Page images
PDF
EPUB

dualism. It is only when thus held that it can afford any comfort in contemplating the evils of the world. It has been ingeniously argued by Dr. Edwin A. Abbott that, if we regard the devil as the author of the terrible calamities which afflict mankind, it will be easier for us to believe in the kindly providence of God.1 But unless the devil is an eternal and independent power antagonistic to God, I cannot see how our difficulties are relieved; for if he be only a fallen creature, as monotheism requires, then it would be possible to terminate his mischief at a single blow, either by annihilating or by depriving him of his power, and, for my own part, it is more satisfying to regard some things as mysteries which are insoluble by our present wisdom than to trace all evils to the machinations of an undefeated rebel, who has managed to appropriate so large a portion of our world. Such a doctrine gives no real explanation of evil, but only deludes the thoughtless by pushing back the problem to a time which is out of sight.

A much stronger argument might, I think, be founded on those strange bursts of moral evil to which men are liable, involuntary suggestions of wrongdoing which are quite inconsistent with the general bent of the life. At such times it may seem as though a fiend were getting hold of us, or malignantly whispering his own abominable thoughts. Perhaps experiences of this kind are largely responsible for the long continued belief in satanic agency. But we may refer these things to the remnants of our brute nature. As it is said that the nature of a savage, who has been brought up among civilized men, will sometimes break forth into temporary excesses, so in men who belong to races that have long been civilized there may be a short-lived reversion to the savage or brutal type, and it is more reasonable to ascribe these painful phenomena to our place in the scale of evolution than to the wily seductions of a wicked spirit.

1 See The Christian Reformer, Vol. I, April, 1886, and following numbers, where the question is discussed by several writers.

Since, then, the belief in the devil arose and flourished in superstitious times, and since his existence is neither proved by experience nor guaranteed by the necessary suppositions of the religious nature, this old and widespread conviction has quietly dropped out of our thought, and the language connected with it has become merely a convenient symbol of the whole external realm of moral evil.

The belief in demoniacal possession rests on somewhat different grounds. It was founded on abnormal physiological phenomena, in which apparently the sufferer himself frequently felt as though he were under the dominion of some alien person or even of a multitude of spirits who had taken up their abode in him. No educated man, I suppose, would now resort to such an explanation, and were it not for the cases recorded in the Gospels the belief in demons would be practically dead. But it is argued with some force that this subject is so closely connected with religion that we cannot suppose the great teacher to have been mistaken without dangerously impugning his authority.1 Accordingly some feel constrained to believe that at least in the time of Christ evil spirits were allowed to take possession of men, while others think that Jesus, in order to exercise his healing power, simply adapted his language to the belief of the sufferers and their friends. The latter supposition has, I am afraid, no evidence to sustain it; and if we reject the belief, we must admit that Jesus accepted in this instance the mistaken notions of his time. But this admission, though it is inconsistent with his omniscience or infallibility, attributes which he never claimed, does not derogate seriously from his spiritual authority. On the subject of demons there is little that is express or positive in his teaching. When he reasons on the subject, the spiritual substance of what he says might be otherwise expressed; and if we collected into an organic whole the great principles of his doctrine, the omission of all reference to demons could not

1 See Romanes, Thoughts on Religion, Note by the Editor, p. 180.

cause any obvious mutilation. We may, then, view this doctrine of demoniacal possession in the same light as that of the devil, and regard it as one of the temporary fringes of Christian thought, which would drop away when the real genius of Christianity had worked out its spiritual results.

It remains, then, that our doctrine of sin must be regarded as complete without bringing it into connexion with a fallen archangel, or with a host of malignant spirits whose only care is to ruin mankind.

PART IV

THE RELATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN AS AFFECTED BY HISTORICAL CONDITIONS

CHAPTER I

REASONS FOR SELECTING CHRISTIANITY

THE title which stands at the head of this division of our scheme of doctrine suggests a far wider range of inquiry than properly belongs to our present treatise. It might lead us to survey all the great religions of the world, and to consider what truths they inculcated, and what moral and spiritual tendencies they fostered, since they all had some characteristic influence in affecting for good or for evil the relations between God and man. And indeed from our modern point of view such an inquiry must seem to be entirely suitable to this discussion; for as our thought and sympathy have expanded, and our knowledge of various religions has increased, and as it has become apparent that Christianity, in the course of its history from the earliest times, has embraced many questionable doctrines and practices, it has been found impossible to divide religions into the one true and the many false. We have learned to believe the teaching of St. John, that the Divine Word, though often oppressed with darkness, has been the light of every man, an inward ideal struggling for realization, and leading mankind on towards the perfect thought of God. And so

we have to deal with a world-wide movement of many separated and hostile nations marching along converging lines towards one distant goal. Everywhere we recognize the presence of the Divine Leader, and catch the whispers of eternal Reason in prophet or sage or saint.

Nevertheless we select Christianity for exclusive treatment at present; and we do so for two reasons. In endeavouring to survey religions from the outside and to form an impartial judgment of their respective merits, we believe that Christianity stands at the head, enshrining within it the largest truth and the deepest spirituality. I should like to confirm this statement by the words of one whose knowledge of other religions was incomparably greater than my own, and who was a foremost pleader for an impartial and reverent study of them, as all containing their share of Divine truth. Professor Max Müller says, 'There are some portions of the Bible which, I believe, most Christians would not be sorry to miss. But that is nothing in comparison to the absurd and even revolting stories occurring in Sanskrit books which are called sacred. In that respect it is quite true that there is no comparison between our own sacred book, the New Testament, and the Sacred Books of the East."1 Again, 'With all that I have said in order to show that other religions also contain all that is necessary for salvation, it would be simply dishonest on my part were I to hide my conviction that the religion taught by Christ, and free as yet from all ecclesiastical fences and intrenchments, is the best, the purest, the truest religion the world has ever seen. When I look at the world as it is, I often say that we seem to be living two thousand years before, not after Christ.' And once more, 'We have subjected Christianity to the severest criticism and have not found it wanting. We have done what St. Paul exhorts every Christian to do, we have proved everything, we have not been afraid to compare Christianity with any other religion, and if we have retained it, we have 1 Gifford Lectures, Physical Religion, p. 203. 2 Ibid. p. 363 sq.

R

2

« PreviousContinue »