{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19567/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19567","id":"gutenberg_19567","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19567","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity"],"text":"Produced by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNO REFUGE BUT IN TRUTH\n\n\nBY\n\nGOLDWIN SMITH\n\n\n\n\nTORONTO\n\nWM. TYRRELL & COMPANY\n\n1908\n\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1907-1908\n\nBY THE\n\nSUN PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, CANADA, 1906\n\nBY\n\nGOLDWIN SMITH\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n   I. Man and His Destiny\n  II. New Faith Linked with Old\n III. The Scope of Evolution\n  IV. The Limit of Evolution\n   V. Explanations\n  VI. The Immortality of the Soul\n VII. Is there to be a Revolution in Ethics?\n\nThe Religious Situation\n\n\n[Transcriber's note: Because \"The Religious Situation\" had its own\ntitle and verso page, it was split into a separate e-book.]\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nThe letters collected in this volume appeared, with others, in the New\nYork _Sun_, to the Editor of which the thanks of the writer for his\ncourtesy are due.\n\nAppended is a paper on the same subjects commenting on one by the late\nMr. Chamberlain, since published in the _North American Review_.  To\nthe Editor of the _North American Review_ also the writer's\nacknowledgments are due.\n\nThere appeared to be sufficient interest in the discussion to call for\nthe publication of a small edition.\n\nThe age calls for religious truth.  Nine thousand persons communicated\ntheir cravings to the Editor of the London _Daily Telegraph_.  By their\nside the present writer places himself, not a teacher, but an inquirer,\nseeking for truth and open to conviction.\n\nThe position of the clergy, especially where tests are stringent, calls\nfor our utmost consideration.  But I submit that it would not be\nimproved by any attempt, such as seems to be made in a work of great\nability before me, to merge the theological in the social question.\nBenevolence may still be far below the Gospel mark, and the Christian\nfaith may suffer from its default.  But the increase of it and the\nmultiplication of its monuments since the world has been comparatively\nat peace cannot be denied; while of the distress which still calls for\nan increase of Christian effort, not the whole is due to default on the\npart of the wealthier classes.  Idleness, vice, intemperance,\nimprovident marriage, play their part.  Let us not be led away upon a\nfalse issue.\n\nThere is nothing for it but truth.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nMAN, AND HIS DESTINY.\n\n\nTime has passed since I first sought access to the columns of _The\nSun_, ranging myself with the nine thousand who in an English journal\nhad craved for religious light.  The movement which caused that craving\nhas gone on.  The Churches show their sense of it.  Even in that of\nRome there is a growth of \"Modernism,\" as it is called by the Pope,\nwho, having lost his mediaeval preservatives of unity, strives to quell\nModernism by denunciation.  Anglicanism resorts to a grand pageant of\nuniformity, beneath which, however, lurk Anglo-Catholicism,\nEvangelicism, and Liberalism, by no means uniform in faith.  The\nProtestant Churches proper, their spirit being more emotional, feel the\ndoctrinal movement less.  But they are not unmoved, as they show by\nrelaxation of tests and inclination to informal if not formal union, as\nwell as by increasing the aesthetic and social attractions of their\ncult.  Wild theosophic sects are born and die.  But marked is the\nincrease of scepticism, avowed and unavowed.  It advances probably\neverywhere in the track of physical science.  We are confronted with\nthe vital question what the world would be without religion, without\ntrust in Providence, without hope or fear of a hereafter.  Social order\nis threatened.  Classes which have hitherto acquiesced in their lot,\nbelieving that it was a divine ordinance and that there would be\nredress and recompense in a future state, are now demanding that\nconditions shall be levelled here.  The nations quake with fear of\nchange.  The leaders of humanity, some think, may even find it\nnecessary to make up by an increase of the powers of government for the\nlost influence of religion.\n\nBelief in the Bible as inspired and God's revelation of himself to man\nseems hardly to linger in well-informed and open minds.  Criticism,\nhistory, and science have conspired to put an end to it.  The\nauthorship of the greater part, including the most important books, is\nunknown.  The morality of the Old Testament differs from that of the\nNew, and though in advance of the world generally in those days, in\nmore places than one, as in the case of the slaughter of the\nCanaanites, shocks us now.  There are errors, too, in the Old Testament\nof a physical kind, such as those in the account of creation and the\nbelief in the revolution of the sun.  Of the New Testament the most\nimportant books, the first three Gospels, our main authorities for the\nlife of Christ, are manifestly grafts upon a stock of unknown\nauthorship and date.  They betray a belief in diabolical possession, a\nlocal superstition from which the author of the Fourth Gospel, who\nevidently was not a Palestinian Jew, was free.  There is discrepancy\nbetween the first three Gospels and the fourth, notably as to the day\nand consequent significance of Christ's celebration of the Passover.\nIt is incredible that God in revealing himself to man should have\nallowed any mark of human error to appear in the revelation.\n\nWe have, moreover, to ask why that on which the world's salvation\ndepended should have been withheld so long and communicated to so few.\n\nThere remains of the Old Testament, besides its vast historical\ninterest, much that morally still impresses and exalts us.  Of the New\nTestament there remains the moral ideal of Christ, our faith in which\nno uncertainty as to the authors of the narratives, or mistrust of them\non account of the miraculous embellishment common in biographies of\nsaints, need materially affect.  The moral ideal of Christ conquered\nthe ancient world when the Roman, mighty in character as well as in\narms, was its master.  It has lived through all these centuries, all\ntheir revolutions and convulsions, the usurpation, tyranny, and\nscandals of the Papacy.  The most doubtful point of it, considered as a\npermanent exemplar, is its tendency, not to asceticism, for Christ came\n\"eating and drinking,\" but to an excessive preference for poverty and\nantipathy to wealth which would arrest human progress and kill\ncivilization.  We have, however, a Nicodemus and a Joseph of Arimathea,\nas well as a Dives and a Lazarus.  Nothing points to a Simeon Stylites.\nSelf-denial, though not asceticism proper, is a necessary part of the\nlife of a wandering preacher, which also precluded the exhibition of\ndomestic virtues.  The relation of Jesus with his family seems to have\nbeen hardly domestic; we have no record of any communication between\nhim and Joseph; in his last hour he provides a retreat for his mother.\n\nWe cannot appeal from reason to faith.  Faith is confidence, and for\nconfidence there must be reason.  The faith to which appeal is made is\nin fact an emotion rather than an intellectual conviction.\n\nBut apart from the Bible, have we any revelation of the nature, the\nwill, the unity, the existence of deity?  It must apparently be owned\nthat, though we tremble at the thought, we have none.  We are left upon\nthis shore of time gazing into infinity and eternity without clue or\nguidance except such as we can gain either by inspection of our own\nnature with its moral indications and promptings or by studying the\norder of the universe.\n\nWe find in man, it is true, a natural belief in deity, which we might\nthink was implanted by his creator; but it is not found in all men, and\nin the lower races it assumes forms often so low and grotesque that we\ncannot imagine its origin to have been divine.  Between the God of the\nChristian and the god of the red Indian there is, saving mere force, no\naffinity whatever.  This we must frankly own to ourselves.  The god of\nthe Mexican demanded human sacrifice.\n\nOn earth the creative power seems to be, as it were, contending against\nitself.  Good of every kind is in conflict with evil.  Slowly and\nfitfully, with many reverses, good seems to prevail.  Humanity as a\nwhole advances, and if we could believe in its collective advance\ntoward an ultimate perfection which all who have contributed to the\nadvance should share, we might have a solution of the great problem.\nBut of this we have no certain assurance.  Multitudes come into being\nwho to progress can contribute nothing.  There is evil of all kinds\nthat so far as we can see can be followed by no good effect.  Plague\nand famine, with a great part of the common misfortunes of human life,\nseem merely evil.  So, plainly, do the sufferings of animals, sometimes\non a terrible scale and apparently quite useless.  As long as effort,\neven painful, is the price of perfection the price must be paid and we\nacquiesce.  But in innumerable cases there appears to be no room for\nthat explanation.  The rocks display the fossil remains of whole races\nof primeval animals produced apparently only to become extinct.  Of the\nearth itself, man's destined habitation, large portions are utterly\nuninhabitable.  The legendary war between the powers of good and evil,\nGod and Satan, Ormuzd and Ahriman, was a fable naturally devised,\nthough the birth of the two powers and the division of existence\nbetween them is inconceivable.  Can anything like a clear line be drawn\nbetween good and evil?\n\nEffort and resistance to temptation may seem necessary ingredients in\nthe formation of a virtuous character.  So far we may think we have the\nclue.  But what is to be said of the myriads of cases in which virtuous\neffort seems to be morally impossible; in the case, for instance, of\nbarbarous or corrupt and depraved tribes or nations in which general\nexample is evil?  What is to be said of deaths in infancy, when there\nhas been no time for character to be formed?  To suppose that the\nCreator could not have helped it, that this was his only way to the\nproduction of virtuous beings, is to deny his omnipotence.  A Satan\nwith horns and hoofs, struggling against the power of good, used to be\nthe solution of the problem, but belongs to the simple religion of the\npast.\n\nA plan of which we are ignorant, but of which the end will be good, is\napparently our only explanation of the mystery.  The earth is\nbeautiful; we have human society with all its interests; we have\nfriendship, love, and marriage; we have art and music.  We must trust\nthat the power which will determine the future reveals itself in these.\n\nThe belief that man has an immortal soul inserted into a mortal body\nfrom which, being, as Bishop Butler phrases it, \"indiscerptible,\" it is\nparted at death, has become untenable.  We know that man is one; that\nall grows and develops together.  Imagination cannot picture a\ndisembodied soul.  The spiritualist apparitions are always corporeal.\n\nFree will surely we unquestionably have.  Necessarianism seems to\nassume that in action there is only one element, motive.  But\nreflection seems to show that there are two elements, motive and will;\nand of this duality we seem to be sensible when we waver in action or\nfeel compunction for what we have done.  Is it possible to explain\nmoral repentance or morality at all without assuming the freedom of the\nwill?  Habit may enslave; but to be enslaved is once to have been free.\n\nWhat is conscience?  When we repent morally are we looking only to the\nimmediate consequences of the act, or are we also looking to the injury\ndone to our moral nature?  If the latter, does it not appear that there\nis something in us not material and pointing to a higher life?  Much of\nus, no doubt, is material.  Memory and imagination often act unbidden\nby the will; imagination often when we are asleep.  We may find a\nmaterial element even in the character as moulded by physical or social\ncircumstance or need.  But is there not also a conscious effort of\nself-improvement not dependent on these?  That all is material, nothing\nspiritual, does not seem yet to have been proved.\n\nIt is by close examination of our own nature and its workings, perhaps,\nthat we are most likely to solve the enigma of our being.  The word\nspiritual surely has a meaning; it suggests self-culture not only for\nthe present but for a higher state.\n\nEvolution is a great discovery.  But evolution cannot have evolved\nitself, nor does there seem to have been an observed case of it.\nPoints of similarity between the ape and man are not proofs of\ntransition.  Has any animal given, like man, the slightest sign of\nself-improvement or conscious tendency to progress?\n\nThe putting on by the mortal of immortality, it must however be owned,\nbaffles conception.  In the apologue of Dives and Lazarus the dead\nappear still in their human forms and talk to each other across the\ngulf, apparently narrow, which divides the abode of the damned from\nthat of the blessed.  This clearly is the work of imagination.  Nor,\nseeing the infinite gradations of character and the frequent mixture of\ngood and evil in the same man, can we understand how a clear line can\nbe drawn between those who are admitted to heaven and those who are\ncondemned to hell.\n\nMere difficulties of sense or intellect on mundane questions might be\nmet by appeal to the mysteries of a universe which may conceivably be\nother in reality than to us it appears.  But it is to be supposed that\ndivine beneficence would give its creatures all powers of intelligence\nnecessary to their moral welfare, above all those entailing reward or\npunishment in a future life.\n\nWhat is to be said in this connection of man's aesthetic nature, of his\nsense of beauty and melody?  Can they be the offspring of material\nevolution?  As they meet no material need, we might almost take them\nfor the smile of a beneficent and sympathizing spirit.  The basis of\nthe gifts no doubt is physical, but we cannot easily understand how\nthey can have been developed by a purely physical process.\n\nTo ghosts and apparitions of all kinds, spiritualism included, we bid a\nlong farewell.\n\nWe turn to the universe, of which while we believed in the Incarnation\nour earth was the central and all-important scene, but in which it now\nholds the place only of a minor planet.  We see order and grandeur\ninexpressible, but with some apparent signs of an opposite kind--the\nconflagration of a star, a moon bereft of atmosphere, errant comets and\naerolites.  In our own abode we have variations of weather, apparently\naccidental and sometimes noxious, atmospheric influences which beget\nplagues, ministers of destruction such as earthquakes and volcanoes.\nThe plan, if plan there is, transcends our sense and comprehension.\n\nStill, be it ever borne in mind, of the human race, progress, moral and\nmental, is the unique characteristic, and the one which suggests a\ndivine plan to be fulfilled in the sum of things.  It distinguishes man\nvitally and immeasurably from all other creatures.  Fitful, often\narrested, sometimes reversed, it does not cease.  It may point to an\nultimate solution of the enigma of our chequered being such as shall\n\"justify the ways of God to man.\"  This may be still the world's\nchildhood, and the faith which seems to be collapsing may be only that\nof the child.\n\nWhatever trouble, moral, social, or political, a great change of belief\nmay bring, there is surely nothing for it but to seek and embrace the\ntruth.  Whatever may become of our creeds and of the dogma, so plainly\nhuman in its origin, of some of them, we have still the Christian ideal\nof character, which has not yet been seriously challenged, does not\ndepend on miracle or dogma for its claim to acceptance, and may\ncontinue to unite Christendom.\n\nSuperstition can be of no use morally; even politically it can be of\nlittle use, and not for long.  In the Christian ideal we still have a\nrule of life.  Robinson, the good Puritan pastor, taking leave of the\nmembers of his flock who were embarking for America, bade them not\nconfine themselves to what they had learned from his teaching, but to\n\"be ready to receive whatever truth might be made known to them from\nthe written word of God.\"  If there is a God, are not all truths,\nscientific, historic, or critical, as much as anything written in the\nBible, the word of God?\n\n\nSeptember 20th, 1908.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nNEW FAITH LINKED WITH OLD.\n\n\nA preacher cites a lecture of mine, delivered nearly half a century\nago, a part of which has had the honour of being embalmed in the work\nof that most eminent theologian, the late Dean Westcott, on \"The\nHistoric Faith.\"  I turned rather nervously to the lecture to see what\nit was that I had said.  Not that I should have been much shocked had I\nfound that my opinions had even been completely changed.  Since that\nlecture was delivered science and criticism have wrought a revolution\nin theological belief, likely, as it appears to me, to be regarded\nhereafter as the most momentous revolution in history.  With the whole\npassage cited by Dean Westcott I will not burden the columns of _The\nSun_, but part of it is this:--\n\n\"The type of character set forth in the Gospel history is an absolute\nembodiment of love, both in the way of action and affection, crowned by\nthe highest possible exhibition of it in an act of the most\ntranscendent self-devotion to the interest of the human race.  This\nbeing the case, it is difficult to see how the Christian morality can\never be brought into antagonism with the moral progress of mankind; or\nhow the Christian type of character can ever be left behind by the\ncourse of human development, lose the allegiance of the moral world, or\ngive place to newly emerging and higher ideals.  This type, it would\nappear, being perfect, will be final.  It will be final not as\nprecluding future history, but as comprehending it.  The moral efforts\nof all ages, to the consummation of the world, will be efforts to\nrealize this character and to make it actually, as it is potentially,\nuniversal.  While these efforts are being carried on under all the\nvarious circumstances of life and society, and under all the various\nmoral and intellectual conditions attaching to particular men, an\ninfinite variety of characters, personal and national, will be\nproduced; a variety ranging from the highest human grandeur down to the\nvery verge of the grotesque.  But these characters, with all their\nvariations, will go beyond their sources and their ideal only as the\nrays of light go beyond the sun.  Humanity, as it passes through phase\nafter phase of the historical movement, may advance indefinitely in\nexcellence; but its advance will be an indefinite approximation to the\nChristian type.  A divergence from that type, to whatever extent it may\ntake place, will not be progress, but debasement and corruption.  In a\nmoral point of view, in short, the world may abandon Christianity, but\nit can never advance beyond it.  This is not a matter of authority, or\neven of revelation.  If it is true, it is a matter of reason as much as\nanything in the world.\"\n\nI went on to dwell on the freedom of the Christian type of character as\nembodied in the Founder of Christianity from peculiarities of nation,\nrace, or sex which might have derogated from its perfection as a type\nof pure humanity.  In those days I believed in revelation.  But my\nargument was not from revelation, but from ethics and history.  The\nundertaking of Christianity to convert mankind to a fraternal and\npurely beneficent type of character and enfold men in a universal\nbrotherhood, baffled and perverted although the effort has been in\nvarious ways, appears to have no parallel in ethical history.  There is\nnone in the Greek philosophers or the Roman Stoics, high as some of\nthem may soar in their way.  Aristotle's ideal man is perfect in its\nstatuesque fashion, but it is not fraternal; it is not even\nphilanthropic.  Nor does the Christian character or the effort to\ncreate it depart with belief in dogma.  Do not men who have totally\nrenounced the dogma still cultivate a character in its gentleness and\nbenevolence essentially Christian?\n\nTheory, I have none.  I plead, on a footing with the nine thousand\ncorrespondents of the _Daily Telegraph_ of London, for thoroughgoing\nallegiance to the truth, emancipation of the clerical intellect from\ntests, and comprehension in the inquiry not only of the material, but\nof the higher or spiritual nature of man, including his aspiration to\nprogress, of which there cannot be said to be any visible sign in\nbrutes, whatever rudiments of human faculties and affections they may\notherwise display.  But though I have no theory, I cannot help having a\nconception, and my present conception of the historical relation of\nChristianity and its Founder to humanity and human progress does not\nseem to me to be so different from what it was half a century ago as\nwhen I came to compare the two I expected to find it.  It seems to me\nstill that history is a vast struggle, with varying success, toward the\nattainment of moral perfection, of which, if the advent of Christianity\nfurnished the true ideal, it may be deemed in a certain sense a\nrevelation.  Assuredly it may if in this most mysterious world there\nis, beneath all the conflict of good with evil, a spirit striving\ntoward good and destined in the end to prevail.  If there is not such a\nspirit, if all is matter and chance, we, can only say, What a spectacle\nis History!\n\n\nJanuary 20th, 1907.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nTHE SCOPE OF EVOLUTION.\n\n\nIn discussing the ground of ethical science some writers appear to hold\nthat evolution explains all; but surely the illustrious discoverer of\nevolution never carried his theory beyond the material part of man.  He\nnever professed to trace the birth of ethics, idealization, science,\npoetry, art, religion, or anything spiritual in the anthropoid ape.\nThere is here, apparently, not only a step in development but a _saltus\nmortalis_, a dividing and impassable gulf.\n\nOur bodily senses we share with the brutes.  Some brutes excel us in\nquickness of sense.  They have the rudiments, but the rudiments only,\nof our emotions and affections.  The mother bird loves her offspring,\nbut only until they are fledged.  The dog is attached to the master who\nfeeds him, commands him, and if he offends whips him; but without\nrespect to that master's personal character or deserts.  He is as much\nattached to Bill Sykes as he would be to the best of men.  The workings\nof what we call instinct in beavers, bees, and ants are marvellous and\nseem in some ways almost to outstrip humanity, but they are not, like\nhumanity, progressive.  The ant and the bee of thousands of years ago\nare the ant and the bee of the present day.  The bee is not even taught\nby experience that her honey will be taken again next year.  Still less\nis it possible to detect anything like moral aspiration or effort at\nimproving the community in a moral way.  Beavers are wonderfully\nco-operative, but they have shown no tendency to establish a church.\n\nOf the science of ethics the foundation surely is our sense of the\ndifference between right and wrong, and of our obligation to choose the\nright and avoid the wrong for our own sake and for the sake of the\nsociety of which we are members and the character of which reacts upon\nourselves.  This sense seems to me to be authoritative, whatever its\norigin may be.  Different conceptions of right and wrong may to some\nextent prevail under different circumstances, national or of other\nkinds, giving room for different ethical systems, as a comparison of\nthe ethics of the Gospel with those of Aristotle shows.  Still, there\nis always the sense of the difference between right and wrong and of\nthe necessity, individual and social, of embracing the first and\neschewing the second.  If the Christian system is found by experience\nto show itself essentially superior to all other systems and to satisfy\nindividually and socially, it is supreme, and is presumably the dictate\nof the author of our being, if an author of our being there is.\n\nThe necessarian theory, which in this connection is still advanced or\nimplied, largely accepted as it has been, I cannot help thinking is\nreally traceable to an oversight.  If in action there were only one\nfactor, that is to say, the motive, the action would seem to be\nnecessary and to be traceable in its origin apparently back to the\nnebula.  But surely there are two factors, the motive and the volition.\nOf the second factor in actions which are matters of course we are not\nconscious; where there is a conflict of motives or hesitation of any\nkind, we are.  Huxley at one time held that man was an automaton.  I\nbelieve my illustrious friend afterward receded from that position.\nYet on the necessarian theory automatons we must apparently be.\n\n\nFebruary 10th, 1907.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nTHE LIMIT OF EVOLUTION.\n\n\nYour last correspondent on the subject of my letters treats the\nquestion lightly.  Perhaps he is young, enjoying the morning of life\nand thinking little of its close.  On the mind of a student of history\nis deeply impressed the sadness of its page; the record of infinite\nmisery and suffering as well as depravity, all apparently to no purpose\nif the end is to be a physical catastrophe.  Comtism, while it bids us\ndevote and sacrifice ourselves to the future of humanity, can\napparently hold out nothing more.\n\nI accept evolution, if it is the verdict of science as to the origin of\nphysical species, the human species included; though it certainly seems\nstrange that, the chances being so numerous as they are, no distinct\nease of evolution should have taken place within our ken.  But the\ntheory apparently does not pretend to account for the development of\nman's higher nature.  That there is a gap in the continuity of\ndevelopment or any supernatural intervention has never been suggested\nby me; but it does appear that there is an ascent such as constitutes\nan essential difference and calls for other than physical explanation.\n\nIn matter, said Tyndall, is the potentiality of all life.  Matter is\nwhat we discern by our bodily senses.  What assurance have we that the\naccount of the universe and of our relations to it given us by our\nbodily senses is exhaustive, or that the moral conscience may not have\nanother source?\n\nApart from anything more distinctly spiritual, where do we get the\nfaculty of idealization?  Is it traceable to physical sense?\n\nUnless the moral conscience has a source higher than mere physical\nevolution, what is to deter a man in whom criminal propensities are\nstrong from indulging them so long as he can do so with impunity?\nEccelino had a lust of cruelty.  Was he wrong in indulging it, so long\nas he had the power, which he might have had, with common prudence, to\nthe end of his life?\n\nI speak, as I have always said, from the ranks; and I am not presuming\nto criticise Darwin's theory as an explanation of the origin and nature\nof the physical man.  But if the theory is to be carried farther, and\nwe are to be told that man's higher attributes and his moral conscience\nhave no source or authority other than physical evolution, we may\nfairly ask to see our way.\n\n\nMarch 17th, 1907.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nEXPLANATIONS.\n\n\nInterest is evidently felt in questions which I have been permitted to\ntreat in _The Sun_, and after the notices and the queries which I have\nreceived there are points on which I should like, if you will allow me,\nto set myself right.\n\nI.  The leaning to orthodoxy with which I am gently reproached goes not\nbeyond a conviction, drawn from the study not of theology but of\nhistory, that of all the types of character hitherto produced the\nChristian type, founded on a belief in the fatherhood of God and the\nbrotherhood of man, appears to be the happiest and the best.  At its\nbirth it encountered alien and hostile influences; Alexandrian\ntheosophy, Oriental asceticism, Byzantine imperialism.  Later it\nencountered the worst influence of all, that of theocracy engendered by\nthe ambition of the monk Hildebrand.  Theocracy, not Catholicism or\nanything spiritual, has been the source of the crimes of the Papacy; of\nthe Norman raids upon England and Ireland; the civil wars kindled by\nPapal intrigue in Germany; the extermination of the Albigenses; the\nInquisition; Alva's tribunal of blood in the Netherlands; the massacre\nof St. Bartholomew; the persecution of the Huguenots; Jesuitism and the\nevils, moral and political, as well as religious, which Jesuitism has\nwrought.  Through all this, and in spite of it all, Christian character\nhas preserved itself, and it is still the basis of the world's best\ncivilization.  Much that is far outside the Christian creed is still\nChristian in character and traceable to a Christian source.\n\nII.  I fully admit that society can be regulated by a law framed for\nmutual protection and general well-being without the religious\nconscience or other support than temporal interest.  But if individual\ninterest or passion can break this law with impunity, as often they\ncan, what is there to withhold them from doing it?  What is the value\nof a clean breast?\n\nIII.  The fatherhood of God seems to be implied in the Christian belief\nin the brotherhood of man.  By that phrase I meant to characterise\nChristianity, not to embark upon the question of Theism.  It does not\nseem possible that we should ever have direct proof through human\nobservation and reasoning of the existence of Deity or of the divine\naim and will.  To some power, and apparently to some moral power, we\nmust owe our being.  We can hardly believe that creation planned itself\nor that the germ endowed itself with life and provision for\ndevelopment.  But what can have been the aim of creation?  What can\nhave led to the production of humanity, with all the evil and suffering\nwhich Omniscience must have foreseen?  What was there which without\nsuch a process mere fiat, so far as we can see, could not produce?  The\nonly thing that presents itself is character, which apparently must be\nself-formed and developed by resistance to evil.  We have had plenty of\n\"evidences\" in the manner of Paley or the Bridgewater Treatises, met by\nsceptical argument on the other side; but has inquiry yet tried to\nfathom the mystery of human existence?\n\nIV.  One thing for which I have earnestly pleaded is the abolition of\nclerical tests, which are in fact renunciations of absolute loyalty to\ntruth.  Would this involve the dissolution of the Churches?  Nothing\nsurely can put an end to the need of spiritual association or to the\nusefulness of the pastorate so long as we believe in spiritual life.  I\nthink I have seen the most gifted minds, such as might have done us the\nhighest service in the quest of truth, condemned to silence by the\ntests.\n\n\nMay 5th, 1907.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nTHE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.\n\n\nThere appeared the other day in the Washington _Herald_ a notable\nletter by Mr. Paul Chamberlain on Immortality.  It took the same line\nas an essay on the same question by Mr. Chamberlain's late father,\nwhich I had read in manuscript.  Both the letter and the essay are on\nthe negative side of the question, which, in the essay at least, is\npronounced the happier and better view, as conducive to unselfishness.\nUnselfishness, it must surely be, of a supreme kind.  Annihilation is\nnot a cheerful word.  Bacon has a highly rhetorical passage flouting\nthe fear of death.  His was probably not a very loving nature, nor does\nhe seem to have thought of the parting from those we love.\n\nThe life of the late Mr. Chamberlain was evidently happy as well as\ngood.  That of his son, I have no doubt, is the same.  But of the lot\nof the myriads whose lives, through no fault of their own, are, or in\nthe course of history have been, unhappy, often most miserable, what is\nto be said?  If for them there is no compensation, can we believe that\nbenevolence and justice rule the world?  If the world is not ruled by\nbenevolence and justice, what is our ground of hope?\n\nThe negative conclusion rids us, it is true, of the Dantean Hell, which\npaints the Deity as incomparably worse than the worst Italian tyrant,\nand, as it is to be everlasting, concedes the final victory to evil.\n\nWe discard all ghost stories and spiritualist apparitions as at most\nsigns of a general craving.  We resign all reasoning like that of\nButler, who describes the soul as indiscerptible, assuming that it\nexists separately from the body.  Nor can we be said to have anything\nthat bears the character of Revelation.  That the Founder of\nChristianity looked for a future life, with its rewards and\npunishments, is evident.  But he brought no special message, lifted not\nthe curtain of mystery, did nothing to clear our minds upon the\nsubject.  His apologue of Dives and Lazarus shows that to Him as to us\nthe other world was a realm of the imagination.\n\nIs there anything in man not physical, or apparently explained and\nlimited by the transient conditions and necessities of his present\nstate, anything which gives an inkling of immortality?  Our utilitarian\nmorality is the offspring and adjunct of our condition here.  But is\nthere not an aspiration to character which points to something more\nspiritual and higher than conformity to the utilitarian code?  Heroism\nand self-sacrifice are not utilitarian.\n\nWe can hardly allow the investigation to be closed by the mere mention\nof the talismanic formulary Evolution.  There may be something still to\nbe said on that subject.  Evolution cannot have evolved itself, nor\ndoes it seem capable of infallible demonstration.  It no doubt\npostulates vast spaces of time for its action.  But within the space of\ntime of which we in any way have knowledge, apparently no case of\nspontaneous evolution has taken place.  Rudimentary likeness between\nthe frame of the ape and that of man seems hardly in itself a proof of\nthe generation of man from the ape.\n\nOn no subject, however, does one who is not a man of science or a\nphilosopher feel more intensely his deficiency, and his need of having\nhis paths lighted by the perfectly free while reverent inquiry, to pray\nfor which has been the object of these letters.\n\n\nAugust 11th, 1907.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nIS THERE TO BE A REVOLUTION IN ETHICS?\n\n\nA revolution in theology and in our conception of the government of the\nuniverse such as we are undergoing is sure to draw with it a\nrevolutionary movement in ethics.  There lies before me a review\narticle giving an account of a number of books on ethics which are\nwidely at variance, it appears, with the ethics of Christianity.  The\ngeneral tendency of the authors seems to be to reject altogether the\nChristian type of character as artificial and weak, and to aim at\nsubstituting for it something more robust and, it is assumed, more in\naccordance with nature.  One theorist is represented as regarding\nhumanity in its present form only as transient material out of which is\nto be wrought the \"Superman.\"  In what respect, so far as our\nconceptions extend, has Christian ethic failed?  It has given birth to\nthe patriot as well as to the martyr, to the virtues of the softer as\nwell as to those of the stronger sex.  Communities which have kept its\nrules, as well as individuals, have been happy.\n\nThe Christian ideal of character and life went essentially unchanged\nthrough the violence of the Middle Ages and the vices of the Papacy.\nIt was somewhat perverted by asceticism; but it was radically the same\ncharacter in Anselm or in St. Louis, as it is in their counterparts\nnow.  Nor does it seem to lose by renunciation of theological dogma.\nThe moral principles and aspirations of good free thinkers or\nPositivists remain still essentially Christian.\n\nThe ethical ideal which is now being set up against the Christian\napparently, is that of the Greeks.  In literature and art Greece, or\nrather Athens, or, to speak still more correctly, a limited number of\nfree citizens in Athens, was pre-eminent: but its pre-eminence, if we\nmay trust its own moralists, hardly extended to morals.\n\n\nMay 3rd, 1908.","title":"No Refuge but in Truth","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":6169}