themselves. They were not of the Canaanite race, nor had they, in the Sinaitic and Idumean deserts over which they roved, fallen into the vices which defiled the cities of Palestine. They were descendants of Esau, cousins of Israel, and no better or worse than the ordinary Bedouin of to-day. It is quite unhistorical to resort to the subterfuge of their exceeding wickedness. They were rovers living by their swords, like Esau himself, and simply a pest on the borders of agricultural settlements. So much in the interest of that candor and honesty, the neglect of which, now if ever, in Sunday school instruction deserves rebuke. When the literal construction of the phrase, "Thus saith the Lord," would oblige us to affirm that God directed an act of revenge as such, it is time to modify our theories of inspiration, "For fear divine philosophy Should go beyond her mark, and be Saul was unquestionably not the man for the station to which be was called, except for the initial period in which, as a rude and mighty fighter, he gathered up the prostrate energies of the nation into a successful war for independence. More than independence was needed, a work of construction and consolidation, in which beside the qualities of a soldier, those of a statesman and a churchman were requisite, and were gloriously supplied by his successor. Saul, as the record states, did well the preparatory work of fighting, which made David's work as an organizer and institution-builder possible. But no student of the characters of the two men can regret that the one was displaced by the other. The course which Samuel took undoubtedly brought about the change, rousing a temper in Saul which drove David, his ablest lieutenant, into exile, and brought the king, thus weakened, to his defeat and death. But our approbation of the result does not require approbation of the actual events that produced it, except upon the assumption that whatever a prophet does must be right, and that whatever a prophet declares to be of God is undoubtedly Divine. The anathema of Samuel on Saul's shortcoming in the work of butchery is not the only instance in history, in which an un compromising but narrow religious spirit has ascribed the dic tate of its own austerity to the direction of the Holy Ghost. It is wonderful, yet reassuring, to find blended with the fanatical and imperious rigor of this father of the prophets, the purest moral truths, such as the undivided heart toward God, the worship of God by obedience rather than ceremonies, the heart rather than the appearance the object of the Divine scrutiny. We recognize here, in an early stage of the religious evolution, the same Divine Spirit brooding over the embryonic faith of Israel, which appears in the Christ, bringing these same truths to their proper place in a perfected spiritual manhood. In the development of the lily from the swamp the one significant fact is the life, one in the bloom and in the root, whose outcome is from mire into beauty and fragrance. In the historical evolution of the faith of Israel from its raw to its perfected form in Christianity, the fact significant of a Divine direction and control is the development, out of a chaotic mixture at which the skeptic takes hasty offence, of the light and order of moral truth. Incompetent as Saul was for higher work than that which he so well achieved, candor must admit that fanaticism rather than reason furnished the recorded ground on which he was thrust aside. At least, we should so judge in any other record than that which has been so viciously misconstrued as the Old Testament. Advantageous to the hope of Israel as the change proved, it is not the only case in the sacred history in which the Divine counsel has been fulfilled not only in spite of, but by means of, the mistakes,—the intolerance, the ignorance, the passion, of conscientious but erring men. We have to sum up our strictures upon the Sunday school teaching on this passage of the sacred history by remarking, simply, that it fails to comprehend the essential character of the Divine Revelation, as a growing revelation, not growing down from heaven upon men, nor merely growing in the world beside men, but growing, first, within men, by its fuller disclosures of the Divine character more and more effectively distinguishing the Divine voice from all other voices within the breast, and teaching its Samuels to discriminate more clearly between what God says in fact and what they imagine him to say. The decisive and distinguishing characteristic of Divine inspiration is its quality of moral power for a Divine work of illumination and regeneration. In this, not in any alleged infallibility of a literary record, but in its continuous, efficacious, expansive energy, as demonstrated, in Israel alone among the nations, by a progressive riddance from superstitions and sins and a corresponding development of truth and righteousness, till the work is crowned by the advent of the Son of God, and in the diffusion of the finally purified faith of Israel as the religion. of mankind,—is its impregnable sign and proof. The teacher who has not grasped these fundamental principles is in danger of so confounding the word of God with the word of human ignorance or passion, that it will be a marvel if he do not in the end promote the skepticism which he deplores. His pupils, in after-contact with critics and doubters, are' dangerously exposed to that keen though shallow form of unbelief, which is founded on the fallacies of well meaning but mistaken Christian teaching. ARTICLE VII.-THE SUBSTITUTES FOR CHRISTIANITY PROPOSED BY COMTE AND SPENCER. ONE satisfactory method of investigating a proposed theory, is to apply to it the tests used by its advocates to invalidate an opposing theory. It is logic as well as "sport, to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard." The argumentum ad hominem becomes an argument of general value, in case the test proposed is a just and accurate test, capable of universal application. The issue is made complete "if the test in question, after being used to invalidate the theory of its author, is then successfully applied to the theory or position he assails. In the present Article, inquiry is made as to whether either Comte or Spencer has proposed a criterion by which the relative superiority of Positivism, Cosmism, and Christianity, can be judged. A test proposed by Comte is treated as inapplicable, because it assumes the point under discussion. This test is known as the famous "law of the three stages," which regards progress as marked by three modes of philosophizing the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive. A test proposed by Spencer is treated as a correct one and of universal validity as applied to religious systems. It is his much ridiculed, but philosophically profound, statement of the Law of Evolution, which, to use his own technical language, necessitates a change from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity. The result of the investigation is to show that not only the system of Comte, but Spencer's system as well, is defective, when judged by the Spencerian test, while Christianity alone satisfies its requirements. The question as thus made up, is the question of our times. More specifically, it is the question between CHRISTIANITY AND ITS MODERN RIVALS. "Archaic," "obsolete," "outgrown," "a worn chrysalis," are the designations applied to Christianity in certain intellectual coteries of the day. Proof that the chrysalis must perish, is found in the bursting forth of a more perfect form of life. The old is not old till it has been replaced by the new. As Christianity triumphed in the first century by the expulsive power of a new vitality superseding both heathenism and Judaism, so it will be done away in the nineteenth century only as it is forced out of existence by the outgrowth of a fuller vitality. It is easy to criticise. It is hard to construct. While destructive criticism of Christianity has been frequent, constructive attempts to provide substitutes for it have been rare. When they appear, they are to be cordially received and candidly examined. Prominent among such modern attempts, are the Positivism of Auguste Comte, and the Cosmic Theism of Herbert Spencer. Each of these systems is claimed by its founder to represent a higher form of development than Christianity. Each commands attention, because sufficiently well defined to admit of the same radical investigation that Christianity expects and invites. Positivism dedicates its shrines to Humanity instead of to God; Cosmism rears altars "To the Unknown and the Unknowable." The superiority of the Deity of Humanity consists in this: that it is "real, accessible and sympathetic, because of the same nature as its worshipers, though far supe rior to any one of them."* So we are assured by Comte. On the other hand, it is claimed by Spencer, with how much consistency this is not the place to inquire, that any attempt to pierce the inscrutableness of the Infinite is impious and impossible. He also claims that Cosmism, by recognizing this fact, presents a purer concept of Deity in the Unknowable than is presented in the semi-humanized God of Christianity. Positiv18m and Cosmism, then, assert themselves to be higher forms of development than Christianity for two exactly contradictory reasons: Positivism, because it is more anthropomorphic than Christianity, and Cosmism, because it is less anthropomorphic than Christianity. How are we to decide between these conficting claims? By what criterion are we to judge whether either of the new religions can establish itself against the old?" It is always courteous and fair to allow the challenged party to We therefore ask, in undertaking choose his own weapons. • Comte's Positive Polity (translation), vol. i., p. 317. Cf. vol. iv., p. 30. |