Page images
PDF
EPUB

its power of action; and this power is not a thing of parts, but of intensity. All that can be allowed is this: Since nature shows no trace of annihilation, there is a presumption that nothing. perishes. When, then, the soul no longer manifests itself in the accustomed way, there is a certain presumption that the soul itself has not ceased to exist. The ordinary channels of communication no longer exist, and, by consequence, the manifestation ceases. This, however, establishes no more than a presumption. From our stand-point no finite thing has a right to continued existence. It begins to be solely because the divine order and plan call for it. If, then, at any time a thing should lose significance for the general order, it would cease to be. But, owing to our ignorance of the system, we cannot reach any specific conclusions from this principle. That brute souls will or will not continue to exist, we cannot say. Their significance may be exhausted in this life; and, on the other hand, they, too, may be called to endless development and unfolding. A certain vulgarity of imagination, aided by a corresponding weakness of the understanding, always finds this latter view hopelessly absurd; but the difficulty is purely subjective. On the other hand, that human souls have such supreme significance for the system that they are to pass on to a future life, is also something which, on grounds of experience, we cannot positively assert. No more can we assert that any soul will ever so lose its value for the great whole, that it shall cease to be. This indecision of the speculative reason can only be overturned by arguments drawn from the moral nature or from revelation. If there be

such arguments, neither science nor philosophy has one word of valid protest; rather must they both rejoice that what appears to them only as a possibility, with a vague presumption in its favor, has been lifted into reality. For our belief in a future life we are thrown back upon our trust in the divine love and righteousness; and as it is forever impossible to justify the ways of God to men, if death ends all, we hold that a belief in a future life flows necessarily from our conception of God, and is the only one which is compatible with reverence for him. Whether all men shall share in this life, or whether the great mass of spiritual rubbish shall cease with death, cannot be decided by speculation. Personally, we believe that God can be trusted with our future. This most singular and extraordinary belief seems shared by very few. All kinds of speculations are rife in religious quarters concerning both the present and the future; through all of which there runs the tacit assumption (1) that God does not know what he is doing, and is in sad need of our advice; and, (2) that God cannot be trusted to do what is right. We advise, we prescribe; and, in a kind but firm way, we announce, what must be found very discouraging, that we shall be unable to trust God if our advice is not taken. Some dyspeptics conclude that things are so out of joint that God must quickly appear to wind up the world. Others spend their time, not in combating sin, but in informing God how he must deal with sinners if he is to retain their respect. That the Judge of all the earth will do right, is denied by no theist; and it is a necessary assumption of religion. But when it comes to prescribing

what the eternal laws of righteousness call for in carrying on the universe, we may well doubt whether we have the data for detailed judgments; and we may well question whether it be not more compatible both with reverence and with reason, to leave the government of the world in the Creator's hands with the confession, that both the administration and the criticism of the universe demand a deeper knowledge than ours. We have established a right to believe in a God of love and righteousness as the author and administrator of nature, who is also the Father of our spirits; and we repeat our strange confession of faith, that man and the world are safe in his hands.

CHAPTER XI.

POSTULATES OF ETHICS.

IN chapter iii we showed that every system of materialism, or of aimless evolution, ends necessarily in skepticism and the destruction of knowledge. A sifting chaos of atoms, or a blind, self-transforming world-substance, leave no place for either truth or error. We concluded, therefore, that a free, personal God, is the postulate and support both of science and philosophy. This conclusion plainly embraces the less comprehensive one that God is the necessary postulate of theoretical morals, and hence we might rest content with this showing. Yet owing to the peculiar state of affairs in the speculative world, it seems well to examine more in detail some of the fundamental postulates of ethics.

Irreligious speculators have always had trouble with morals and religion; and never have they been in greater straits than now. In the last century, when one advanced to atheism and fatalism he commonly had the courage of his opinions, and, in theory at least, repudiated religion and morality altogether. There was a certain whole-heartedness about the old-fashioned atheist which was not without its attraction on the score both of clearness and of honesty. But a change has come over our modern atheists; and the result is a certain inconsistency in dealing with the claims of morals and

religion. They are shy of the names of atheist and materialist, and prefer to call themselves agnostics. But agnosticism is only atheism spelled and pronounced in a different way. No sensible atheist claims to prove the negative that God is not; he only claims that experience and the visible universe give no proof of his existence. He does not pretend to know that there is no God; he claims only that he finds no ground for affirming the divine existence. But this position differs in nothing from agnosticism; both allow a possibility, and both deny any ground in experience for regarding the possibility as real. The name materialist, too, is a great offense to our advanced speculators. They do not hesitate to teach that the human mind is only a function of matter in certain combinations, which will certainly perish when the combination breaks up; but when they are charged with materialism, they frequently break out into indignation against the slander. They are not atheists; they are not materialists. Then follow sundry hysterical remarks about flinging dirt, and the odium theologicum. It has come to pass that references to the odium theologicum are as useful to the irreligious speculator, and are used in much the same way, as the burst of tears with which some women reduce refractory and recalcitrant husbands to obedience and submission. Meanwhile the simple critic who imagines that the use of words is to denote things, is filled with wonder at this rejection of the word when the thing is retained; and if he be acquainted with Bible history, he will not fail to recall the cursing and swearing of Peter when charged with being a disciple of Christ. It seems to us,

« PreviousContinue »