III.]
Mind links Man to his Creator.
127
L-ega-
only
mass in an immense barrel and churn and churn the same, until
at one time out comes a perfect volume of Mr. Spencer's " First
Principles," and at another a complete edition of the Bible;
the difference to be accounted for by saying " fortuitous
concatenation of circumstances " — by mere chance ! Our minds
tell us that that is not the way things work to-day, and the
same mind strongly insists upon it that things never and no-
n-here acted in that way. Wc know that our minds regulate our
actions, and are the first cause of a great many phenomena. In
fact mind is the only first cause we know. And there is no
reason why we should not postulate Infinite Mind as the First
Cause of all things.
And now if one mind can study and appreciate, even par-
tially, the productions of another mind, wo may consider it as
evident that the two minds are, in essential constitution, alike.
If the young student grapples with the mighty productions of
master minds, the creations of poetic genius, or the deep reason-
ings of the philosopher, or the profound generalizations of the
scientist, though he stumbles often, is in darkness often, yet he
rises until he sees with the eyes of his masters and thinks their
thoughts over again. He is of the same nature as they. And
so when we trace the mighty lessons of mind in the universal
Book of God, though oft we stumble and often make mistakes, yet
patiently toiling on, we can trace and truly know the thought
and plan of the great author, in a measure trace intelligently
the workings of that Divine Intelligence " in whom we live and
move and have our being." And by a parity of reasoning, we
conclude that the mind of the student is akin to that of the author.
In a word we find that man is not only mind, but the human
mind is akin to the divine— and instead of being agitated matter,
MAN IS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF GoD.
III.
The next interesting point which asks for explanation is
•(|U:W
MI'S
(OrlM*
in
Ml
'•1
I SI
ml
ISS
128
Dlffi'vencG in forces.
[Lect.
Vtu
i'<n
m-
the question of growth, change, decay in the experience of
universal man, and in nil animate nature as W(?ll. ^[y hody
grows weary ; I strengthen it by putting food into it : it changes
in shape according to circumstances, it differs iil)Solutely from a
stone, a house, or any other manufactured article. "What is it
that causes the difference hetween inorganic, nnd organic being?
The Materialist is ready with an answer : The one is non-living
matter, and the other living matter. It is all in tlie arrangement
and motion of particles of matter, a difference in degree and not
in kind. The dilliculty ahout this explanation is twofold : (1) it
is based on the existence and potency of matter, an undecided
question, and (2) when all the positions and motions of matter
are pointed out, they offer no explanation of themselves, only
show more clearly what we want to have explained.
Leaving the materialists, let us apply to the best biologists
of England, France, and Germany, and ask for the substantial
result of their researches in this field. Dr. Lionel S. Beale, than
whom there is no greater biological authority, tells us there is
an absolute difference between inorganic and organic nature.
The united testimony of continental biologists of note endorses
his judgment. That the matter in them is reducible to the same
element, that much of the chemical operations are alike, is of
no account in face of the fact that the forces which build up the
organism of a tree, or the body of an animal, and carry on
a constant change therein, are absolutely different from the
forces which pile up into any shape the particles of non-living
things ; and when two forces work in radically different ways,
they may be regarded as different kinds of forces.
Fundamental differences in mere construction are two:
living bodies grow by nourishment, anil they themselves produce
their kind, to grow up like themselves, while non-living bodies
grow by accretion. And then amongst these organisms there
are endless differences of form, involving differences of force
III.]
Life a Creation.
129
again, but none so absolute as those that divide living and non-
livinj:; beings. Now there are two things in regard to living
beings which ask for explanation. All and each developed out
of a single minute cell; whence the power in that cell, called
vitality, which made it grow'? Each and all develop after a
certain fixed plan, essentially at ](;ast, like the being from which
that first germ came : what, and whence, the building force
which follows the fixed plan, by which everything — as genesis
and science tell us — can and must l)reed true to its kind '? And
then a third question also arises, — What produces variation and
differences in living things '?
Whence and what then is life ? Claude Bernard, one of the
greatest physiological authorities in France, says : " Life in its
essence is power, or rather it is the directing idea in organic
development. And if I should try to define it with a single
word, I should say — Life is a Creation. Indeed for the
physiologist, life can be nothing more than the first cause of the
organism, which, like all first causes, always eludes our search.
This cause manifests itself by the organization ; as long as that
lasts, the living being lies under the control of this creating vital
influence, and natural death takes place when the organic crea-
tion is discontinued." — Here we have life as a creation, a some-
thing which was in the first cell and not only started the organism
as first cause ; but a little further on he gives another power or
cause, which rules the being produced — " Life is an executive
vital cause of living phenomena."^ Here we have then the
unknown first creative canse of life itself and the executive cause
of all phenomenal development. And so say in substance at
least the best German biologists. As to the question of sponta-
neous generation of life, and life being a mere transformation
of chemical forces, there is absolutely no proof, and they say
^Du progres dans les sciences physiologiques, in Eevue des deux Mondes,
quoted also by Uhici in Gott uud die Natiu.
17
iiie
mi:**
ittliff
innv
llll'J
'11:5
•1
""1
130
Life an Executive Cause.
[Lect.
\\\
■ ■ \
!■'■
ij
r
■If
IS
■»
ml
Ma
there can be none given for the theoiy. We have seen how
much logic Mr. Spencer was able to put into the subject.^ The
nearest a good scientist can go, is to say that it is thinkable. But
to say that a certain apparently impossible explanation is
thinkable, does not bring us much nearer a solution.
But these masters in biological science tell us that the
problem is not solved even when you have vitality in a single germ
out of which the living orj^anism grows. They tell us that if that
life, that vitality of the first cell or germ was not a creation,
nobody can tell where it came from ; and mere notions which
all known facts belie will not go for much to establish a theory.
But granting the vitality of the lh"st cell, a larger problem still
remains. How is it that out of a cell produced by an oak tree,
only an oak tree is produced: that as that cell divides and
subdivides, and multiplies into millions and millions, those cells
that are up in the trunk produce only oak wood ; those in the
leaves, only oak leaves ; those in the roots, only oak roots ; a
perfect following out of the oak-tree plan, transmitted from the
parent oak ? Granting the vitality of each one of the myriad
cells, how is it that they work in such perfect harmony, in such
infallible regularity, and never produce a pine branch or a maple
leaf, or a bramble root ? And here comes in Claude Bernard's
"executive cause," the hfe-power which takes those germs and
uses them according to a predetermined plan. And so with
every tree and every plant. A something that lives from tip
of root to tip of branch and tiny twig, which lives on amidst the
change of substance coming and going, a living unit that dwelt
in the cell, and now dwells in all the tree ; and which even
provides for circumstances, as when the oak on mountain slope
exposed to constant blasts, doubles its stays, lengthens its roots,
and embraces the rocks to defy the storm. What is this
ipages 113, 114.
III.]
A Go'Ordlnatrag Tower
131
power ? It having made the tree, existed therefore before the tree.
Life laden with or working through an oak plan — or shall we say
with Leibnitz an oak-mona ? Call it what you like, it once lay
enfolded in a single germ, the single only link between this oak
and another older oak ; it built the oak, and rules the oak, and
it uses the oak to transmit to others the impress of the oak-plan
in the unbroken line of its own living self. And it cannot be
the mere matter of the tree nor the accidental working of
mechanical laws.
And so in the animal world every single animal sprang
from one little germ, ,the one living link between it and its
parents. This one little bioplast — or " piece of vitalized jelly " —
divides and subdivides, and a bird, a lion, a rat, a man, is pro-
duced. So far as we know, there is no difference between the
bioplasts which build a muscle, a nerve, a bone, or the brain.
And no difference between the bioplasts which build a man, a
horse, a rat, a lion, or a bird. And yet the forces in that one
little first germ are true to the universal law that like produces
like, eacli kind after its kind. And when the one first germ
divides and becomes uncounted m5'riads in the body of the Hon,
each one is true to its original plan ; never a mistake ot putting
a lamb's tail on a lion's body, but from tip of nose to tip of tail,
from point of claw to point of hair, every germ is true to its
original plan, — the plan enclosed in the life of that first germ,
permeating and filling and i-uling the whole body that it had
built up, and which it continually nourisnes. That life is one,
is continuous, while the substance of the body comes and goes,
cells are produced and die and are cast off to make way for new,
and it once lay latent in that one microscopic embr3'o germ.
This fact is farther seen in the experience of breeders
of animals. By certam selection of parents with desirable
traits, an impression is made on that one fecundated •embryo-
germ which is carried out all through the life and build and
:!tl
iBMV
xvm
ifii'£
;|liS
f
■i
132
What is this huildlng Unit?
[Lect.
m
i
IM
habits of the animal produced. It produces a true animal of its
kind, but builds true also to the elements of variety produced
by being the offspring of two lives, which united their differences
upon it. Moreover, in the animal this " cause executive" not
only builds and feeds and rules the bodily organs, but also im-
pels the animal to act according to the body that it has made ;
teaches the cat to catch rats and mice, the lion to lay the lamb
inside of him, the ox to eat straw ; leads the salmon up the fresh
water streams to spawn, and makes the herring breed in sea
water; sends the wild fowl north in summer, and south
again ere winter comes. And by what means does it act,
this something which builds the organism, and rules it,
and lives through its changes, and impels it to action, and
permeates its whole being, superintending its everlasting
change ? What is this building, coordinating power Avhich works
in life, or in which life works, or which is life ? Mere laws
cannot do such work, mechanical forces do not explain it, mere
vitality cannot solve it. Is there a something yet beyond our
ken which acts as a link between the living and the dead, — a
something transmitted by parents to the vitalized germ, which
then built the house and expanded so as to fill it, connecting and
controlling all the myriad bioplasts ? Breeding and heredity
and adaptation produce no new kind of matter or of bioplasts,
but they do produce differences in the individual plan while
preserving all true to the grand type. If we call it with
Leibnitz a monn, it must be only as a shorter appellation of a
" cause executive " which we are not yet able to explain.
And now in the same way man's body is built up, from a
single bioplastic jelly spot in which lay in embryo the whole
man, physical, instinctive, mental, moral. In that germ, even
before it divided into two, there lay in embryo —
1. Life — the coordinating power which would build up the
man.
III.l
This Seed of Body and Soul.
133
2. The whole plan of the physical organism, with each and
all of the physical organs.
3. The different instinctive actions which men perform
before reason takes the reins.
4. Consciousness.
5. Perceptions of self-evident truths, or framework of the
mind.
6. Will, choice, freedom.
And now as these all existed before the germ, which began
the body, lay in the life-power and life-plan, while all the
matter in the body changed over and over again, neither life,
nor plan, nor force, nor instinct nor consciousness, nor
l)erception of necessary truths, nor will, nor choice, sprang
from the organism of this changing body, for they all existed
implicitly in that which caused the organism to come into
being, and which rules the organism after it is made. Nor
are these things dependent on a fortuitous adjustment of
parts, or on the influence of environment. Just conceive of a
man built on any other plan, without any one of these essen-
tials, — bodily organs, consciousness, intuitions, will, choice, etc.;
suppose any one to be left out, or to be dependent at any time
on our environment, which might have made them differently,
and what would you have ? An idiot, a missing link perhaps,
but certainly no man. As in the seed-germ the whole tree lay
implicitly enfolded, as in the lion-germ the whole and perfect
lion lay enfolded, so in that which produced the first speck of
each man, there lay implicitly the whole man. And through
that one germ the traits of father and mother are perpetuated.
A drunken father may curse his homo with an idiotic son, or
give him an insane thirst for drink. In moments of exaltation
a child may be given that Avill transcend all its forefathers in
mental and moral powers ; and all through that lifo-power, that
something that existed before the germ, in which the whole man
IS
m
ntsW
Vint
til
Hi V
lis
*i
III! If
:;(.
m
!■■
;
134 The JJnconscious and the Conscious I. [Lect.
was laid, before all body, before all growth. And by what means
did the life-power build the body from brain to toe on that plan,
that produced the instinct, the thought, the conscience, the will,
these things that live and work and control, while the body obeys,
and changes? Lionel S. Bealo says the vital power of the
highest form of bioplasm in nature is the living I — the me-the-
thinker. The I, the myself, existed before my body — implicitly ;
the I-myself built up the body — unconsciously ; the I-myself led
those instincts — half-consciously ; the I-myself uses this body
consciously. The I-myself will use this body as I freely choose,
and when my poor old body can work no more, what ara I to do?
This raises the same question as before, — By what means does the
life of the tree, the animal, the I-myself, build up this visible
body ? What is the seat of the instinct and the think, and the
means by which they act ? Does this lead us to a beginning of
an apprehension of Paul's "spiritual body"? It is to this that
German Biology and German Philosophy are pointing to-day,
pointing to the position held by the Bible for thousands of years.
The soul with all its powers lies in that germ. And this brings
us face to face with the hideousness of a certain crime with
which Japan is dark, but from which the present government is
trying to free the land — a crime which grows where deep Christian
life loses hold of the home, a crime denounced as murder by
the Christian church from the beginning — the murder of men
and women, long before they were born.^
IV.
And now an interesting question arises, a question often
asked me since I came to Japan. And that is, what is the
difference between the human soul and the ordinary animal
soul ? The great distinction lies in the fact that with the lower
animals instinct is the highest ruling power, and Intelligence
in man. And what is instinct ?
1 For fuller discussion of much in the above sectioii see also Cook's Heredity.
III.]
What is Instinct.
135
iredity.
1. Instinct is a something which lies in the original plan
of the animal, just like structure, and function, or the organs
and their duties. And just as the structure develops, the instinct
is there to match it.
2. Instinct is as necessary and unvarying a part of an
animal as the color of its skin or hair, or the shape of its body.
Or if there are variations, they are just such exceptions and
variations as take place in the growth of the body, or in the actions
of a tree. Bees from time immemorial have made honey in the
same way and put it in the same kind of cells. Silkworms lom
time immemorial have woven cocoons as they do to-day.
3. Instinct needs no experience. What it does it does per-
fectly. The silkworm wer.ves but one cocoon, and always as
perfectly as its predecessors did. The bird builds its nest just
as its forefathers or foremothers did ; and the first nest the
young bird builds is as well made as that of the oldest and most
experienced. And so on all through, showing that instinct is
as purely an original part of the bird or animal as the working
of the stomach in digestion, or the flow of blood to the parts of
the body.
4. I do not deny that there is sensation, and perhaps a
certain amount of intelligence among the higher classes of
animals ; for without it they could hardly be trained. But after
all, that intelligence is but rudimentary, subservient, low, while
unchanging instinct is master — the ruling power in the brute.
5. Instinct in animals comes along with bodily organs
as a necessary fundamental accompaniment, giving necessary
impulse, and knoivledrjc, and skill, to do just what they ought to
do, and which exactly fits all the impulses of appetite, and those
arising from t needs of the individual or of the species.
6. The peii> > tion of these instinctive powers, impulse and
knowledge and skill, does by no means indicate the rank of the
animal ; for they are most perfect in somo of the very lowest
!li5
et:S
*•!
mill
ft
11
m
In-.': i*
136 Instinct is independent of Experience. [Lect.
forms. They come, because without them the animal coukl
not exist ; they meet the requirements of his being, the con-
ditions of his life ; they act till the animal can learn from
experience ; and if he is never to learn from experience, they
keep on worlcing, and do the whole work ; and do it in the
wisest and most perfect manner, so that the wisest and best
amongst Intelligences could not improve on their work, though
they work through bees, and spiders, and worms, or the lowest
things that crawl.^
7. Man also has instincts, but they cannot be trusted as
guides to action after Intelligence awakens. They do not give
us knowledge and skill. Knowledge must come by ex^ierience,
and skill must come by practice. But the instinctive impulses
of the soul indicate man's nature and the lines along which
effort and study and thought and practice should work, none of
which can be disregarded without emasculating humanity, and
all of which are prophetic of a something true to match them.
None of these, however, are self-directing, as in the case of
the brutes and insects. They must be controlled by higher
powers, according to a law laid down by Pres. Hopkins, viz.,
every power in man must be used so far, and only so far, as it
is a condition of activity, or as it is helpful, to the next higher
power ; for man has animal powers, and human powers, rising
into higher regions, and unfolding higher duties and a nobler
destiny.
V.
And now what are these higher powers that are distinc-
tively and peculiarly the property of man.
Here a large and tempting series of subjects comes up for
1 For fuller trcatmeut of this interesting subject sec Cliadboume's Instinct
in animals and men.
III.] Loiver Nature perfect because dependent. 137
question and answer, that are so important as to make it almost
appear that too much time had been wasted on man's lower
nature and bodily powers.
But these are a necessary introduction to the former, and
as I shall have occasion to recur to the subject again, I will try
now to show 3'ou some of the most salient cardinal points, by
which you will be able to see the trend of what I think to be a
true philosophy.
With man's higher powers we enter an entirely new world,
in some respects at least. We come to analyse the mc-thc-
thinker, the me-the-asker of questions, the comprehendcr of
answers, the maker of philosophies, the possessor of will-power,
aught-and-must-impulses, a hungering for something undying.
One grand cardinal difference between man and all else
you see, is that man has to learn to take care of himself, and
do all that he does, not by some blind impulse but by effort,
by thinking, comparing and reasoning, accumulating know-
ledge by effort, and gaining skill by practice. Not so any
where else. Suns and systems move in perfection by an
impulse inherent or immanent or above them ; trees grow and
perform most marvellous feats of v/isdom, but by an inherent
intelligence not their own ; they do what they do because they
cannot do otherwise, and can do no other thing. Animals grow ;
a marvellous wisdom constructs their body, gives it organs,
duties: and the same marvellous wisdom projects itself in
wonderful actions, which those animals do, just suited to
structure and function, because they must do that and
nothing else, and they do that with perfection because it is not
their intelligence that does it, nor is their skill got by practice.
Leave the whole world, excepting man, alone, and every thing
will move true to its nature in the wisest, most perfect harmony.
Apparently the outworking of one immanent master mind, the
doings of one almighty will.
18
KMb
lis
*4
pp
Hi*
»'2
tun
138 The Higher blunders hccausc Self-controlUnfj. [Lect.
Mi
iy/H. 52
m
w
But when you come to man, you find a little world that
seems to have been furnished with a stock in trade, and made
to set up business for itself, and he generally makes a sad
bungling mess of it; begins with blunders — may succeed, but the
majority seem to end in bankruptcy. Mr. Huxley tells us "the
microcosm repeats the macrocosm" — man a little world like the
great outside machine. The analogy may be carried to a
certain extent. Those parts of man which are directly and
specially under the sole control of the Power which rules the
universe, answer fully to the scheme and follow Him whose
will is expressed in the vast complications and developments of
the material world, in the marvellous work of the vegetable and
animal organisms, and in instinctive wisdom. But over and
above all these things, different from all else in our world, there
reigns in man a local ruler, who is not infallible, but who guides
the destinies of his microcosm-kingdom and may be untrue to
the Power above him.
The fact is the powers of man are stupendous — vast beyond
compare. But the secret of the whole trouble, as also the
secret of his unbounded possibilities, lies in the fact that his
powers have no inherent machine-knowledge and skill, like the
animals, etc.; his instincts which point out these powers and the
something somewhere to match them all, are only blind impulses
and unfledged powers which have no natural skill or knowledge
to lead them, such as insects and birds have in perfection.
That is the secret of human blundering and floundering and
darkness and despair.
But again these latent powers enfolded within the conscious
I-tlie-thinker, show forth true natural instincts ; these blind
impulses, as blind as new^-hatched sparrows, open their mouths
and cry for something to feed them, or they must starve. So
I-the-thinker must think, and reason, and search, and experi-
ment, until I can satisfy this hungry brood within the soul.
III.J
The Thrc'pfold Division.
139
and
And then little by little they gain strength, they open their
eyes, they plume their wings, and there rises a whole flock of
powers which exhaust the visible universe for their joy, but
finding here no perfect satisfaction, no exhaustion of their
powers of growth, no complete scope for perfect action, they
migrate like wild-fowl to sunnier wider realms in unseen larger
worlds. In the marvellous work of the up-building and guiding
monas — or whatever you like to call them — of vegetable and
animal and instinctive life, I find nothing that necessarily
implies a continued existence of individual life after the
organism perishes. But in man that something which rises
above the unconscious working of inherent power, that per-
sonality which is conscious not only of external influences but is
self-conscious, and conscious of other immaterial minds and
of the great mind over all, can surely live on, and why not
forever ?
Let us look a little more closely at these higher powers.
AVe find (1) Mental, (2) Moral, and (3) Spiritual faculties, as the
peculiar heritage of man. There is no clashing of these powers,
either among themselves or with the lower powers connected
with the bodily constitution. The power within me which,
independent of my consciousness, built up this framework, works
in perfect harmony with me-the-thinker, who must use the body.
But I-the-thinker must use this body according to its constitu-
tion and not otherwise. It has no wings, I cannot fly. If it
had wings, I would be a different kind of man.
In the same way I-the-tliinker must think according to the
constitution of my mental faculties. I muet go on those lines,
or become another kind of a being altogether. The constitution
of the body shows itself in instincts, which in animrds are
self-regulative, and in man are to be regulated by the thinker.
The constitution of the thinker is shown also by mental
instincts, which are invariable, hence we talk of intuition or
mall
mnv
rtT?
iiiii
140
Lituitions, Mental tramewovh.
[Lect.
'■ifl fc
nacessary truths, which every human thinker must lay down as
the line along which his thoughts must go; the opposite of
which would completely unmake the constitution of man.
They do not depend on experience : they reach to things beyond
experience: they are universal. And as soon as the mind's think-
ing powers begin to stir at all, these mental instincts, first
unconsciously, and then consciously, show themselves. These
mental instincts have no contents of knowledge ; that must be
acquired. But ask any man from pole to pole, who can think
at all, if an effect can be without a cause, if two straight
lines can enclose a space, and the universal necessary answer
will be ^^ never" and yet no one can prove the contrary.
And so all along these intuitional lines of mental instinct,
the intellect learns to apprehend, to compare, to distinguish, to
generalize, to systematize ; with the exercise grows and expands
into vastness ; transmits this knowledge to others by instruction,
but never by inheritance. By inheritance the thinker may give
his children a sturdier mental framework, but not a single
content of it, nor a variation in its fundamental constitution.
I cannot linger to point out the greatness of the human
intellect when expanded, but I ask you to look at the fact that
the grandest mountain peaks of pure intellect stand in the back-
ground of 2000 years ago. Little Attica within 200 years
produced 28 names which have been unmatched in mental
power during tlie 2000 years that have since elapsed. Look where
you may, in all the continents, in all the ages they stand peerless,
excepting perhaps two or three solitary names. Education is
more widespread, science has given us more facts. But
cart-loads of facts by the million will not strengthen the intel-
lectual powers, unless combined in a philosophy that is true to
the intellectual constitution of man. On the other hand,
combined in a system untrue to the constitution of his highest
novrerB, the multiplication of these scientific facts and theories
III.]
Moral and {^piritHal Powers,
141
will add an impetus to the evil influence abroad to emasculate
and degrade the intellect of man. Mental success comes not by
waiting for Evolution to spin it out, but by a diligent training
of mind according to mental laws.
Again, man is moral. Ho has a moral constitution, moral
instincts ; feels [inotifiht within him, pointing io duty, obligation.
This also, untaught, is a blind impulse, has no inherent contents,
must be led ; may bo taught wrong, and may make great
blunders. The soul says I ought, instinct cries I ought : but a
knowledge of what I ought to do is not inborn or inherited : I
must be taught. Nor can more experience teach me, nor mere
intellect, great though it be ; nor philosophy, clear though it tread
in mental lines. Intellect can go a good way, when taught by
experience ; but ethics taught by mind alone with experience as
guide, are poor watery things. I come to this subject again,
and simply point out here that the only ethics, the only system
of morals known to this world, true to the whole mental and
moral constitution of man, is to be found in the teaching of
Jesus of Nazareth. That is the Fujiyama, the Peerless, in the
moral world. And now man has a spiritual nature, a God-
instinct, that can never be satisfied, though it may be slain —
can never live and be satisfied, until it rest in the Great Father
Spirit, whose will is visible in nature, in instinct, in mind and
here in conscience. This is an essential power in the human
constitution by which we know or may know God. But like all
other human instincts it is blind, must be taught, and nourished
and led until it can walk alone, and then it rises majestic, and
like all the other powers, blesses, ennobles all below it.
The instincts are there though they be blind, and they
are true to the constitution of man; but if untaught, they will
surely develop into monstrosity. What mean those m^a-iad
temples, and shrines, and altars, and relics, and pilgrimages ?
What mean those idols, hideous, uncouth, cruel? What
aw
aim
,l'l
Itf
11:2
fH«|
li
1
142
Satisfied onli/ hi/ Christ,
[Lect.
:l)i
III
he::
mean those howling incantations and that ceaseless thunder
of prayer into the vast unknown ? What mean those fires and
incense, those holocausts of boasts and of babes, those immola-
tions of beauteous life of woman and fjrowiug strength of
man ? What mean ? — but cease the horrid tale. What means
all that and a thousandfold more that has cursed the world
of wayward men for millenniums ? It all means that in
the human constitution there is a spiritual nature with
instincts as real as that in the silkworm to spin a silk cocoon,
but like all other instincts of man, without instinctive knowledge
and skill, which awakened, aroused, untaught or mistaught,
grows to be the strongest impulse of humanity, surging,
seething, impelling, like the headlong dash of riderless mad-
dened steed — on, on to despair!
Now my business in this land is to try to show not only
that these impulses are true instincts, and evidence a true
spiritual constitution in man, but also to show that they are also
evidences of a something real to match them and perfectly to
satisfy them ; that the instincts may be directed and taught —
may apprehend that for which they were made ; they may
know God, and knowing him, man may be satisfied by becoming
morally, spiritually like him, and thus rise to the sublimcst ideal
possible to humanity. And this teaching, this needed guidance,
is to be found in a revelation which accords so well with the
constitution of the visible universe, and of the mind of man,
that we must think it came from the very same Creative Mind —
I mean the teachings of Christ.
II. — Synthesis.
In our discussion of the question, — Wliat is man ? we started
out with the intention of not assuming anything that was not
evidently a fact or sufficiently established by proof. All outside
of that was to be relegated to the sphere of hypothesis to be
further tested as occasion should arise.
III.I
Gravltailon , Phij^U'o-chcmlcal Lairs.
143
;ai'tecl
s not
Litsitlo
to be
Wo started then with tlic fundamental axiomatic truth of our
consciousness, / ihinh, (Did I kiton- ihat I think. We fonnd also
that ^Ye — I — could cause certain phenomena, do cevtiiin tilings,
the prime moving cause of which was ray irill ; I irillcd, and that
was for many a result, (ijirst caiisn. Thus we found, as the very
beginning of all our knowledge, a perception of forces, — forces of
conscious minds. Looking beyond our minds, wc saw what
men call m attcr, but no one could toll us what matter is ; from
the most superficial observer to the profoundest scientist, we
could -find nothing but a description of phenomena produced
by a variety of forces, acting through something which came from
somewhere, and which we call matter. And this matter is to
be found from the most distant fixed star, through suns and
systems, in plants, animals, and man. Science tells us what
wonderful things are done with this matter by the laAV of
gravitation, but can tell us no more about the law of gravitation
than about matter ; only that matter is carried round and round
in just such a way as if such a force were actually there. And
that regular way of acting or being acted upon they call the law of
gravitation, and we can get no nearer. They can tell of motion,
but nothing of the force that made the motion. And then they
tell us of the wonderful workings of other forces, taking matter,
making it into solids, liquids, gasses, crystals and a thousand
other indescribably beautiful and wonderful things, and they tell us
that these are the phenomena of matter, acted upon by physico-
chemical laws or forces. But after all they can only tell us
that this is the way that that indefinable something called
matter acts or is acted upon, just as if there were certain fixed
forces working in a certain regular way. That regularity of
way of acting they call law ; but of the forces themselves the
best scientists know nothing, only the phenomena.
A step further and we come to where a new set of pheno-
mena showed, not new matter, but a new force, which laid hold
1!!^
M.Hf
ill 5
mm
•'1
m
144
Laws of Vitality and Instinct.
[Lect.
t .(
'"If
£
of gravitation, and physico-chemical forces, and made them serve
as hewers of wood and drawers of water, chained them to do her
bidding, while she took hold of matter and rejected matter at her
sweet vvill. Vitality, life, produced phenomena, whose wonderful
variety and motions science unfolds and delights us with ; but
science gets no nearer matter, and no nearer the forces, can
tell us nothing about life-forces, whether in single germ, or in
system -building after a fixed plan, only about motions and
phenomena produced as if there were some such force, and that
way of acting or being acted upon, they call law — laws of vitality.
A higher class of living things then shewed a different class
of phenomena, animal movement, only to be explained by
different forces having come in ; but these forces still are in-
scrutable to science. Only the phenomena can be tabulated.
And the highest phenomena of the law of animal life we saw to
be instinct, by which animals received, when needed, as natur-
ally and unvaryingly as their teeth or their hair, a perfect stock
of impulse, and knowledge, and skill, exactly suited to the
structure of their bodies, and the functions of tlieir organs or
the needs of their race — a natural wisdom which transcends all
learning or experience. Here again science can tabulate facts,
and marvellous phenomena, but can tell us nothing about the
forces.
The next step brings us to man himself. We find in his
body that wonderful, not yet definable thing called matter,
subject to laws, laws of gravitation, modified by physico-chemical
laws, these controlled and enslaved by vital laws, and these
accompanied by certain instinctive laws, with a great many
things similar to the higher classes of animals — bones answering
to bones, organs to organs, functions to functions. And if we
should suppose the human race to be extinct, unable to say a
word for itself, having left only fossil bones behmd, and then
that these bones should fall into the hands of some morpho-
m'v4
III.J
" Mans place in Nature.'*
145
in Ills
matter,
emical
these
many
swering
id if we
to say a
1(1 then
norplio-
logist of a succeeding race, bnt of tae S]>ecies Huxley & Co., he
certainly would put us all down as belonging to the genus ape,
and the species anthropos, — a species that did more walking than
climbing. And the matter would rest there, as scientifically
settled as that indubitable horse-race from that primordial
protohippos of the size of a fox, on which Mr. Huxley has ridden
out from tertiary depths through quaternary epochs into the
stables of the present gigantic steed.
And even as it is, IMr. Huxley seems very anxious to
establish a close relationship Ijctwocn man and the monkey, as
you \yill all have perceived in his charming little book entitled
Man's Phtcc in Ndturc. Tliat book may show very clearly
where man is placed in tbe nature known to the morphologist,
but it certainly tells us nothing aljout the Ndfiirc of the Man.
And that is precisely where the groat dillerence comes in. If
a man is placed in a stable, that does not make him a horse ;
and if I happen to be in a house of llesh and bones not unlike
a monkey, that does not make mo a monkey or anything like a
monkey, in my essential nature or character.
The mind is the measure of the man, and here wo come
back to the point from which we started. Man has a mind ; I
think, I know I think ; I can spealc for myself, and can rescue
myself from the morphologists, or any other " ist " who under-
takes to describe mc, but leaves me out of the description. I
almost wish that the other animals could only have a chance
to si)eak their minds too ; but here I am reminded that they
would probably speak their mind if they only had a mind
to speak. But mnn has a mind to speak, and speaking his
mind, ho tells jon that mind is not matter, and that science can
find no bridge between matter and mind ; he tells you, and true
science echoes the word with tinphasis, that Spencer's philoso-
phico-evolution bridge from matter and force to mind is a most
lamentable logical failure ; that JJain's *' double-faced somewhat "
18
lis
f-nw
ft m
"1
■jfci
¥\
146
Matter and Mind differ
[Lect.
El >1
W:
■fKI
if'
r
is, like all other doublc-faccdnoss, very much lacking in truth,
and that mind differs from matter and force — } es, throAving in
for mere argument's sake, if you will, matter and gravitation, and
physico-chemical forces, and vital forces, and animal movement,
and instinct, all thrown into one evolved materialistic bundle, —
and yet mind, consciousness, is more completely distinct from it
all, towers more grandly alcove it all, than your cloud-piercing
Fujisama differs from and towers above the beating waves that
lave the scattered sands of Fuji's feet.
Let us make a few comparisons and sec where mind differs
from matter. (1) Matter and mind are seen through their
phenomena.^ These phenomena appear to us in certain form-
elements. Events involve time, effects causes, propositions
have respect to truth. Now the ultimate form-element of matter-
phenomena has respect to space ; it is physical, — you must place
it somewhere. Mental acts have a different and exclusively
peculiar form-element, vonscionsness — something thought. Here
is an impassible gulf, two sets of facts as completely incom-
municable, and uninterchangeablc as the qualities of a stone
and a thought, a block of wood and a trittlt.
(2) Again there is a dift'erence in the ultimate laws which
control the two sets of facts. In the material world we have
forces, fixed in direction and degree ; in the mind, spontaneity.
In matter forces are causes and produce certain off'ects ; cause
equal to effect, effect equal to cause ; each cause the eff'ect of some
previous cause ; each eff'ect the cause of some future effect. The
thoughts of mind stand in no such relation, measured and
definable, to the conscious powers ; they may be i'^ss or more ;
they do not cause truth but seek to discern it. The antecedents
U-'or a I'uller iliscusKiim of the iiuUtiror these paraj^'nipliH, >;co Chiistian
rhiloso^jhy Quttitcrly, 18bJ, "iliud ttuJ Matter, thtir Immcdiato Ivchition," by
Boiicom.
III.l
hi cri'i'ii fJf^scufidJ Vai'tli'iilar.
147
in tlic material world arc causes, in the mental world, premises;
in reference to thoughts, reasons,- in reference to actions, motives.
These things cannot be legitimately confounded.
(8) Prevailing laws arc diverse. The prevailing idea of
law to-day is that of an eternal, immutal)lo, irrefragable way or
force or plan, according to which all things must move. And
that is correct with regard to the material world. Ihit there arc
no such laws in the mental, spiritual world. Physical laws are
the fixed working of causes. Mental laws are constantly chang-
ing, are laws of logic, and may bo disobeyed. The laws of
rational beings refer to rational welfare and may be disregarded.
The laws of thought, of rational action, of truth, of virtue, differ
by an impassable gulf from the laws of forces, or physical
causes and of mechanics.
(4) Another distinction lies in the fact that the material
world is the source of diverse impressions — of difference ; the
other is the source of constructive ideas — of agreement. Tho
physical world gives variity, disconnection, each thing separate
from others in space and time. Mind lays hold of the varied
phenomena, searches for relations, fixes a system, constructs
a unity. Consciousness brings all together, unites them in
conceptions, conclusions, constructions, finds out the facts of
cause and cft'ect : deals with these things as a master deals
with tools. And these two poles of matter and mind thus
diverse, can never be confounded without a hopeless collapse, a
universal jargon.
Now within the range of consciousness we found three
great departments, the menfal, llie montl, and the spiritnaL
The first answering to the / thinh, I will, in all its possil)ilities ;
the second to the Z ()m//(f in all its developments; the third is
that which " seeks after God if haply we may find Ilim," and
when properly led it finds Ilim " not far from every one of us."
It was seen that the instincts in man answering to this thrce-
\\1S0
..•irti»
BflW
.\9
mm
urn
W'
148
The higher Powers may be Dormant [Lect.
m-
.1,5
'Hi
If
9' '
fold constitution were not like the instincts of animals, full-
grown and furnished with the contents of knowledge and skill for
perfect action. These human instincts were seen to be blind
impulses, indicating powers, but without knowledge or skill to
guide them. Instruction, experience must be given, reason
aroused, the machinery of consciousness set agoing, to bring
forth the products of thought, judgment, decision, action.
And every one of these powers may be dormant, almost
dead, and the man still thrive in a certain way. Not only
amongst savages, Ijut in every land there are many who content
themselves Avith the merest routine of an almost animal life,
their bread-winning becoming little more than a mechanical
instinct, whose minds seem to be almost incapable of putting two
impressions together into the shape of a thought. What is simple
to you is darkness to them ; it must be intellectually discerned,
and to their dark minds it is foolishness made vocal.
In the same way the very idea of ought or ought not,
seems to be banished from many a mind, the I can and I will
alone limiting the bounds of action. The way to such a man's
moral consciousness seems to be only through his anger at the
ill-deeds of another against himself. " Why are you angry?"
says the teacher. " He did mo wrong ; he ought not to do so,"
says he. " Very well," says the teacher; " do you think you ever
do what you ought not to do ?" And a new thought comes into
the man's head, his moral consciousness begins to awaken, and
what was foolishness before begins to be morally discerned.
And so with the spiritual consciousness. It may be dead,
dormant, or covered up so as to be undiscernible, though its
rudiments are more universal than morality. It may sink even
one (K\'!;rec lower than Spencer's inane agnostic abyss, and men
may be utterly unconscious of that unknowable power. But con-
scious or unconscious of an individual power, there remains a whole
world of facts which arc foolishness until spiritually discerned.
III.]
or AhuormnUu Developed.
140
Again, oacli of these powers may l)e deceived and abnor-
mally developed. Intellect misguided lias made the earth flat
and set it on the back of a tortoise ; and even to-day with false
permises, and l)ad logic, builds castles in the air, cutting away
all foundation, declaring a thing unknowable, and then proceed-
ing to toll you what it is, and whnt it is not, and how it Avorks.
And the moral ought has been abnormally developed, until men
have thought that becarse tuey ought to feed their starving
children, they ought to go and kill a man to cook him in order to
feed them, !^^en have been taught that they ought not to live
under the same skies with the enemy of their father, but to
pursue him with the sword of the avenger; thivt they ought to
draw their blades in deadly fight if scal^bards happen to touch in
passing ; that they ought to disembowel themselves if their honor
should be touched or their master fail in war, — one and all a
bastard progeny of the moral instinct of man. And to define the
aberrations of the spiritual instinct would lay bare the most
gigantic curses ever known to man in every clime. But that
serves to show more clearly that the religious God-seeking faculty
is no mere fiction, but the largest fact in the human constitution.
Again, one of these powers may be developed normally,
fully, Avhile the others are left dormant or weak. Those most
colossal of all intellectual giants of till time, referred to before,
lived in a most intellectual age, but an age putrescent with
moral filth, of which they were scnrcely conscious, and in which
many of them sank with the brilliant intellectualism of their
day. A short time ago Mr. Spencer was asked in America if
education could cure the political scandals and trickery of the
great liepublic. And he said t1)at it could not: that the
greatest scoundrels were educated men, and the moral element
Jiust be developed. But how develop it ? was another question.
And every one here can recall names of persona, to every
appearance scholars and gentlemen, but iu some respects
tiS
vim!
I I IS
150
All 'inaij ho Normally Dcrclojyd. [Lect.
utterly oblivious to moral purity. And along with the intel-
lectual development there may also be a considerable moral
growth, arising from a philosophy based on experience, and heart
impulses ; but that morality, though noble as far as it goes, has
no charm or power over the populace, is cold, lifeless, for it goes
not back to its true source ; and along with it from Aristotle and
Plato, from Confucius and Buddha down to ftpenccr, there is no
true recognition of the highest, most important element in
human psychology, the spiritual faculty by which we can know
God, and commune with llim — no spiritual discernment. And
hence a faulty philosophy and a halting ethical teaching, from
which even Hpencer's ethics cannot be excepted, though he has
borrowed with grudging credit from the Carpenter's Son.
But best of all, all three can and should be developed into
perfect use, and in perfect harmony. Then, as each higher power
is brought into exercise and normally developed, it quickens into
life and activity all below it. A high moral sense will quicken
intellectual effort ; a true spiritual life will arouse moral
principle and give intensity to intellectual vigor as nothing else
can.
The full supply for spiritual man we find in the Christ, and
in his ethics all that the moral nature of man craves, while his
mental constitution is not only not debauched, but elevated and
strengthened thereby. Let us analyse one or two of these moral
instincts and see the supply.
1. The first thing perhaps that one would meet in this search
would be the feeling of a something wrong in us or about us. I
ought and yet I do not ; there is imperfection, disharmony. I
look abroad upon all nature and find perfection, harmony, order,
law ; no place for exceptions, and yet my conscience tells me
that I am an exception. Oh, that some sign might be given to
show mo when I am right and when I am wrong ! But " there
is no speech and there is no language, Nature's voice is not
Ill]
SoiuG Spit'ltual Instincts
151
heard" — perfect apathy to all my sorrow. Oh for something
that would bring me the relief even of punishment ; better a hell
of fire than this hell of suspense, and this writhing of a living
something longing after what seems to be nothing. But hold, hero
we have a voice : " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the
soul." And what a relief when the decalogue thunders a
broadside, shatters all our lictions and condemns us as having
sinned against the Creator. Sinai thunders " Thou shalt, —
thou shalt not," and we know there is some one above us who
cares for what we arc and what wo do. And then in the story
of Uedemption we have the cure, the wound in humanity is a
wound in the heart of our lo\ing All-father, and by the comfort
of Jesus the soul is renewed. " The law of the Lord is perfect,
converting the soul."
2. Again, humanity is not learned ; we want a story that
is simple, a way that is plain. Wo do not want to delegate our
doing to others, nor servo God by proxy. Nature speaks
only in very general terms to the simple : the profoundest learn-
ing unlocks some of it. We cannot trust to the testimony of
all scientists in spiritual things. But " the testimony of the
Lord is sure making wise the simple." The law speaks with
simplicity that a child can understand, " thou shalt — thou
shalt not," and the gospel says " believe and live," and this
testimony is found to be unassailable, sure.
3. The soul feels I oituhf, but asks what ought I to do ? what
is right ? Nature says law — philosophical ethics says law or
pleasure. They have nothing to satisfy humanity. But " the
statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart." Yes ; found
at last, the true line of duty ; and it fits, it is right, and the
heart is glad.
4. The soul abhors the stream of unclea mess, surging on
every hand. Oh, is there no relief from this foul life and tainted
atmosphere? Yes; "the commandment of the Lord is pure,
•■.tm<-
152
The SiippUj in Christ.
[Lect.
enlightening tho eyes," and following that commanclmei:
purity will fade ; the enlightened eyes will see a purer life-i..
beyond.
5. Again, shall we live after the body dies ? All nature tells
of death inevitable. Heaven and earth may pass away : there
is no reason why they should not. ]}ut shall this conscience,
which walks with Him who created all, perish ? That divine
word once spoken in the purified soul can never lapse into
silence. ** The fear of tho Lord is clean, enduring forever." •
0. The soul asks for moral equity, for righteous judgment,
but in all nature there is no moral discrimination. The best
of men are outwardly sometimes the i^ ost miserable or the
most ill-used ; the vilest arc often the i t exalted. But down
in conscience there is a judgment and the beginnings of punish-
ment for wrong, portentous of just wrath. Or in the conscience
is a calm, the result of right, portentous of peace eternal. The
unrest of conscience is met. " The judgments of the Lord are
true and righteous altogether."^
But I cannot continue. When this force seizes the soul and
its instincts are nourished, the true majesty of man appears,
the tremendous power of faith in a Creator God who loves
mankind. A power which made men and women mighty in
olden times, even before Christ came — ** who had cruel mockiugs
and scourgings, bonds and imprisonments, were stoned, sawn
asunder, slain with the sword, wandered in sheep-skins and goat-
skins, destitute, afflicted, tormented (of whom the world was
not worthy), they wandered in deserts, in mountams and in dens
and caves of the earth," — all this because they would not give up
their faith in God the Creator nor do what they thought wrong.
And from the time of Christ on, the same thing has been repeated
iFor a luminous exposition of these points of Psiilni XIX, which ylow with
a new Ught under Christ's influence, see " The Outer and Inner Glunj," by G.
Mathobou, iu The Expositor, Vol. XII.
im
III.]
Christ's Power over Men,
153
sawn
fjoat-
a hundredfold more cruelly ; tender women and children cast
to lions and tigers in the circus, bodies covered with oil and mado
into torches to light up a tyrant's garden, tens of thousands
massacred ; but men would believe, and through it all the faith
ran and made men noble, heli)ing humanity up to better things.
Again in more modern times, men and women have stood like
adamant against persecution and ignominy, counting faithful-
ness to God better than all things, despising the fiery stake,
crucifixion, death. A thousand instances could be given to-day of
the intellectual awakening and the moral transformation, which
take place in individual men as a result of simple faith in Christ.
And why? Simply because what Christ brings is to the spirit of
man what truth is to the seeking mind, or food to the famishing
body. It is by this power over men that Christ is becoming moro
and more the ruler of the modern world. To understand this
power let us look again at our grand ideal man, that secret power
of our modern civilization, that unapproachable king of humanity,
Jesus of Nazareth. Wherein lay his more than Samson
strength ? Wherein the lever and the fulcrum with which he has
lifted the world ? Marvellous man ! Men will refuse to believe
in him, to follow him, to let him speak for himself, and yet they
will exhaust language to express their admiration for him as the
peerless among men. Wherever Christ is known at all, only
the most depraved and vile can say one word against the
faultless man. Listen to rejecters of the Christian religion.
Strauss says : "He remains the highest model of religion
within the reach of our thought, and no perfect piety is possible
without his presence in the heart." And Keim, an erudite
critic of Holland : " His religion is the loftiest ideahsm,
in faith and will, and yet again so entirely measured, and
sober; because resting on actually experienced facts and
built on earnest deeds of highest, fullest, and truly human, free
and reasonable performance." lienan tries to prove that Jesus
20
;;9
'•J
Ji5
mm
iS
154
The Secret of his lujiiieucr.
[Lect.
ii!.-
was ft more man and thus writes: "Whatever ho the surprises
of the future, Jesus will never he surpassed. His worship will
grow young without ceasing ; his legend will call forth tears
without end; his sufferings will melt the nohlest hearts; all
ages will proclaim that among the sons of men there is none
born greater than Jesus."
" And now whence these mighty works that do show forth
themselves in him'? Is not this the carpenter's son, and his
brethren are they not all with us ?" Whence the power of this
marvellous Jew ? Search the record of his life. It is short and
easily read. Yes, leave out all that destructive critics would
have you throw away. Let the question of inspiration drop, let
the subject of miracles lie in abeyance. Just take what the
critics must leave, what even fancy cannot destroy, take the very
baldest story of his life and work and what do you find ? Has
he added to scientific or intellectual life '? Take out all that is
purely philosophical, as men call philosophy, and you do not
affect the whole. Is the power in his system of ethics ? Take
away all that is purely ethical, that springs like human ethics
from science, philosophy and experience, and you make abso-
lutely no difference in the record. But now take away all that
Jesus said and did that sprang necessarily, directly from a
spiritual consciousness of a Spiritual Father God, who through
him spake to the consciousness of the immortal spirit of man,
and what is the result? The whole record of the New Testament
becomes a blank book, without a word. Take the influence of
this spiritual teaching out of the world, and all modern civiliza-
tion vanishes into a dream, the world is hurled back two
thousand years and left stranded in despair. Let Herbert
Spencer's teaching be true, that there is no personal
spiritual God in the universe, who speaks to human hearts,
and no immortal spirit in man to respond to such a spiritual
God, aud you turn the whole life and work of Jesus into one
III.]
SpirUiuil Uf'j'olatloii to Man.
155
gigantic farce, and build all that is noblo and good in
modern advance on the foundation of a boundless lie. Is
that a scientific conclusion to come to ? For wo arc still on
ground, where you can appl}' your scientific method, as well as
to any other phenomena of history. We arc dealing with facts.
Tell me, does that explain the power of Jesus ? Docs it all
spring from a lie ? Does it perpetuate itself by a thousand
lies ? and does it go on increasing in power though it brings a
message which no true man can honestly believe ? And does
it go on showering deluges of blessings out of that which
the human heart loathes — a perpetual deception ? Don't you
think it would be more scientific to suppose that all this effect
had a logical cause equal to the effect produced ? Can wc not
scientifically say that Jesus met a true constituent of the human
constitution, with its true supply, and that thus fruition and
harmony and blessing legitimately followed ? Just as true food,
in which the elements suit the elements in the human body,
nourishes and strengthens the frame ; as intellectual truths,
well reasoned, and suited to the constitution of the mind, bring
intellectual satisfaction and strength ; as moral truths meet and
satisfy our feeling after duty, so these spiritual truths of Jesus
seem to fit every phase of the spiritual constitution, forming a
leverage to lift up the whole man, and through the man, all
mankind and all nations. And only that which stands above
the world can thus uplift humanity.
Thus far we have come without unproved assumptions, and
on scientific lines. And we find that the peerless man has
made plain to us facts within consciousness, and outside of
consciousness, which no man by searching has been able to find
out before or since on any other line. Facts which are not opposed
to Common Sense ; facts which no science can gainsay, but
which all true science supplements; facts which are ignored
only by a philosophy that 2cill not have them, because they
Hi
■rm
vm
iS
am
-a
166
Tho Man ClivUt Jcsua
[Lect.
■.1
• 4 1-
m
W-
<'^
clash with a pet theory ; facts which are rejected hy masses of
men, because they simply do not know them and do not scarcli
whether they are true or not ; facts which open to man his
vaster powers and possibiHties, — possibiHties intellectual, moral,
social, political, spiritual, eternal, for under Christ's leadership
"Humanity sweeps onward." But Christ's onward is God-ward.
And now let me crave of you patience to go one stage
further. We allow science and philosophy to make hypotheses,
and then test them ; now if you like, let this next step bo our
Christian hypothesis, to bo tested in every possible way and
above all by the practical one of asking how it works. Jesus
tells us there is a God, who may commune with our spirits.
Wo want to see that God, to bo conscious of him, to know him.
Jesus stands on heights above us still. Pure unsullied man.
We want to ask him. An old sage of ancient days tells us that
those who stand on those heights, and see beyond with eyes like
Jesus, must have clean hands and pure hearts. Jesus himself
says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
Now let us as far as possible lay aside prejudice and all but the
highest, noblest thoughts wo ever held, and with bated breath
speak to Jesus on this theme, as we focus our eyes to peer into
the profound unknown. " Master, there is just one more thing
we would ask. Oh, show us the Father and wo shall bo
satisfied." Listen, he speaks : " Have I been so long time with
you, and do you not yet know me ? He that hath seen me hath
seen the Father also." And we change the focus of our eyes, and
look once more nearer home, — look once more in the face of the
crucified carpenter. Can this be true ? wo query. Is this Nazarene
the eternal God ? The Christian Church has thought she had
reason to believe this, and in this faith she has conquered, and
in this faith she conquers to-day. Towering intellects have
yielded and do yield homage to this faith. And surely it is worthy
of being at least examined. Come Science, come Philosophy,
III.]
Shoinii Man's Relation to God.
157
come Common Honso and look those facts and this hypothesis in
the face. It is a hypothesis whicli has given to man his grandest,
subliraest ideas of God. Not that He is some gigantic man, with
human limitations, but an Infinite God who could veil himself so
as to become visible to the human spirit. Nothing in Christ's
humanity degrades the idea of an incarnate God ; no intellectual
flaw, no moral lack, no spiritual faltering. Nothing destructive
of his humanity in the idea of the constitution of Infinite Mind,
no mutilating of that mind, but a revelation to man of his own
high origin, his own high destiny, for we arc to be like him. Tho
grandest men of science see nothing unscientific in this, and despite
the hooting of owls who see only in the night and sleep when the
sun shines, common sense the great earth round is accepting
this hypothesis, and finds it work practically and wear well,
needing far less credulity than any scientific hypothesis, or
philosophical theory which ignores that in man which links
itself to, and is a dim reflection of, the spiritual in God.
%
AN EXCTRSUS.
i-Jfi
&U<^
■mmi'
FIEST PRINCIPLES OF A PHILOSOPHY OF COMMON
SENSE, SCIENCE, AND CimiST/.ANITY.
CHAPTER I.
The Unity op Knowledge.
i
The mind of man is a unit, harmonious in all its workings,
and any division wo make of its operations or of its products must
be more like th.-i of the connected limbs and members of one
body than as separate and independent departments. All thought
and all knowledge of any one man result from the various
operations of the one mind, which must act in harmony or breed
a discord fatal to all intellectual activity. We cannot put our
r ^imon Sense with its knowledge in one quarter of the brain,
Science and scientific knowledge in a second, Philosophy and
speculation in a third, Pieligion and faith in a fourth, and com-
mand them to live in separation for fear of clashing and disputes.
It was on this line of separation that the Jesuits of a century or
80 ago conducted their great schools. Science and arts might be
cultivated to any extent so long as theology was left alone : that
was the sacred domain of the church and the clergy. If science
overtrod the barrier, woe betide the scientist. And so when
Galileo was t»'ied by his sanctimonious judges, poor Descartes
was in a pitiable plight, for he feared lest the philosophy that
he was forming would be considered as overstepping his domahi,
and lead him into trouble. Those times are happily gone, and
gone forever. Common sense, Science, Philosophy and Theology,
!»,-»
III.] Knowlcdfje the Operation of one mind. 159
if true, must merge by gradations, imperceptible iierhaps, the
one into the other, and all blend in one harmonious whole of
human knowledge, and of human faith.
Common sense is human reason acting in the narrow field
of daily experience, and common empirical knowledge, Science,
is human reason ranging in wider fields of empiric phenomena,
returning laden with ever-increasing stores of facts and figures,
but still dealing only with phenomena. Thilosophy is human
reason attempting to combine and systematize into some satis-
factory order, and on logical lines, all these products of research:
and where links fail, she docs not disdain a little speculation,
in which special line she is apt to make mistakes, lleligion in
one sense is the human reason seeking to understand the first
Cause of all, the destiny of all, and the corresponding duties
resulting therefrom. True religion is a something which should
run through the waqi tt iul woo f of all intellectual life, helpful to
healthy common sense, greeting with hearty joy every develop-
ment of science as a contribution to the sum total of truth, as
an added strength to the buttress of her own stronghold ; forming
the fundamental framework of true philosophy, and projecting
far beyond them all, creating on sufficient and reasonable
evidence a faith in the unseen and eternal. If religion cannot
do this, in full light of common sense, of pure science and of
merciless logic, — if she cannot live and thrive and bless as
mistress of all intellect, then let her die and bo buried as a
useless thing out of sight forever.
'•J
1:8
• 2
1 «
I'W
'3
A
,.•1
CHAPTEE II.
TuE Knowahle and the Unknowable.
In order to know what belongs to each of these departments,
or to ilnd out whether aro there two such antithiscSi or whether
160
What in Knowlcihjo ?
[Lect.
'\\w§>
%
they are such as Mr. Spencer declares them to be, let us first ask,
" What is knowledge ?" And that we may bring the subject
out of the bewildering cloud-land of generalities and obscurities
which serve often as a vail for poverty of logic, let us take
a single concrete example. I have an article in my pocket
that none of you know anything about, and I wish you to
obtain some knowledge of it. No, I cannot now say that you
know nothing about it, for you know that it exists : there is a
something real of which you wish to know something more
definite. Tlnit very first step of knowledge which provokes
further enquiry removes it forever from the limbo of the un-
knowable. You can aflirm its real existence, provided you
believe the evidence of my word, and do not convict me of being
a liar. Now how can you know anything more definite about
it? The whole sum and substance of knowledge of any
thing is linked together in one copula-point, and that point is
the simple little word is. The first stop, as you have seen, is
simply to know thai a thing is, you afiirm existence. And
now to penetrate to the very outermost edge, down to the
deepest depth of knowledge of that thing, you can do nothing
more than find out and alHrm what it is, and what it l not. If
I tell you what the article in my pocket is and what it is not, I
exhaust all possible knowledge of it.
Observe here also a very common fallacy, that when
you know what a thing is' not, you have no real knowledge,
only negation. Not so ; every negation contains information
and adds to your stock of knowledge of a thing. I can tell
you what this thing in my pocket is by pure negations, by
telling you only what it is not. Let us try. It is not paper.
With that your conception of the thing l)ccomcs a little
clearer, for all paper articles are excluded. It is not as broad
us it is long. It is not sciuare-conicrcd. It is not all of one
material. It is not a usoletis toy. It is not unBuit*«d to the
III.]
Three Laivs of knoirledge.
161
when
ledge,
nation
an tell
[18, by
lapcr.
little
broad
of one
to the
human hand. It is not a self-writer. It is not a lead-pencil.
It is not a <|iull pen. It is not a steel pen. It is not in need
of a constant dip in the ink bottle. It is not in a position
to write when the ink is exhausted. It is not useless when
the ink is replenished. Now, who doesn't know what the
thing in my pocket is ? With every negative statement your
knowledge of the thing increased : you now know what it is,
and surely can truly alhrm that it is far enough from tho
unknowable. Ihit you say those negative statements all implied
nn allirmative ; and please tell me, can you I'md a negation
that does not imply an affirmative piece of information? Onco
more, although you have a real knowledge of my fountain pen,
yet there is a great deal more about it that you do not know.
Your knowledge is correct as far as it goes, but it is not
exhaustive. And all my efforts, and your efforts, and tho
efforts of all scientists combined, and philosophers added,
and the faith of the credulous superadded, could not exhaust
and reveal to me the whole smu of /s and ix not of that ono
little thing — the pen with which I wrote this kcture. Now what
have we found ?
1. The first step of all knowledge of any thing is — exist-
ence — it /.s'.
2. The progress and sum of all knowledge of any thing is
the accumulation of attributes or information as to what it is
and what it is not, and
8. No nuitter how correct our knowledge mny be, it is never
exhaustive, in things great or small, l)y the powers of the human
mind.'
These three rules of kno^Yledgo can be applied to every
thing that comes within the range of thought. Let us apply them
to ^Ir. Spencer's dis([uisitions on the " rnknowable " and tho
'Scu also " Tlio ViiliJation of Kuowkdj^o," iii Chiibtiiiu i'Lilo&oiihy IJuuitnIyi
ibsa.
21
5
rav
1:5
iS
I m
I'M
'1
'3
J
162
Mr. Spencer's Dcscrqjtlon
[Lect.
" Knowablo." IIo tells us that down at the foundation source of
all phenomena there is a double something, ayatUti/ and a Poicer,
but they are unknowable. Why ! we may well ask surprised,
how does he know anything about them if they are unknowable ?
And how does he come to write a bookful of information about
them if ho knows nothing about them ? The very statement
that there is a something there, and that it is a rcalitij, and that
it is a power, removes it forever from tlio regions of tlic unknown :
wc know something about it, for Mr. Spencer has told us.
But j\[r. Spencer does not stop tliero. He tells us a great deal
about the attributes of this fundamental lleality-Power ; he tells
us what it IS and what it is not, as though ho knew a great
deal about it ; and if wc accept all he says, wo should know a
great deal about it too. He begins with negations. This power
is not a Creative Tower. It is not a Conscious Power. It is
not an intelligent Tower. It is not a will-Powcr. It is not a
First Cause. It is not a great many more things that I cannot
stop to name. But do not these negations all contain positive
statements '? If Mr. Spencer's negations arc true, must we not
say that the fundamental Beality-Power out of which all this
glorious universe has sprung, is an unconscious, non-creative,
unintelligent, unvolitional, impersonal, blind force ?
But Mr. Spencer does not stop at negations : he gives us a
great deal of allirmative information too. He tells us (1) that it
is a power which gives rise to motion and is the fountain of all
force ; (2) that it is a power which, in the midst of vast develop-
ment and variety, causes motion to bo continuous, unbroken;
(3) that it is a power which gives persistence to the forces of
the universe; (1) that it is a power which maintains relations
and persistence of relations among forces ; (fi) that it is a power
which carrii'S on a transformation and still keeps exact equilibra-
tion of forces; (0) that it is a power which gives direction to
forces that they go like an arrow to the target and never miss
III.I
of the " Unhioii'ahJc."
163
their aim ; (7) that it is a power which gives rythm of motion,
so that all the universe mfirches in tune to the grandest music
known to man ; (8) that it is a power which evolves phenomena
out of fundamental reality ; (D) that it is a power which gives
law to Evolution simple and compound ; (10) that it is a
power which makes the homogeneous unstable ; (11) that it is
a power which produces multiplication of elYects; (.12) that it
is a power making things segregate ; (i;3) that it is a power
which leads to dissolution, and — but with these thirteen
aflirmations, when you find out what they mean, and if you can
believe the information true, it seems to me that Mr. Spencer
has shown very conclusively that the '* Unknowable " is very
knowable. But you say he means it is not scientilically know-
able. I am rather dubious about this scientific knowing, as a
different thing from other knowing ; but if scientists like to step
aside in this matter, the contention with Spencerian Un-
knowable philosophy is not a whit affected. This is a field of
reason, and the principle still remains. Spencer tells me that
a certain thing is unknowable ; he then tells me a great many
things that it is not, and a great many more things that it is,
and I must just conclude that the thing is not unknowable, or
all this information is a delusion and a snare. But some one
will say the information is superiicial — not e-'haustive — does not
show the ultimate essence. But that is true of all you know
or can know of my fountain pen : of all you know or can know
of what Mr. Spencer calls the Knowable. Where, then, is the
difference which divides the Unknowable and the Knowable. So
far as the laws of knowledge go, there is no difference ; and to
make such a distinction is a philosophical lic-tion, which only
logical childhood or logical blindness could tolerate, making
Mr. Cook's comment true, — " Mr. Spencer's pliilosophy is good
enough for beginners, if they wish to be misled from the be-
ginning."
am
9
9
m
'.S
I HI
\0
• 'Ml
'1
:j
,»»
164
" JU'latli'lti/ of Jc)toivlcd(/n."
[Lect.
Tlio knowablo to man extends from here to everything that
can be but touched witli the uttermost stretch of thought, of which
you can only say it is : the pnj'evtlii knowablo to man has never
yet been found. Lut between these two extremes there is a
whole universe of knowledge that is true knowledge, and this
loads to
CHArTEK III.
Is K.NOWLF.DfiE RkAL ON RELATIVE ?
Is my knowledge of things real or symbolical, fact or
fiction ? And here we come face to face with another Spencerian
castle, which from afar seems to be an impregnable fortress to
many a mind unused to logical thought. But come near
and try to touch it, and you find it nothing but the inverted
mirage of that fundamental reality consigned to the abysses,
reflected through empty space, a phantom castle in the air.
Mr. Spencer tells us that all knowledge is relative, even of the
knowable. Now what is this relativity of knowledge? If he
means that our knowledge is measured by our power to know ;
that I can see only so far as my vision extends ; that I can per-
ceive^only so far as my perception goes ; that I can think only so
far as as my think-force ranges ; that I know only so far as my
knowing faculties reach ; why that is not only true, but the
veriest truism that any prattling ba1)y who has learnt to say
" I can't " knows perfectly well, and needs no great philosopher
or cumbrous tomes to tell. But that is not exactly what Mr.
Spencer means ; he says that everything we know is a pheno-
menon of the fundamental unknowable reality; that we can
know these phenomena only in their relations to one another
and to the ultimate reality ; that behind every one, in every que
there is unfathomable mystery; that our knowledge is only
symbolical, our teachings only symbolical, our thoughts only
fancies : " <h i/sc//'" nothing is known.
III.]
The '' Thl)uj-ui-lt.sclf" fiction.
1G5
Now before wc test this piece of abstract generalization by
a bit of concrete fact, just allow me to ask hoir it comes that the
great law of continuity in the universe must be broken just as
soon as it roaches iiic ! Why is there placed a great impassable
gulf ])etwoen me and all the world beyond mo ? ^yhy must I
from my isolation peer out into the dim outside with smoked
glasses, conscious that all I see is unreal phantom ? Is it not
an inspiring thing for me to be compelled to think that I am
now standing in a symbolic house, and speaking to a symbolic,
unreal audience, who listen with symbolic ears, to a syml)olic
lecturer who symbolically speaks with a symbolic mouth, reads
from a symbolic MS., written with a symbolic pen, fed with
symbolic ink — all the out-working of an unknowable mystery ! !
And more inspiring still to be told that for me the symbol ought
to be as satisfactory as the reality. The very statement looks
suspicious. Now let us try the constitution of the doctrine
itself, for after all men may call this mere sentiment and no
argument. Let us tost the thing by a concrete example and see
how it works. This whole brilliant vjuh /dtiiiis comes from the
learned talk about the-thing-in-itself, and the-mind-in-itself, of
the Philosophy of Kant, Hamilton I'l- Co. Let us lirst deal with
this " thiiKj-in-itHclJ'.'^ Lut laying aside the misty abstraction,
k't us apply the philosophy to a cat. Now this cat, says Kant,
is double ; what you see and feel as cat are all plienomena of a
cat. But there is besides these a something on which these cat-
phenomena are all fastened : that is the noumenon, or " cat-
in-itself." " Jutrt so,"" siiys ^fr. Spencer ; " only say that what
you see is a symbolic cat, and what you dcm't see is the cat in
reality." Now j ust one or two questions. Is the real cat different
from this phenomena cat, or does the cut-in-itself change
itself when showing forth these cat-phenomena '? If so, then
are these real phenomena, or are there also phenomena-in-
themselvcs besides what wc sec ? If we talic away all these
I
I M
1
';i
9
I'M
166
What WG know is real or
[Lect.
cat-phenomena, is there a cat left ? But if the real cat
does not change its reality when becoming visible in these
cat-phenomena, and if these cat-phenomena are real phenomena
of a real cat, when you see the phenomena do you not see real
parts of a real cat ? If you know that cat's color, hair, eyes,
do you not know something of the real cat ? If you skin the cat
and get to its muscles and skeleton, do you not know something
more about a real cat ? If you ask a good physiologist about it,
ho can tell you about l}lood vessels, and nerves and tissues and a
great many more more curious and wonderful things ; and you
ask the scientific physiologist, who has no interest in philosophical
system building, if these things belong to the symbolical cat or
the real cat, and he will look at you in pity, with visions of an
insane asylum before his astonished eyes. The fact is that
neither Common Sense, nor Science, nor Bible faith, knows any
thing about any real cat excepting and besides that bundle of
cat-phenomena that you see with your eyes and feel with your
hands. And the whole sublime fiction about a something on
which phenomena are tacked, a cat-in-reality, is the undisputed
possession of a needy philosophy, which has bid good bye to
common sense, to true science, and has exchanged a manly faith
in real things, for a puerile credulity in myths.
I begin to feel that I am nearer a real world again. But
there is still another poser. These philosoplicrs tell us that we
know these things only by our senses, and our senses may
deceive us, and our weak faculties may deceive us, and so on.
Without going through the form of an argument, I would just
say that all the conclusions and actions of common sense,
all the researches of science, all the whole structure of our
knowledge, rest on these foundation stones of our primitive
experiences, borne in upon our minds by appropriate senses.
Beason must take as ultimate data for action the product of
each power, for each has its own work to do which can bo done
li^'
III.l
we are victima to lying Senses.
167
by no othor faciiltj'. What these powers bring ns becomes a
part of our knowledf^c. If mj' eyes do not really sec, see only
symbolically, then they lie to me. But we trust our "faculties
because they are pcrsi.Htcnt, cohcreut, ultimate.'' Faith in our
senses and all our faculties is essential to common sense, to
(?very step of science, and is a branch of the Christians, faith in
the God who made these faculties of sense and of reason for
real use and not for deception or symbolism. And any philo-
sophy that begins by rejecting faith in God, and goes on to throw
discredit on our senses, and our faculties, will most assuredly
awaken a suspicion of the soundness of its own principles, con-
fessedly built up by mental powers which the philosopher himself
tells us arc not to bo trusted.
It is most certainly true that our senses, our faculties do
sometimes err, make mistakes. The eye may be blurred and see
incorrectly ; so with every faculty. 13ut they may be cured, and
act truly. Or if not, it matters little how they act, for there will
be no such thing as true action, only a choice between a variety
of lies. Common Sense, Science, and Christianity all believe
that the things we see are real, and the powers with which we
apprehend and comprehend are real and true and to be trusted,
and this brings us to
CHAPTER IV.
I
m
9
91
9
■0
■•m
1
9
3
On the Trend of Knowledge.
All true knowledge, all true reasoning, all true philosophy
must move along on certain fixed lines, call these lines what you
may, or come to an ignoble collapse, as indeed most of the
philosophies of man have done. You cannot feed the body with
elements foreign to bodily elements, you cannot strengthen the
mind with thought foreign to its constitution. All thought
muRt be along the lines of the mental constitution, starting out
with axiomatic intuitions. No matter where the intuitions
168
Trur^ rhilo.Wj>hij hrgins nuth (iod. [Lect.
I
come from, they set l)onnfls to human thinking which cannot
be ignored. And then all system building must tako into
account all the faculties of mind, and build on logical lines,
^[oreover, if we are building for mankind we must tako in the
whole man : no part can be ignored. The moral nature must
1)0 satisfied, tlio consciousness of God must be regarded, and
the seeking instinct must be led to the something true to match
it. Wo cannot make man over to suit our philosophy, so let
ours bo the wiser plan of making our philosophy lit the constitu-
tion of man. Now, no philosophy can hope to live among men,
who live and grow, that does not begin with God as First
Cause, go on with " God in whom wo live and move and havo
our being," and aim at God as the final good and ultimate
destiny of man. No philosophy which mirrors not forth tlio
mind of God can lind response from all the mind of man. A
philosophy that is built up on scientific theory or fact even,
will ' be stranded at the first advance of science. Spencer's
philosophy is built on the science of a day just passing by.
Lionel Bealo knows what he says, when ho speaks about
physiology, and the world of scientists will listen to him. He
says that Mr. Hpencer's books are so full of a physiology
already so far behind the age, that ten years from now no
man who knows anything about science will read them,
except as a literary curiosity.^ And the same thing is true of
every philosophy which ignores the God-consciousness in man,
as the king of all our faculties, and hiys its foundations in any
thing less than the Eternal Creator.
This thought is perhaps new to you and will need a little
fuller proof. You grant, I think, that all our reasoning must be
on the line of the mental constitution. For instance, the mind
must believe in cause and effect, no effect without a cause. Now
III.]
Des'ujn or Chance ?
169
little
lust bo
mind
Now
vc rest
in a /''//•«/ CnuHc. The only explanation within reach of man'a
mind of cause and its effect is ivill, our own will rcsultinf]; in
phenomena, and so our only rational hypothesis of the First
Cause is that of analmi):;hty will — vastly more easily believed than
Mr. Spencer's contradictory statements al)out the well-expounded
unknowabki. And science with common sense cannot disprove
the hypothesis of will. A^ain, from time immemorial men
have thoujjjht that marks of design showed a designer ; Socrates
illustrates it by a statue, Paley by a watch. Order, and relation
of means to special ends, imply design, an intelligent purpose,
hence a conscious mind.
Even those who reject the argument or hypothesis of
design, unconsciously use the very words that necessarily imply
a designer. We read of "provisions" of nature ; of "the purpose
of an organ ;" something is so " in order that " something else
may be ; and such language is simply unavoidable, because the
thing implied is a necessary truth. The more thoroughly
Nature is studied in all its varieties and gradations and adapta-
tions, the more overwhelming becomes the necessity to admit
a preconceived plan, and hence an over-ruling mind. Tho
test of a hypothesis is to ask " whether it is warranted by the
facts, and is perceived veritably to represent nature." Tho
hypothesis of design can stand these tests. No true scientist
can do aught else with this hypothesis than accumulate
proofs to establish it whether he will or not. Universal com-
mon sense accepts it, and Christianity teaches it an essential
doctrine.
Tho only alternative is the hypothesis of chance. Tho
universe came to be thus cither as tho work of a mind and will
with intelligent design, or all came about by chance. Common
sense does not carry on business on the line of chance. Science
always asks, " What is this for ?" and cannot liud one proof of
chance where she brings a teeming million for design ; and
22
i
J
I*
1
3
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
1.0
I.I
1.25
|50 ''"^™ lil^B
i^ lis IIM
.. .,. IIM
1.4
1.6
P>
6^
/]
7
^^J?
>
^ <
'^
^
;V
<b
4l>^
^\
''b
%
170
" What is Truth?"
[Lect.
Christianity knows nothing of chance: only a lonely, misty, new-
philosophy tells us by a circumlocution of large words that all
came about by chance. Science tells us about laAvs ; and with
every now discovery the Christian rejoices with the scientist,
because he has found a new trace of the Lawgii-cr. Science
rejoices at every new evidence of aniiy in Nature ; the Christian
rejoices with him, for it gives new proof that the great First
Cause is one. Science has to do with secondary causes, but
these imply a final First Cause. In fact the evidences of a God
in the universe are as actual and as full as the proof to one man's
consciousness, that there is a conscious mind in another man. And
what will you think of a philosophy that ignores these things ?
Atheism is an insult to humanity, and Spencerian agnosticism
was seen to be an ii\sult to logic ; on no hypothesis but that of
an eternal omnipresent God, can the problems of humanity be
solved. We have now climbed far up these heights again on
lines of pure reasoning, and with every advance we see traces of
the absolute — foot-steps of the Infinite One. And the hope
grows young again that perhaps Ave may really find this God,
and reach him, and thus satisfy the perennial cravings of the
human heart for the Infinite All-father. And this bring us to
the last stage of my argument in
CHAPTEE V.
On our Key to the Absolute.
The cry of the human heart and mind has ever been
" What is truth ?" Where her foundations ? What her goal ?
Finite man will explore and touch and know the infinite
source and end of all. All philosophical attempts, ever and
ever renewed, satisfy the mind for only a moment and then
turn to ashes. The latest attempt, agnosticism, conceived
in Kant, bred in Hamilton, and full-fledged in Spencer, cuts
■P'.^'i J
m.i
PJdlosojjhical Ansiucrs
171
away the foundation of all hope in our search after truth; would
satisfy us with the huslis of relative symbols, and leaves us,
every one,
" An infant crying in the night :
An infant crying for the light :
And with no language but a cry."
Science and thought have more than hinted at the existence
of an Infinite God. Is there then no bridge between us and the
Infinite one ? No link of real truth to bind the human and
divine ?^ Kant left all stranded on an " if." Fichte tried to get
rid of tlie difficulty by saying there was no chasm, there was
nothing but human thought, all beyond, the mere shadow of
our minds. That could not satisfy man very long. Shelling
tried to bridge the chasm by taking us back to the very beginning,
where finite and infinite lay in one original indifference, and
thence differentiated into finite and infinite, continuing in un-
broken rythm, maintaining an eternal and necessary corre-
spondence. But that fundamental mixture of finite and infinite
could no more bear the light of logic than Bain's double-faced
somewhat made up of matter and mind. Hegel would bridge
the chasm by making the absolute the fountain and goal of all,
the absolute revealing himself in the developments of man,
making man thus an incarnation of God, partial in the in-
dividual, complete in the race. The eftort, you see, ever was to
unite God and man. But this attempt of Hegel is too abstract,
too speculative to be practically workable by man. Jacobi,
Schleiermacher, Lotze, Hamilton, Descartes, and others, bridge
the chasm over simply by faith, resting here on our moral
nature, there on the veracity of God, as revealed in the human
heart which he has made. But that involves too large a span
for the bridge of faith, which seeks to carry the world of man
m
•3
m
ar
'0
'See Christian Philosophy Quarterly, Jan. 1883,
Modem Thought," by Behrcndf:.
The Incarnation and
m
172
Permanent Satisfaction,
[Lect.
safely over. Schopenhauer and Mallock and others despair of the
prohlem : think the order of nature not beneficent : all is dark
and life hardly worth living at all. Spencer and his agnostic
fellow-thinkers pooh-pooh the whole subject. There is no such
thing as a relation between the human and the divine, ai:d the
most religious thing we can do is to bury the whole questior. for-
ever, and mark on the tombstone — "Mysterious, Unknowable."
But must this be the final result of all our search ? —
Nothing but despair for the highest hopes of human hearts ?
The conscience of mankind protests against the fundamental
tenet of agnosticism as an outrage upon our moral nature,
making our loftiest thought a lie, and turning conscious ex-
istence into a calamity. Pure reason cannot show that the
mind is not a reflection of the infinite mind ; that our con-
sciousness, which unifies and studies the universe, is not akin to
the consciousness which gave the universe her form and decrees ;
that our reason is not true reason, because in some way or other
it is the reason of God ; that the lines along which our thoughts
run, the necessary trend of our mental flight do not indicate the
fundamental constitution of all thought, human or divine. Nay,
reason suggests all this, but to affirm it would be too near
making unproved assumptions, which we wish to avoid. And
yet in this uncertainty, we cannot thrive, humanity droops,
our holiest aspirations lie stifled, crushed. We long to burst
these barriers, and breathe the free mountain lir, whence we
can behold the All-Father, and hear his very voice in our own
Bouls, instead of these hollow mocking echoes of "environments."
And when those good men tell us to spring over the chasm, and
scale those heights by faith, " Nay," replies the human heart;
" the the way is too indefinite, the facts too dim, for sturdy faith
of manhood."
And is there then no further help for human need ? We
consult all who have grappled with these deep subjects, from
III.]
Only in the God-man.
173
1 we
Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Confucius, Buddha, etc., Locke,
Leibnitz, Kant, Descartes, Ficlite, Schelling, Hegel, Cousin,
Schopenhauer, Jacobi, Schleiermacher, Hamilton, Spencer.
We listen to what they have to say and unsatisfied look further.
And is there no help for man beyond all these ?
Yes, there is still one man, one whom philosophers with
one consent agree in patting on the back to-day and in calling
" the peerless," but whose testimony regarding the very message
which he declares he came to bring from God to man, and which
man has been seeking ever s'-.ce humanity breathed, they almost
as uniformly ignore and smile a smile suggestive of contempt,
when Jesus' name is mentioned as an authority, or in any relation
but that of a far-off sentiment. We can still consult the visage-
marred, the spat-upon, the man of sorrows, the crucified
prophet of Nazareth. " Who is this that cometh from EJlom,
with died garments from Bozrah ? — Travelling in the greatness
of his strength, the mighty to save ?"
My hypothesis is, that Jesus the Christ is " God manifest
in thejiesh," whose simple historical presence provides us with
that which all philosophical schools of all times have aimed at
but have failed to give, an actual solution of the problem of the
relation of the finite to the infinite. I ask as proof of this,
that you leave me only those parts of the New Testament, which
the most destructive critics are compelled to leave for fear of
destroying all history as well, and then the facts of modern
history, together with the scientific method. The alpine facts
of Jes'^s' power on modern civilization, and his ever increasing
influence must be accounted for. To say that he was a mere
man violates all canons c nductive logic. But why not let him
speak for himself? He declares his identity with God. " I and
the Father are one," he says. And by a strici study of facts on
the scientific method, every candid examiner will see that by
scientific induction, the Divine is brought within the sphere of
»
m
m
m
3
1
•«
■m
174
" WJiat tJiinh ye of Christ?"
[Lect.
the human. And God finds no hindrance in the constitution of
man to the utterance of his thought. Jesus spake in the very
simplest language of man, but " spake as never man spake."
All He says or does seems wonderfully human, yet every word
and deed is a revelation of humanity and of God. The God-head
does not complicate or quarrel itl: " ^ human mind, but gives
man the scientific solution sought lor m vain by all the philo-
sophies. What is true for man is true for God. My knowledge
and my thought are real. I think as I do because He thinks
in the same form ; the necessary truths of man's reason are th«.
framework of infinite thought. Towering again above all giants
of mind, above all shattered philosophies, rises the one grand
keystone locking the arched span which unites finite mind with
the infinite, over which with scientific certainty faith may now
rejoicing tread, and find that it has been trodden by millions
and millions of satisfied souls during the last two millenniums,
and which shows no sign of defect or of logical flaw. Como one,
come all ; examine these things, not credulously, but scientific-
ally, and tell me " what think ye of Christ ? " Is he the son of
Mary, the son of God — the God-man; or is he a lunatic, a
deluded and deluding imposter, the impudent son of a village
carpenter ? One of the two alternatives he must be. Which tits
the facts most scientifically ?
And here will come in perhaps the sneer of anthropomor-
phism — God an overgrown man. Nay, not so ; though we know
much of God through human powers and through Jesus, yet by
an infinity of remainder, by no means all of God. Just to
illustrate, let God be an infinite circle : man is an infinitesimal
section, whose normal trend is exactly on an arc of that in-
finite circle ; the historical Jesus makes that one arc of God
stand out visible, the ideal standard forever of man's highest
endeavor, the tangible proof of man's high destiny, the line of
man's oneness with God.
III.I
The Prince of Peace and Progress,
175
And now common senpc can take that all in, for the com-
mon people heard him gladly in the days of his sojourn here ;
common people have heard him gladly all through these ages,
and do hear him gladly to-day. True science fields in all this
nothing unscientific, though much that transcends all science,
and the profoundest sons of science uncover and bow worshipping
at the feet of the youthful carpenter-prophet, the King of Kings,
" the Wonderful, Councellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting
Father, the Prince of peace."
And now
" Let science grow from more to more,
And more of reverence in us dwell,
That mind and soul according well
May make one music as before,
But vaster."
w
■*
9
m
m
3
,7
i;>r
LECTURE IV.
THE HISTORICAL VIEW:
CHRISTIANITY AND HISTORY.
Hon. John A. Bingham, on taking the chair, made the
following remarks : —
Ladies and Gentlemen :
We will be favored on this occasion with two addresses, one
upon History and Christianity by Prof. Dixon, the other by Mr.
Eby on the great question " What is man?"^ It needs no one to
acquaint us that these subjects are of deepest interest. History
and Christianity ! God is said to be in them both.
Human History is the record of man's origin, his progress,
his suffering and sacrifices, his trials and triumphs. Listen to
its utterances, its questionings and its responses. Coming up
from the past : —
History's pages but record
One death-grapple in the darkness, 'twixt old systems and the Word,
Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne ;
Yet that scaffold sways the Future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.
In this latest of the centuries, the whole heavens are aglow
with the light of a coming better day, when truth and justice
will prevail over error and wrong.
Concerning man, permit me to repeat the words of George
Herbert : —
" Man is one world, and hath
Another to attend him."
^This reference arises from the fact that the second part of Lect. UI. on
" What is man ?" although published here in its logical connection, was delivered
on the same day as Lect. lY.
Lect. IV.J
Introductory remarks.
177
Yet with all his endowments and infinite faculties, man
like the vast universe rolling above and beneath and around
him, lives and moves and has his being, only by the favor of
that God by whom the worlds were made. It is not to be
wondered at that an inspired Monarch, impressed with the
vastness, majesty and grandeur of external nature should have
exclaimed, " Oh Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name
in all the earth ! When I consider thy heavens, the work of
thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained ;
what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of
man that thou visitest him ? * * * for thou hast crowned
him with glory and honor, and hast given him dominion over
the works of thy hand."
I am sure, good friends, you will be pleased to give respect-
ful audience to what may be said by Professor Dixon and Mr.
Eby upon these great themes. History, Christianity, and Man.
■wai
aglow
ustice
m
s
t
n
I
t0
in. ou
delivered
28
THE LECTURE.
" Nor doubl we thiit from western wilds to the long sealed isles of Japan,
There runs the nnbroken realm of a law that is common to man."
Two attitudes of mind are possible to him who would
tm'n his jitteutinn to the problem of the universe. He may
study tlie problem from the side of man ; he may become a
student of matter or a student of humanity. If we look on
nature coldly, as an external piece of mechanism, we see in it
uniformity, law, order, the activity of perpetual growth and
decay. It excites our wonder at once by its vastness and its
minuteness, the perfect l>alancing of the infinitely great and the
infinitely little. This may lead us to think of the great artificer
who has framed it, and by whom it is sustained — a being
of surpassing mind, of unlimited and irresistible might. But
our notion formed thus exclusively would be vague, frigid, and
unsatisfactory. Let us approach the problem, however, from the
side of man. Let us introduce the rich materials that are con-
tained under the word personality to complete the mental image
we have been trying to form. High affections, love, purity, the
determining of the will towards righteousness, all these things
which we find imperfectly realized in ourselves, let us ascribe
to a God from whom they flow. Then shall* we be more
satisfied with the result. High humanity is our real guide to
God and explains Him. It is as the fountain of our moral being
that He appeals to us, and draws near to us. We know God by
being like Him. Each age and race by the force of inherited bias,
of education and of external circumstances is turned to view the
great question of the personality of the Creator in a different way;
but the heart of man in all ages and places is the same, and
has found rest and peace in the thought of an invisible being
Lect. IV.] Eastern and Western Conceptions of God, 179
external to it and infinitely good, from whom all virtue flows — the
mental and moral power in the universe whose reflex image man
is, and being such, is born to rule in his name. Humanity
clings to that which is of the same nature as itself, but infinitely
better and wiser and more powerful ; the God who created man
in his own image.
Eastern thought has ever found its satisfaction in the more
or less pantheistic idea of a God whose existence belongs to the
world, and of whom our spiritual nature forms a component
part ; and Eastern sages have sought by contemplation to bring
themselves near and nearer to complete absorption in the
fountain of all spirit, present everywhere. Western thought
again, has hovered round the other extreme, and has favoured
the conception of an almost material, certainly anthropomor-
phic being. The thinkers and theologians of the West have
been disposed to see in the world the finished work of an artificer,
who, throwing the ball he fashioned into space, has left it to roll
on without further touch or regulation from his hand. This
artificer, whose laws are immutable and justice inflexible,
dwells remote from us, far bej^ond the furthest star. If his
creatures submit themselves to his laws and obey his will, they
will find their reward hereafter in higher service ; if they are
disobedient, a dreadful material punishment awaits them. The
moral world having got out of joint, the great ruler sent to earth
a short series of special instructions conveyed through a succes-
sion of messengers, and finally he sent liis Son as his ambassador
and representative. For the past succeeding centuries men
have been struggling, in a world l^lighted with evil, to follow these
instructions and to save themselves thus from the wrath of a
justly offended God, a God invisible and apart, unknowable and
unapproachable save through a book or a priesthood. A world
depraved and sunk in evil, a City of Destruction ; apart from it,
far away and not of it, its God.
3>
m
m
t
1
180 Incom^jletcness of the Wester^i Coyicejptlon. [Lect.
Such was western thought for nearly sixteen centuries, or at
least since the time of Augustine ; but such it has ceased
exclusively to be. We are seeing something of a fusion again
between the east and west, with a new element added. No poet
now interprets the world in the old way ; for the poetic and
philosophic mind has risen in rebellion against the crami 'ug
idea of a God out of the world. * I can no longer,' said Lessing,
* be satisfied with the orthodox conception of a God out of the
world.' Kant has opened up a new world of thought in his
psychology; Goethe and Wordsworth have transformed poetry, and
all on the lines of this new interpretation of God and nature. If
we read Milton, we feel strangely out of sympathy with the God
he depicts. He is not a God immanent in nature and near to
the heart of man, but a being we are bound to by a set of codes
and rules, a being different in the root and essence of his nature
from his creatures.^ Grand as Milton's conception is, and full
of truth and nobility, we have now gone past it, and look nearer
for a God. We wish for one who takes pleasure in his earth
and dwells * in the light of setting suns,' and the very wish is
the belief. He works through men, * a power within us, not
ourselves, making for righteousness ' ; and as the years roll on
we hope ever to discover more and more of his attributes and seo
his will as it is written in the book of nature and in the develop-
ment of human institutions. We have finally turned away
from the old idea so well expressed by the poet :
Through countless ages of time, the Lord has withdrawn Him apart
, From all the world He has made, save the world of the human heart.
Within and without all is pain, from the cry of the child at birth
To its parting sigh in age, when it looks for a happier enrth.
Should you plead that God's order goes forth with a measured foot sublime,
Know you not that you thrust Him back thus to the first beginnings of time.
^Fope was right when he said that Milton made God a kind of schoolmaster.
iv.i
Modern Aihancc uiion it.
181
sublime,
of time,
That a npark, a moment, a flaHh, and His work was over and done,
And the worlds were sent forth for ever, each circling around its sun,
Bearing with it all secrets of buing, all potencies undefined,
All forms and changes of matter, all growths and achievements of mind.
What is there for our worsliip in this, and should not our reason say,
He ia, and made us indeed, but hides Him too far away.
Though Ho lives, yet He is as one dead ; and we who would prostrate fall
Before the light of his Presence, we see not nor know him at all.
The breath of a new influence has passed over us, and we
in this nineteenth century are young again, with the hopes and
aspirations of a now principle, the beUef in a God who is not silent
in nature and history, but will speak to those who strive to find
him out. After all, this idea of a God who does not refuse to
dwell with us, but is immanent in nature and rejoices in the
world he has made, is no modern doctrine, but a resuscitation
of the teaching of Paul and the noble thinkers in the Greek
Church, who interpreted his moaning in this without warping it,
for did not Paul say that ' He is not very far from every one of us '?
The world needs new thoughts and discoveries and new
beliefs to keep it from stagnation ; a hard and fast doctrine that
refuses to be enlarged or changed becomes an anachronism ; and
men are very harsh to anachronisms, since they do more damage
than undoubted evils. The Pieformers of the sixteenth century
have not locked the door of truth forever, retaining f,he key.
We are ever advancing to the rock of a higher creed. It cannot
be true that in theology we will find only a prison-house with
many doors to open and shut, l)ut no new thing to do or make.
To the men of to-day it is still given to search after God, and
find His mind imprinted in nature and in History. To History
this fresh theological attitude has given a new attraction, nay, a
new birth. We now seek to make revelation witness to revela-
tion, and the voice of God, as we discover it in the course of His
providence, blend with the divine story of eighteen hundred
years ago.
m
m
9
em
-:'./>.■
182
Definition of History.
[Lect.
History, the laboratory of the moral philosopher, is nearly
as wide a subject as man. It may be (lofined as the study of
the social and public life of men, of the progress of institutions,
and of the fortunes of races and nations. As man is essentially
social in his nature there are few things human that are foreign
to the historian. The public life and the government of peoples
cannot be treated of without a reference to their domestic and
social life. The saying, " Happy is the nation that has no
history," is no doubt familiar to y( and contains a truth.
But it must be remembered that a limited meaning here
^attaches to the word history, a meaning much narrower than
men attach to it at the present day. If we defined history
merely to satisfy its meaning in this saying, we should find it to
include no more than an account of the civil and foreign wars
of a nation and the tragical events that happen to its public
men. Such history is .* -terested merely in * troublesome reigns.'
It is a record of events that might be represented in the theatre,
where the number of actors is necessarily small, and our interest
is generally centred in one. If a considerable number come on
the stage, as in a battle scene, they are little more to us than a
picturesque mass of men whose warlike appearance tickles our
fancy.
Now this conception of history, for long the favourite one,
has given place to a larger and more philosophical conception.
Few authors at present go to write history in the spirit of
tragedy makers, desirous of materials for a blood-curdling
representation or a majestic and awful moral lesson. Formerly,
historians having chosen a romantic and interesting figure, such
as Charles V, Emperor of Germany, or Charles XII of Sweden,
set to work to describe his character, policy, and campaigns in
as effective a way as possible. History was made a mere study
of individual character. If the history of a people had to be
written, warlike or unfortunate kings, whose reigns were studded
IV.]
Hoio History shoiild be studied.
183
e one,
3tion.
it of
rdling
merly,
, sucli
weden,
gns in
study
1 to be
tudded
with battles, sieges, murders and executions, were the only
valuable material. They were as gold pieces among a mass of
inferior silver and copper coins. The reign of a king who lived
and died quietly and in good relations with his people was
dismissed in a few words.
This way of Viewing history, as I have said, will no
longer ansv.'er; more and more sociology is coming to be
recognized as the most important part of history. Though
great battles will ever remain landmarks of history, yet the
events of a campaign and the strategy of generals are relegated
to a special department, and military histories are written.
The personal doings and private character of kings have also
ceased to engross the historian's attention ; separate memoirs
of kings are published. The hssons then that a student seeks
to draw from the pages of history {ire no longer exclusively of
a military nature, such as would be useful to a young soldier,
nor of personal application, such as would be read with advan-
tage by an actual or prospective ruler, but relate to all social
and political problems ; the moral and material condition of
the different classes which compose a nation ; their mutual
attitude ; the suitableness of the laws and their administration to
the temper of the nation; the strength of the different parts of the
government, and the hold the government has upon the country ;
the causes that have brought the nation to its present state, and
the good or evil influences that are at work in determining it for
the future.
In the domain of physical science facts and laws are proved
to the satisfaction of all concerned with comparative ease, and
though controversies and contrary opinions are not rare, they
are the exception and not the rule. But men go to history and
think they find proof there of whatever they want. However,
the general consensus of men favours certain interpretations,
and if history has all the weakness of circumstantial evidence
i
ar
m
m
m
m
1
f
184
Laws of the Harmony of Morality [Lect.
at law, we are forced and entitled to convict or acquit, and the
findings of the most capahle judges are approved. If irrecon-
cilahles remain where the case seems clear to the rest of the world,
we can either despise their obstinacy and blindness, or sym-
pathize with an unwillingness to ])elieve that may spring from
some j)ersonal and perhaps so far pardonable predilection.
We of this age think that we find in history proofs of laws to
which past generations have certainly been blind. They may
be called respectively the Law of the Harmony of Morality and
the subsidiary Law of the Community of Commercial Interests.
A wilful injury done to a wealter neighbour is recognized
everywhere as a bad action that will bear bad fruit to the doer ;
but now for the first time we are coming to see that a wilful
injury done by one nation to another is bad even for the interests of
the aggressive nation. Selfish, ungenerous, brutal actions are bad,
by whomsoever performed, and a policy of meddlesome jealousy
unredeemed by any thing nobler is a policy of ruin, to nations as
to individuals. The theoretically good and bad do not change.
Whatever in history has the sanction of lasting success,
and is found invariably to be practically good, must be con-
sidered theoretically good, however condemned by authority
or tradition ; and whatever the course of events has evidently
condemned as injurious to society is theoretically bad, or
bad i^er se. Those who reverence a creator and governor
will naturally believe that He shows his will as much in the
pages of history as in any special act of revelation. As De
Tocqueville remarks : * It is not necessary that God himself should
speak in order to disclose to us the unquestionable signs of his
will : we can discern them in the habitual course of nature and
in the invariable tendency of events.' What is ideally good the
religious man believes has the sanction of being practically good ;
and what is ideally bad is revealed to man in history as practically
bad and injurious in every way. Good and bad are absolute and
iv.i
Vice never beneficial.
185
not relative terms. What is bad for the individual man individu-
ally is bad in its consequences for the nation collectively ; and
vice versa what is good for the nation cannot be bad for the in-
dividual. An assertion, son^Q will say, by no means granted
by many writers and rea^ ,aers ; but if there is one principle
that the whole process of the ages has gone on establishing, I
believe it is this. A man who is vicious, is vicious without
qualification of his vice being serviceable to the state. A private
vice or folly is not a public benefit. ' Only fifty years ago one of
the greatest and best men of the century, a man of moral force
to sway a nation, Dr. Chalmers, supported in his economical
discussions the doctrine that the extravagance of the few
benefits the many ; that spendthrifts and prodigals are by reason
of their spendthrift and prodigal ways, useful to the nation to
which they belong ; while on the other hand men who save
their money and go on increasing their capital impoverish the
nation. Now it is evident that if this doctrine holds good, we
have a distinct clashing between good and expediency ; we have
folly sanctioned, and the politicjil economist separated in his
morality from the rest of mankind. The harmony of morality
is thus broken, and those who believe in a spirit
That impels
All thinking things, all objects of nil thoughts,
Anil rolls through all things,
are in this forced to allow the sanction of practical good to un-
doubted evil. A fuller light has exploded the doctrine. If it is
still believed in, its supporters keep their opinions for their
private friends, or f"v country newspapers; no professor of
political economy would teach it from a university chair, nor
leading journal advocate it. It is dead, as it was suve to die,
seeing that it contradicted a higher law.^
^For a clever refutation of tho doctrine sec Bastiat, ' What is and What is Not
Seen,' translated by Dr. W. B. Hodgson, late Professor of Political Economy in
the Uuiversity of Ediubvirgb.
24
'R0
m
am
m
m
m
3
^l
186
Good ahsolutcly good.
[Lect.
AnotliGi' doctrine, but of more evil tendency, is widely
taught at present, wherever the absence of religion gives it easy
entrance. We are told by medical men, speaking as they think
in the interests of an advanced medical science, that chastity in
a man is not called for and is harmful, and continence an
evil. And yet the practical result of such a doctrine must be
the corruption of home life, and the growth of a class which is a
shame and a weakness to any nation and a problem to legislators.
This doctrine, from its nature unsuitable to public discussion,
let none who claim to think and act as wise men assent to,
without fully recognising the logical consequences it involves.
It is a heresy against the continuous revelation of history,
which is ever sweeping away those sophisms that would contra-
dict the dogma of the harmony of morality. Authority and
religion are entitled to speak here, and their voice is the voice of
God.
Once more, the mercantile Theory of Commerce, whose
moral aspect was gross selfishness, is now dead, or lurks only
in holes and corners. In its time it worked sufficient ill.
England under its influence came near ruining Scotland, and
did lasting harm to the Irish people.
If we see an influence which tells for good, and whose
absence is a distinct weakness to a community, the inference is
•that the influence is morally good in itself, and springs from
something true and real. If again we have an influence which
is felt to be baneful taken as a whole, and yet whose absence is
equally or more baneful, we are led to believe in a good influence
corrupted by an evil partnership. We seek to grasp the portion
that is real and, true and for good and to throw the blame of
evil on that which is really evil. What is true and what is good
are allied, and their result is good unless vitiated by the presence
of evil. The judgment of history upon religion is something of
this kind. It condemns many religions and particular forms of
IV.] Beligion a universal factor in history. 187
particular religions, but it still more condemns the want of
religion; while on the other hand it sets its distinct seal of
approbation upon one particular form, as it appears under
varied conditions in different countries.
IMan must change his radical nature ere religion ceases to
be a factor in history, for religion is but the highest form of
hope. And in man is hope much stronger than death ;
' Kings it makes gotls, and meaner creatures kings.'
* The short space of threescore years,' says de Tocqueville,
* can never content the imagination of man ; nor can the imper-
fect joys of this world satisfy his heart. Man alone, of all
created beings, displays a natural contempt of existence and yet
a boundless desire to exist ; ho scorns life, but he dreads anni-
hilation. These different feelings incessantly urge his soul to
the contemplation of a future state, and religion directs his
musings thither. Religion, then, is simply another form of hope ;
and it is no less natural to the human heart than hope itself.
Men cannot abandon their religion without a kind of aberration
of intellect, and a violent distortion of their true natures, but
they are invincibly brought back to more pious sentiments ;
for unbelief is an accident, and faith is the only permanent
state of mankind. If we only consider religious institutions in
a purely human point of view, they may be said to deri^'e an
inexhaustihje element of strength from man himself, since
they belong to one of the constituent principles of human
nature.' .
The writer just quoted for the second time, and whom I
shall have occasion still further to quote, has deservedly gained
an unequalled reputation as a political thinker and observer.
Born at the beginning of the present century, of a noble French
family, he studied law at Paris, and in 1827 became jmje
auditeur of the court at Versailles. After 1832 he gave up public
life for literary work, and in 1835 published the first of his two
4
i
I
m
m
9
m
«
m
1
188
De Tocquevillr on UcUglon.
[Lect.
great works, La Dhhocmtie en Amariqvc, which has already
pafajed through fifteen editions. It is really a treatise on the
principles that should guide popular governments, and the
elements that are needed for their stability. His other great
work, UAncicn Regime ct la Revolution, was published in 1S5G.
Several English translations of these works have appeared ; but
curiously enough, notwithstanding their extreme value as politi-
cal treatises, I have in all my wanderings among the bookshops
of Tokio, only once seen among their heterogeneous contents a
single new or second-hand copy for sale.
All the works of de Tocqueville, says a recent critic,^ are
written in a calm, dignified, and powerful style. An ardent
lover of liberty, he is yet fair to all sides. His facts aro
unimpeachable, and the conclusions he draws are invariably
logical. No more luminous, severe, dispassionate intellect ever
applied itself to politics. It is hardly extravagant to call him
the greatest political thinker of his day in France, perhaps even
in Europe.
De Tocqueville then finds in the distinctively human attri-
bute of hope the universally felt need among the nations of a
•religion. And this hope, it must be remembered, is essentially a
personal and not an altruistic hope, for a man's own future
must ever remain to him his chief concern. We are by nature
servants with duties to perform and naturally hope for a reward ;
a doctrine characterized as selfish by men who fire rockets into
the air that descend as sticks. Religion must therefore explain
to man the grounds of his hope ; must answer the two great
questions — What are the moral attributes of the creator ? and.
What is the destiny of man? '
To these questions Christianity has given the completest
'Globe Encyclopedia, Edinburgh, 1879
IV.l
Chrldianltij the best Solution.
189
solutions, and those most satisfactory and salutary to the
human heart. It replies to the first that God has sent His own
well-beloved Son to the world to live among us and
" To teach Lis brethren and inspire
To sutler and to die."
Christ has made us all his brethren, sons of God, and if sons
then heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. Every
Christian has therefore a standard, and that standard is Christ.
He has one supreme master, the God and Father of us all, who
is above all and through all and in us all. An end or object is
thus given to every man, and a means of attaining it ; the end
a Christian must set before him is to glorify God after the
manner of Christ. By glorify he understands ' to fulfil the
purpose for which God intended him, and obey God's will
however revealed.' lie recognizes his position as a servant
in creation ; he acknowledges the fatherhood of God ,* he lives
in hope of growing more like Him.
To the second question of man's destiny, so vaguely or
insufficiently answered by other creeds, Christianity answers, fully
and well. Christ in his person brought life and immortality
to light. He solved the great problem of death, preserving and
promising a higher unity in the dissolving of the earthly unity
of body and spirit. Body and soul were both honoured by
him, but neither at the expense of the other. The Egyptians had
fondly embalmed the bodies of their dead, striving almost suc-
cessfully against the ravages of a corruption and dissolution that
meant to them the death of the soul also ; an unnatural and
misguided homage paid to the material part of man. The
Brahmin, despising his animal covering of flesh and bones,
tried to find satisfaction in the starving of his bodily appetites,
and longed for the absorption of his personality into the
universal spirit. But Christ taught that while our bodies are
' temples of God ' and worthy of honour, they have only a symbolic
m
i
ir
mt
m
i
I
m
9
«
I
I
I
190
Christianity of 2^c(lagogir, value.
[Lect.
connection with the after Hfe of man. Our vile bodies shall he
changed into the fashion of a larger and more glorious
personality. In the future our present bodies have no part, but
yet there will be no loss of personality and no absorption of the
spirit.
A religion which teaches two great fundamental truths like
these is a moral force in the elevation of men and communities.
The meanest serf by it becomes the brother of the noble, and
looks forward to a time beyond death when they shall together
enjoy the same immortality of higher being. A life of service
and sonship, however numerous its trials and disappointments
and whatever its close, never seems incomplete to him who
lives it, for death is only a stage. In tlie beliefs of Christianity
the common people find peace and coii«entment, and their rulers
find a service and an end.
Now a certain school of philosophy, while admitting the
pedagogic utility of religion to a half-civilized people, look
upon it merely as a stage in the development of man, to be
succeeded by a further and higher stage. The religious attitude
to them is full of misconceptions and absurdities. The voluntary
interference of a Saviour God is to them the belief of an age of
partial Hght. Fuller light shows the mistake of believing in any
thing incapable of experimental treatment. Auguste Comte
considers that there are three stages in the development of man,
and that Christianity is merely the culmination of the first or
theological stage. After the theological comes the metaphysical,
in which nature and its problems are explained a jmori from
subjective conceptions of the mind. But the highest develop-
ment is the positive stage, in which man satisfies himself by
observing the connection of phenomena, and dismisses every
thing that is incapable of proof as unworthy his attention.
Conceptions therefore, like the immortality of the soul and
the fatherhood of God, doctrines taught to us by authority and
IV.]
The tlieolorjicil attitude not a stage.
191
lop-
by
and
and
to whoso truth our souls may respond, but which are incapable
of anything like experimental proof (except so far as history
declares their high political utility), are swept away in a
positivist philosophy, or interpreted in a purely rational manner.
The brotherhood of all men in Christ becomes merely the
equality of man ; or, to give a negative but more satisfactory
definition, the absence of political privilege ; instead of the immor-
tality of the soul we have the satisfaction of posthumous fame or
a sublime acquiescence in material absorption. A love of
humanity supersedes the love of God, and humanity in the
abstract becomes an object of worship.
It is not necessary here to enter into a discussion regard-
ing the tenableness of this threefold development theory,
for few people actually believe in it. But it does concern
us to know whether the theological attitude of mind is really
a stage of development and not a permanent condition. Is
there any reason to suppose that the positivist attitude of
mind is the highest development of man intellectually, and not
a mere phase whose incompleteness is proved by history ? The
positivist, demanding for a man's guidance merely the teachings
of what seems to him individually the best morality, regards
Christianity as an outworn structure of the past, on which the
presence of a personal God casts an oppressive shadow. The
Christian, on the other hand, considers the human individual
nature under all circumstances incomplete, and a modern
civilization tottering to its fall, in which the spiritual truths of
his religion are not reverenced and followed.
It must be confessed that very many in Christian lands,
who are deservedly respected and honoured, content themselves
with a simple morality and pay only an outward respect to
religion. Their creed, attractive enough when viewed merely by
itself, has been put into simple poetic form by Leigh Hunt
in bis poem of Abou Ben Adhem :
■0
0t
m
*:■
m
9
n
m
m
t
t
I
192
Simith morality inadequate.
[Lect.
Abou Bon Adhcm (may his tribe increase)
Awoke one night from a dream of peace,
And saw within the moonlight in hie room,
Making it ricli and like a lily in bloom,
' An angel writing in a book of gold :
Exceeding peace had mndc lien Adheni bold,
And to the presence in the room he said,
, " What writcst thou ?" — The vision raised its head,
And, with a look made of all sweet accord.
Answered — " The names of those who love the Lord."
" And is mine one ?" said Abou ; " Nay, not so,"
llepliod the angel. — Abou spoke more low.
But cheerly still ; and said, " I pray thee, then.
Write me as one who loves his fellow men."
The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night "
It came again with a great wakening light.
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed.
And, lo ! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest !
Here love of one's fellow men is exalted above love to God, or
held to supersede it as the greater includes and absorbs the
less. Now history and experience all point to the very reverse
of this, that only in conscious love of God does humanity find
its highest expression. The Christian injunction puts the
matter in the right and natural order, — ' Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.' This is the first
commandment. And the second is like this : * Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself.' A love of one's fellow men, undirected
by the recognition of divine service in its conduct and ex-
pression, is found within only a limited sphere, and has never
proved an impulsive and controlling power in any man or body
of men. Leigh Hunt's distinction is an imposible one in
practical realization. An appeal may be made to the past ; all
the great loving hearts of the past have loved their fellows
because they first loved God. Even the beggar recognizes the
fact : " Something for a blind man, for the love of God !" We
IV.]
Mim's function is Service,
193
know of no hospitals that have not been founded by pious men,
or those who would imitate the pious ; the idea of Christian service
to God is essentially wrapt up in them. To waste money on
invalids and incurables must seem to the atheist mind, as no
doubt it seemed even to the higher spirits of Greece and Rome,
like the cultivation of barren fig-trees. We know how Pliny's
friend, the noble Thrasea, reasoned, when a painful disease had
fastened on him and left him no hope of recovery ; he quietly
resolved to cut short a miserable and useless existence.
There are two professions which specially call for a high
motive if they are to be successfully followed, — the nursing of the
sick and the education of young children. The ordinary condi-
tions of work and payment fail here by the testimony of the best
authorities. Nurses in hospitals who are not animated by the
spirit of piety are unequal to their profession ; so also are the
teachers of young children, if the higher life be to them as
nothing. The only reward that in any way repays the labour is
one which the world cannot give. Otherwise children become
' brats ' to the latter, and sick people to the former as * useless
lumber.' But the Christian teacher and nurse remember that * it is
not the will of the Father that one of these little ones should perish.'
A priori we are almost forced to the conclusion that man
being a creature, as much as the engine upon the railroad is a
creation of man, must find his highest function in service. This
conclusion will be found good in actual experience. No lesson
is more clearly taught in history than that men who are too
proud to call themselves slaves of a creator and master are a
lower and not a higher development of the human species.
A prophet has recently appeared in America — and his name,
I believe, is not unknown in Japan, — who ridicules the sovereignty
of God, and scorns the idea of man beingaslave to a divine master.
His lectures have attracted crowds, and his arguments have
undoubtedly been convincing to many.
25
m
1!«
«r
•ar
0'
m
I
I
m
■
I
I
I
'M
194
Ingersoll'a view of
[Lect.
Dr. riUSBell in his Hcsperothcn, an iccount of a tour mado
with tho Duko of Sutherland in America during' the spring and
summer of 1881, tells how an opportunity was given him of
seeing this famous lecturer on religion. In journeying from
California to Colorado tho train containing the ducal party
halted at Lamy, while the passengers of another train wore
breakfasting. A citizen approached tho doctor as ho stood on
the platform, and said in an impressive and mysterious voice,
* If you look in there, sir, you will see Bob Ingersoll.' Dr
Russell asked if tliore Avas anything remarkable in the fact.
'Well, sir,' was the reply, * ho is Colonel Inger^'oll of whom you
have heard. He is the most remarkable infidel in the United
States, and I really think he believes what ho preaches. A
good man to look at, too, and, they say, iirst-ratc in his family.'
The ' believer in unbelief,' a fine looking man, was making a
very hearty meal, and seemed to enjoy the evident interest which
his presence excited.
I have been reading Col. Ingersoll's lectures, and what
has struck me most in them is the very shallow view he takes
of history. He has no more appreciation of the real meaning of
history than a man of the eighteenth century had of a Gothic
cathedral. You all know with what pride — almost worship — we
of this age look upon a magnificent Gothic structure of the past
like Lincoln, or Salisbury, or Durham Cathedral, poems in stone,
miracles of beauty. And yet Smollett, a writer of romance and
a man of imagination, confesses'^ that the external appearance
of an old cathedral cannot but be displeasing to a person who
has any idea of propriety and proportion ! Col. Ingersoll in
one of his lectures makes an equally astounding statement :
J^In his Humphrey Clinker, published 1771. Smollett's name has a local
interest from tho fact that he published iu 1796 a political treatise, ' Tho
Adventures of an Atom,' iu which the characters bear Japanese names.
IV.]
History a diafortrd one.
195
* Why,' says ho, ' tho world was not worth living in until fifty
years apto ! ' Ho woukl evidently date tho now era from about
tho timo of tho invention of tho steam locomotive, a notable
event, but surely not worthy of such distinction. Tho telegraph,
whose poles ho proft'vs tg tho cross, steam engines, printing-
presses, and tho magniiiccnt apparatus of modern civilization
aro all very good in their way, and it is right to bo proud of
them. But they are nothing compared with the heart of man,
which has beat with health and joyousness throughout tho ages.
It is a dim and distorted vision that sees only the crimes and
sorrows of the past. Christians aro naturally optimistic and
believe that each generation is a little better than the last ;
that the world as a whole is making for righteousness ; but
we are far removed from an outrageous optimism that would
behold in our forefathers an unhappy and down-troddon race
in a world blighted by tyranny. For the past is very beautiful.
Since the time of Nestor old people have looked upon the
former days as best, and we have but thought it natural,
for without a special education and adaptation for tho present
world its repulsiveness might often overcome us. Factories
are hideous structures, where the freshness of manhood and
womanhood is sapped in an unhealthy! atmosphere ; our cities
are joyless places where no birds sing, where lean and over-
worked animals toil till they drop down dead in the harness,
where children are old before their time. Eead Kingsley's Alton
Locke or Dickens's Hard Times, and you will form a more sober
estimate of our boasted civilization than does Col. Ingersoll. The
past was God's world as well as is the present, and thp men of
every age amid much misery have tasted life and found it
pleasant. We of this age cannot go back if we would, and few
would if they could ; but in the past we sometimes feel we have
lost almost as much as we gain from the present. The past is
not a gloomy prison-house, echoing with the wails of the
I
I
W
V
9
I
\
t
t
•
t
t
•
I
f
I
196
Liberty not
[Lect.
tortured; on the contrary, it is stored with what is pleasant and
fascinating and instructive. Colonel Ingersoll ridicules Eusebius
and the monkish historians of what are known as the dark ages,
but his own conception of history is almost as narrow and
absurd as theirs, if he only knew it.
The premises then upon which he builds his argument
against religion are insufficient and erroneous. Having a box
of colours before him, he chooses perversely to use only those
that are dull and black, and then assures the world that no
other painting is possible with such materials.
There is no doubt, as Col. Ingersoll says, that history is
pointing more clearly every year to the development of society
on the basis of individual judgment. We and our forefathers
have been witnessing a gradual but sure change in the direction
of social equality. But so far from viewing the change like Col.
Ingersoll with unlimited and boyish delight, we should be filled
with grave anxiety lest the liberty of our modern world, being
untempered by a higher law, work ruin. A change that would
turn the family into a democracy is a fatal change. ' I believe,'
says Col. Ingersoll, *in allowing the children to think for
themselves. I believe in the democracy of the family. If in this
world there is any t iing splendid, it is a home where all are
equals.'
This is the ne plus ultra, the very fanaticism of irreverence
and lawlessness. Paternal authority is a foundation upon which
human society has ever rested for its primary stability. In so
far as paternal authority has been repudiated in the past, in the
same degree has society been unstable. Submission to law is
the great lesson that all must learn ; and liberty means, not a
negation of law, but a freedom to obey a higher law. Until a
certain age, children are not entitled to think for themselves ;
they must obey the laws laid down by their father. The family
can never be a democracy ; its basis is law, as the basis of the
IV.]
a negation of law.
197
:-.W],'l
world's economy is law. Col. Ingersoll is leading us on to a
quicksand, where we would all sink. Is a ship's crew a demo-
cracy, or an army a democracy, or a school a democracy ?
Neither is a family a democracy.
To talk of liberty as the goal of all human endeavour, is to
elevate a negation into the place that should be occupied by a
law. * Men are not corrupted by the exercise of a power, or
debased by the habit of obedience ; but by the exercise of a
power which they believe to be illegal, and by obedience to a
rule which they consider to be usurped and oppressive.' It is
not necessary that we should have had a voice i • the framing
of a law in order that we may consent to it and obey it as good
and righteous ; this is a mere human and temporary provision,
suited to a certain condition of society. Expediency is the only
principle that justifies the claim on the part of the governed,
that before they obey a law they must first sanction it with
their approval. Col. Ingersoll, in common with many other
shallow thinkers of modern times, elevates this principle,
which is pleaded justly and rightly in certain cases, to the
rank of a universal law. Such it is not ; society is not
founded on this basis, but only certain forms or phases of
political society. The citizen may assert this privilege
rightfully, but not the child, nor the sailor, nor the soldier.
And the child, the sailor, and the soldier are noble and worthy
according to the perfection of their obedience. Man finds his
highest function not in perfect liberty, but in perfect obedience to
the law suited to him, however framed. To take an example from
the page of liistory. The lot of the negro slave as he formerly
existed in America was placed on the extreme limit of servitude,
while that of his neighbour the Indian lay on the uttermost
verge of liberty; and slavery did not produce more fatal effects
upon the first than independence upon the second. The negro
had lost all property in his own person, and could not dispose
Lt'; • ,.
I
9
P
198
French testimony to
[Lect.
of his existence without committing a sort of fraud ; but the
savage was his own master as soon as he was able to act ;
parental authority was scarcely known to him ; he had never
bent his will to that of any of his kind, nor learned the difference
between voluntary obedience and a shameful subjection ; and
the very name of law was unknown to him. Truly, an ideal
individualism ! Without religion, without parental authority,
without law. What more could be desired by Col. Ingersoll or
any of his friends ?
But it will be pled that it is inferiority of race which pro-
duces these melancholy results. The reply is ready that wher-
ever individualism, has asserted ioself, free from the bonds of
religion, the dissolution of societ} has inevitably followed.
I have here before me a pamphlet "^ written by a distin-
guished journalist of Paris, M. Eeveillaud. The introduction
states that it is a work written in good faith, but not a work of
faith. The author is not a l)eliever. He would desire to bo one,
he says, but the intellectual difficulties in the way are too great.^
He is one of those who are called free-thinkers, and belongs to
that numerous army who are fanatics for liberty of conscience,
for the progress of human enlightenment, for the glory and
honour of their country.
The pamphlet is a testimony in favour of the pure form of
Christianity known as Protestantism. It is not written in the
spirit of propagandism, but with a view to the preservation of
society. The author speaks as a politician, not as an apostle
or missionary. • ♦ >
Morality, he says, as necessary to the development and
maintenance of societies as to the happiness and equilibrium of
individual men, has its true and solid support only when it leans
on the double belief in God and in the immortality of the soul.
^ La Question Bcligieuse et la Solution Frotestauto. Paris : 1878.
* He is now a Christian pastor.
I'm
IV.]
the need of religion.
199
If we give up these healthy beliefs, it is not only morality,
social and individual, which would be in danger of overthrow,
but hope itself would disappear from the earth, the sacred flame
of poetry Avould die out, and the dignity of life, even to the motive
for living, would vanish. He quotes from Victor Hugo : —
"Let us not forget, let us teach it to all," says that great
French writer, " there would be no dignity in living and it would
not be worth our while to live, if we had to die completely.
What lightens labour, sanctifies work, renders man brave, good,
wise, patient, benevolent, just; at once humble and great, worthy
of knowledge, worthy of liberty, is the fact that he has before him
the perpetual vision of a better world shining across the shadows of
this life. A? for myself, I believe profoundly in this better world,
and after many struggles, much study and many trials, it is the
supreme assurance of my reason as it is the supreme consolation
of my soul." Again, in another passage : " There is an evil in
our time : I will almost say there is only one evil : a certain
tendency to place everything in this life. In giving to man for
end and for aim the earthly and material life, we aggravate all
miseries by the negation which is at the end ; we add to the
dejection of the unfortunate the unbearable load of nothingness ;
and of what was merely suffering, or the law of God, we
make despair, or the law of hell. Hence profound social con-
vulsions.
" Assuredly I am of those who wish, — I do not say sincerely,
for. the word is too feeble ; — I wish with an unutterable ardour,
and by all possible means, to better in this life the lot of those
who suffer, but the first amelioration is the gift of hope. How
little do finite miseries seem, when an infinite hope mingles
with them ! It is a duty incumbent on all of us, whoever we be,
politicians or bishops, priests or authors, to bring into play in
every possible manner, every social energy to battle against
and destroy misery, and at the same time to raise the beads of
m
If ;
I
m
200
rhilosophy inadequate.
[Lect.
all towards heaven, to direct the souls and turn the attention of
all towards an after life, where justice shall be done and amends
made. Let us say it aloud, no one will find that he has suffered
unjustly or in vain. Death is a restitution. Equilibrium is
the law of the material world ; equity the law of the moral.
God is discovered at the end of everything."
The objection is made that a good and sound philosophy
taught expressly in the schools and from university chairs would
serve the desired end quite as well. Would it not suffice to
teach men the two or three articles of the creed that may be
denominated social, since no society can exist without professing
it : God, the immortality of the soul, recompense for the just,
punishment for the wicked? Why graft on that a worship,
embarrass ourselves with a religion, become members of a
church ?
Eeveillaud confesses that he would admit the reasonable-
ness of this disinclination to ally philosophy with anything alien,
if he believed that philosophy, even the most spiritual, could
ever meet the religious needs of humanity, and fill the place
that has been occupied up to the jpresent day by religions. But
philosophy has never entered into the popular domain, and its
lofty speculations have produced an effect only upon a small
aristocracy of minds. Its teachings, frigid and bare, address
themselves to the reason, but have never known the road to the
heart. But it is the heart of the people that must be touched ;
and for this we need symbols, a faith, a worship. The logical
outcome moreover of a spiritual philosophy is a worship. How
can we recognize a God without adoring him, and showing him
our gratitude ?
He then goes on to show that a further proof of the need of
a religion, if further proof were necessary, is the history of the
attempt to found new religions, or to accommodate the old
religions to the taste of the day. We have the festivals in
v.]
Saint Simon's testimony.
201
■ M"(
honour of the Supreme Being instituted by Robespierre, the
worship of the Goddess Reason under the auspices of Chaumette,
the theophilanthropic experiments of La Reveillere Lepeaux,
the Saint- Simonian religion of P. Enfantin.
A few words about the last mentioned. Saint-Simon the
younger, Count Claud Henry, not to be confounded with his
distinguished grand -uncle Duke Louis, who wrr'-,; Che Memoires,
had a very varied and eventful career. A captain in the French
army at seventeen years of age, he fought in America under
Washington, after which he visited Holland and Spain. Of the
stirring events of the French Revolution he was merely a
spectator. A fortune made in speculating in national bonds
gave him leisure for the study of sociology, which he prosecuted
with ardour. The following Avas his scheme of existence. To
spend one's vigorous youth in a manner the most original and
active possible ; to gain a knowledge of all human theories and
practices ; to mingle with all classes of society, placing one's self
in all possible situations and even creating situations that
do not exist; to spend one's old age in reviewing one's obser-
vations, tind in establishing principles. He gathered a band of
ardent disciples about him, his last words to whom were : " It
has been imagined that all religion whatever ought to disappear;
but religion cannot disappear from the world; it can only
change its form." The church his followers founded, torn by
schism, has long since ceased to exist, for rel'ujio, id j)oeta,
■nascitur, non Jit — religion, like the poet, is born, not made; but
his words are as significant as ever.
Rites and symbols, some recognition of a supernatural
world, the people will have. Free-thinkers are numerous if we
judge of them from their conversation, and the profession they
make; but few indeed go so far as to reject when dying the last
consolations of religion, and almost none care to be buried
without funeral rites, without the prayers of the church. If a
26
I?
,.1f.
m
V
202
Liberty cannot exiat
[Lect.
religion did not exist it would be necessary to invent one ; but
we cannot invent one, therefore we must fall back upon one
which exists.
Now Jesus, sa.ys Reveilland, has planted his standard
BO high above the earth, that all humanity can take refuge in its
folds. Only by fighting under his standard can we wage success-
ful war against superstition and despotism.
Reformed Christianity has joined to faith, that powerful
support of duty, liberty, that essential foundation of right ; and
this fruitful alliance has renewed without violent shocks, without
blind reactions, with the sole help of time, the morals, the
legislation, and the institutions of Protestant countries. ,,
Such is a brief resume of an important portion of M.
Reveillaud's pamphlet. An argument more directly bearing on
the condition of affairs in this country could not be found ; and
it has the merit of being impartial and thoroughly sincere.
Thoughtful minds in Europe are far from revelling in the glory
of the present ; its shadows are many and they might darken at
any time into the gloom of night where no high faith knits to-
gether the units that compose our modern nations. " A despotism
may exist without a religion, liberty never" — another profound
remark of de Tocqueville's. If a nation would advance without
fear of retrogression, it must place its confidence in something
higher and nobler and more satisfying than commerce, or
parliaments, or schools ; its citizens must build up homes where
the lamp of religion is kept burning. To keep alive the faith of
a people is a difficult task, and few can undertake it; but
to throw obstacles in the way of religion, or even to be
wholly indifferent to it, is a political sin. If it is written on
the page of history that there is a power in the world
making for righteousness, the community which conforms to
that law will be determining its course in the right direction. A
modern community can effect this only through the individual
'■■ ii
IV.l
irifhotd religion.
203
choice of its citizens who are conscious and active factors in the
national life. Each citizen, therefore, of a modern state is
brought face to face with the problem of personal religion. The
past and present testify to him of Christ. Does he believe in
Christ ? If he answers, * I cannot honestly assert that I believe,'
the reply is ready. * There is no compulsion : read the word of
God, pray for further light, and in time it will be granted you.'
M. Reveillaud for years was in this position, recognizing insu-
perable difficulties on the one hand in the way of honest belief, on
the other hand in a mere agnostic attitude ; but lately he has been
enabled, we believe, to embrace heartily a creed, which from its
practical fruits he could not but believe to be true. He read the
records of the past and of the present, and they all testified of Christ.
There are two grand spectacles in modern history significant
in many ways above all others. More than two centuries ago
Cromwell's veterans, a great army of sixty thousand men, were
drawn up on Blackheath to view in sullen acquiescence the
return of Charles Stuart to th 3 throne of his unfortunate father.
The next day these invinciole soldiers were again peaceful
citizens ; they had quietly dispersed to their homes, and we hear
of them no more. Again, seventeen years ago, after the great
Civil War of America, the mighty army of the North, which
had finally accomplished its purpose, and preserved the unity
of the nation, was peacefully disbanded, and its soldiers became
citizens once more. There remained behind no Chauvinism — no
restless, lawless spirit of warfare, ever clamouring for something
to conquer, and ready for frivolous reasons to distract the country.
Continental statesman had prophesied great troubles from this
cause, but these never came ; and the reason was that the men
of that army, as of Cromwell's, were citizens who had been
brought up as Christians, and returned to Christian Homes.
Only the influence. >f religion could have produced such a result.
The future of nations possessing such citizens was assured.
m
204
A paraUe.
[Lect.
Along the great highway of time — if you will allow the
parahle — the nations have passed and are passing. The road
is full of pitfalls, the path is crowded, the onward march is
very dangerous. The weaker bands are jostled, and crushed
and trampled upon ; the stronger in their heedlessness often fall
headlong into yawning abysses that are ready to engulf them.
On this hignway history, like the Baptist of old, has taken her
stand, and sounds her note of warning in the ears of the
passers-by. ' I have stood here and watched your fathers, and
forefathers, and remote ancestors as they hurried past ; I have
noted carefully their steps, and the manner in which each was
equipped for the journey. Some, heavily burdened, walked
slowly and circumspectly and hardly seemed to care whither their
leaders were taking them ; others marched swiftly and hghtly,
urging their leaders on, and casting aside every encumbrance
that seemed to check the rapidity of their advance. And this
I have ever remarked : as many as threw away the lamp of
religion that was attached to their girdle, so many were lost
by the way and perished. Travellers might safely rid them-
selves of such lamps as yielded little or no light, but if they
failed to replace them by other and better, they were certain to
be lured to their doom.' Such is the warning of history ; read
history for yourselves and decide if it is not. To modern
nations God's word still remains
' A lamp unto tlie feet, and a light unto the path.'
The century which has elapsed since Edward Gibbon wrote
his great work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, has
infinitely increased our knowledge of the past, has furnished
us with a new historical method, and has given us a political and
social experience rich in materials for the use of the inductive
process. It is therefore too late in the day to quote with
approval his shallow dictum that religions are all very much
alike, believed in by their votaries, rejected as false by philoso-
•.J
|..'!'A'ct'.i
IV.1
Renaii versus Gibbon.
205
phers, and used by iDoliticians for their own ends. Let us rather
take the well weighed words of a writer eminently distinguished
for those very qualifications which it is Gibbon's disgrace to
have made only a pretence of possessing, a writer, moreover,
in no way to be suspected of undue bias. In the extract we are
entitled to take Christianity as synonymous with religion.
" Nothing," says M. Ecnan, " is further from the truth than the
dream that a perfected humanity will be a humanity without a
religion. Progress in humanity, iristead of destroying or
weakening religion, will only serve to develop and increase it."
tK
- , »■.<
LECTURE V.
CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS.
I. — Prefatory.
It is one of the most difficult things in the world to stand
on one side of a question, and, in presenting the other side, to
be in all cases perfectly just. And yet that difficult thing I
must try to do, as far as my knowledge and powers go. In order
to do so I hope to discuss this important subject not from the
standpoint of a partisan, who sees only the good qualities of his
own side, and only the bad ones of his opponents. Let us try
to get rid of the idea of sides and opponents and warfare alto-
gether, and to be honest seekers after truth, recognizing all truth
as the legitimate heritage of man — the outflow from the one
divine fountain. I have no desire to parade the excesses and
follies which have everywhere grown around the simple begin-
nings of ethnic religions, for men can retort by showing equally
appalling monstrosities which have at times grown as hideous
carbuncles on the fair form of Christianity. My aim is rather
to seek for and show forth the first fundamental principles of
various religions which have influenced the world, and to trace
those principles in their workings as shown by history, and in
the results of human development or degradation, and to point
out wherein they have failed to meet the needs of the human
constitution, to answer the true end of a religion.
My aim is to find a religion for man, as such ; not for one
or some of the elements of the man, but for all ; a religion for
mankind, not for some particular nation, or political party, but
■'M
Lect. v.] All Truth Is God's Light.
207
for the great soUdarite of the whole race from pole to pole ; a
religion for all time and all eternity ; not a something fit for
children and old women, or the infant stage of human develop-
ment merely, that must be cast aside as the garments of
childhood, but one that shall unfold its infinite fullness as the
mind grows largo to grasp it, that opens a vista of possibilities
of progress beyond the wildest utopias of human imagination ;
a something that will develop and satisfy the infinite longings,
the unbounded powers of the human mind ; in a word, the
realization of " the desire of all the nations. "
I do not intend to maintain that all other religions beside
Christianity are pure falsehood, while we hold a monopoly of
truth. I believe that in many of the religions of the world there
has been much of truth, and though generally the light in them
• has become darkness, yet whatever light they have had or have
to-day is the light of God. As the light of a farthing taper is
like the light of the sun, and may indirectly be traced to the sun
as its source, so every spiritual truth in its own measure shows
forth the one great fact of the existence of fundamental Truth,
and points to one original fountain. And if some souls with
the flickering taper of a little truth stumble through darkness
and gloom, amid moral pestilence and the putrid dead, up
into living aspirations after the noble and the good, with
a hatred of that which is evil ; if tliere is a just God and a pure
hereafter, those souls will shine more brightly than the thousands
who have leisurely sauntered into heaven amid the sunlight of
fuller knowledge, with every surrounding influence urging them
on to higher things. That taper truth was for that willing soul
the leading hand of God. But I do maintain that when the sun
has risen in power, and in unbounded prodigality spends on
earth's peoples his opulent beams, there is no more need of the
taper, or of lamps, or of gas jets, or of electric lights, no matter
how fine they may seem in the dark. And so when the light of
.! i
208
No Man Exclndcd from Salmtlon. [Lect.
an al)Bolutoly true religion comes, those that are partial and
imperfect must of necessity pass away, or cease to he a hlesbing,
rather a clop; to the upward progress of man.
My ohject to-day is not to show the adequacy or inadequacy
of different religions to save tlio individual soul and give him
the surest hope of a hlessed hereafter. But one thing I would
just like to say to prevent all misconctiption ; and that is that I
belong to a class of people who believe that every human soul,
from the first man that felt the impulse of conscious life to the
last man that shall stand upon this earth, has had, or has, or
will have, a sufficient opportunity for eternal salvation. I
believe that no soul of all the m5'riads of earth will ever be
able to hurl back at the Judge of all the Earth, ,as excuse for loss,
" thou never gavest me an opportunity for salvation." Such a
possibility w^ould to me unhinge the whole fabric of the moral*
universe and degrade the idea of God. Nay, thousands will
come from the East and the West, and from the North and the
South, either with the help of, or in spite of, an imperfect
religion, saved by a Saviour whom they never consciously knew,
while thousands amid the blaze of day, who thought themselves
the chosen of God, shall be cast out into the darkncos of the lost,
the home of the vile and the hypocrite. In a word, of all the
myriads of human beings, not one will ever be excluded from
the Heaven of the Christian's God, whose character would lead
him to relish that home of pure goodness. Why then send the
gospel to those who have other faiths if they have the chance to
be saved ? is the frequent question of a narrow-nrinded class. A
question which I can never hear without a feeling of loathing.
Why feed the hungry ? Why pity the poor ? Why teach the
ignorant ? Why lead the blind ? Why educate my children ?
I pity the mean specimen of a man that would not do these
things, and more so the one who will not help the spiritually
needy. The idea of Christianity is not to get so many souls out
v.i
The Bible True Histonj.
209
of hell into heaven ; salvation is not so limited a thing as
that, — a thought that has narrowed many a mind and many a
system of doctrine. Christianity aims at the salvation, the
elevation of mnnkind ; the feeding of the spiritually hungry ;
the supplying of every spiritual faculty with its legitimate
ohjcct ; the opening of the way, the urging of mankind on to
humanity's highest, fullest destiny, both hero and hereafter.
And now, one thing more. In maintaining to-day that the
Bible maps out before us this lino of salvation for the human
race, this absolute religion for human need, I do not base my
argument on the Bible in the sense of claiming for it more than
I allow to the ShFi-kiiuf of China, the Zendavesta of Persia, the
Vedas of India, or any other old book of any other old religion,
which seems to be a genuine product of olden times. You will
understand that I believe in the inspiration of the Bible, but that
I do not argue from it. I rather wish to prove it to you, and all
I claim as argument is that the Bible, on the whole, presents a
true history of facts ; and this I do all the more confidently,
because all recent research in Assyria, Palestine, and Egypt,
goes to prove the reliability of the historical facts of the Book.
II. — Pbeliminary,
One very essential preliminary in discussing the problem of
humanity is to have it thoroughly understood that the human
race is one — a single species in many varieties — all descended
from a primitive pair. This is the teaching of the Bible ; but I
insist on it here, because it is also the teaching of the most
advanced science of to-day. Various speculations have been
entertained as to this unity or diversity of the origin of the
human family, many itiaintaining that there were several centres
in which man first emerged from the brute, or came by creation,
and from which the diverse races of the globe were produced.
The overwhelming balance of the argument, however, seems to
27
210
The Human Race One,
[Lect.
be on the other side, and every new advancj of research into the
subject tends to confirm the biblico-scientifio doctrine of the one
origin of the human race, and to show that that origin geo-
graphically was in the neighbourhood of the Tigris and the
Euphrates, or somewhere in Western Asia. The arguments
for this are manifold ; I can only indicate some of them in brief.
1. There is the physiological proof, which shows that the
most distant races can unite in marriage, and produce fruitful
descendants, and that the morphological differences on the
whole between the various living races, as well as between the
present and pre-historic man, are no greater than between
individuals in the same nation to-day. Mr. Spencer, in his
Sociology, has this sentence :^ — " There are, indeed, remains
which, taken by themselves, indicate inferiority of type in
ancestral races. The Neanderthal skull and others like it, with
their enormous supra-orbital ridges, so simian in character, are
among these." Now, the fact of the matter is, that the
Neanderthal skull has no enormous simian marks at all, and is
a skull that would be an improvement on many that have the
brains of the 19th century in them. Skulls there are like it all
through Mongolia and the East. Again, he tells of a flattened
tibia as a distinguishing feature of the cave-men of Gibraltar,
France, Wales, and North America, and not known to belong
to any race now living, from which we may infer an inferior
ancient race. The fact is that any physician of much practice
in these Eastern lands has probably often handled a flattened
tibia in living men, and has not found that it made the mind of
the possessor less human. It is, indeed, true that there are
plenty of morphological differences in minor points, differences
which, however, do not affect one whit the mental or spiritual
constitution of the man.
2. Then besides the physiological, there are many other
— — — ■ <
^Sociology, pp. 41-43.
v.]
Proved in various ways.
211
proofs which, combined, make the hypothesis pretty certain.
These are the philological, pointing to a common centre of
languages now so different ; traditions, myths, which though so
varied are all derived from ancestors and colored by time and
place, but traced through the ages, they point nearer and nearer
to a common source. Take for instance the old Japan myth of
the sun-goddess Airaterasu entering a cave and causing all sorts
of ills, and then being invited back again, to restore the
harmony of a disturbed world. You find the essential features
of the same story in the myths of Babylon, which were believed
in more than 4,000 years ago, and can trace it in many another
nation as well, pointing to a common source somewhere.*
The philological and mythological argument taken alone
would not perhaps furnish absolutely convincing proof, but taken
together with the psj'chological evidence of the mental, moral
and spiritual unity of constitution in all living races, we have
sufficient proof for the doctrine.
As to the place whence all the streams of historical
humanity have flowed, let me read you one or two extracts. Mr.
Eenouf, Egyptologist, thus writes concerning ancient Egypt.^
" The view is now entirely abandoned according to which the
Egyptians came down the Nile from the more southern regions
of Africa. It has been conclusively proved that they gradually
advanced from North to South. Most scholars now point to fhe
interior of Asia as the cradle of the Egyptian people. The
further back we go in antiquity, the more closely does the
Egyptian tj'pe approach the European." Again, with reference
to China, the other nation whose history is most ancient. Prof.
Douglass writes :^ — "The question arises — Where did these people
1 Compare Mr. Chamberlain's ffo/iftt, Vol. VIII. Sect. XIV., with Smith's
Chaldean Account of Genesis.
> The Religion of Ancient Egypt, p. 65.
•China, p. 2.
I"
,
212
Asian Cradle of Man.
[Lect.
(the ancient Chinese) come from ? and the answer which research
gives to this question is — From the South of the Caspian sea.
Probably in about the 24th or 23rcl century B.C. some political
disturbance drove the Chinese from the land of their adoption,
and they wandered eastward until they finally settled in China
and the countries south of it. They came to China possessed
of the resources of We stern- Asian culture. They brought with
them a knowledge of writing and astronomy, as well as of those
arts which primarily minister to the wants and comforts of
mankind." Names, system of chronology, astrological accounts
of the planets, etc., accord with the Babylonian. Hwang-ti
2697-2597 B.C., first recorded Chinese Emperor, probably never
sat on the Chinese throne but belongs to the original home-land.
The point is this, Egypt and China were both settled and
civilized by swarms from a common, or nearly common, hive in
Western Asia; Egypt more than 3000 or 4000 years before
Christ, and China between 2000 and 3000 B.C. It is also a
perfectly established fact that the Indians of the Vedas, the
Persians of the Avesta, the Greeks, Romans, Scandinavians of
Europe all sprang from a common stock somewhere in the in-
terior of Asia. And from earliest times, many streams have
gone from the same centre, making it more than probable that
pre-historic man emanated from the same spot, and subdued the
wilderness for the advance of more cultured races. As we
advance to a greater distance from the centre we find the stream
flowing outward, but losing its purity and power as it extends,
until you find in far-off lands and distant lonely islands, little
more than the wreckage of humanity. .. ». ^ ;. •
There seem to be three great divisions of the human race,
in which the biblical references to Ham, Shem, and Japhet are
followed by writers on the subject. It would seem that Ham's de-
scendants were for ages the most powerful. Even in historic or
semi-hiatoric times, we find the Shemites together with the
v.]
Traditions Change.
213
Hamites in the Euphrates plains, and under the rule of a Hamite
prince. Indeed, it is not at all improbable that the Hamites formed
the staple of the men of the stone age, the basis of the aborigines
of Egypt and China, and even a prevailing element in the more
cultured streams that afterward reached these lands and carried
civilization to such a wonderful height. I say basis and element,
for everything goes to show that none of these races were kep
pure ; there was a constant mixture of blood, a frequent change
of place, producing a new variety, which fixed a type to be per-
petuated forever. Nearly related races became utterly different,
while alien tribes became absorbed, losing their language in that
of their conquerors, as was the case with the descendants of
Ham in the land of Canaan at the time of Abraham.
But with all the development and with all the mixture,
each of the three divisions retained, and retains to-day, certain
grand distinguishing features of character, features which, as
you will soon see, have much to do with the subject in hand.
III. — Statement of the Argument.
A striking proof of the unity of the human race is found in the
universality of religion, and in the track along which religious
traditions have flowed down through the ages and out into the
farthermost corners of the earth. By comparing and tracing
prevalent religious myths and beliefs, wherever such tracing
can be done, we come invariably and everywhere to the same
result : all point with more or less distinctness to the Asian
cradle of the human race as their original fountain-head, and
all tend to corroborate the substance of the Bible record as the
primitive faith of mankind. Of course, when I speak of the
universality of religion, I do not mean to assert that every man
has necessarily a religious faith, or that every savage tribe has a
definite religious system. But what I do say is, that in the
history of the development of mankind, the religious element
214
Whence the Variety of Mythology ? [Lect.
has had the most potent influence and the most marked position,
and that it is only in the lowest dregs of savagedom where there
is any douht about the existence of an actual religion. Nor
do I claim that all the tribes of earth have clear traditions
relating to the one common religion of primitive man. You all
know how a story is changed by being passed from mouth to
mouth before it is written down and fixed in definite shape.
A very good illustration you have in j'our Japanese poetical
literature. The old No-uta, or lyrical dramas, were early com-
mitted to writing, and their form has suffered little change to
the present day. Not so, however, the contemporary Kidgen,
or little farces, which were and are still played as interludes
between the heavier dramas. These were not published until
lately. Indeed, many actors are still quite ignorant of the fact
that they are to be found in a book. But versions that are
written from memory by different actors, and those found in a
few books are so full of variations, that while the common origin
is very apparent, the very meaning has often been quite changed.
Now, supposing for the moment that man had a common
origin in some central spot ; that at the start all civilization had
yet to be won, mankind being perfect in all human powers, but
inexperienced, untrained, simple ; that he had then a childlike
faith in a one true, living, holy God ; that he had one story of
the creation and of man's fall into sin, of general degradation,
of a punishment by a flood. Supposing all this, and allowing
the human constitution to be what it is, what would you expect
to be the result ? Would not the first wanderers go out with
these traditions in undeveloped minds, wandering — one swarm far
to the East, another far to the West, and gradually lose a clear
idea of those early teachings and hold garbled accounts ? These
would be followed by other swarms from the central hive, who
would perhaps be now further advanced in the germs of civiliza-
tion. They would have a stronger hold of the traditions they
v.]
All Point to the Asian Centre.
215
would bring, and, driving the first swarm further away, take
their place and carry on their rude beginnings of agriculture
perhaps to a higher perfection. The first swarm would wander
farther away, oppressed by the new comers, and hating them.
Then stronger waves would follow, pressing the first and second
still further away and away, until they peopled continents and
the thousand islands of the ocean. Supposing that there was
no literature for two or three thousand years anywhere:
that the first swarm driven back and back in their weakness
never had a literature at all, battling with storm and tempest
and stingy soil, or pampered by a fruitful land into perfect
laziness of body and mind. What would naturally become of
these early traditions after 6,000 or 7,000 years ? You certainly
would hardly expect to find, in the very farthest, and most
neglected, most degraded of all, any trace of the original form.
If you could find amid a mass of local superstitions one simple
tradition that somehow, somewhere, sometime, they came from
a better place, and their forefathers were a better people, it
would be as much as you could hope for ; and then you would
expect to find in those who lived nearer the centre, who had
preserved their traditions in writing, clearer traces of the primi-
tive thought, which, however, would be overgrown by much
that would be local and new ; and that as we came nearer in
time and by means of old documents to the first beginning of
literature, the traditions would still more nearly harmonize.
And now laying suppositions aside, what do we find when
we begin at the other end ? Out in the lowest tribes there is
everywhere a belief in certain myths, and generally the memory
of a better origin. Stripping their myths of that which is
purely local, we find an element held by some other people ;
coming to this second people, we find the memory of
better times more clearly marked, with tradition more
pronounced; stripping these again of Icjal ideas, we find an
216
Mistaken Notions as to
[Lect.
element derived from elsewhere. And so we go on, tracing link
after link, until out of what seemed pure fiction we find pieces
of Noah's ark, feathers of the raven that came not back, of
the story of the Fall, or some old biblical fragment, until at last
we reach a point south of the Caspian Sea. And this is the
case with every line you trace from every spot in the wide
world, north and south, east and west, the round globe over ;
every traditional path culminates there and in the old Bible story.
Just like your grand old Mount Fuji, which I take once more
as an illustration. As you see it from afar, its dark base seems
long to rise but little above a plain, and often when clouds are
thick there is nothing there to suggest the idea of a mountain.
But as you look, lo ! the clouds high overhead are breaking, and
Fuji's snowy crown stands splendid in the sun. The clouds
become thin below, and you trace the mountain slope up from
the dark base, and though you cannot see the whole line from
base to summit, for fleecy clouds in shelving layers break the line
to you, yet as you see the slope below point to, and suggest a
connection with the sloping cone above, no one would doubt
for a moment, though seeing it for the first time, that gnowy
crown and sombre base form one unbroken unit. And so with
the world's religious traditions. Away among the baser races,
you search and search and seem to find no rise above the
almost beastly level ; but as you search along, and follow the
line of inherited thought, you rise at first by very slow degrees,
perhaps, but as the clouds are thinned, the lines rise soon more
distinctly and point from every quarter to the one summit —
the old place of the Bible story. Nor is the view vitiated by
the presence here and there of fleecy cloud, interrupting in
spots some one or other of the many lines leading upward
through all lands and through all time. And we conclude that
the human race is one, and the primitive faith of man that of
one Father God,— a living, holy God. ,= .
v.]
The Origin of Beligions.
217
Some savans to-day trace the origin of religions to myths
and personifications of Nature. And they may be so far correct
that many religions have been moulded by these things when
the early faith was gone. But they do not go quite far enough
back, for those very myths and personifications of nature are a
step downwards in the natural way that man takes from primi-
tive faith in God, in religious self-evolution.
Herbert Spencer, and many who think with him, hold that
every religion springs from a superstitious worship of ancestors.^
It may be that certain religions have that as their fundamental
thought ; but that religion, as such, sprang from this reverence
for ancestors is simply an unfounded assertion contrary to
demonstrable facts.
But when Mr. Spencer and others assume and teach that
religion was evolved out of gross superstition ; that as men grew
civilized they grew more rationally religious ; and that^ " the
ideas of deity entertained by cultivated people arise only at a
comparatively advanced stage, as the results of accumulated
knowledge, greater intellectual grasp, and higher sentiment ;'*
that, in fact, the gods of a people are the products of the people,
and never are these ideas of God anj'thing more than the con-
tinued evolution of matter and force in the human brain working
along the line of sociology, they make pure, unfounded assump-
tions. The fact is, this theory of evolution of religion from a
lower to a higher, is like burying the branches of a tree in the
ground and spreading abroad the roots in the sun: it is a
theory which is contradicted by every chapter in every history
of every country of this round globe that we inhabit. Mr.
Spencer sets out, of course, with the assumption that self-evolu-
tion must be true all the way up and down every line of being.
Then, although he allows the fact of the degradation of races,
yet he goes to distant savage peoples for his type of primitive
1 Sociology, I., no.
28
3 Sociology, I., 440.
218
Natural Development, Decay.
[Lect.
man! Collecting there great masses of gross superstitions,
and foul customs, he compares and combines them with
the involved mythologies of ancient Greece and Rome, after
these countries had elaborated a system of patch-work idolatry
borrowed from a dozen degraded religions of other heathen
lands, and out of this he finds the needed proof for his theory.
One thing is certain, that out of such a mountain of mixed
elements a mass of apparent argument can be manufactured, but
most assuredly no safe teaching as to the primitive religion of
man. We must go, and can go securely, on historical lines far
back of that and find a very different basis from which to work.
The fact is, that all history shows that the natural evolution of
religion is ever downwards from lofty thought and simple
worship to degradation ; and never, yositivehj never, excepting
seemingly in one line, of the Israelites, is there the slightest
support of the theory that it was upward to purer, higher forms.
I say '* seemingly " with intent, for the development in Israel of
a pure worship of one God, on to the life of the peerless Man
and Christianity, is a further confirmation of the fact that the
natural tendency was downward ; for every advance upward of
that people even, was evidently forced upon them for the benefit
of mankind, against their will, and in spite of their tendencies.
The substance of this modern materialistic, pantheistic
teaching is this : Man has gradually worked himself up from
a low condition in which there was no moral law, no religious
sentiment, through fh-st, a stage of coarse fetichism; then
through myths and personifications of nature, to an abstract
monotheism, and thence to Christianity, and thence to the
highest step, which is to banish all that preceding ages had
produced into the mysterious caverns of know-nothing-at-all-
about-it of agnosticism. All history, however, shows the very
opposite development, and that the agnostic ghost has stalked
the earth all along the ages. .. ,■ , .
v.]
Supernatvral ovhj advances.
219
1. We take as our guides in research those giants of
honest toil in the musty tomes of ancient days, Max Miiller,
Spiegel, Lepsius, Ebers, Renouf, Eougc, Schrader, Duncker,
and many others, and what is the testimony of the fruits of
their labors when put together ? The higher and farther we
penetrate into antiquity, the clearer becomes the idea of a one
living, holy God, together with an acutor moral consciousness in
man, and a more earnest longing after a hoped-for Redeemer.
And then step by stop as wo come down the stream of time to
modern days, we trace a lower and lower sinking away from this
primitive faith, together with increasing frivolity of ethics, down
to a darkening of the religious consciousness and on to coarse
polytheism, or in some cases into pantheism, bearing the prac-
tical fruit of a perfectly indescribable rottenness of moral
conduct ; and all this, mark you, in spite of mental progress, of
intellectual grandeur, of advance in the highest arte of civiliza-
tion and culture. And then, again, as we examine all we can
find of wild uncivilized races, the result is evidence of a steady
sinking into still lower degradation, together with traditions of
better days gone long ago. Not a trace anywhere of an upward
working from the fetich or tho savage without external help.
Surely, if there were such a law of social religious evolution
as Mr. Spencer assumes, wo should find some little trace of it in
the historic millenniums past. The very opposite being,
however, the constant and universal fact, we may count that
theory among the myths, and still hold to the Bible story that
man has fallen away from God, and that the pre-historic
statements of the Bible, m exactly on the trend of facts unfolded
by all known history for the last 6,000 years, are more worthy
of belief than these modern theories, which absolutely belie all
historical facts. This will become more clear as I proceed in
my argument to-day.
2. One more fact I wish to make clear in opposition to a good
220
The Ancient Theology of
[Lect.
deal of the favorite teachings of the day, and that is the ringing
of the changes on monotheism being a development of Somite
ideas, ar<^. Christ the natural outcome of Semite tendency.
Nothing could be more opposed to fact. First of all, let it
be remembered the question of biblical religion is not one of
monotheism merely — it is a question of the character ascribed
to that God as a holy God, a question of the conscience of guilt
and sin in man, and of faith in a promised divine redemption
of the world from sin. The important point is not so much a
numerical one as the character of the God-head. Most certainly
the thirty-threefold god of the early Vedas comes nearer the
true, living, holy God, than the four unspeakably vile gods of the
Babylonians, or even the one God of Mahomed. The oldest
documents unfold to us two very important facts.
(1 The family of Shem, from which Israel sprang, when
come to power, sank the most speedily to the very lowest depths
of ancient degradation, and tainted other races with the virus of
moral filth ; they were the farthest removed from what the Bible
holds as truth, their gods were the very opposite of what the
Bible holds good, and they served them by acts that not only
the Bible but nearly all men would call the very antipodes of
morality — beastly sensuality and satanic cruelty formed the
staple of their divine service.
(2) And the Israelites themselves showed time and time
again that they still possessed a natural tendency to fall into
this service of Baal, from which they could scarcely be cured.
And now a religion — which was so perfectly opposite to the
Shemite natural religion, which was so continually a rock of
offence to the natural tendency of the Jews, can never by any
just law of reason be looked upon as a natural evolution of
Semite ideas. I can find no solution short of the ofttimes
unwelcome revelation of a holy God.
3. Another fact, and that is the question raised in my
vr
V.l
Egy2)t the imrest.
221
first lecture, and to which I shall again recur, viz., no solution
short of the supernatural can explain the fact that wherever a
people have been affected by the redemption in Christ Jesus,
the divine culmination of the supernatural in the religion of
Israel, the gospel evinces a power which arrests the progress of
downward moral tendency, and sifts the people ; wherever true
faith in the gospel rules, social relations improve, entanglements
are solved, nations are rejuvenated, intellectual progress is
quickened and enlightened, and benevolence and charity bloom
in beauty and fructify in plenitude of blessing. But here again,
in a degraded prostitution of Christianity, where men yielded
to the natural tendency of religious evolution, history tells us of
lower, viler, more putrescent depths of moral and religious decay
than even heathenism could show. But this very degradation
of Christianity furnishes another proof of its divinity, for when
the gospel is brought to light again from under the incubus of
humanly evolved excrescences, it shines forth with undimmed
splendom* and pristine power. Again, let me ask you not to
judge of Christianity by any such human degradation bearing
her name ; but look at her principles, her influence, and at the
whole historical fact of Christianity in its organic connection
with the general history of the world's religions, and account for
it by natural means, if you can.
One more mistake of Mr. Spencer and his school, and I
pass on to anotlier division of. my subject. Mr. Spencer says :
" Speaking generally, the religion current in each age and
among each people has been as near an approximation to tho
truth as it was then and there possible for men to receive."^
This is also re-echoed by Max Miiller, by the Brahmin, by
Mahommed, and many a philosophic reason seems to be given.
But the fact is that no religion has ever paved tho way to a
:a:
■• >H
1
1 First Principles, p. 100.
222
Ancient Ethics ^ noblest.
[Lect.
natural evolution of a better, excepting the one supernatural
development of Mosaism for Christ. But even there, the chosen,
prepared people spued forth both tlio advancing Christ and his
nobler religion, while the absolute gospel seems just as well
prepared for the lowest as for the highest. Take one very strik-
ing instance. Mr. Spencer continually refers to some low,
coarse, savage practice as a something that is being practised in
the Sandwich Islands. He seems to bo utterly oblivious to the
fact that the Sandwich Islanders are no longer savage can-
nibals, but civilized Christians with as keen a sense of moral
right and wrong as other civilized peoples. The acceptance and
enjoyment of the highest form of religion by almost the lowest
form of pagan people, and the resultant fruits of civilization,
give the lie to the whole theory, making the above assertion of
Mr. Spencer purely gratuitous and incapable of verification.
While facts would go to show that if the highest existent form
of religious truth be taught to the lowest people, they can at oiicc
accept it and benefit by it. And it may have always been so.
IV. — Along the Line of Proof.
Let us now glance at some of the historic nations and trace
their religions to the source. ' «
I.—Fujypt.
First of all we ask the testimony of Egypt, whose existing
monuments reveal to us the highest type of civilization of pre-
historic times. I quote again from Renouf; — "No scholar is
better entitled to be heard on this subject than the late Emmanuel
Rouge, whose matured judgment is as follows : * No one has
called in question the fundamental meaning of the principal
passages by the help of which we are able to establish what
ancient Egypt has taught concerning God, the world, and man.
I say God, not the gods. The first characteristic of the religion
is Unity (of God) most energetically expressed — God, One, Sole
V.J
Ancient Theology of China,
223
and Only, no others with Ilim. Ho is the Only Being living in
truth. Thou art One, and millions of beings proceed from Thee,
lie has made everything, and He alone has not been made. The
clearest, the simplest, the most precise conception.'
" Then, after local duties had arisen in different places, the
same doctrine always reiippears under different names. One
idea predominates, that of a single and primeval God ; every-
where and always it is one substance, self-existent, and an
unapproachable God. This pure monotheism passed through a
stage of Sabeism ; the sun, instead of being taken as a symbol of
life, was taken as a manifestation of God himself. God is self-
existent : he is the only being who has not been begotten ; hence
the idea of considering God under two aspects, the Father and
Son. In most of the hymns we come across this idea of the
double being who engendereth himself. One soul in two twins —
to signify two persons never to be separated. One hymn calls
him the One of One.
" Are these noble doctrines, then, the result of centuries ?
Certainly not, for they were in existence more than two thousand
years before the Christian era. On the other hand, polytheism,
the soiurces of which we have pointed out, develops itself and
progresses without interruption until the time of the Ptolemies.
It is, therefore, more than 5,000 years since, in the valley of the
Nile, the hymn began to the unity of God and the immortality
of the soul, and we find Egypt in the last ages arrived at the
most unbridled polytheism. The belief in *he unity of the
supreme God, and in his attributes as creator and lawgiver of
man, "s^'hom he h?.s endowed with an immortal soul — these are
the primitive notions, enchased like indestructible diamonds in
the midst of the mythological stupefactions accumulated in the
centuries which have passed over that ancient civilization."*
^B^DOurs Religion of Ancient Egypt, p. 95.
224
Resembles Old Testament.
[Lect.
Thus far, M. Eouge ; and M. Eenouf, from still more recent and
accurate research, endorses the position of M. Eouge. He
writes : —
"It is incontestibly true that the sublimer portions of the
Egyptian religion are not the comparatively late result of a
j)rocess of developement or elimination from the grosser. The
sublimer portions are demonstrably ancient ; and the last stage
known to Greek and Latin writers, heathen or Christian, was by
far the grossest and most corript."^ Thus Mr. Eenouf.
Let it also be borne in mind that through the long centuries
of the first seventen dynasties, tberc are no images of gcdf; in
their sepulchres, no sculptures or carvings suggestive of idolatry.
And the name Niitar used for the Eternal One in Egypt 1,500 or
2,000 years before Moses, has the same moaning as the El-Shaddai
of the first chapters of the Bible, an Almighty Power in heaven
over-ruling all.
Again, the most ancient ethical teachings are the most pure.
In fact it is stated that there are words in the very ancient
Egyptian language expressive of the finest shades of modern
Christian morality, showing the pure loftiness and profound
truth of their moral code. Here r^^ve some of their maxims :^ —
" The field that the great God hath given thee to till.
" If any one beareth himself proudly, he will be humbled
by God, who maketh his strength.
" Thy treasure hath grown to thee through the gift of God.
"A good son is the gift of God.
" Happy is the man who eateth his own bread. Possess
what thou hast in the joy of thy heart. What thou hast not,
obtain it by work. It is profitable for a man to eat his own
bread ; God grants this to whosoever honors Him.
" Praised be God for all his gifts.
^lienouf's BoligioQ of Aucicut Egypt, p. 95.
B^nouf's BeligioQ of Ancient Egypt, p. 104. .
was
v.]
Downivard BeUgioiis Devdoimient*
225
" Pray humbly with a loving heart all the words of which
are uttered in secret. He will protect thee in thine affairs ; He
will listen to thy words ; He will accept thine offerings.
" Thou shall make adorations in His name. It is He who
granteth genius with endless aptitudes; who magnifieth him
who becometh great. The God of the world is in the light above
the firmament ; His emblems are upon earth ; it is to them
that worship is rendered daily.
" Give thyself to God, keep thyself continually for God, and
let to-morrow be like to-day. Let thine eyes consider the acts
of God : it is he who smiteth him that is smitten. "
Woman was honored with an equal place beside the man,
and monogamy continued down to a comparatively recent date.
Affection towards the mother was strongly insisted on. The
dead were refused burial until proved innocent or an atonement
should be made. There was in these ancient races evident fear
of a judgment to come, but no clear hope beyond, no conscious-
ness of redemption from sin. There are three distinct stages in
the religious history of Old Egypt.
1. A prehistoric worship of Nutar, God, Almighty. Ho
was Creator, holy, conscious, free, ruling all things and taking
cognizance of man. A tendency to worship emanations as local
deities.
2. An increase in the heavenly gods and their manifesta-
tions, uat they are still ethical beings. Natural phenomena
were supposed to bo involuntary emanations of the divine.
Somewhat pantheistic.
8. Pure polytheism, nature worship, worship of animals,
formal ceremonial, hypocritical outward show, and awful moral
depravity of conduct. This was the last stage, a time that is as
well known now as the history of ten j'ears ago, from which time
Egypt fades from history.
The Egyptian character was naturally religious and earnest,
20
l> ".Ml
;. il
226
The Develojjment of
[Lect.
having much that reminds us of the still existent childlike trust
of Ham's descendants, and appears for a long time to have
withstood the natural downward tendency ; but when the cul-
mination came it was awful. Polytheism descended to the
hideous worship of animals and insects, even to the most loath-
some vermin of filth. The will of the gods was supposed to be
indicated by the contortions of a pampered reptile rolling on a
cushion of richest velvet in splendid temples. If a cat died in a
house the inmates shaved their eyebrows ; if a dog, all the hair
of their bodies. And many a rich man would spend a fortune in
burying a dead dog. Here is a prayer to a cat 400 B.C.: — " Oh
thou wise cat ! thy head is the head of the sun-god. Thy nose
is the nose of Toth, the doubly great Lord of Hermopolis. Thy
eai'S are the ears of Osiris, who hears the voice of all who call
upon him. Thy mouth is the mouth of Atmu, the Lord of Life,
he has preserved thee from all filth," etc., etc. And morality
became equally beastly. The ideas of God and man in strange
contrast to those of 3,000 or 1,000 years before, when the God
of Egypt was very much like the God of the Bible, and the
theology evidently drawn from the same primal source.
//. — China.
The next oldest civilization that history discloses to us is
the Chinese. Wc have already seen that the historic Chinese
came from Western Asia. Another proof is the similarity of the
primitive idea of God among the Chinese with that prevalent in
olden Egypt, in Western Asia, and in the oldest chapters of the
Bible. The very word Ti is similar in sound and meaning
with that which gave the Indians daeva, the Greeks zeus, the
Latins dens, the English Deity, and was used in the same sense
as Nukir of the Egyptians and the El-Shaddai of the Old Bible.
There has been and still is a great deal of controversy on the
subject of the use of Shang-ti for God iu China, a controversy in
v.i
Bdigion in China.
227
which I have no desire to mix, and which has in reality little to do
with the real principle of my argument. It seems, however,
very evident that through all the mass of ancient Chinese
superstitions, one clear line of worship to an over-ruling, creative
Power runs back to the hoariest antiquity, preserved to-day
in the worship performed by the Emperor alone ; but traced back
and back it becomes more and more the property of the people
as well, until among the very first of all the characters of the
language, indications of the very first thoughts of the people, Ti
or Shaiig-ti is found as the object of worship. That this worship
of one Supreme Lord is not the evolution of time out of a low
idolatry, but the relic of a purer primitive cult, which the people
exchanged for superstition, and the Imperial house preserved as
a badge of superiority, would seem to be clear beyond a doubt.
But this Ti, Supreme Power, or Shanfj-ti, Lord of Heaven, is
rather the name of rank of the one Euler of all. In the Shih
King and the Shi King we have the ideas of the Chinese from
2,000 B.C. down to Confucius. In these books, what is pre-
dicated of Shang-ti can only be predicated of the true God.^
" He is the ruler of men and of all this lower world. Men in
general, the mass of the people, are his peculiar care. He
appointed grain to be the chief nourishment of all. He watches
over kings, exalts them for the good of the people, while they
reverence him, and fulfil their duties in his fear, with reference
to his will, taking his ways as their pattern. He maintains them,
smells the sweet savor of their offerings, and blesses them and
their people with abundance and general prosperity. When they
become impious and negligent of their duties, he punishes them,
takes away the throne from them, and appoints others in their
place. His appointments come from fore-knowledge and fore-
ordination. Sometimes he appears to array himself in terrors,
and the course of his providence is altered. The evil in the
> Legge, Religions of China, 27.
228
The God of *' Shu " and " Shi " [Lect.
State is ascribed to him. Heaven is called unpitying. But
this is his strange work, in judgment, and to call men to
repentence. He hates no one ; and it is not he who really causes
the evil time : that is a consequence of forsaking the old and right
ways of Government. In giving birth to the multitudes of the
people he gives them a good nature, but few are able to keep it
and hold out good to the end."
Yii the Great, the founder of the Hsia-Ka dynasty, B.C.
2205, "sought for able men who should honor God" (in the
discharge of duty). But the way of Cliich, the last of this
line, was different. Those whom he employed were cruel men
and he had no successor. The kindgdom was given to Tang the
successful, the founder of the Sliaiuj or Yin dynasty, who
** grandly administered the bright ordinances of God." His
reign dates from B.C. 1766; but Shau, the last of his line, came
to the throne (in 1254, B.C.) and was as cruel as Chieh had
been ; God in consequence " sovereignly punished him." The
throne was transferred to the house of Chau, whose chiefs showed
their fitness for the charge by " employing men to serve God
with reverence, and appointed them as presidents and chiefs of
the people," etc. To read such things in the old books of China,
really makes one feel as though some chapters had dropped out
of the Books of Kings of the Hebrew Bible, and had been
carried across to China, so alike in sentiment.
This is the God of Shi and Sim, going back to the 3rd
millennium B.C., and all along no reference to reverence paid
to other spirits or beings excepting as mere ministers of the
Supreme. With reference to these subordinate spirits we have
in the statutes of Ming dynasty (A.D. 1868-1642). ^ To the
heavenly spirits, "the spirits of the Cloud-master, the Eain-
master, the Lord of the Winds, and the Thunder Master,"
' Logge, Beligions of China, 19.
v.]
Becomes " Heaven and Earth."
229
it is said: "It is your office, Spirits, to superintend the clouds
and the rain, and to raise and send abroad the winds, as
ministers assisting Shang-ti. All the people enjoy the benefits
of your service," etc. The Supreme was father of the people,
but became the Lord of the Emperor, in Chinese development ;
the Emperor, lord of the people ; the man, lord of his children.
And so it became the chief duty of children to obey their parents,
of men to reverence their superiors, culminating in the Emperor,
while the Emperor became the sole worshipper of God. Hence
the worship of ancestors, and of ministering spirits, and a
thousand other superstitions, which were outgrowths of the
decay of primitive worship. As time wore on, teachers began to
use a still more indefinite term for the Supreme. " Heaven
and Earth " is the common expression, and the primal meaning
of divinity is still less strong. Then during the troublous times
of 800 to 600 B.C. and up to the time of Confucius, the belief in
a personal God grew indistinct and dim, so that Confucius in
his teaching, representing the best thought of his day, is even
charged with atheism. He never denied the existence of God,
but so little does he refer to him that he may be said to
ignore him systematically. As to the ethics of primitive
China, they are to be found in the Confucian doctrines which
have come down to us to-day. Confucius ransacked the
ancients for his moral code, and found all the principles of
his system in the teaching of 1,500 to 2,000 years before his
time. And as we look at his system to-day, we cannot find so
much fault with his ethics so far as principles are concerned ;
their roots run back to the primitive faith of man. But as a
religion, Confucianism has not developed upwards, has become
fossilized, is nothing but a Hfeless name ; a religion in which
God is ignored in emasculate. As a system of political
economy, it may d ' )p good citizens for China, but it can
never supply the soul-hunger of the masses. And in fault of a
230
Indian Religions
[Lect.
religion in Confucius, the Chinese people cherished their
superstitions and turned to Taoism and Buddhism for soul-food.
, .; ///. — Aryan India.
I. — NORMAL.
' ' Another line that leads us along the same trend, and still
nearer the fountain-head in some respects, is that of the
Brahman, or the religion of the Vedas, among the old Aryans
of India, and of their home north of the Himalayas. The Vedas
lake us back to nearly 2,000 years before Christ ; they are the
oldest literary product of the children of Japhet. Here is a race
distinct from the Egyptians and Chinese, and Bab5'lonians, from
whom Egypt and China received their first civilization. '^ he
Vedas bring us back to a simple shepherd-life, and a simple
trust in a holy God, with a very simple service for the worship
of this God. And from that beginning we can trace, step by step,
the downward evolution from primitive faith in one Holy God, to
the worship of nature's powers ; to an elaborate priesthood and
ritual ; to polytheism and superstition ; to oppression and rooted
immorality. Max Miiller gives four periods in the Aryan
religion of India as traced by the Vedas.
1. The first period is from 1800 to 1400 B.C. The word
deva used for deity takes us back to the time when the three
great families were still together. The one God was worshipped
in the earliest Veda times under thirty-three different names, but
there was no more polytheism about it apparently then than there
is in the three-one God of the Christians to-day. Each one when
mentioned was eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, dwelt in invisi-
ble Heaven, never slept, hated and punished all sin. Sin was
contrary to the divine nature. That nature was light, pure, holy
in itself. Each one is Creator of the universe, Lord of Heaven
and Earth. They manifest power sometimes in different ways,
but there is no sign of anthropomorphic teaching, of marrying
v.]
As traced in the Vedas.
231
and begetting, and so forth ; all were names or manifestations
of the one Infinite God, and each one absolute. In the Rig Veda
we have these words : — "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna,
Agni, also the well-winged Garutmat. That which is one, the
hages call by different names," etc.^
The worship was very simple ; the father of the family was
at first priest, poet, and ruler. As priest he sacrificed and
prayed. As men multiplied, certain persons did the work of
offering, others of public praj'ing, and others of singing sacred
hymns. The hymns preserved show the consciousness of a holy
God, of sinfulness in man needing an atonement. Sin was con-
sidered as an evil, enslaving the human will, an inherited
depravity. There was also a trust in God as the merciful for-
giver of sins. Here is an extract from a hymn to Varuna : —
** Wise and mighty are the works of Him who has adorned
the firmanent. He lifts up the bright glorious heaven. He
spreads out divided the stars and the earth. Say I this to my
own soul ? How can I attain unto Varuna ? Will he be dis-
pleased with my offering ? When shall I in peace see Him
reconciled ? I ask, Varuna, for I know my sin. The wise all
tell me the same thing, Varuna is angry with thee. Was it an
old sin, Varuna, that thou should destroy one who ever
praises thee ? Make it known to me, thou invisible Lord, and
I will quickly turn to thee with praise, released from sin. Free
us from the sins of our fathers and from those that we ourselves
have committed. Release me, king, as a thief who has eaten
of stolen cattle ; let me go as a calf, freed from the halter. It
was not our own doing, Varuna, it was involuntary, it was a
poisonous taint, it was passion, fate, thoughtlessness," etc.
The germs of decay were already showing themselves, a
personal consciousness of guilt was passing away ; a tendency .
to excuse sin as an inherent trait in humanity, and the first
^For this aud succeeding (luotatious I am indebted to Ebrard'a Apologetik.
232
Gradual Decay.
[Lect.
germs of pantheism began to appear. Then peace and pardon
were less prayed for, only worldly goods were asked of God. In
. a hymn to Indra — " Be not absent from one of thy worshippers,
holding thyself aloof ! Even from far come thou to our feast ;
or, if present, hear us ! For those that here worship thee, draw
near to our drink offering as flies set themselves at a feast of
honey. Longing for abundance, I call upon thee, who boldest the
thunder in thine arm, and art a good giver, as a son calls to
his father. Be thou, mighty one, a shield for the mighty, when
thou dvivest the warriors forth to combat. Let us divide the
possessions of him whom thou hast destroyed, bring us the
utensils of those who are hard to conquer. We have no other
friend than thee, no other happiness, no other father than thcc,
thou mighty one ! Drive away the unfriendly, mighty one,
and make it easy for us to take spoil ; be our protector in battle,
the benefactor of our friends." Here we see not the former
peaceful shepherd, but the rover leaving home, and bent on
depredation. Sacrifices become not atonements for sin, but gifts
to God. The conviction of sin dies, worship is degraded, the idea
of a holy God fades away. Nature's gifts alone are prized. God
is soon forgotten ; Nature is adored as God, and Agni becomes
the god of fire. Here is a hymn to Agni : — " Thy path, Agni,
is also dark (with smoke). Agni, thou from whom, as from a
new born male, immortal flames ascend ; the shining smoke
rises heavenward, as messenger thou art sent to the gods."
Here we have what was at first a name of the one holy God
degraded to the position of a messenger from a priest to the new
gods that have grown up in later centuries.
2. And this brings in the second Indra Period, 1400-1000
B.C. The hymns are now full of ceremony and ritual. The
oldest hymns often had no ritual, were simple personal prayers
to God. But now everything shows an organized priesthood, in
regular classes, with fixed ceremonial and various offerings and
v.]
Brahma a Philosoj^hical God.
233
oblations. There is now a distinct plurality of gods, different
ones appealed to in the same hymn. Also a growing feeling of
personal righteousness and a simple asking for earthly bless-
ings in prayer. The gods are personifications of nature, fire, air,
earth, water. Along with this, the germs of ancestor worship,
which flourishes in the next period. In old hymns we have
such an expression as this : — " I see in spirit those who in olden
times brought their offerings." But later the Brahmins actually
prayed to their ancestors by name, for mediation with the
celestial gods to graciously accept the sacrifice of the worshipper.
3. The third period is that of the Brahmins, 1000-600
B.C. The God supreme now is Brahma. The priests have
become Brahmans or God's men, the teaching has become
Brahraanans, or God-doctrines, and all these are objects of
worship. In very early times hrahma meant prayer ; and then it
came to mean ruler, prince ; and now in this period it had come
to mean the object of adoration. This Brahma god is a phi-
losophical god, a result of speculation, a reaction against the
coarse polytheism that had crept in. And in the philosophical
searchings for the true, there are many bright beams of the
olden faith now almost lost. " In the beginning there sprang
forth the fount of golden light : He was the only begotten lord
of all being : He put the earth in her place and the heaven.
Who is this God to whom we offer sacrifice ? He who gives life
and strength, for whose blessing all the shining gods (natural
powers) do long ; whose shadow is immortality, and whose shadow
is death (all depend on him). He who by his own power
is king of the breathing and waking world, he who rules all
things, both men and beasts, etc. May he not destroy us, the
creator of the earth, the righteous one, who made the heavens,
who made the mighty glowing sea waters." Here we havo
again a philosophical oneness of God, but these last notes of
the ideas of the one God opened up the way for pantheism.
80
234
Drahmanism becomes Immoral.
[Lect.
Now wc have speculations about the indifferent, absohitc, the
unknowaUe, out of which love-fire arose spontaneously and
brought forth all the different things; very much like Mr.
Spencer's * homogeneous differentiating spontaneously into the
hetei'ogeneous.' This unknowable power is Brahma, and
Brahma became God, was worshipped but did not disturb the
old pantheon of gods — all were worsliipped together. Now came
a new elaboration of priestly ritual and caste. The old Vedas
were already becoming a dead language, and had to be ex-
plained, which led to the most ridiculous mistakes. Eventually
the whole life of the people became one business of ceremony
and formal caste observations ; ethics were less and less referred
to, morals sank lower and lower, and all the land became a
mass of foul superstition. Once again a philosophical ray shot
forth in the Bhagadvita, with the glow of the pure gold of the
original primitive faith ; but this mystic philosophy was the
glare of the setting sun on the dark clouds which then settled
down on India in permanent gloom. The philosophy was
confined to a few and sank into pantheism. God was wor-
shipped no more in reality. The absolute was only mind, all
being was symbol, unreal. Death the gate to life, the absorption
into the absolute. Hence no difference between good and evil.
Thus Brahmanism had knocked the bottom out of its own
system. It had degraded the gods to nothing, and hence what
need had the people of priests ?
i. Then came the fourth period, 600-200 B.C., with the rise
of Buddhitm, and the struggle of the Brahmin priesthood to
hold the people and recover lost strength. The plan was to
keep the people in ignorance. In olden times everybody
learned the Vedas. Now it was forbidden to teach them to the
women, and soon even men were not allowed to listen when a
Veda prayer was said. And in spite of the influence of Buddha,
Brahman holds the masses still in ignorance and immorality.
mm^
,
y.j
Buddhist Reaction.
235
II, — REACTIONARY.
A reactionary development in India, though now almost
reduced to nil among Indian peoples, presents a problem of
special interest to Japan. I refer to Buddhism, which is said'
now to be held by two-thirds of the human race and which, if it
could develop a high type of man, would be now the greatest
moral power in the world, instead of being the badge, as it is, of all
that is un;)rogressive and stagnant in humanity. Buddhism arose
500-GOO B.C. and realized, more than two thousand years ago,
that panacea for all the ills of man, after which many a modern
philosophafater sighs — a religion without a god and without
a priesthood. Buddhism was a reaction against the pantheism
and polytheism, the burdensome ritual and senseless formality
of Brahmanism. Gods and priests alike were ignored, man
became part of a great scries of developments of the absolute,
and the aim of all was a re-absorption into a practical nothing
hereafter. Lofty seemed the aim of Shaka, pure was much of
nis teaching, vast the zeal of his disciples, wide the spread of
his religion, great the extent to-day of the lands whose teeming
millions count themselves his disciples. And yet, with all that
can be said in its favor, history and experience show it to be, in
view of the question of humanity and the progress of the human
race, in religious, intellectual, and moral aspects, an impotent
failure.
1. Its failure as religion is seen in the fact that, for the
last 2,000 years, there has been no pure Buddhism in the world.
And if it were to be produced to-day, it could not exist among
men ; for it has no head to guide it, no soul to inspire it, no
legs on which to walk. The advance of Buddhism has ever
been by conniving with, and adopting the idolatry of the people
to whom it came. So that Buddhism, in every land where it is
found, is a compromise with the old original religion, resulting
in a chaos of Buddhist superstitions miogled with those of local
2S6
Successful Biuldhism
[Lect.
religions. It never overcomes heathenism, hut unites with
every idolatrous cult it meets. It adopted the gods of India
iu India, and gave them a place as Buddhas, or Bodhisatvas,
or something. A mythology gathered about Buddha him-
self, and in many places he was worshipped as divine. In
China, Buddhism adapted itself to the superstitions of the
Taoists, won the common people, and was moulded also
largely by Confucius' s teaching ; but it removed no idolatrous
practise, and what it brought of kindlier teachings, of incentives
to self-sacrifice and purity of life, lacked all the principles of
permanence essential to the production of deep, vital, universal
moral character. In Japan it is well-known that it could gain
no headway until the Shinto Kami were adopted as transforma-
tions of Buddha and as worthy of the usual worship. Moulded
by practical Confucianism, it has ceased to talk about Nirvana
in Japan, but promises the faithful a happy home in a conscious
paradise.
2. Again, intellectually it is a failure. Its whole system
of cosmology is a farce, its geography is false, its transmigration
of souls is a contradiction of all sensible psychology, its con-
demning existence as an evil is suicidal of all hope and inspira-
tion for advance. It reduces man's aim to a low selfish one of
trying to get rid of his natural powers, in order to get rid of
evil, like cutting off the head to cure the toothache. The whole
tendency is to emasculate the man ; and ask all history, from
Buddha's time until to day, and you cannot point out a man or
a people made intellectually or scientifically great while they
held to Buddhism.
3. And morally. Buddhism has failed. There are in Bud-
dhist teachings many good precepts scattered here and there,
and by them many persons no doubt have been benefited ; and
some lands, whose morality was lower than that of the place
whence the Buddhist teachers came, were somewhat elevated by
v.i
a Moral Failure^
237
thorn. But where Buddhism develops alone, morality is of a
funny sort. Beasts are more cared for than men. In some
Buddhist lands there are hospitals for sick heasts but none for
human beings. Men will brush their seats before sitting down
lest they crush some insect, and then be utterly heedless of
human suffering and human life. And even here in Japan I
have been where I could not induce the people to sell me a
chicken, when they knew I wished to eat it ; but those same
people had no licsitation in selling their daughters to a life of
shame in a public brothel. I do not say that Buddhism has caused
the immorality of Japan; but I do imy that it does not cure it.
Caste was left untouched in India. Priests were forbidden to
marry and possess property. Laymen were to give gifts to
priests and thus merit a spiritual benefit. But whence these
priests ? Shaka had banished the priesthood forever : each man
was to be priest for himself. But they soon grew up in abun-
dance on Buddhist soil. Buddhism had swung completely
around to that point from which it had been a moral reaction.
Thousands left wife and goods to escape more quickly into
Nirvana ; became beggars and gathered in monasteries. The
begging friars developed into priests, with a hierarchy reaching
up to a pope. They preached with zeal, soon had the right to
bury the dead, took hold of schools, became wealthy, great; took
the business of religion for laymen ; were paid by other people
to do their religious duties for them. Worship — of what, for
Buddha had l)anished God ? — became a form ; prayers in Tibet
are whirled on a wheel, sometimes run by water power, or
a few unmeaning syllables repeated a thousand times with
unceasing clapper, or the scriptures are repeated on a revolv-
ing wheel as in your own Asakusa temple, with no other
result than to deaden the mind and dull the soul. In Tibet,
the head of the hierarchy is a Dalai Lama, an incarnation of a
Bodhisatva, but really an old Mongolian myth adopted by
238
Charge against Bmldhism.
[Lect.
Buddhism, and then there remains the whole pantheon of gods,
with incantations and worship of the dead. Buddhism claims
to make men gentle, hut the Mongolians were as bloodthirsty
after they became Buddhists in 1247 A.D. as before, and the
Rod Caps anoi Yellow Hats of Buddhism waged between them-
selves long and bloody war. To call any purely Buddhist
country now in the world, a moral country, would show an
absolute ignorance of what morality means. What there is of
morality in Japan is due to Confucius, for what Buddha has
taught of morality in China and Japan is borrowed more or less
from Confucian philosophy.
My count against Buddhism in short is this : —
1. It has no consistent teaching of God, and a religion
V'i.thout a God is no religion at all, in any true sense of the word ;
and Buddhism borrows gods to suit each people.
2. Its fundamental principle of the inherent evil of existence
as such, leads men to degrade, but never to elevate, themselves.
We want something to make men prize existence, and that will
lead them to improve it, not to get rid of it.
3. It has gone through the regular, natural, down-hill
development ; is to-day no real moral power, and is incapable of
renovation.
4. No Buddhist country or people has ever yet bon
distinguished intellectually, commercially, politically, socially ;
and never can bo so long as Buddhism is retained, simply because
its fundamental principles are antagonistic to intellectual, com-
mercial, political, social and moral progress.
6. No civilized land could be made to believe in Buddhism
to-day.
IV. — Persia.
Another kindred lino of development we find in the old
religion of Persia, which centres for us in the one noble figure of
v.]
Pci-Hian Iipform and Decay.
239
.1 grfimi reformer, Zoroaster. Without going through the proofs,
it scorns clear that Zoroaster appeared about 700 B.C., near the
time wheu Brahman speculation in India added a new deformity
on the old degraded cult of the people. The Persians originally
came from the same stocic as the Aryan Indians, had originally
the same primitive worship, but in time had accumulated gods
many and priests many, as in India; then Zoroaster came
with a philosophy and a reform. Instead of adding a specula-
tion on the old idolatry, he brought back tlio worship of the ono
God whose memory had not quite faded away. But not being
able to banish the gods that had grown on his people, he put
them all down a degree, and counted the good ones angels, and
the bad ones demons. So the people accepted his teaching, and
a reformation was the result. The old traditions preserved arc
almost entirely like those of the Bible from Adam to Noah.
After that they became local and refer to struggles with the
Turanians, hence what on one side were good gods, on the other
side became devils. Darius Hystaspes calls on Ahurmazed as
God and names him only, but he is creator of all, guardian
of all. This God of Zoroaster was a holy God, and with this
teaching the morals of the people were also great improved.
The ethics of the Avesta are pure, lying is reprehended,
polygamy allowed as in Old Testament times, l)ut adultery was
severely punished. But the greatest crime of all was idolatry.
By rcpentence the sinner might bo restored. The offerer brought
himself as a living sacrifice with prayer and song. With this
strong faith the land grew great, conquered Babylon, helped tho
Jews, and met a check only in Greece. But there lay hero also tho
seeds which soon brought forth decay. There was a bad god
nearly as strong as the good ; the angels and devils would not
bo content with their lower rank, and were again accorded a
place among tho gods, or at least were worshipped as saints are
now in Papal lauds. Then there was a mixing of tho idoa of
; ;(
'im
240
Europe tells the same Story.
[Lect.
sin and evil. Blind superstition grew apace, immorality spread ;
sodomy even was paid for with a light fine. Religion was given
over to be a matter for the priests who were to remove sin from
the soul for so much money ; a constant sinking into pantheistic
polytheism, but never a trace of Mr. Spencer's mythical evolu-
tion to higher forms. To-day it has vanished almost entirely
from its home-land ; only a few degraded lire-worshippers here
and there as remnants, and a body of respectable Parsecs in
India, who maintain the moral code of their master, and have
rid themselves of idolatry, — a philosophical residue.
T'. — Eiirnpcan Bel itj ions.
Out of the same Aryan centre came forth at different times
the people who founded the nations of Greece and rioine and the
Scandinavian tribes. All their religions have traces of a com-,
mon origin. Though the idea of one holy God had vanished before
we meet with traces of their first history, yet their religion of those
early times is somewhat nearer the clean fountain than in after
days, for as we trace it down the several streams, the very same
down-hill tramp keeps time to the tread of the centuries.
Agriculture, civilization, arts, commerce, politics, power, grew
apace, but the gods became less god-like, philosophy laughed
and tried to manufacture ethics to save the people, but failed,
and the nations went down in moral rottenness.
VI, — Shemite RcUijmis Development.
I. — NATURAL.
You will remember that for a length of time the dcseendants
of Ham and Shem dwelt together, or nearly together, -mder a
common ruler Nimrod, a God-fearing Hamite. The Shemites,
with a mixture of Turanians probably, settled in the well-watered
plains near the mouth of the great rivers Tigris and Euphrates.
Here they early developed a commercial life, and laid the founda-
v.]
Shemite Commercial ProHjyerltij.
241
tiou of the inoney-gotting, and the pound-of-flesh-Shylock
([Utility uhich has marked the Shemite all the way through to
the i)resent day. As they grew wealthy and powerful hy com-
merce, they gradually grew restive under the quiet rule of Ham,
and the god-fearing character of the pastoral people above them.
About the jeav 2700 B.C. they rebelled, conquered the Hamites,
scattered or subjugated them, absorbing some, and causing
their Innguage to become extinct. Many of the Hamites
wandered away into Canaan and Egypt, and it ma,y be that at
the same time many were driven to the East. It was now that
these conquering Shemites, coming to the plain of Shinar as told
in the Bible, having rejected the Holy God of their fathers and of
Ham, concocted a plan of making a god and a religion for them-
selves; and they said: — "Come, let us build a tower, that no
flood can touch, and let us make an image of god and a name
for ourselves, and defy the old God." . Ho they built an
immense tower, probably about 2500 before Christ. Some great
natural catastrophe, or supernatural intervention occurred,
making a new scattering of tribes and causing the building to
cease. But the bulk of the Shemites remained there ; they never
were colonizers abroad. And, whatever the catastrophe was, it
did not prevent these godless Shemites from developing a
civilization and a religion of their own. Long before Abraham's
day they had risen to a great degree of culture and power. In
Abraham's time Chedarlaomer possessed probably the whole of
the Tigris and Euphrates plain, and extended his sway as far
as Jordan river, including Sodom, Gomorrah, and those cities
of the plain. Their time of greatest power was about 2000-1500
B.C.
And now, m to their religion. Down to the time of
Abraham, there was a remnant of a party who still held the
primitive faith in a holy God, the tradition of which is told us
to-day by old documents of baked books of clay. Here is one : —
Bl
242
Degradation of God- idea.
[Lect.
" Every day thou slialt draw near to thy God ; offerings, gifts of
mouth and of toil thou shalt bring, and whatever is right in
presence of Deity : beseeching, and in humility bowing the face
down to the earth. Holy shalt thou be in the fear of God ; the
fear of God thou shalt not neglect — in fear of the angels thou
slialt live." And here God — Ilu — is the El-Elohim of the Bible.
But the traces of this tradition soon completely die away, and
the very opposite is seen to be the prevailing cult of Shem. Bel
becomes the highest of the gods and Istar his chief consort, the
goddess of frnitfulness, and also goddess of life-destroying war.
In the national religion all trace of pure worship vanishes, and
this most filthy of all idolatries seems suddenly to have sprung
into being. The most worshipped divinity is the goddess of
animal fruitfulness. In India, Egypt, and elsewhere a subordi-
nate deity of sex grew on their systems, but Slieni alone makes
this goddess supreme in a filthy pantheon, and worships her with
immorality unspeakable. In every other land moral perversion
never descended so far that it was not at least thought right to
be chaste ; but in the religion of 8hem, the vilest, lowest, most
unspeakable deeds of immorality were made the supreme acts
of worship in the service of their supreme god. And then of
course there resulted a perfect chaos of immoral life, a destruc-
tion of conscience, an absolute loss of religious idea, a contempt
for all ethical law. In Abraham's time about 2000 B.C. the
pestilence had reached as far as Sodom, the limit of Babylon
sway, whose very name has come down to us to-day as a cog-
nomen for a nameless debauch. ]3etween Rodom and the sea-
coast Abraham had found a mixture of Shemites and Hamites
of his own mind as to the worship of God. He is one with
Melchizedeck, and one with Abimelech. But 400 years later,
when Abra?;. m's descendants came up out of Egypt, Moab and
Ammon, and all Canaan had become one vast Sodom ; the
peaceful land of shepherds was full of cities and civilization and
v.i
Filthy Worship of Mar.
243
engines of war, but was such a moral cancer in humanity that
for the benefit of mankind it was best to cut it out, root and
branch.
The Phoenicians were innoculated with the same virus ;
worshipped the same ^od under slightly different names, with
rites similar or more hideous. ^larriage was desecrated by the
nameless unchastity of religion, and Phallus worship became
the curse of the people. The pestilence touched Egypt and
Greece, and everywhere that tie ships of the Phojnicians went.
Oxen and pigs were consecrate to Moloch, human offerings,
living virgins and lads were cast into a heated brazen statue of
the idol. The higher the rank of the victim, the more desirable
for the god. Hannibal, the Carthaginian, offered at one time
3,000 young men, prisoners of war, in honour of Moloch.
Maidens who had not worshipped at the shrine of Baaltis the
unchaste, were burned in the service of Astarte, and men served
her by a nameless mutilation. Thousands of these in woman's
clothing would wander through the land with hideous instru-
ments of noise, with wild gesticulations, cutting themselves with
swords, biting their ilesh till the blood streamed down, and
uttering horrid incantations. Just such scenes as are described
in Kings, where Elijah tested the worshippers of Baal on Mount
Carmel, are made plain to us by other history, as the natural
course of this religion ; and even to-day in the far-off' islands of
the Mexican gulf, we find a brazen image of Moloch with
charred human remains in its hollow body, and tradition tells
of the worship of Astarte by similar rites in Mexico.
Whence this horrid cult of Shera '? It is no gradual sinking
away from purer monotheism as in other nations ; nor is it by
a thousand degrees more of negation, a stage of development
up towards a pure monotheism, as Mr. Spencer's theory would
,..■' '"Q, or as llenan and many another admirer of Shem
vv.ald have us believe. The only solution is that deliberate
244
Biblical Accounts
[Lect.
rejection of the God of Ham, when the Elamites conquered tlie
original kingdom ; a legitimate outcome of a deliberate choice,
whose monument forever was to be that tower of Babel in the
plains of Shinar, in which was to be an image of God come
down, a step which the Bible represents as having drawn down
on man the avenging anger of God. At all events, that was the
religion of Shem, that the hole of the pit out of which men would
have us believe that the Israelite religion and Christianity wore
digged. By what law but a supernatural could such results
from such ancestry be produced ?
11. — SUPERNATtlRAL.
Is the God of the Bible a natural product of Shemite ten-
dency, or is the religion of the Bible a supernatural gift to man ?
This is really the question before us, and I do not ask you to
decide the question yet, for I have scarcely touched the mountain
of proof. I wish you to study the development of this religion
and to tell then, if you can, whence it came. There are great
moral problems connected with the Old Testament history on
which I will but touch to-day ; but I would ask you to look at the
biblical storj' — the history of the development of this bibli. <y\
religion, as corroborated by all other history that touches the
subject. If the Bible is not a true history of the Jews, it
certainly seems wonderful that they should guard for thousands
of vears as dearer than life itself, a mass of documents which,
if untrue, are full of most libellous charges against them as a
people.
Now, to be brief, what do we find ? 1. We find first of all in
the Bible, preserved by the Jews, a connected account of a mass
of primitive thought held in fragments by all nations whose
traditions we can trace to their source, viz., an account of
creation by a one holy living God ; the creation of niaiu jmrc ;
his fall into sin ; the consequent ruin of the race, and punish-
v.]
A(/ree with other History
245
ment by means of a flood, destroying all mankind excepting one
family ; the division of men into three great branches ; the
confusing of languages ; and the wide distribution of the human
race. Then, out of the Sliem family, when the people had on
the whole become corrupt in their worship, out of a remnant
who still retained a knowledge of the primitive God, Abraham
was led 2000 Jj.C. to leave his home and people in Ur of the
Chaldees; he came to the land of Canaan, untainted of the
awful idolatry of his people. His grand-child Jacob, 'with
children and grand-children, removed to Egypt, where Joseph,
one of Jacob's sons, had become Prime Minister. In a time of
famine this Joseph, with true Hhemite-Shylocktact, buys all the
land, cattle, and persons of the Egyptians as the property of the
king, in return for food which the Government had laid up in
store. Egyptian documents tell how this slavery became gall-
ing to the Egyptians ; they rose in rebellion, swept away the
ruling dynasty, and a king arose " who knew not Joseph," that
is, looked upon him and his people as enemies of the Egyptian
people. This dynasty enslaved them in bitter bondage for
centuries. At length one of their number, Moses, who was
taught in all the learning of Egypt, managed to lead the slaves
out of the country in a mass of several millions. For forty years
they wandered about before settling down in Canaan. Moses
elaborates a code of laws and a ritual. He borrows one or
two expressive forms of worship from the Egyptian cult, but
strange to say, not a religious idea, not one of the idols; nothing
of the Egyptian religious development is found in the teachings
of the Pentateuch, or in the laws bearing the name of Moses.
But the people are prone to idolatry, and when Moses is
absent for a little, they make a golden calf — an Egyptian god —
and worship it, and are punished when Moses retu'.ns. Again,
as they come to the land of Canaan, they find tht ir relatives,
Moab and Amnion, already worshipping the Chaldean Baal of
246
Decay and Punishment.
[Lect.
filth. Forthwith the people are caught in the same snare, and
again are punished by the death of thousands. They enter the
land of Canaan about 1400 B.C. ; for about 400 years they are
ruled by Judges. Between the worshippurs of Baal on east and
west, and with the remnants loft within, thoy are constantly
falling into the same idolatry and immorality, and are as often
punished by some neighl)ouring nation oppressing them. They
repent and turn from their idolatry, and again have prosperity.
About 1000 B.C. they choose a king who unites their strength;
and the third, Solomon, raises the nation to its height of glory and
strength. But even he imports into Jerusalem, with heathen
wives, also the vile worship of Ashtaroth (Istar), the unchaste
god of Chaldea, as well as the gods of Egypt. In a little while
a part of the nation becomes so utterly rotten ith the sinful
worship of Baal, that ten tribes out of the v.»tdve are swept
away, and vanish forever from history. The other part, with
Jerusalem for its centre, was only a very little better, and was
constantly warned by prophets of coming danger. Eventually,
in about GOO B.C., they too are overthrown by the king of the
Chaldeans, the home of the gods they had turned to worship.
The princes were slain, the best of the people were carried
captive to Assyria, and a remnant fled to Egypt. Palestine was
desolate. The temple of magnificent fame was burnt and Jeru-
salem in heaps of ruins. For fifty years they have their fill
of the sights of a land given to idolatry and lust. Then the
Zoroastrian, Cyrus, comes from the East, overthrows Assyria,
and Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, is slain. The gods of the
Chaldeans fall before the monothcist Aryan conquerors; and
the Medo-Persian rulers find in the Jews a people worship-
ping God essentially as they themselves did. They befriend
the captive Jews, who, by the rivers of Babylon, wept for the
home and the worship of their fathers. At last, after seventy
years of captivity, Cyrus allows them to return, and fits out
v.]
Biblical Theology Supernatural.
247
an expedition of those willing to go. And now the Jews
come hack to Jorusalom, rehuild the temple, cured forever of
idolatry, and looking with clearer hopes for a coming great
Deliverer.
All this time the Bible was being formed by Chronicles
of Kings, by an Epic of Job from elsewhere, by songs from
David and others, l)y proverbs from Solomon, by terrible
denunciations of prophets, by men foretelling things to come.
But amid it all, during the 1,000 years of growth of the Bible,
with no human control over its development, we find, amid all
the vagaries of the people, a constant, true development of the
first idea of a holy God, helping a repentant people, denouncing
and punishing sin, providing an atonement for guilt, preparing
a way of salvation for all the world. This is all clearly developed
in the Bible, without a single stain of idolatrous thought, with-
out a trace of the usual human development in the religious
teachings of all other lands. But the people themselves Avere
unconscious of the development going on, blind to the real end
in view. They were looking ever for a Saviour to bring them
salvation, but they thought of a political salvation ; and when
the Peerless Man appeared among them, born among Shemites,
but with no Sheniite narrow coarseness about him ; when he
showed himself a true " son of man," a Saviour for the race,
and not for the Jews only, Shemite blood once more showed
itself, and as they had killed the prophets who taught them to
worship God in olden times, so now they reject and crucify the
Christ. In a short time they are scattered to the four winds,
become extinct as a nation, but linger on to-day in scattered
remnants in every land, a bye-word among all people, a living
unanswerable argument for the truth of the Bible story.
Is it not clear that the Jews in themselves were no better
than other Shemites, with a constant tendency to idolatry ; that
this doctrinal development down to Christ was no natural one,
248
Humble Bef/inninr/s
[Lect.
"while the rlevelopmont in character \Yas often prociscsly the Hnme
as in other nations ; and that resultant Christianity was no
natural product, hut the outcome of divine help'?
For 400 years hefore Jesus appeared, no prophet had arisen
in Israel. The people had heen completely cured of idolatry,
and had hecome even fanatically wedded to the form and name
of their religious inheritance. But the natural downward
tendency was at work. Religion had hecome a sterile form, God
was felt to be far away, morality was confined to the very few.
The expectation of a succouring Messiah became more intense
as the national collapse became more humanly certain. A few
only had some indefinite notions of spiritual help in the promised
Deliverer. From contemptible Nazareth, a mountain village
of Galilee, there came down to Jerusalem a poor despised
carpenter's son, without prestige, without patronage, without the
learning of the schools. He went about doing good. He rebuked
wrong and denounced in scathing terms all hypocrisy. He
showed a marvellous sympathy for suffering, sinful man. He
talked of man's Heavenly Father, and taught men how to be
morally, spiritually one with him. For about three years he
toiled incessantly, was then nailed to a cross and lifted up, and
by that lifting-up he now draws all men unto himself. He told
his few followers, as poor and humble as himself, to go
into all the world, and conquer all nations — not politically but
morally.
His followers were despised, persecuted, slain. But they
multiplied, " the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the
church," and people said, "How these Christians love one
another!" For two hundred years the church was pure in
doctrine, in moral life and influence, steadily growing in
moral power. Alien practices gradually crept in, and with in-
v.]
Aufjustine' 8 Influence.
249
go
crenso of external power early simplicity was threatened ;
eventually nominal Christianity Hat on the throne of the
Ctesars, controlling the civilized world.
To he true to history, the student must learn to distinguish,
in suh3e(iuent development, hetwecn the work of Christianity as
such, and the work of the Church, or of men in the name of
Christianity, while they ignored the teachings of Christ. Monas-
ticism was horrowed from the east, and asceticism hecame an
enormous factor. At times it did good work, when darkness,
intellectual and moral, prevailed; hut monasticism is not
Christianity. Mature Christianity outgrows it.
One strong man stands out in those early days (354-432
A. D.) as representative of two separate tendencies, in the
future development of which he had very much to do. From
Augustine, the eloquent Bishop of Hippo, may he traced the
ecclesiastical development which made the church into a vast
and powerful hierarchy, whose network held together the tribes
and nations when Imperial bonds were loosened, and tamed
the savage barbarians of Europe into milder moods. But
Christianity is not ecclesiasticism, and as she matures, the
church becomes more and more an organized Brotherhood,
in which no man lords it over God's heritage, but where
mutual love is universal Master. From Augustine also may be
traced a line of dogmatic development, a cast-iron framework
of doctrine whose gaunt skeleton-like appearance seemed to
require strong faith indeed to receive it. But those iron dogmas
seemed to breed an iron race amid the crags and glens of
Scotland, just when they were needed, to stand for a century in
the ThermopylaB of the world's liberty, and beat back from
modern progress the threatening doom of medieeval relapse, and
thus to make Britain the vanguard and leader of freedom. But
Christianity is not dogma, least of all, harsh dogma. Christianity
has doctrinal teaching, the stout framework of her organism,
82
250
Divine QiLulance
[Lect.
but over and above it, beautifying and hiding it, if you please,
the flesh and sinews of moral life and holy deeds ; within
and through it all, the divine soul of hearty love to God and
man. Thus the sons of toil need no monastic asceticism to rise
to the highest moral standard; the simplest of earth's sons need
no splended ritual or ecclesiastical machinery to receive a
fitness for and a title to a spiritual and eternal inheritance ;
and the most unlearned and childish among men, regardless of
profound study of the wise, may become wise towards God and
know a Saviour whom they simply accept.
And it is this most un-Shemite of all religions, brought to
us by the hands of the children of Shem, — this simple story of
God's love to man, of man's answering love to God, and out-
flowing of love from man to man — which wherever accepted and
followed, re-makes the individual, the society, the state, the
world. The simple secret of all is, that it is the way back to
man's normal place in the universe, the proper harmony and
development of human powers, the legitimate outworking of the
original constitution with which the Creator endowed him. A
secret made plain by a revelation from God to man.
To understand this hypothesis of Christianity, this belief in
a revelation from God to man, and to trace its development in
the Bible, we must bear in mind several cardinal points. One of
these is the fact of man's original creation, or the original idea
in his creation, in the image of God so far as his intellectual,
moral and spiritual nature are concerned. Another is the
essential freedom of man's will, without which morahty would
be impossible. Another is the disharmony between God and
man, the fact of man's sin, which according to the plan of the
universe, according to the framework of the principles of justice
and truth, must entail punishment, banishment from a holy
God. And then the most difficult point of all : if God in love
wills to save sinful man, he must do it while man's freedom and
V.J
ifor Moral Development.
251
all that he can call his own are left perfectly in his own control,
for if salvation bo by force or by emasculating humanity, it will
be no salvation at all — rather a degradation.
And BO we find all through the Old Testament a marvellous
blending of human weakness and divine power, a continual
assertion of the sovereignty of God over man de jure, the abso-
lute dependence of man upon God for every good, and yet the
independence of man's choice — ho can always damn himself if he
will. At times, where men yield to the divine influence and
guidance, human powers transcend themselves and become the
mouth-piece of the Eternal; grand types of character are
developed or described, and still grander types are promised
in future days. But when Old Testament days have passed by,
the law, our schoolmaster, having taught the needed lesson, the
perfect man appears. In Christ we find humanity, but free from
all human flaw ; we find in him the divine voice unhindered by
human passion, untainted by human sin. He is the Word of
God. The apostles living so near the source, reflect the light of
their risen Lord, as none after them have done. The Church
struggles now after his likeness. Humanity sighs still after the
higher type ; but with divine help man's struggles are now on a
higher plane, in a brighter light, with the nobler ideal of a
reaUzed fact — an actual perfect historical example for all human
endeavor.
The Bible is no mere compilation of fast and final ethics,
which men must do or die, but a continual training of men from
present possibilities to higher moral sympathies and purer
deeds. What is at one time perfectly allowable and is over-
looked, at another time with advancing light in the conscience
becomes immoral, sin. For instance, in Patriarchal times
polygamy was allowed in deference to a crude stage of human
progress, but the Bible regulates it among the early Israelites in
Buch a way as to regulate it eventually out of existence, as men
252
The Bible raises the Moral Standard, [Lect.
advanced still further. So that at the time of Christ they were
already prepared for his enunciation of an advanced marriage law,
tv'hich after all was nothing more than God's original idea, one
man and one woman making one unic;. for life. And wherever
Christ's teachings prevail, the old ethics of polygamy, in the in-
tenser light of the gospel, become as the darkness of moral crime.
So with slavery. It is not forbidden in the Bible, but is
so regulated as to be first denuded of its horrors, and then to
cease altogether. Not many years ago Britain purchased the
freedom of her slaves, and only lately the last great Christian
nation has washed her hands of what had come to be in the
wliitor light of Christ's influence, the blackness of Satanic wrong.
The same with svar. Soldiers are not commanded lu lay
down their arms. Nations are not commanded never to draw tho
sword. But war was regulated, and principles were introduced,
which have made the history of modern war a very different
thing from that of ancient or heathen struggles. War is not
yet regulatod out of existence, but the beginning of the end has
cf me. As nations becon.e Christian in character as well as in
name, the arbitration U friendly consultation will take the
place arbitration by the sword. The leaven is already
working, and will work on, until men "beat their swords into
plowshares and their spear, into pruning hooks: nation shall
not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
any more."
And so all tho way through, a continuous education of man
back to primitive purity, up to higher things. The aim of God's
revelation is to bring about a harmony between God and man,
to infuse into man the higher nature of God, to make man lo"\'o
as truly aa " God is Love." All tlirouj^h the Christian centuries
tVere are continued in unbroken succession, Hplondid examples of
organized and fruitful charity. And to-day tlie examples are
beyond all compute. In tho one city of London alone there
v.i
Ritual in the Old Testament
253
are more than 400 different societies, organized and active in
ameliorating the woes of suffering humanity and in l"-inging
benefit to the needy at home and abroad. The various missionary
societies alone expend over $10,000,000 gold every year to try to
do good, while the Bible md Tract and other societies expend other
millions, with no thought of return other than the consciousness
of doing good to strangers. And yet we are far from the
standard. Christian nations so-called are as yet only in the
a-b-c of the Christian religion as nations. The Christian ideal is
still far far above us, while many of our national acts are far
from Christ-like.
The Bible gives no ecclesiastical system or '?ast-iron rites
and ceremonies as universal and perpetual essentials to human
salvation and progress. Litori and ceremonies have their place,
and in olden days enpoftinlly were of service before the great
salvation appeared. With the introduction of the consciousness
of sin came also the consciousnes of the need of sacrifice. This
became a universal cry for an atonement. Men turned to
human sacrifices. Abraham was taught by an object lesson, in
the matter of Isaac, that God required no human blood on altars
dedicated to him : that the blood of animals was sufiicicnt until
the true sacrifice should appear. But the idea of sacrifice, of
atonement, was continued, regulated, turned into a vast and
complicated series of object lessons to teach men how to under-
stand him who came to bo "the propitiation for our sins, and not
. ours only, but for the whole world," of whose great sacrifice
and atonement all those were typical.
Indeed the Old Testament can bo understood only in the
light of the New, and the New Testament is made more clear
and more tangible as illustrated by the Old. The gorgeous
temi)lo, the splendid robes, the imposing ritual, tlio smoking
oft'erings, the bleeding victims, the ascending incense, the sacri-
ficial altar, the furniture of the holy place, the veil, the ark of
254
Illustrates Christ's rropitiatlou. [Lect.
the covenant, the mercy seat, the light of the Sheldnah, one
and all, antl ranch more besides, combined to show forth to man
the inexpressible many-siv' dness of Christ, and the inexhaustible
wealth of blessing resulting from his life and work, and then
they passed away forever. Without them man could not hav
been educated into an understanding of a fraction of that which
has now been made clear in Christ Jesus. And even long before
the great fulfillment came, the Israelites were taught that there
was a something much higher than all ritual and all sacrifice
of beasts: " Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it ; thou
delightest not in Larnt offering : the sacrifices of God are a
broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart, God, thou wilt
not despise." " To obey is better than sacrifice, etc." But if
you take from Christianity its teaching of Christ's atonement
for sin, its moral code may for a time educate men who have
accepted Christian civilization, but it is no longer a moral power
to regenerate the low and the heathen — its Evangel is dead.
All through the Old Testament an unseen hand hm been
leading man, and the voice of God reiterated in various ways,
ever was "Be ye holy for I am holy." But in Christ Jfsus
the hand that lead*? becomes visible, the voice sounds much
nearer and more capable of being followed: " Bo ye holy as I ..^
holy," giving us a pattern that we should follow in his steps,
and humanity will never be capjible of more than tliat.
Thus Christianity has its roots in the primitive faith;
its trunk extends through all the agoB down to Clnist, its
branches now expand with every advance of man and into all
lands ; its fruits are fruits of humjin progress, and its very leaves
are for the healing of nations. Whatever land it touches, it
kindles into life, civilization, and upward hopeful progress.
It seems perhaps strange to have discoursed on compara-
tive religions and to have left out Mohammedanism, one of the
v.]
Mohammedanism an Anachronism.
255
great religions of the day. Mohammed lived about GOO B.C.,
foimded a religion of one God, with himself as his prophet. He
propagated his religion by the Koran and the sword. He lived
aii^-^ngst a people who could not be governed by mildness, but
only by tlie inviohilile restraints of l)it and bridle, who wanted
a religion that would give them liberal allowances both in this
world and the next. " They took to Mohammedanism because
it solved the prol)k'm and showed tfccm how they could please
God by pleasing themselves. They enlarged their inheritance in
heaven by conquering a broader heritage on earth, and took tha
Kingdom of heaven by pillage and slaughter."^ But the fact is,
Mohammedanism is such a bastard anachronism, such a mixture
of Judaism, false Christianity and paganism as to present
another standing evidence of human inability to furnish a
supply for man's religious need, and of the unprogressiveness of
Shemito nature. The following paragraphs from Dr. Marcus
Dods' •* Mohammed, Buddha and Christ " put the matter into a
nutshell. I would recommend the above work as well worthy
of perusal by any one who wishes to inform himself more fully
of these three rival religions of modern days : —
The reforms of MoL' Mucd, such as the restriction of polygamy,
were good mid useful for his own time and place, but by making them
Haul, he has prcvcutcd further progress, consecrated immorality, and
permanently established half- measures. What were restrictions to his
Arabs would have been liccnso to other men.* " Considered as delivered
only to pagan Arabs, the religious, moral, and civil precepts of the Ko-
ran aio admirable. The error of their author was in delivering them to
»Dr. Dods.
''"'When Islam pcnoiratcs to countticB lower in the scale of luirnauity thon
were the Arabs of MohaBinieiVs day, it Kufllccs to olovoto them to tliat level. But
it does HO at n tremcirlous cobI. It rcprodupca in its new converts the clinracter-
iHtius of its lii'Ht— their impeuetrablc Hclf-eHtcem, their unintclliKeut sconi, and
blind hatred of all other creedu. And tluiH the eapnoity for all other advauco is
dostioyod."— Ouborn'ii Inlaiii under the Aiabu, ].). U)i.
256
Extract from Dr. Marcus Dods' [Lect.
others besides pagan Arabs," and in giving to temporary expedients a
sanction which has erected them into permanent hiws. A writer who
has studied the matter with the insight of a widely- informed historian,
says : *' The temporary and partial reform efl'ccted by Islam has proved
tho surest obstacle to fuller and more permanent reform. A IMahometan
nation accepts a certain amount of truth, reccivcK u certain amount
of civilization, practises a certain amount of toleration. But all these
are so many obstacles to tho acceptance of truth, civilization, and toler-
ation in their perfect shape. "^
In plain terms, Mohammed was an ignorant man — a man so ig-
norant that ho did not know his own ignorance. Knowing nothing of tho
government, policy, or law of Rome, to which all the civilized world has
paid its tribute of respect, ho presumed that the code of Justinian ought
to be superseded by the fragmentary ideas he had jotted down on palm-
loaves and mutton bones and thrown higgledy-piggledy into a chest.
Knowing nothing of Christianity, and never having even read the
canonical Gospels, he imagined he had more to say for the world's
good than had fallen from the lips and shone from the life of Jesus
Christ. Had his religion preceded Christianity, or had he never enjoyed
the means of informing liimself regarding it, some apology might have
been devised for his extreme presumption in aspiring to tho sovereignty
of the world in things civil and spiritual. Nay, we will go further, and
say that had Mohammed preceded Christianity, or had he not proclaimed
his own religion as final, it might have been a blessing of the most exten-
sive kind to tho world. Doctrinally and morally it is a half-way house
between heathenism and Christianity, but practically it can never serve
as such, because it claims to bo itself an advance upon Christianity, and
final. It is this claim that has choked it throughout. Tho dead hand
of the short-sighted author of the Koran is on the throat of every
Mohammedan nation. And it is this claim which stultifies it in the view
of any one who has studied other religions. It bears the marks of
immaturity on every part of it. It proves itseli to bo a religion only
for the childhood of a race, by its minute prescriptions, its detailed
^Freeman's Lecturei, p. 51.
v.]
t(
Mohammed, Buddha and Christ."
257
precepts, its observance, its appeals to fear. It iloes uot even recognise
that there is a higher religion, that the only true religion is a religion of
liberty and of the spirit.
Here is the judgment of one who has spent a largo part of his life
among Mohammedans, and acven years of it in a careful study of their
history.
" There arc to be found, "' ho says, '• in Mohammedan history all
the elements of greatness — faith, courage, endurance, self-sacrifice. But
enclosed within the narrow walls of a rude theology, and a barbarous
polity, from which the capacity to grow and the liberty to modify have
been sternly cut olF, they work no deliverance upon the earth. They
are strong only for destruction. When that work is over, they cither
prey upon each other, or beat themselves to death against the bars of
their own prison-house. No permanent dwelling-place can be erected
on a foundation of sand ; and no durable or humanising polity upon
a foundation of fatalism, despotism, polygamy, and slavery. When
Muhammadan states cease to be racked by revolutions, they succumb
to the poison diffused by a corrupt moral atmosphere. A Durwesh,
ejaculating ' Allah t ' and revolving in a series of rapid g}'rations until
ho drops senseless, is an exact image of the course of their history."'
Thus it is seen that the power of Islam is in destroying life
and hindering progress, wliile that of Christ is in infusing hope,
life, and the impulses of infinite advance.
*' So while the world tolls ou from change to change,
And realms of thought expand,
Islam law stands without expanse or range,
Stiff as a dead man's hand ;
While as the life-blood fills the growing form.
The spirit Christ has shed
Flows thro' the ripening ages fresh and warm
More felt than heard or read."
^Osborn's hlaui luider the Arabs, pp. 04, 95.
LECTURE VI.
CIIlilSTlANrrY AND MOllALITY :
THE PRACTICAL TEST.
Sir Harry S. Parkos, K.C.B., G.C.M.G., H.B.M.'s Minister,
who presided on the occasion of the delivery of the lecture, made
the following remarks : —
Ladies and Gentlemen :
In taking the chair at this meeting, little devolves upon me
in the way of remark. I have only to remind you that being the
closing lecture of the scries, it will bring to a practical issue and
form the culminating point of all that we have hitherto heard.
I have no knowledge of how our respected friend Mr. Eby will
treat his subject, but the title of the lecture — " Christianity and
Morality : The Practical Test " — sufficiently declares its object.
I do not doubt that he will demonstrate the power of Christianity
to develop the highest morality, and the claim of that religion
to our attention in this respect is chiefly founded, it appears
to me, upon its being a religion of love. Of love to the Creator
and Ituler of the universe, not so much on account of His
boundless power as because He first loved us ; of love which
draws man to man and therefore gives the fullest scope and
best direction to life, and which, by stimulating self-restraint
and self-abnegation, subdues the selfish nature of man, and
furnishes the purest motives for the exercise of charity and
virtue.
An eminent Japanese writer has lately well observed that
morality and mental culture are as the two wheels of a cart, but
Lect. VL] Inti'oihictory liemarls, 269
that no cart can run with only one of those wheels ; and he has
adtlcd that it is impossible that philanthropy, faith, fidelity, and
filial piety can bo satisfactorily promoted l)y the morality of
scepticism, however much science may advance and civilisation
may progress. Yes, man not only wants science and in-
tellectual culture, but he needs religion also — a religion which
will expand all the generous impulses of his heart towards his
country and his fellow man, while it will also raise him above
the present life and endow him with communion with his God,
and with bright hopes for that eternal future, the fear of which
or tho trust in which is sometimes present to the minds of us
all.
Surely the morality which possesses these lofty aims is the
best qualification for a good citizen, and as it raises the character
of the individual, so it is as certainly calculated to raise tho
character of a nation, and to promote its moral strength, its
material welfare, and its political advancement.
THE LECTURE.
We aro living in a practical age. This is no era for
dreamers. Life is earnest and was never more earnest than
now. Humanity must move on ; the ago of stagnation is
doomed. Shall humanity move upwards or downwards, — grow
better or worse ? Science will grow inevitably, — will become
clearer, profoundcr, broader, and open to man avenues for intel-
lectual progress; but it is not the prerogative of science as such
to form human character and regulate men's lives. Science
alone cannot produce virtue or give mankind a noble ideal, with
moral power to pursue it. No true scientist claims this as his
function.
We have seen that all the great religions of the world
aimed at moral results. Succeeded measurably for a time, suc-
ceeded so far because of the truth that was in them. But their
moral power was transient. More and more religion sank into
formality, superstition, folly and immorality, and ministered to
the corruption, rather than the elevation of man. Weakness and
political ruin followed. This fuikiro was ever due to error, to
defects, which, developed on the one hand, overlaid and hid the
truth from the multitude, who wore then deluded by dark supersti-
tion; or on the other hand iliOHe error.s und defects, exposed
and refuted by tlie learned, when rojocted carried away with them
also all thel)enediction of their modicum of truth ; and learning,
ever skillful in destroying moral sanctions, ever failing to produce
moral power, accelerated, rather than retarded, public ruin.
If we glance over the history of the world, we will find that
the round of experience has ever been as follows : —
Lect. VI.]
nistorical.
261
1. A religion which wins tho conficlcnco of tho people, and
holds them for a time in check, becomes tho foundation of a
nation'3 life.
2. An advance of tho people in learning, arts, commerce,
civilization, is accompanied by a corresponding decay in
religious purity.
8. Religion loses her moral hold, and leads the multitude
by superstition, priestcraft and vice.
4. The learned are estranged from tho religion, and make
an effort to preserve morality.
5. But this morality of the schools is above the multitude,
not understood by them, not intended for them, holds them not,
impels them not, and so fails of any practical fruit, beyond a
few individual cases.
6. Every moral revival in a people has been a religious
one.
7. All religions in the world, with the exception of
Christianity, seem to have outlived their usefulness, and to have
proved themselves incapable of leading mankind to a true and
satisfactory goal. This practical age must hand them over to
the antiquarian and look elsewhere for a moral guide.
In tracing the history of Christianity, wo are met with
almost similar facts. First a moral power over men, then an
overlaying of the truth with error, perversion of truth into false-
hood, decay of moral power, superstition, immorality, ruin.
Tho human tendency being ever the same, there results ever an
inevitable evolution of greater moral evil, when uncontrolled by
some commanding, impelling moral power. But there is this
difference ))etween Christianity and all other religions. It can
revive. Its corruptions and superstitious and errors are not of
its nature, do not spring from within, but are imposed from
without, so that whenever tlie original form is brought forth, it is
found net only to meet every want of the human heart, but to
262
A A! oral CoJlapf^n frarnl.
[Lect.
hold before the most advanced a still unreached goal of higher
good, to evince a power to control the whole man, without
emasculating a single faculty, to opiii up hol'orc mankind over
unexplored vistas of future progress and hope. In the history
of Christendom too, the habit of the learned has often been to
emulate the ancient and tlic heathen ; to ignore the facts of
Christian truth while rejecting accumulations of errors, and to
bijild up a moral system based on what was known of science
and the deductions of Philosophy. But always, as before, and
elsewhere, in so far as these philosophico-nioral systems lacked
the religious element, in so far were they simple abortions— to
be speedily buried — leaving philosophical, not moral, results
behind them.
It is said that one of those moral collapses, a time of
moral shipwreck which follows the loss of religious faith, is
now coming upon the civilized world, and as usual the philoso-
pher hastens to prescribe a remedy. We are told that the
Christian religion is worn out ; that there is no religion to replace
it ; that there is no need for evolved mature man of such a
religion; that philosophy must supply the place. We may dis-
miss at once, as unworthy of a moments thought, the Jesuitical
proposition of Renan, and many another political quack, viz., to
retain religion, though untrue, as a discipline for the ignorant —
an instrument by which the government shall control the people.
The world has no place for exposed falsehood ; if Christanity is
a lie, let her die and be buried. Let not her corpse olfend
living men, nor her ghost frighten the untrained mind. Give
us truth, though it increase our sorrow. IJiit on the very face of
it, such learning is branded with shame — is a step to the abyss
of immorality. It boasts of having removed from morality the
supposed sanctions of a true religion — makes the religion a lie ;
it has nothing to propose as a truth to replace it ; it proposes
to educate man on the basis of proved falsehood. It proclaims
VI.]
Can VhlloHophii A cert it?
263
to thu world — "Wo have nothing better to offer you than
morality based on immorality : let us sow falsehoods so as to
reap truth." That may bo very diplomatic, and accord well
with the ethics of expediency, but it certainly will not commend
itself to honesty and common sense, Vastly more honest, more
commendal)le, even thou,i;Ii not more successful, the action of
those who, believing religion to be false, reject it, and finding
morality necessary, try io find some other basis for it, — some
honest <:;round for moral f.,'rowth.
And so tlie (jucstion of the present day is very much like
this : (1) All other reli_c;ions have proved themselves inadequate,
and must be abandoned hy advancin;^ man. (2) And now what
shall regulate the world's morals for the coming age, Christianity
as a religion or philosophy — a philosophy which claims to bo
founded on physical science, and to have its culmination in a
moral system, and which shall regulate the world after the
restraints and imimlses of Religion are dead ? And that is the
question which Japan must ask and answer speedily.
Before proceeding to examine the (juestion more minutely
in the light of the latest developments of this philosophy, let us
glance at its general aspects.^ And first of all what is Philosophy,
that she thus may remove religion and take her place in moulding
character and controlling the actions of men ? Science by
research points out phenomena in their connection. Ex-
perience accumulates facts and figures. Sensations tell us of
immediate ellects, history of those more remote. Philosophy
takes accumulated facts and puts them into a system and tries
to explain their connection, origin, cause and probable result.
But Philosophy can neither create, nor command, nor impel, nor
rise above the level of the mind in which it was born, and the
actual facts with which it deals. And it is precisely so with
^ Scu also " Dogmatic Taitb " by tiaibut.
V]
<?
n
m
/:
V
/A
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-S)
1.0
I.I
11.25
If i^ IIIIIM
2.2
^ m
" BiS lilO
1.8
U IIIIII.6
2^
^
/.
>^/
A
'^0 , ^SiP^
A^' 4,"^'
f/,
v;
^
&
%'
264
Comjiarison of Philosophical
[Lect.
philosophical ethics. They may formulate and systematize
certain experimental facts around an accepted hypothesis, hut
can create no higher ideal, give no upward impulse. On the
other hand Christian ethics present a character far ahead of
realized facts, commanding men in love, impelling men with
help, leading men with power to realize and grasp a high and
as yet unattained ideal.
Philosophy is mechanical, speculative, purely a matter of
intellect. Philosophical ethics, a pure mathematical calcula-
tion. Christian ethics is a matter of intellect also ; but that
which is light in the intellect gives warmth to the heart, gives
sympathy and life, opens to man eternal hopes, furnishes him
with elevating aims — a productive power.
Philosophical ethics are deductive : i.e., lay down some
hypothesis — make facts agree with that hypothesis, and then
trim a moral system out of experience to fit into the assumed
theory, though it be but an uncertain hypothesis. This method
is not exactly Baconian — is rather scholastic — but it is the
method of ancient and modern manufacturers of philosophical
morality. Christian ethics are inductive — gather facts of
nature, facts of mind, facts of history, facts of a well-certified
revelation — and on this foundation of certainty, regardless
of hypotheses, build a system of well-ordered living.
Philosophical ethics know no instrument higher than the
human mind, no authority higher than selfishness or expediency
or the state ; though in modern times, with the help of
Christianity, they can think the thought of humanity as a whole.
Christian ethics point us at once to a higher overruling In-
telHgence, the Infinite Father whose love observes the acts of
his human children, a consciousness of which, bringing men
nearer the one centre of moral power, brings them nearer to-
gether as brethren.
Philosophical apeoulatiou begins in mist, continues in
VI.]
and Christian Ethics.
265
clouds, and ends in darkness and loss. And so speculative
ethics go in a perpetual iiiisty round with no aim, no control,
no light, and have always ended in darkness and folly. Christian
ethics begin in blessing, increase in fullness of joyous fruition,
How on and on unhindered of death. The question is whether
philosophical ethics as such, or Christ -an ethics as such, will
be of the most practical use to the world of humanity of the
present day.
Another question arises. lias Philosophy ever before
proposed to do away with religious sanctions, and replace them
by philosophical? And the answer is, "Yes! times without
number, through all the ages." Then again, — has she ever
succeeded in producing a regulative system that was of general
practical use in developing a higher type of man ? And the
answer is, " No, never, never." And now may it not be legitimate
to doubt whether that which has notably and perpetually failed
for thousands of years, is calculated to be a success in these
modern days of mighty impulses and throbbing political life ?
But it may be urged, modern Philosophy is more advanced
than the ancient, the philosophical ethics of scientific to-day
are far in advance of those of olden days. Let us glance along
the line.
It will not be necessary for me to delay long with the philo-
sophies of the East. Confucianism, though it contains much that
is true, and much that is morally noble, gives no universal ideal,
and as a whole can be retained only by a fossilized humanity ;
it is incapable of lifting men to the levels of peoples now
existing in many lands. The Philosophy of Laotze was in some
respects higher than that of Confucius. He taught, for instance,
that men should return good for evil. " What," exclaimed
Confucius when he heard it, "what does he mean ? How then
shall we treat those who do good to us ?" showing how far Confu-
cius stood below the morality of Christ. But Laotze's philosophy
84
I
m
266
Greece hitelledv ally (jreat,
[Lect.
went down in darkness and superstition. The philosophy of
Buddha, for Buddhism was at first more a philosopliy than a
a religion — a phi osophy evolved out of disgust of life and ex-
istence — has proved itself amoral failure. And the same is true
of the philosophies of India. Let us rather look at the long
line of the progenitors of modern European speculation. We
trace in history some outlines of the greatness of old empires,
and spell out their thinkings to-day in old documents of clay
and stone, in pyramid and temple and sphinx, and we wonder
that out of so much greatness so very little should have heen
bequeathed to humanity. "We have next to nothing from them.
There met, however, several lines of intellectual thought and
focused upon Greece, when Greece was developing under sunny
skies and smiling seas, fed by commerce with men of every hue
and race. Upon this favored spot the noble-natured Aryan brought
to grand intellectual fruition thoughts that had been crude but
growing for centuries, flowing in single streams in less systematic,
less practical minds. Strange forces seemed to unite and pro-
duce a remarkf.ble race- Thoy tell us that^ " the average ability
of the Athenian race is, on the lowest possible estimate, very
nearly two grades higher than our own — that is, about as much
as our (the European) race is above the African negro." And
now why did not this race go on and possess the world ? Why
not go on and evolve a still higher typo ? There are no greater
names in history than those famous Greeks, who after 2000
years still teach us mathematical, poetry, oratory, sculpf-n-e,
l^hilosophy. Those master minds that opened the way fox all
modern intellectual progress. And among all those famous
Greeks, no names stand higher than those fathers of philosopliy,
who, versed in all the science of the times, cleared tlie mind
of fantastic images of false divinities, and gave birth to
iGaltou.
VI.]
Vroduces Eminent Moralists,
267
philosophical moralitj'. Greece, 500 B.C., was in some respects
like Japan of to-cla}', in a &tate of political and intellectual
transition. An old aristocracy had lost control, and the people
A'^ere about to take larger part in ruling the nation. Sophists,
political lecturers, sprang up everywhere, and the people were
harangued on all sorts of economical, political, national
principles. A strange race were these sophists, and their race
is not dead. Philosophy had been growing. Ethics wei j
scarcely a system. But in great Socrates the moral conscious-
ness awoke to life, and spoke awakening words to the youth
of his nation. Ilis moral teaching was based upon reason
and knowledge. "Know thyself" and act iaccordingly. He
insisted on facts relating to self and to man as part of a society;
reason was tc recognize truth and lovo it. Morality was truth
in practice. He hated shams as Carlyle did, and urged men to
bo true. He rose through the argument of design to a God,
and from his moral consciousness to an idea of immortality.
He was best, wisest, most just of all the Greek?. And yet his
morality was simply a philosophical expression of the highest
type of a Greek of that time. He has no consciousness of
humanity as such. He is unconscious of the impurity of a
state where harlots were more honorable than wives ; he visits
and advises a courtezan in the best way to catch men ; he rudely
sends away wife and children who come for a last good-bye,
and has no word for them in his last famous speech on im-
mortality, and in the hands of his followers his excellencies soon
develop into^lefects. The same facts are true of Plato, who develops
the idea of beauty and harmony and order in the world. The
beautiful was god-like ; good was equivalent to pleasure ; virtue,
that which produced pleasure. Pie unfolds ideas of a state
morality, and dwells on the life of the citizen. But he kno.vs
nothing of individual moral purity ; his ideal state is one in
which there shall be a community-life, no woman married to
268
Bui no Advance in Morality.
[Lect
any particular man, the children to be the property of the nation.
He rises not above the polished low-lived Greek. Aristotle
seems to rise a step higher. He teaches that the highest good
is perfect well-being, virtue the means to reach it. His ideal
is simply Greek national life. A State in which slaves were
necessary and other nations of no account. He has no idea of
humanity, of the sacredness of marriage and home ; no concep-
tion of love, no feeling vi sin to be cured. These are the highest
specimens of pure philosophical moralists, showing the workings
of the moral apparatus in thf, human mind, but without its needed
supply of truth-material. Vast numbers of teachers and modi-
fied teachings appeared afterwards, but degenerated speedily.
Eoman moral teaching was borrowed from Greece. All this
moral teaching of the philosophers was produced in Greece's
golden days. Did they take a single step towards winning the
world from vice and misery? Not one. Did they effect a
moral renovation in their immoral people, and were they a
regulative power over the passions of men ? Not the slightest.
They had no Divine authority. They failed. These Greeks
should have gone on and taught the world and won the homage
of universal mind.^ They were highest in products of un-
derstanding, fairest of all men in form, cleverest in art, and yet
in spite of majestic genius, of science and philosophy and
ethics ; in spite of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many other
great men, they speedily sank, becoming servile and sensual,
intolerant and fierce, all society a perfectly indescribable sink
of immorality. All history from that day to this proclaims
and reiterates that all laws, the very best that higheet wisdom
can devise, are absolutely useless, null, void, if they have not
•a sanction behind them, that is a something that will insist on
those laws being followed. And so the purest moral law that
1 Sec also Eeynolds, " Supernatural in Nature."
VI.]
Modern Pagan Ethics
269
could be devised would be completely powerless for good without
the con iciousnesB of a Moral Governor behind them, whose
will they represented, and who claimed obedience and punished
disobedience.
Time would fail me to tell, and patience would fail you to
hear, the long story of the successors of these men through the
ages of degenerate Christianity, and in the later days of
skepticism, down to the present day. The story is the same
invariable tale of intellectual effort and moral failure.
And to-day the culmination of all meets in the latest
ethical teachings of pagan thought, ostensibly founded on
modern science, but really on a hypothesis, stretched into
regions bej'ond all scientific proof. The ethics of Herbert
Spencer claim to be a substitute for Christianity as a regulative
system.^ The question before us now is this : — Has Mr. Spencer
found that which philosophers have sought in vain for thousands
of years, with not a single instance of success ? Has he pro-
duced a system of morality that will be of the least practical
use for humanity? "Will Mr. Spencer supplant the "Man of
Sorrows " as a healer of this world's woes ? Will this London
Philosopher supersede the Prophet of Nazareth as leader of
human hearts ? Will he surpass the carpenter's son in building
up men and nations into lasting greatness ? The question be-
fore the intellectual world just now, and before educated Japan
is, which will you have — Spencer, or Christ? I use Mr.
Spencer's name here because he is formulating in his philosophy
and ethics the scientific-paganism of modern tendencies. And
I answer him here at length because of the honor accorded him
in this land, and because while discussing his ethical teaching
I can bring out the ethics of Christ by comparison and contrast.
Before I am done I think you will see that Mr. Spencer's ethics
1 See introduction to " Data of Ethicf ."
teach no morality at all, arc lower indeed tban those of Socrates,
the Greek of 2000 years ago, with the addition of some bones
taken from Christian teaching, robbed of all life, ho\Yevcr, and
rendered useless in their new setting.
Mr. Spencer begins by taking for granted that the Christian
religion is failing as a moral power, is being removed from
men's beliefs as unscientific. Now this may be true of a certain
set of so-called scientists, whose minds arc narrowed by their
special sphere, and true of some who take their dictum as
infallible truth. But that it is true in any general sense of the
word, is like much else that Mr. Spencer retails, negatived by
simple historical facts. The fact is that Christianity is co-
extensive with modern civilization, ^yllere civilization goes,
Christianity goes and flourishes. "Where Christianity goes,
civilization goes and flourishes. The best intellects in all
branches of science are still Christian. The masses are more
Christian than they ever were in the world's history, the converts
to Christianity are more numerous and more satisfactory than
ever before. Where wrongs are being righted. Christian sym-
pathy is always at the bottom of the movement.
But if the gospel of blind force, as preached by Spencer,
Tyndal and others, prevails over the minds of men, of course
Christianity must cease, and Mr. Spencer does well to attempt
to formulate a new regulative system of morals. How has he
succeeded ?
Mr. Spencer's references to "Ethics as they are," ^ "super-
natural Ethics" and "Ethics currently conceived," I take to
refer to the teachings of Christianity, which lies at the bottom
of morals in civilized lands. I should suppose that a great
philosopher like Mr. Spencer, in dealing with majestic wide-
reaching themes such as these, would cope with what ho
^Data of Ethics, see Introduction and Chap. I.
VI.]
Ljnoranco ur Ir/norlng, which ?
271
conceived to be the fundiimental priucipk s of the system which
he opposed, and not take his impressions from some crude Sun-
day-school teacher's simple statements to a child, the rough
version of a parish beadle, or the mystic dreamings of an aborted
ascetic. If he takes these partial, low, erroneous views as
representing Christianity, he is unworthy of a higher philosoph-
ical place than that of a sophistical trickster ; and if he claims
to represent the principles of the Christian's Bible in his
references to Christian Ethics, I charge him with persistent
radical misrepresentation or lamentable ignorance of the
teachings of Christ. Christianity is of course the chief trouble
in the way of his system, and must be demolished by any means;
but really one would like to see facts instead of fictions, arguments
rather than the sneers of a suppressed loathing. To represent
the relation of Ethics as they are and as they should be, he thus
writes:^ " If a Father, sternly enforcing numerous commands,
some needful and some needless, adds to his severe control a be-
haviour wholly unsympathetic — if his children have to take their
pleasures by stealth, or, when timidly looking up from their
play, ever meet a cold glance or more frequently a frown, his
government will inevitably be disliked, if not hated ; and the
aim will be to evade it as much as possible." Now I ask any
man if that is a fair representation of Christ's moral control ? No
man could honestly give that as a statement of the influence of
the teaching of a personal God in the world, who had any
adequate conception of character behind external acts ; of the
need of discipline to develop that character ; of the love behind
the discipline which, though sometimes hid, kindles in the
disciplined heart the life-impulses of all that is noble and pure
and lasting. A father's kindest acts seem often harsh to a
wayward lad ; but if he were left to control his own discipline,
III
^ Data of Ethics, p. vi.
'il
272
" Influence " of an Automaton.
[Lect.
what a wreck he would make of himself ! The will of an all-wise
Father God may sometimes seem harsh to wayward sinful man ;
but whenever man makes his own morality — what a perpetual
wreck he makes of himself, all history shows only too sadly
and well.
But Mr. Spencer has another picture: "Contrariwise, a
father who, equally firm in maintaining restraints needful for the
well-bering of his children or the well-being of other persons,
not only avoids needless restraints, but, giving his sanction to
all legitimate gratifications and providing the means for them,
looks at their gambols with an approving smile, can scarcely
fail to gain an influence which, no less efficient for the time
being, will also be permanently efficient."^ This is supposed to
represent the control of Mr. Spencer's system of morality. And
although the idea of simply letting children have their own way
so long as they don't hurt themselves or anybody else, is not a
very lofty ideal certainly, yet I must protest that his morality
does not go even that far, fbr it provides no father at all but a
machine, no restraint, no sanction, but the ceaseless rounds of
an automaton, which when it stops, stops forever. The impres-
sion conveyed to my mind by this Evolution-Philosophical
Ethics may be illustrated by a story I read many years ago.
A man dreamed that he was left alone with the care of a little
child on his hands. Thinking a living mother, that required to
be housed and fed, would bring along with her too many dis-*
advantages, he decided on making a machine-mother, an auto-
maton that would not eat his bread nor bother him with her
tongue, but would be sufficient for all the purposes of the baby.
So he got timber for bones, and cork for flesh, and wire for
springs, and made a woman with lovely hair and smiling eyes,
and bewitching mouth, and spotless neck, and arms tllht would
^Ib. p. vii.
VI.J
Chistianitij and Natnrol Ethics.
273
:e
embrace, and a breast that would heave, and adjusting a bottle
of milk in the place of the natural fountain for baby's supply, he
admired the work of his hands and was sure, absolutely sure that
baby would be delighted beyond bounds. So when all things were
arranged, he brought the baby and laid it on the breast of the
lovely mother, and the eyes smiled down, and the arms moved in
embrace ; the man thought is was a perfect success, when sud-
denly a yell that seemed beyond the power of baby lungs burst
from that baby throat, and with frantic struggles the baby tried to
get away from what it felt, without instruction, was no mother at
all, and no substitute for one. And so when it is proposed to ex-
change the guidance and control and sympathy and life-giving
love of the All-father for the machinery-ethics of blind force and
matter, humanity protests as did that babe, against the whole
business of fraud.
Mr. Spencer says that Christianity objects to natural ethics,
exaggerates slight differences into antagonisms. Now that is
not true of the Bible or of the Christianity I know anything
about. I have been taught that natural morality, wherever true,
is endorsed, perfected, completed, by the revelation of Christ.
Only Mr. Spencer must remember that a good deal that
he calls natural morality was both unknown and thought un-
natural before the Bible came and furnished the world with these
moral facts. Again he thinks that Christians will be offended
because they find that the ethics of the evolution-philosophy
and of science agree with those of the Christian religion.^ 0,
bless your heart Mr. Spencer, don't be alarmed ; we have no
objection to your helping to show to the world that Christian
morality — even the bones of it that you have picked — are all in
perfect agreement with the most advanced science, actual or
hypothetical. Only let me remind you that these principles of
morality were current before science was born, and that if the
^Ibid. Introduction, p. 20, etc.
86
274
flloijieal Ei'olvtlon of
[Lect.
Bible liacl not providod the facts for you, and compelled people
to show l)y their lives that these principles were true, your
science and machinery would never have produced them. Your
philosophy has prod 'ced no moral principle. 1 have no objec-
tion to your showing the soientilic value of Christian moral truth,
but I do object to }our taking the fruit from oil" the living tree on
which it grew, and tying it on the dry machinery of your evolu-
tion-philosophy, and claiming that as the true ripening power.
And this brings us to the test of the system as a whole. As
in all other philosophical ethical systems, Mr. Spencer starts
out with a theory that must be assumed as true, and into the
service of which all possible facts must be pressed and all other
facts ignored. The theory is still the evolution of blind force and
matter without a mind to guide it. Mr. Spencer is sublimely
unconscious of unbridged chasms and impassable gulfs, which
bar the progress of a scientific evolution theory, but with
giant strides steps from peak to peak in nature, declaring with
the voice of one who knows, that they were all evolved, and if
science can't find any proofs of it — why never mind, so much
the worse for the proofs. Professor Ewing, in the second
lecture of this course, pointed out very clearly that even allowing
the truth of the evolution theory within the range of physical
science, it was subject to limits, and there were regions into
which it did not enter. He allowed in the argument the evolution
of life as thinkable, as possible perhaps, but when it came to the
evolution of consciousness, he pointed out that Mr. Spencer's
explanation or proof was a lamentable logical failure. The argu-
ment amounts to this ; there were sensations, and sensations simple,
and sensations complex, and then lo ! there was consciousness.
Every scientist of note or thinker that I have read endorses Mr.
Ewing's statement. Your own sense, I think, will endorse it too ;
and I am not aware of any one that has done better than Mr.
Spencer in accounting for the evolution of consciousness.
VI.J
ConscmLsness and Mornlity.
275
It is not for mo to enter into tlio sul»,jcct fully horo, but
the nrguraent for tlio evolution of morality is eou'^lly a logical
curiosity. The idea is this :^ conduct is the udjustmcnt of means
to ends ; good is success, l)ad means failure. He then brings out a
beautiful succession Of facts drawn from the researches of science,
extending from molluscs up to the complicated arrangements
of the political life of man. Tlie lower were shown to serve tlio
higher, but each to have certain ends to gain with certain means
to obtain those ends ; — as little fish seek for littler fish for food,
and dart away from bigger iisli that seek to eat them. The
higher we ascend in the animal world, the more complicated tho
ends and the more complex the means, as when birds build nests,
lay eggs, rear young. In the highest mammal of all, man, tho
ends are more complex, and in civilized man more complex still
than in savage tribes. As aims in life become more complex
and means to be adjusted more numerous, the adjustment of
means to ends gradually — mark the word — gradually becomes
moral. Tho end of man is to produce and enjoy pleasure, virtue
is the adjustment of acts so as to have pleasure — " a surplus of
agreeable feelings" are his words. And the supreme end of man
is to find means to prolong his life." Man is the highest mammal ;
the type of absolute good, of absolute morals, is a healthy
mother giving suck to her healthy babe. The same mother
compelling the same child a little later to study at times instead
of perpetual play, or giving it an unpleasant medicine to save
its life, is relatively right but wrong in a measure, because she
inflicts a pain.'^ Thus he brings you up within sight of morality,
but Where's the morality? All these acts were produced by
evolving force. The substratum of evolution teaching is force —
natural selection by the strongest; survival of the fittest. That
f^
*" Data of Ethics," Chap. iii. Good and Bad in Conduct, etc.
*Ibid, p. 14, etc. ^Ibid. Chap. xv. Absolute and Relative Ethics,
276
Spencerian Moralists
[Lect.
the strong may live, the weak must perish. Let the principle
go on up into social life ; man must oppress the woman : the
strong man must oppress the weak ; the strong nation must
oppress the weaker nation and exterminate the useless races.
" Hold," you say ; ** Mr. Spencer teaches just the opposite. No
voice is stronger than his, no words more eloquent than his
in depicting the horrid wrongs of weaker peoples oppressed by
stronger, and his denunciations have an added fire when the
oppressor bears the name of Christian." Very true ; I am glad
to say that Mr. Spencer's moral sense, though he ignores it in
his philosophy, is stronger in practice than the logic of his mind.
His moral theory has no logical basis for his sympathy. If it is
true that all these things are evolved, then this Natural Selec-
tion still going on is the necessary grinding away of the
evolution-machine, and why blame the strong for obeying
evolution and ridding the world of the weak ? Or look at it in
another way. Mr. Spencer dwells on the moral inferiority of
civilized men, in comparison with the honest, upright character
of many weak oppressed savages, especially when the argument
can be twisted into a fling against Christianity. Now, how does
it come that in these evolved people such immorality abounds,
while in unevolved tribes high morality is found ? Doesn't it
look as if morality were not a production of Evolution ?
But Mr. Spencer's followers are more logical than he. Dr.
Van Buren Denslow,' a practical American, believes in no half
measures. He has come into this line under Mr. Spencer's
guidance, and he believes in following up the lead to its normal
logical conclusions. He tells us there is no moral difference
between a lie and a truth. It is invariably the strong who
require the weak to tell the truth, and always to promote some
interest of the strong. " Theft is no real moral wrong. * Thou
* Author of " Modern Thinkers."
VL]
More Logical than Spencer,
277
shalt not steal ' means only I will take care you don't steal from
me. Laws against unchastity were framed by the strong to
protect their own wives only. We assert that moral precepts
are selfish maxims of the strong to maintain their power."
Again Dr. Denslow continues: *' The unphilosophical element in
Herbert Spencer's scheme is its dogmatical assumption that
there is a moral law, philosophically deducible by argument
from the facts of nature. An ethical system which boils down
into an exhortation to all men to promote their own interests
has no ethical quality left in it ; it pertains to the business of self-
preservation and not of morals, since to have a moral quality,
an act must raise the question, — Is it right? which mere
attention to business does not raise, any more than the flight of
birds, the falling of water, or the explosion of gases." That is
the logical natural ethics of Spencer's evolution philosophy as
propounded by his own disciple, — a mere business calculation
without a moral element in it. It has no meaning for right and
wrong, — they are simply phases of pleasure or pain. There is no
place for good and true as such, no conception of sin or evil apart
from mere pain. No place for meekness, love, humihty : these are
weaknesses only. In the struggle for existence, that carnivores
may live, herbivores must die ; that the lion's young may be
reared, the young of the deer must be orphaned or eaten.
And so that a Bonaparte may develop, a million men may be
slaughtered. It is only an evolving struggle. Even though
men's actions remain the same as those now called moral, morality
is dead.^ Men are only automata, externally mimicking the
actions of moral beings. There is no guilt or innocence, no merit
or demerit, no responsibility or conscience. No sin or righteous-
ness. Eemorse and shame fade away, punishment is mere
self-defense. There is no justice in it ; a mere struggle of the
'&•:
k
'I
iScc also Bo\Yn?'8 " Studios ia Theism."
278
Mimichlng of Morality.
[Lect.
strong against the weak. The so-called good man deserves no
approval, and the bad man deserves no blame. Both are
simply what their molecules make them.
Here is another of Mr. Spencer's pupils more logical than
his master. A German, F. v. Hellwald,^ insists that the struggle
for existence and the right of the strong is the only basis for
morality. There is neither freedom of soul nor absolute
truth, — no absolute morality. The word morality, he says,
should be banished from all scientific books ; he calls all efforts
to help the weak, to raise men to an ideal manhood — " Huma-
nitiits-heuchelei," humanity-hypocrisy. And he declares that
advanced philosophy must come to this. But how would it
work practically '? Prof. Tyndall throws light on the subject
too. He says he would thus address tho robber and ravisher :
** You offend, because you cannot help offending, to the public
detriment. We punish yovi, because we cannot help punishing
you for the public good; we entertain no malice against
you, but simply with a view to our own safety and purifica-
tion, we are determined that you, and sach as you, shall not
enjoy liberty of evil action in our midst. "^ Thus no one
is to blame, but those who prefer decent lives are stronger
and rule the weaker. But reverse the majority. Let the robbers
and ravishers and murderers be in the majority. They will
rule, and may say to honest men : " We have no malice or hatred
against you, but with a view to our safety and comfort, we will
abrogate all laws against what you have called crime, and we
will punish you and such as you who are guilty of being honest."
And they would be as moral as the other. That is the legitimate
outcome of Mr. Spencer's data of ethics, in so far as they can
be got from evolution-philosophy.
But there are four curious chapters in his " Data of Ethics."
'Bowne's " Studies in Theism."
'Address on " Science and Man " before the Birmiugbau and Midland Institute.
VL]
Acts vnthout Character
279
The first ^ labors to show that it is not best for man to be utterly
selfish, egoistic ; the second- shows that it is equally a mis ike to be
entirely unselfish — altruistic — otherish, if you please. The third '
points out that these two tendencies seem to imply permaaent an-
tagonism. The fourth* reconciles them and shows that selfishness
and otherishness are mutually co-essential, which means after all
that it is scientific to do as Christ teaches, " Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself" — only there is no love; you must act as if
you loved. After sundry ill-natured and uncalled for flings at
Christianity he says : — " There are some classed as antagonists to
the current creed (Christianity) who may not think it absurd to
believe that a rationalized version of its ethical principles will
eventually be acted upon." Up at Uyeno there is an educational
museum where two skeletons, one of a monkey and another of a
man, are placed side l)y side to show their brotherhood. Some
such arrangement seems to be in Mr. Spencer's moral museum.
In one glass case is the skeleton of manhood morals as taught by
the " current creed ;" under this is a ticket, stating, " This is the
skeleton of an extinct and troublesome animal." Beside it is
another skeleton somewhat resembling the former in shape, and
labeled, "This specimen will live and walk in some future aeon,
and will do it better than the other ever did."
But I have tarried all too long, although I have but just
touched on the incongruities of this system, which forsooth is to
replace Christianity among men and perfect the civilization which
Christianity has produced. Only one word. I would like to see
Mr. Spencer or some one try it on a savage nation for a time
to see how it would work. It could not perhaps do them much
harm, but would it produce any improvement '? Beally, in looking
iChap. XL, "Egoism vemitu Altruism," p. 187.
aChap. XII. " Altruism rersus Egoism," p. 201.
8 Chap. XIII. " Trial aud Compromise."
<Ciiap. XIV. " Couciliatiou," p. 212.
280
The true Data of Ethics.
[Lect.
over the whole stoiy, one is tempted to believe that there is more
truth than sarcasm in a certain saying of an eminent scientist :
** I believe that the philosophers of every age are equally foolish,
but that the common people gradually increase in wisdom. "^
Common sense rejects such false philosophy, and turns
again to God in a struggle, not in vain, to
Push through these dark philosophies, and hve. "
And what has Christianity to offer the world of struggling
humanity in place of this impossible regulative skeleton of moral
philosophy ? Everything that human nature needs. Light for
its hopeless gloom, purity for its emptiness, strength for its
weakness, a history of benediction in place of its story of failure
and loss.
The true data of ethics must begin with the divine, must
postulate God and recognize a living relation with him and his
will, or heart religion, as the soul and life of all morality.
Keligion and ethics cannot be divorced and live a true life.
Keligion is the life of the soul, morality its practical outgoings
and fruitage in proper actions and good deeds. Mr. Spencer
says that " religious creeds make right and wrong to be simply
divine enactments ; " " moral truths have no other origin than
the will of God," and therefore he seems to infer that they are
mere external impositions. There is a latent fallacy in this use
of the word " will," which will be avoided by remembering that
God is not some limited and capricious master, but the Infinite
Creator whose will finds expression in the laws of nature, as well
as in providence and in grace. God's will is seen in the revolv-
ing of the planets, in the growing of vegetable life, in the
instinctive movements of animals ; these invariable laws of
nature are the workings of a nature framed of God, laws under
which man also comes. But besides these there are also iri^ntal
^"Social Pressure," by the author of "Friends in Council," quoted also in
" Suyematviral iu Nature."
VI.]
Gocl'i< Will, True Order.
281
and spiritual laws, oxpressions of the nature of the miud and the
immortal soul, and it is for us to ol)ey these laws. There are
also moral laws which are simple complements of man's moral
nature, and God's will acts again in enforcing these laws that
are true and necessary to the very nature of man. These moral
laws are expressions of his own nature as well as of ours. He is
with us when we ohey, against us when we disobey. The stars
in their courses through infinite space, and through the ages,
follow the will of God according to laws of the siderial heavens;
the tiny blades of grass and the mightiest monarch of forest, the
fluttering insect of a day and the greatest animal of earth,
follow the will of God in obeying laws implanted within
them, l)ocause they cannot do otherwise. All these move
in harmony. But man's nature too is an expression of the
divine will, and the true laws of mind and morals and spiritual
life all come from Him. But it is for man to follow these laws
or to refuse to do so. Disobeying these laws is sin or moral
disorder ; obeying them is righteousness or moral order. By a
merciful arrangement of justice, sin brings sorrow which should
lead to amendment ; but if persisted in, it fixes the character in
opposition to Go'^\ and ensures lasting separation from Him,
Righteousness, by a similar arrangement of justice, brings the
joyous satisfaction of being at one with the will of God, of being
in one's proper place in the universe, in the place for which our
nature was intended ; and persisted in, righteousness becomes
more and more consolidated in character, man realizes a
greater neai'ness to the loving All-Father, and looks forward to
an eternity of communion with him and with kindred spirits.
The absolutely moral is God's will. That which constitutes
man's sin is the opposition of the human will to the Creator's.
All the disharmony of the world is simply an aberration from
our true nature, or in other words opposition to God's law. The
absolutely good is God's idea of character and life — God's holi-
80
282 FoUowlurj God's Order, True Moraliti/. [Lect.
iiess. The highest goo'l aftci' ^vhich man can aim is a vohmtary
harmonizing with the divino laind, out of which spring
spiritual hoauty and rational morality— a morality which
consists in a knowledge of the Creator's will, an entire acquies-
cence in that will and a joy in oheying actively. Here is no
mere classification of goods and virtues, and balancing of
pleasures and duties. .But an entering into an experience of
rational spiritual freedom, a joyous movement of a new moral
life, the outworking in man of the moral image of God dwelling
within him.
In contrast with this liow puerile appears the philosophi-
cal aim of life — "surplus of agreeable feelings" — pleasure;
Eating gives the healthy man pleasure, and yet the momentary
or more remote pleasure of eating does by no means exhaust
the object of food. Men should eat to live, not live to eat. And
in the same way a voluntary following of the will of God is the
surest, (juickest road to lasting pleasure. We have joy unspeak-
able in doijig the will of God, but low is the motive of the man
who does God's will merely for the joy it will bring himself.
We should have pleasure in goodness, not be good for pleasure.
But this doctrine of man's union with the will of God seems
very abstract, and perhaps unattractive. This sublimest of
human possibilities has, however, been taught to man by an
object-lesson which the lowest can comprehend. Out of one of
the least promising tribes of earth's sons there stepped forth an
absolutely perfect man in whom the image of God was real.
His life is the holiest inspiration of man, his ^vords point the
shortest way to perfection. His meat and drink was to do the will
of God. His message, " thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy mind, with all thy
strength." But more than this, the peerless man show^ed us
God's estimate of man, God's love for man, God's will towards
man, carrying along with this new knowledge a new impulse of
VI.]
The OuuGome of Splv'daal. Life.
283
sympathy from man to mean, making clear as never before the
duty of man to man, " thou shall lovo thy neighbor as thyself.'"
Hero we have an epitome of all true morality, its root and its
branches. False the morality Avhich consists in a code of
formal exacting observances. True and mighty the morality
■which dwells in a holy spiritual life, wliose outgoings arc guided
by few and simple rubjs. Christian morality is impossible without
a Christian heurt behind it, but with the Christlike heart 'tis joy
to live as Christ lived — to approach man's highest ideal. That
which j\Ir. Hpencer scarcely dared to jjreathe as a sort of philoso-
phical prophecy, an expectation of some future ago when men
will act the noblest morality without pain, spontaneously, is the
glad experience of tens of thousands of living Christians to-day.
But not simply does Christianity point to the Mill of God
as path of duty, and Christ as ideal life, but also provides a
cure for the sin-sick, ruined heart of man. Tain the teachings
of the loftiest morality, vain the power of an ideal, if the sin of
the heart is uncured, the guilt of conscience not removed. But
Christianity tells the way of forgiveness and cure, provides a
fountain where the sin-stained may wash and be clean. Thus
new characters are formed and new deeds of purity become
possible. Love to God brings on man the conscious benediction
of Him who rules the universe and the eternities. Love to man
awakens love from man, and brings forth human sympathy
which goldens social life ; or if unrequited, is its own abundant
benediction, in the enlargement of one's own heart, the uplifting
of one's own humanity.
Thus Christianity gives a reason for the moral law, justifies
it to our intelligence. But its perfect justification is to be
found only in the light of eternal hope. Wrong is often now
crowned with success and a[)paront joy ; holiness is branded with
opprol)rium and often tinged with sorrow. These things can
be righted only in another life. And more than this the highest
284
Justified hj) Eternal Hope.
[Lect.
realizations of a Christian's joy partake largely of hope and
would he meaningless -without the prospect heyond; the full
purpose and magnificence of creation l)ecome manifest only in
eternity. Now our communion with God is like that of corres-
ponding with loved ones in the homo lands, we hope to meet them
again and so — " It doth not yet appear what we shall he ; hut
when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him
as he is."
These are data of ethics, elements absent from human
philosophy, whose absence renders human ethics useless to
man. These elements, clear, consistent, full, in Biblical teaching,
show that teaching to be no mere human device ; elements
whose presence evince the hand of God, and lead men to
humanity's highest goal.
The repository of these truths and kindred ones, for I have
indicated only a part, is the Bible ; the battered and tested and
criticized, and torn and burned and cursed, and reviled old
Bible, which still lives on in perpetually growing power in the
hearts of the best millions of earth's children ; crowned is the
old book with brighter laurels than the mightiest of earth's
potentates, enthroned in prouder place than aught else beneath
the sun. From Genesis to Bevelation you see the human hand
and are conscious of human thoughts and struggles ; but through
it all you hear the voice of God. Its beginnings reach back
into the twilight of history's morning, and farther still ; it peers
into the nebulous mists of uncreated worlds, and Avith a few
master strokes links the present with the almost infinite past of
the beginning, sketching in outline the picture which science is
now laboriously trying, and with much success, to complete.
The story grows ; while Chaldea rises in splendour and falls, while
Egypt is strong nnd boasts her unrivalled past, while Greece
gives birth to intellectual giants, while arts and commerce
flourish in other lands, — all these things are unheard, in the
VI.]
Made Phi ill in the Bible.
285
Bible thrones and sceptres are regarded as trifles of time. The
Bible is not a book of science, or art, or commerce, or politics, or
human intellect, or human ethics ; but ever and anon out of
some lowly human medium there flashes forth the light of God,
and every step on, on to the God-man is marked by human weak-
ness revealing the onward march of omnipotent God, educating,
disciplining man for humanity's good. " A Book whi ih contains
within the outer body, a soul or inner life, which, while agreeing
with the imperfection of our nature, raises us above it, and, in
answer to the inarticulate cries of conscience, pours the wisdom
of God into our heart and mind."^ To-day the Bible stands as
tlic miglitit'st moral power over mnn ; not as the ancient
classics of China, pointing men back to the sages dead, and
chaining men to the tombs of r buried past ; but pointing men
up to a God above us, on to the God-man our exemplar, far
ahead of us still.
They tell us that men are finding faults in the Bilde. The
learned have been finding them for thousands of years, but they
usually turn out to be faults of the critic and not of the book.
And what if there should be spots of imperfection in the outer
shell, if the divine soul still lives on ? Men have found spots
in the sun, but that has not dimmed his light or rendered him
less powerful in his place as centre of a system of worlds. And
so these spots, if spots there be, in the outer shell of the book
matter little, while its light shines on, a lamp to the feet of
nations, a guide and impulse on the path of advancing humanity.
They tell us that the teachers of the Bible are so diverse,
the various churches preach different doctrine and clamorous
voices raise a jargon which bewilders seeking men. Nay, those
non-essential difi'erenccs are exaggerated by men who know them
but from afar, and are needy for excuse for neglect. Yes,
1 Reynolds, " Supernatural in Nature."
286 Human Jarring and Divine Si/mphoiiy. [Lect
men's minds differ ; men are free, and cursed bo the power that
would cramp them into a sin;^lo form. Men {^'ather round the
Bible and take of its everflowing fountain of living waters to
set before a parched world. And they carry those waters in
earthly vessels, — " Ho ! every one that thirstoth, drink of these
waters and live." You may criticize the vessels if j'ou will.
Men gather round the Bible ; tlieir scientific formulas differ,
their philosophies of it differ, and their understanding of it
differs, showing with all their different voices, that human
salvation could never spring from human thought, and the data
of man's hope must reach beyond man's powers. Men gather
round the Bible, and go beyond their scientific formulating,
and tlieir philosophical systematizing ; penetrating to its soul-
meaning they meet on one high plain where heaven's light is
seen ; there all without a jar of discord, clasp hands around
the cross where Jesus died, and proclaim him to the world as
the healer of earth's woes, the secret of man's highest destiny.
And thus these many voices, elsewhere jarring, uniting in face
of God's best gift to man, rising and swelling to remotest shore
in one grand symphony of love, of " glory to God in the highest,
peace on earth and good will to men," make one harmony
which proclaims the message not human but divine.
I have asked you to look at this message scientificallj', in
view of man's highest powers and longings, to test it in the light
of history, and side by side with other lights which men have
had to lead them through a world of darkness up to a better.
And now I ask you to test the matter practically, " Can any
good thing come out of Nazareth?" is still the question. And
the reply still is " Come and see." You can't see it from afar.
Come nearer. Go to any little Christian community in Japan,
where the Bible is laid in the hands of the people, and see if
you do not find in its actual workings a new moral power,
elevating, blessing, saving, preserving all good and impelling
VI.J
The Leave u Workhnj in Japan.
287
the people to higher, better aims. You will hnd a power which
works here as elsewhere, when Tree to work, making individual
man strive with every faculty undininied after a loftier typo of
manhood, uiiiking home and relationships more sacred, adding
a new charm to the names of mother, father, l>rother, sister,
wife, husband, friend ; giving a new impulse to social life, to
mutual sympathy and fuith between man and man, — giving
loftier ideas of patriotism, merging the clan into the country
and making men true to the powers that be ; a power which
intensifying all these into stronger life enlarges the heart so as
to overstep the narrow bounds of land and sea, and nuikes men's
hearts beat responsive in love and sympathy with every other
human heart beneath the sun.
lling out, wild bells, to the wild sky,
Tlic li^viiiH cloud, the frosty light,
The past is dying in the night :
l!ing out, wild belln, and let it die.
lling out a slowly dying cause.
And ancient fonn of party strife ;
King in tlie nobler modes of life
With sweeter manners, purer laws.
lling out false pride in place and blood,
The civic slander and the spite ;
lling in the love of trutli and right,
lling in the common love of good.
King in the valiant man and free,
Tlie larger heart, the kindlier hand ;
King out the darkness of the laud,
King in the Christ that is to be.
CONCLUSION.
SUMMARY AND RESULT.
It only reniaiiiH for us to take a rapid survey of some of the
most important points of this partial outline which has heen
sketched in the course of Lectures now come to a conclusion.
We started out with the understanding that we should seek the
Truth, and when found, we should accept and follow it. It was
acknowledged that all nature is a revelation of herself to the
thinking mind of man, and also the manifestation of a Power
behind all phenomena. Christians teach that that Power is a
personal God, whose mind and will are partially expressed in
nature, but that He speaks to man through another revelation,
opening up a further understanding of his mind and will, teach-
ing him Avhat all nature, though completely understood, never
could convey to human thought.
If nature be the work of God, and the Bible a revelation
from Him, they must of necessity agree, and each represent the
Truth. The one must be the complement of the other. The
students of the one should agree with the students of the other.
The ascertained results of research in the one should agree with
the ascertained results of research in the other. But it must be
borne in mind that each teaches a difi'erent subject. Science does
not teach, though it may endorse, the doctrines of Theology ; the
Bible does not teach, though it may supplement, the science of
the physical world. It must also be remembered that neither
the present deductions of science, nor the present exegesis of the
Bible can be looked upon as infallible and final, and so long «>3
our knowledge is imperfect, so long must discrepancies appear
ChnslianUy leads to perfect Clc'dkatlon, 289
to exist. But so far as science becomes settled and exegesis
becomes clear, if both arc true they must agree, — and if they do
thus agree, they must be looked upon, the one as God's revela-
tion in that which is physical and temporary, the other as His
revelation regarding the spiritual and eternal.
Men thought that .;he revelations of geology and tho
discovered remains of ancient men laughed to scorn the Book of
Genesis and undermined the teaching of the Jiiblc. Further
research shoAvs that geology endorses Genesis, and all tho
ascertained facts regarding pre-historic man perfectly agree
with the ]]iblo records.
The most interesting (juebjion before Japan to-day is tho
means by Avhicli to consolidate her people into a lasting, grow-
ing, civilized nation. The history of 6,000 years lies open
before us ; we have looked over the debris of many a fallen
civilization and have found only one phase which carries with
it the promise and potency of permanence and growth. Com-
merce has given rise to wealthy communities, but commerce
alone as a political bond is a rope of sand ; despotic power has
bound tribes together, and developed a force for a time, but
despotism keeps the land in perpetual night and in a fossil
form ; philosophy has succeeded in making books, and attract-
ing a crowd, but has never developed a people; Christianity
alone, while bursting the bonds which fettered the humanity of
man, let loose his powers for evil as well as for good, has awakened
hope within the soul, infused life within the heart, expanded
all the faculties peculiar to man, and solves the problem of
civilization by creating a truly civilized unit, the ultimate
aggregate of which, when universally realized, must bring the
Utopia of social political perfection.
The two grand stages of development in this revelation —
expressed in Christianity as taught by the Bible — are represented
by Moses and Jesus Christ ; the preparation and the culmina-
87
290 True Science and Scientists endorse the Bible.
tion. Thus while dealing with the general question of civilization,
it was seen that the Bible exactly fitted the sociological and
constitutional needs of the human race.
But it has been asserted that the teachings of the Bible as
well as of other religions, while of use as a regulative force, are
scientifically untrue. The modern mind claims to be scientific,
and one good result of scientific influence is to lead men to reject
what is found to be false. Science must destroy this regulative
force if it is untrue, or belie itself. Many men in the name of
science have rejected the Bible because they were ignorant
of its truth. Their rejection docs not make it scientifically
untrue. Again, science has helped to remove untruths which
had grown upon the Bible, but the removal of an extra-
neous incubus of untruth does not make the real teaching false.
On the other hand we have seen that the greatest names in the
roll of scientific master minds have at all times, and do to-day,
accept and endorse the Bible as the word of God. We have
also seen that neither a combination of all the ascertained facts
of science, nor legitimate speculations in scientific hypothese?,
even far beyond the range of accepted facts, affect the truth
of those things which the Bible undertakes to teach. And thus
" you will be able to judge for yourselves how widely removed
from the true scientific spirit is the temper of those who outrage
the name of science and prostitute her authority, by attempts to
discredit a religion which they do not understand and cannot
injure."^
Philosophy of a certain kind has in every age antagonized
the Bible, accomplished the ruin of men and of generations,
and then has passed away, leaving Christianity to repair the
social, political wreck. And philosophy, so-called, is carrying
on the same work to-day. The great harm of a system of
iProf. Ewing, p. 'H.
False Philoso2)hjj eo'ploded hy tJwrongh Criticism, 291
philosophy which, with plausible fallacies leads men away
from the Bible, lies not so much in turning individuals
away from Christian Theism and Christian Ethics, much as
this is to be deplored, as in the educating of men's minds
and moral nature into sophistical and shallow methods of
inquiry. There is hope for skeptics and doubters ; but let the
mind and moral nature once be prostituted into a credulous
acceptance of logical fallacies and multitudes will weakly follow,
rarely recovering for a generation from the aberration. In treat-
ing of the philosophical question, I have taken Mv. Spencer
as representative, not because he is the greatest of philosophers,
but because he has that reputation at present in Japan. I am
sorry to say that the fuller study of liis worlis for this course of
lectures leaves in my mind loss respect for him as a phi-
losopher than I formerly had. The colossal proportions of his
edifice are equalled only by the extent of its illogical fallacies,
and surpassed only by the arrogance of his assumptions. We
have seen the essential fallacies of his fundamental "First
Principles," — the raising of a false issue — the assumption in his
premises of [.n unproved theory in its oxtremest, most impossible
phases — the indisimctness and incorrectness of his definitions —
his playing fast and loose with the syllogism, — which alone
convict his whole system of a species of sophistical legerdemain.
Upon this foundation he builds a vast superstructure of Biology,
Sociology, Ethics, etc., and all througlf the same fallacies run,
the same peculiar logic and the same peculiar bias are pro-
minent, only his anti-Christian bias seems to become more
offensive as his attacks accumulate. The president of one of the
greatest of American Universities (Yale), has well remarked : " So
far as we have observed, converts to the Spcncerian philosophy are
not recruited in the legitimate method of beginning with their
author's theory of knowledge and a careful scrutiny of his * First
Principles.' Those who begin at this point rarely desire to go
292 82)cncer's System a Pliilosopldcal Failure.
farther. They find so much to question and reject . . .
that they neither desire nor dare to follow so untrustworthy a
leader."^
His two volumes on Biology should be called " A collection
of Biological facts up to date, which can be pressed into the
service of the Evolution-philosophy." If any one wants to study
Biology, he will in all probability consult the works of scientists
who make a specialty of that branch, without any particular
theory to support, rather than a work which simply in the
interest of a pet theory, gathers from the works of scientists
all apparently suitable facts — facts which with the advance of
science may turn out to the fictions.
The same manner of work is carried on in his multifarious
volumes on Sociology. In these books there are many splendid
statements, generalizations, suggestions ; but the same fallacies
run through the whole, and no part of his work gives the honest
Christian a sadder impression tban the growing antipathy to
everything Christian, seen so evidently in these books. I cannot
but endorse a ^further remark of the author quoted above —
President Porter of Yale — commcutiug on this phase of these
volumes, particularly the chapter on " Theological Bias." "It is
difficult to determine whether it gives more decided evidence
of ignorance, narrowness, conceit or virulence.'' He seems to be
ignorant of the fact that much of what he insists upon, has been
taught by Christian Theists for ages, raid that the Now Testa-
ment is full of it. He is too narrow to acknowledge it if he knows
it. His conceit is seen in his supercilious disdain of other workers
in the same field, his confident assertions regarding systems
which he fails to appreciate, and his dictatorial announcements
of his own opinions as of something new and authoritative.
His virulence at times emulates the sarcasm of Voltaire, at
iPriuceton Review, 1880.
Its Ethical Fruitage, Moral Ashes.
293
times the ribaldry of Tom Paine. What would you think of a
man who would write a series of books about the mountains of
Japan and never find a place to mention Mount Fuji ? And
what would you think of a philosopher who would write a series
of books on Sociology and find no place for the recognition of
the greatest sociological fact of all the centuries, whose influence
over the development of modern civilized peoples is greater than
that of all other historical forces combined, greater than all
philosophers multiplied by all social reformers, — no ackiiowledg-
ment or recognition of Christ and his work '?
With regard to his ethical system, I have shown in the
last lecture that it approaches the moral teaching of Christianity
as the morphology of the ape approaches a perfect man — a
mere resemblance in the skeleton. Yet Mr. Spencer has the
modesty to offer this to the world as a new regulative force.
And this is the acknowledged culmination and fruitage of a
long lifetime of work, and of a long list of learned philosophical
volumes, — a dreary system of ethics, the substance of which is
drawn from Christ's teachings, but emasculated of its morality,
winding up with a prophecy that — not now — but in some future
age, men will mechanically do as the best men do now, only
without the incentive, without the life, without the goodness
which leads them to do it to-day. That age may come, perhaps,
when a morphological outline of a monkey shall have become
an exhaustive description of all the elements and pulsating
powers of humanity. Yea, verily : —
" r<iriuria)it monfe;^, naticjtur yidiculus mus.'"
" Tho mountaiiiH agonize in birth-throes, and a woe little mouse will bo born."
We have tried to trace out the complex forces and elements
which, combined, go to make up that wonderful microcosm
called man. We found what men called matter, but as we
searched it, it vanished. We found forces which linked man
to the lowest of material things, forces which bound him to the
294
Man's roioers are Finite hut Real,
Eternal Creator in a kinship seen nowhere else in our world.
"We found that when the forces binding us to the earth and all
things below us, should be broken and our bodies perish, there
was no reason why we should perish, for mind and morals and
spiritual nature were a promise and pledge of something beyond
to match and satisfy them, as truly as the instinct of wild-fowl
sending them off to seek sunnier climes was a promise and
pledge of southern skies to greet their virgin flight. We saw
that the highest instincts of man were not self-regulating ; they
must be taught, and the highest of all which link man to God,
must be taught of God.
Facts and history seemed to prove that the historical Jesus
was an actual realization of the revelation of God to man, — that
he brought to man's spiritual nature that which exactly fitted it,
and with the help of which man could reach his legitimate
development, sociology attain a satisfactory basis, politicil
economy be simplified, and that man woiikl ripen into human
perfectness while striving after a fitness for eternity.
In a brief excursus on the workings of our higher faculties,
we saw that : — (1) The operations of the mind were, or should
constitute, a unit. (2) The talk about the knowable and un-
knowable was pure fiction. The unknowable is as nothing to us.
The knowable is all that we can reach. The perfectly knowable
to man has not yet been found, but the imperfection of our
knowledge does not render it useless. (3) Our knowledge, so
far as it is knowledge at all, is not fiction, symbolic, but real ;
the reality on the capital of which common sense does her
business, science conducts her investigations, and Christianity
builds up her faith. (4) The necessary laws of thought set us
on the true trend of knowledge. Our minds must all think
according to logic, or blunder ; and one universal goal of thought
in every people where thought has ripened, is the postulate
of a final cause, an Eternal Creator. Man cannot endure the
And throvgh Jeans may Commune iDith God. 295
only other alternate, the hypothesis of blind chance. (5) Men
have tried to reach the Eternal One, to drink at the primal fount ;
all philosophical attempts ha^a failed. But we found in Jesus the
bridge between the finite and the Infinite ; the Incarnation
solves the deepest philosophical difficulties, while it furnishes a
basis for universal faith. Through Jesus, God speaks to man,
and man communes with God.
We saw also that a study of history would unfold other facts
than mere political agitations of nations. The unfolding of
character, the solving of social, political problems, the fashioning
of laws, administrations, the advance and decay of masses of
people, must all be studied. And being studied, it becomes
evident that whatever is suited to the nature of the unit man, is
suited to the aggregate in a nation. That whatever elevated the
individual elevated the race. That religion w'as a universal
national and personal necessity ; that Christianity is the best
solution, furnishing a religion that works well in national
development, because suited to the elements of the constitution
of individual man.
This fact and the causes of it became clearer as the various
religious developments of historic peoples passed before us in
review. Everywhere w'ere proofs of the universal religious
instinct, and the noble purity of the very first records of religious
thought. But an element of disharmony entered early, and the
natural evolution of religion has ever been from good to bad
and from bad to worse. In one line only, and that by superna-
tural intervention, the original pure idea was preserved, and in
spite of the natural tendencies of the people chosen for that
purpose, they were compelled to preserve for man the gradual
unfolding of a religious development and moral system which
should eventually prepare the world to begin to understand the
God-man when he came.
Jesus came. Nothing but *' God manifest in the flesh " can
296
Jesus, the Fountain of Living Water.
explain the phenomenon. With the aid of the Old Testament
men have partly understood him ; as the ages pass on and men
approach more nearly the standard he has given, we understand
him still better ; as the ages still move on men will appreciate
him yet more fully ; but only in another life shall wo fully know
him, for then we shall see him as ho is, and with higher powers
comprehend what is now unfathomable mystery as well as an
unfathomable fountain of blessing. You want the civilization
and the blessing of western lands ; you cannot transplant the
fruits and neglect the roots. The root of all that is good in
Christian lands is Christianity itself ; not its Ethical system
merely, but the Christian religion. Remember too, there is no
Christianity without the Christ entlivoned as Saviour. And the
Christ is no Saviour of individual man, or nation, excepting as
unfolded in the Bible, our prophet, priest, and spiritual king.
" And I, if I be lifted up will draw all men unto me."
The thing has been tested. The lowest of earth's sons
have been saved by this story, the lowest of earth's nations have
been uplifted, the best rise still higher. The moral working of
Christianity is not in a rigid ethical system, but in the spon-
taneous outflow of a hidden life, kindled in the soul by the
divine power. " In the last day, that great day of the feast,
Jesus stood, and cried, saying, If any man thirst let him come
unto me and drink. "
** Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and
he that hath no money ; come ye buy and eat ; yea come buy
wine and milk without money and without price." " And the
Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say,
Come. And let him that is athirst come, and whcs -ever will, let
him take the water of life freely."
FINIS.
B. tUCISLfiJOBN iiHD CO., FaiMiinS, 20 WATfiB bXREKX, VOKOUAMA.
tament
id men
erstand
predate
y know
powers
11 as an
ligation
ant the
good in
. system
re is no
A.nd the
pting as
al king.
li's sons
ons have
)rking of
le spon-
, by the
be feast,
im come
ters, and
;ome buy
* And the
,reth say,
;r will, let