The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-04-14

! human lot to confirm him in the belief
4 that this was the worst of all possible
worlds. Amid the general distraction
! even pessimism has found adherents, and
a European version of Buddhism, promis-
! ing final relief from the misertes of con-
scious existence, has been accepted as an
anodyne by troubled minds
! Positivsm, the work of Comte. totally
/ discards belief in God and treats Theism
/ in all its forms as merely a mode of con
/ templating phenomena and a step in the
! course Of human progress. Yet the Posi-
! twist feels the need of a religion, and for
/ the worship Of God he substitutes the
worship of Humanity. Humanity is an
abstraction and an imperfect abstraction.
the course of the human race having not
yet been run. It cannot hear prayer or
respond in any way to alteration. The adj
herents of Comics religion. therefore, are
few. though those of his philosophy are
more numerous, and the religious Cont
lists appear to be rather enthusiasts of
Humanity than worshippers of the alb
straction.
y conspicuous though unfortunate place
among the defenders of revealed religion
in England was held by Mansel, professor
of moral and metaphysical philosophy at
Oxford and aftcrWard dean OF St Paurs.
Attempting in his hampton lectures to
make philosophy fall on its own sword he
fell on his own sword in the attempt He
maintained that God, being absolute,
could not be apprehended by the finite
intelligence of man. and that the finite
morality of man was not the same as the
absolute morality of God. Hence the
passages OF the Bible which seemed to
conflict with human morality really tran
seconded it and We're moral miracles. In
this Mansel was reviving the theory of
Archbishop King and Bishop Browne, who
had maintained that our knowledge of
God was not actual but merely analogous
The inference was promptly drawn by
Mansels opponents that what could not
be apprehended could not be matter Of
belief, and that he had, therefore. cut
away the possibility of belief in God
They even contended that he was too
anti-theistic since he did away with all
possibility OF reverence for the Unknown
To deny the identity of human with divine
morality and assert that what was i'm
moral with man was moral with God was
to sever the moral relation between God
and man, and, in effect. to destroy mo-
rality altogether We could conceive of
only one morality, and acts ascribed to
God which violated that morality must be
to us immoral IF. said John Stuart
Mil in the fervor of ethical protest. IAN
Almighty Being tells me that | shall call
that righteous which is wicked or go to
he'll, to hell 1 will go.
To meet the inroads of science on Bib
lical cosmogony. and cosmography re-
course was had to allegorical interDreta-
ton. But allegorical Interpretation can
not be forced upon a writer when it man.
nestly is not in his mind The writer or
writer's of Genesis undeniably intended
his OF their statements to be taken lit
orally. They meant that the earth was
really created in six days, as the Fourth
Commandment assumes; that the forma-
tion Of Eve out of a rib Of Adam, the
temptation Of Eve by the serpent, and all
the actions Of the anthropomorphic God
who walks in the garden at evening and
makes garments for Adam and Eve. were
actual events. To foist upon them ale
gorical Interpretation is to falsify their
testimony Besides, instead of having the
are left to interpret allegory at a ven
ture
Recourse has been had to the theory of
partial inspiration. admitting historical
and even moral errors in Scripture, but
setting them down to the human element
in the composition. which has to be rec
ognized without prejudice to that element
which remains divine. Such a collabora-
ton of infallibility with fallibility. both
historical and moral is a desperate by
pothesis, especially when the object was
to reveal vital truths to man. Nor could
man distinguish the human element from
the divine without being himself inspired
and thus above the need of revelation.
A condescension of the divine TO the prim-
tive shortcomings and alterations of hui
manity is monstrous hypothesis and op-
posed to any conceivable purpose Of rev.
citation.
Another line Of defence has been the
hypothesis, which may be called quasi
inspiration, reducing the inspiration of
the Scriptures to a supreme degree of the
same sort Of inspiration which we recog-
nfze in a great poet or a great author OF
any kind. This is mere playing with the
term inspiration" and little better than
an equivoque It may be-and we hope it
is true-that the Author of our being man
ifests himself in whatever is morally
grand and elevating. But this belief is
very different from a belief in the special
inspiration Of the Bible.
Evolution, again. which at first was re-
PEELED as atheIstic is now adopted by
solution Of all difficulties connected with