cletus and the pictures of Zeuxis which Paley makes of the watch. As to the other great question, the question what becomes of man after death, we do not see that a highly educated European, left to his unassisted reason, is more likely to be in the right than a Blackfoot Indian. Not a single one of the many sciences in which we surpass the Blackfoot Indian throws the smallest light on the state of the soul after the animal life is extinct. In truth, all the philosophers, ancient and modern, who have attempted, without the help of revelation, to prove the immortality of man, from Plato down to Franklin, appear to us to have failed deplorably." "Then again, all the great enigmas which perplex the natural theologian are the same in all ages. The ingenuity of a people just emerging from barbarism is quite sufficient to propound these enigmas; but the genius of Locke or Clarke is quite unable to solve them. It is a mistake to imagine that subtle speculations touching the Divine attributes, the origin of evil, the necessity of human actions, the foundation of moral obligation, imply any high degree of intellectual culture. Such speculations on the contrary are in a peculiar manner the delight of intelligent children and of half-civilised men." . . . "The Book of Job shows that, long before letters and arts were known to Ionia, these vexing questions were debated with no common skill and eloquence under the tents of the Idumean Emirs; nor has human reason, in the course of three thousand years, discovered any satisfactory solution of the riddles which perplexed Eliphaz and Zophar. Natural Religion then is not a progressive science."-From the Essay on Ranke's History of the Popes. Such being the prospects of Natural Religion, is the case at all altered when we turn to Revealed Religion? Is there any more likelihood that good and candid men will ever reach agreement either theoretically or practically in their interpretation and acceptation of a message received direct from heaven? The subject-matter of the message itself, we admit, differs widely enough from the former, as being more discursive, historical, and elaborate (to which we would willingly add "systematic," were it not that the contention on this point is the very subject under debate). Nevertheless a similar difficulty attends its progressive development as in the case of Natural Religion, arising from the fact that nothing further has been revealed to the nineteenth century than was known in the first. It is the belief of the Protestant churches that all Divine truth regarding the ways of God to man is recorded in certain books; and as it is pretty well agreed that not the smallest addition will ever be made to those books, it would seem to follow that the Christian student of to-day has no more means at his command for compiling a harmonious system than were possessed by his predecessor, the Christian student of the early or mediæval ages. Each has held in his hand the same unchanged unchangeable Bible, and each has professed his belief that the doctrinal statements of that Bible are susceptible of no manner of disturbance from the physical, social, or economical revolutions surging around him. But then arises the grave question, Is it a fact that either the one or the other has ever succeeded in laying down the very first article in a code of indisputable Principia, from which it were morally impossible to revolt,giving some fair prospect of a gradual and symmetrical superstructure arising on its basis of eternal granite? Is it not, on the contrary, true that from the first century down to our own time the whole affair has been simply chaotic,-a field of deadly strife, and a continuous ebb and flow of the two opposing forces of silly dogma and common sense? As there are no new data from which to start afresh, we are constantly liable to the incursions of old despotisms and the revival of forgotten heresies. Neither polite learning, nor sagacity in worldly matters, nor the diffusion of what is called civilisation, furnish any guarantee against the periodical occurrence of the gravest errors on subjects relating to the invisible world. "When we reflect," to quote Macaulay once more, "that Sir Thomas More was ready to die for the doctrine of transubstantiation, we cannot but feel some doubt whether the doctrine of transubstantiation may not triumph over all opposition. More was a man of eminent talents. He had all the information on the subject that we have, or that, while the world lasts, any human being will have. The text, This is my body,' was in his New Testament as it is in ours. The absurdity of the literal interpretation was as great and as obvious in the sixteenth century as it is now. No progress that science has made, or will make, can add to what seems to us the overwhelming force of the argument against the 'real presence.' We are therefore unable to understand why what Sir Thomas More believed respecting transubstantiation may not be believed to the end of time by men equal in abilities and honesty to Sir Thomas More. But Sir Thomas More is one of the choice specimens of human wisdom and virtue; and the doctrine of transubstantiation is a kind of proof-charge. A faith which stands that test will stand any test."-Ibid. All which means that we are to accept as a standing phenomenon and a psychological fact, that besotted superstition in connection with the Christian faith is compatible with the loftiest moral and scientific developments of which human life is susceptible. Well, if true, this is a somewhat stunning blow at the pride of human intellect. Lord Macaulay, we imagine, was under no apprehension of such a catastrophe occurring in his own case. If he thought some of his neighbours more liable to fall under its influence than himself, doubtless he could, and he would, have placed his finger on the weak point in their reasoning; but as he has abstained from any such disclosure, we must seek it where we may. One reservation indeed is made by the sagacious essayist in view of a hypothesis which may be thus stated. Should it appear that certain theological propositions are inextricably bound up with certain other propositions which relate to physics and which science shows to be untenable, then of course the theological propositions will share in the discredit. Thus, for example, the authority on which the Chinese, Mohammedan, and Hindoo divinity-systems are built, utterly stultifies and dethrones itself when it sanctions at the same time an absurd astronomical and geographical system at which every educated person learns to laugh. Nor can we shut our eyes to the value of those philological and historical tests which have been brought to bear upon the written word, principally through the industry of German students. and in our own country by the unsparing scrutiny of such men as Dr. Giles of Oxford, whose "Christian Records" his diccesan, Bishop Wilberforce, vainly sought to suppress. In these various ways undoubtedly the pro gress of science may indirectly serve the cause of religious truth. Whether science has, to any appreciable extent, fortified or undermined the Christian standards, is a question which will not be discussed just now. But it may with confidence be asserted that it is not from this quarter that the great hindrances to agreement have sprung. Doctrinal combats have raged and are still raging between parties who are alike indifferent to the geological difficulty, as it is called,-who, in fact, have oft-times been in full accordance with one another on all such accidental side-issues. The general proposition then that Divinity, properly so-called, is not a progressive science is supposed to remain undisturbed. We are still shut up to the conclusion that if society be destined to advance, it will do so, not as the result of any system of Theology, but in spite of it. For the only theology of which the Christian world happens to be cogni-. sant is a roofless ruin, a mass of incongruous and dislocated fragments, offering shelter or security to no honest wayfarer, and merely blocking up the way. It is true that here and there among the debris may be descried various gesticulators, each loudly declaring that the small heap. of ruins to the summit of which he has contrived to scramble constitutes. the entire temple and is the only part of the encumbered space on which the sun deigns to shine. To such indeed the chaos may for a while longer continue to furnish, as it has long furnished, a profitable market; but the on-rushing multitude are only anxious to see it all swept away. Then what a pitiable object does systematic theology present. Is this. the fulfilment of its Divine Author's intentions? Has it no more vitality than enables it to encumber the march of other forces? And is it merely permitted, like the hoary pillars of Stonehenge, to stand as a memento of obsolete witchery till a dilettanti generation shall take pity on the fallen stones and aspire to re-awaken the symmetrical integrity of an apostolic fane? Possibly to the amateur polemic such a solution may offer the refuge of repose; but not to the champions of truth. These are too ardent in pursuit to acknowledge defeat,-too impatient of a lie to tolerate delay. To men of this stamp, alliance with suspected partisans whose trumpet gives an uncertain sound is synonymous with paralysis. They demand to know whence the fountain of discord first arose ?when and how shall its troubled waters be stilled? Perhaps the speediest method of answering this question will be to begin by propounding another. Has not the entire train of thought. through which we have been now wading betrayed a taint of sophistry arising from the fact that we have been looking at Christianity in the light of a science instead of looking upon human culture in the light of Christianity? What if it should turn out that Christianity is embraced by a formula so brief, simple, and comprehensive, as to be incapable of further definition; and that the everlasting talk in its defence has generally gone hand in hand with the propagation of corruption? What if it should turn out to be susceptible of reduction to no formula whatsoever, but to reside solely in a well-spring of holy thought known only to its docile possessor? Is, or is not, Thomas Carlyle right in representing the Christian religion as having a deeper foundation than books, and as commending itself to the purest nature of man "on far other grounds than Essays on Miracles and by considerations infinitely deeper than would avail in any mere Trial by Jury ?" (See his Essay on Voltaire.) Voltaire's main battery was directed, as is well-known, against what theologians have termed "plenary inspiration;" and as to any other objections which may be included in his historical difficulty, the Chelsea sage thus concludes: For the rest, the question how Christianity originated is doubtless a high question;-resolvable enough, if we view only its surface, which was all that Voltaire saw of it; involved in sacred, silent, unfathomable depths if we investigate its interior meanings; which meanings indeed, it may be, every new age will develop to itself in a new manner and with new degrees of light. For the whole truth may be called infinite, and to man's eye discernible only in parts."—(Ibid.) Here, then, the question with which we started, as to the possibility of further advance, might seem to find its solution. Christianity, we are assured, is to exhibit new expansion in the coming age,-not to undergo a new interpretation, but to carry a broader significance and shed a brighter benison; and one important form of this benison must surely consist in unanimity of design. How all this is to be brought about may not unprofitably constitute our final inquiry; for the net result hitherto discoverable of all the artillery and machinery which have been worked in Christianity's defence is comprised in a chaos of moral belief. The wheels of governmental civilisation may, through the long ages, have been lubricated by the process, and occupation found for the logical and lexical faculties of a hundred rival chairs; but so far as the individual conscience of thinkers was concerned, what else than the aching of dull doubt could in the nature of things be the outcome of Articles of Belief, capacious Bodies of Divinity, exhaustive treatises on the Whole Duty of Man, the organisation and endowment of a privileged order of teachers, and to crown all, the placing of the entire affair under the ægis of the Constable's staff? All this then has seen its day, if we are really to advance. The dead-lock in which so much doctoring and cooking has landed us is a sufficient indication of past failure. But from failure may spring a renewed youth; and we are surely without excuse if, with such a protracted experimental process before our eyes, we cannot now discover the causes of that failure. To come to the point at once :-We conceive that the gregarious tendency of man has in all ages conspired with his love of ease and selfindulgence to hand over his moral responsibilities to a priestly caste, and thus to do all the most harassing part of his thinking by proxy.-That this emasculating influence has prevailed in Christian as well as in heathen societies. That in order to maintain themselves in office, the said priestly caste have in many instances corrupted, suppressed, or misinterpreted, the Christian standards.-That when a Faith is valued merely for the support which it renders to a worldly ecclesiastical system, rather than the system valued as the support of the Faith, that Faith is sure to become an instrument of mischief and sooner or later to pronounce its own condemnation. That all hierarchies have a tendency to mutual support, and are all equally debasing to the community.-That the remedy for these evils lies in the hands of every thinker who has sufficient fortitude to adopt the apostolic maxims, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, and let each be fully persuaded in his own mind." [Alford's version.] —And finally, That in the pursuit of external aids, one of the essential preliminaries is a crucial examination of the Sacred Text. This then is the office of the journal in which we now write, and a worthier one it is difficult to conceive. We are still of opinion, idolatrous and superstitious though some may deem it, that the Books are an infallible guide; and that everything new and beautiful, and every fresh development of the human conscience even when sublimated to its utmost capacity, can spring from no fountain which does not already sparkle in the sunlight of revelation, had we but eyes to discern it. If a study of the mind of the Spirit at once affectionate, courageous, and devout, such as has hitherto been pursued in these pages, should still result in No Advance, our very faith in "the depths" to which the apostle is ever and anon beckoning us, might stand in danger of an eclipse. On the contrary, that faith has, in numerous aspects, received the unequivocal earnest of a coming harvest. We are conscious of having provoked insatiable inquiry, disturbed many false securities, unearthed many disguises, awakened long-buried hopes, and quickened the aspiration after a more intelligent worship and a more rational service. As the conflict thickens, the sun arises, the shadows flee, and victory points to victory. "Who loveth Christ, all truth must seek. To anchor it to dreams and lies. And all who seek to save Had need be true and brave."* J. WAYLEN. I THE PARABOLIC TRINITY. WAS glad to see in the RAINBOW number for December, the subject of the fifteenth chapter of Luke illustrated on the principle advanced by Mr. Maude. There ought to be no question as to its correctness; for, as it treats of the reception of a backsliding child, and the conscious renewal of his relationship with God the Father and the Son, as intimated in verse 2, and particularised in the third element of the parable; it is the scriptural expression of the divine faithfulness and righteousness in responding to the fulness of the work of reconciliation. I have long viewed it in this light, and as I have given the subject no small consideration, I think I may be able to add to, without taking from the interest that Mr. Maude's paper will of course excite. 2. If the text of verse 3 be carefully observed, there will appear but one parable in three parts. Unlike the "parables" of Matt. xiii., where each of the four allusions to the development of the Kingdom of Heaven, according to the popular opinion, commences with the words "another parable;" the focus of instruction in "this parable" of Luke xv. is concentrated in the third phase, to which the other two are indispensable accessories. Inasmuch, however, as the threefold plies are of * From a beautiful poem in Good Words, styled, "In Dumblane Cathedral," to the memory of Archbishop Leighton. By Walter C. Smith. |