New-York tribune., 1873-05-23

inevitable consequence OF happiness VII N =
was no arrangement Of our own that 'no 'o"0.
going right IN conduct should give 'no S''n'0 ;
faction as the sense of doing well IN MS worH I'M
narts 70 the nainter or poet. All this we did not
make Nor is our dealing with it when 1t is made III
| orr own pover Not day passes but we nave OK
ner;ence of facilities and felcities, Suggestions anu
| inspirations which come we know not whence
| TIero 10 something about that knows better IN
regard To our doings than we know ourselves ohe
dav we are without spirit OF energy Tor conduct
| and another day with them. Lett 10 ourselves
we sink and perish; visited we lift up our
| heads and Hve.n So much is there meal
| culable so much that belongs to not ourselves, III
! conduct. The more attend to conduct, and the
more we value it, the more will this be felt Inc
not ourselves which is in us and in the world around
us. has always struck certain awe into the minus
| of men, To apply this to the Bible. At the time1n
| which the documents which compose the Old lest
ament were written, the not ourselves which
weighed upon the mind of Israel, and impressed II
with awe, was the not ourselves by which we get
the sense for righteousness and from which we hnd
the help to do right. This conception was the basis
of the name which under Moses the Hebrews gave
| to God. This name signifed - the Eternal, not
Jehovah, which without translation gives the idea
of o mere NEUROLOGICAL deity, nor Lord, which by
wrong translation gives the idea of a magnIhed ana
preternatural man.
There is dispute among philosophers in regard
to the origin of moral ideas The question IS one OF
interest for science but it is more important 10
recognize them as they now exist. They are 1orneo
| nov, and they were formed when the Hebrews gave
the name "The Eternal" to the power out OF them
selves. which pressed upon their spirit. They had
dwelt upon the thought Of conduct, and night ana
wrong. till the not ourselves which is in us and
| 10
for righteousness which makes for it uncbangeaby
and eternally and is therefore called The Eter-
nall"
| In the use of this name, there is not trace OF
| metaphysics The conception is one OF extreme
simplicity. Both of them, Mr.. Arnold AYERS, were
the product not of abstruse reasoning, but Oh eA-
| perience-experience in the region of conduct
Tbeologians render the Eternal" of Israel by self
| existent" and his mot ourselves" by the "abso-
luteD and ascribe to Israel their own subtletes'
According to them, Israel had his head filled with
the necessity of first cause, and therefore sald'
| "The Eternal.n Again they imagine him as LOOKING
out into the world and noting the marks OF design
| and adapt tion to his works and hence infeTriDg
the fatherhood of God. But all these fancies, says
Mr. Arnold come from an excessive turn for reason
ING without observing mems actual course of think
! ING and way of using words. Israel, when The
| EternalD was revealed to him, did not reason,
| nor infer lie had not begun 10 speculate,
| but felt and experienced. He personlhed
his Eternal no doubt; for he was
subject to strong emotion heiwas an orator ana
a poet; but in scientific sense, he did not predicate
personality of God. His praise of Creator was
gratitude for righteousness He began with expert
ence He knew from that " the not ourselves which
makes for righteousness" and knew how little we
| know about God besides.
The language of the Bible then, Mr.. Arnold main-
tains is literary, not scientific language Tentative
poetca not positive in its character, 1t is thrown
out so to speak, at object OF consciousness not
fully grasped, which inspired emotion. In msrela-
tion the language of figure and feeling is more to the
purpose than the language of literal fact and SCI
ence Hence the most that science can say about
God is that the word represents the stream OF ten
dency by which all things fulfill the law
| of their being. To speak of Personal First
CauseD is 10 go beyond what can be verified.
1t attempts too much. If we want certainty ON TINS
point we must be content with little. Mr.. ArDolds
| further illustration of this view is remarkable,
especially for q writer who is striving to place the
! truth of the Bible in clearer light No one Will
saw he argues that the existence OF personal hrst
cause is matter of certainty. IL may be or 1t may
not be- 1t belongs to the region of the unknowable
to which Mr. Herbert Spencer relegates all theolOg
|
their being and tend to fulfill it, is certain. No one
nretends to call il in question. Whether we call
1his tendency God OF not is matter of choice. But
| if we do call it God, we give the name of God to
| decided reality. Which, remarks Mr.. Arnold, is an
| advantage.
This notion in fact he continues, does enter into
the word God, in mems common use of IT. To
please God is to follow law Of things which is found
| in conscience irrespective Of our own arbitrary
| fancies This is the real power which makes for
| righteousness" and which is the greatest of all
realities. When Paul says it is business 20
| serve the living God" and when Epictetus says
| What do | want to acquant myself with the true
order of things, and comply with it," they mean one
and the same thing. They both mean that we should
! obey a tendency which is not ourselves but which
appears in our consciousness, by which things fulfill
the real law of their being
The actual germ of religious consciousness there
fore, out of which sprang the Hebrew name for God
| was a consciousness of " the not ourselves which
makes for righteousness" We may be convinced of
this by studying the Bible with the tact which can
come only from the cultivation of letters This is
the sum and substance of Mr.. Amolds most extraor-
dinary book in which he endeavors to mediate be-
tween literature and dogma He thinks that he
has accomplished his purpose when he has dissolved
the sublime and stern and mpassioned faith of the
Old Testament in regard to mans personal relations
with a personal God into the arid distractions of
Stoicism or the subtle theories of a recent phi
! lOsophv We have no concern in this place with Mr..
| Amolds private individual convictions concerning
the nature of the Deity. 1t is not our business
| 10 cOntrovert them, much less TO support them. A
frank and lucid exposition Of personal belief on the
most weighty of subjects must always be welcome to
the candid seeker after truth. No obstacle should