Transcriber's Notes:

Blank pages have been eliminated.

Variations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the original.

A few typographical errors have been corrected.

The cover page was created by the transcriber and can be considered public domain.

The Incarnate Purpose

Essays on the Spiritual Unity of Life

By

G. H. Percival

London
Williams & Norgate
14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden
1908

Contents

The Incarnate Purpose

I
THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH

There exists in certain religious circles the idea that criticism of Christian doctrine is an undesirable thing, because indicative of a spirit of irreverence and faithlessness that is at variance with the fundamental principles of Christianity. According to Catholic teaching, the Church is founded upon divine revelation, to doubt the reality of which is to question the truth of the Word of God. It is not to be supposed that the finite understandings of men can fathom the infinite mysteries of God. Does not the conception that it is possible for the divine truths of religion to be comprehended by means of the same evidential methods adopted in the acquisition of secular knowledge, imply a practical denial of the existence of a supreme God, since the creature would thus be made to appear as equal in wisdom and power with the Creator?

Most seekers after the Word of God meet at one time or other with some such argument against the propriety of their endeavours to obtain evidence of the intrinsic truth of Christian teaching. But the charge of irreverence brought against honest inquiry is powerless to affect the belief, held by many educated men and women, that a pure desire to know and to do the will of God necessitates the exercising of intellectual as well as of spiritual faculties, in order that what is true in the teaching offered to them in the name of Christ may be separated from what is false, to the greater glory of God and to the furthering of the divine purpose of Life.

Hostility towards criticism of religious doctrine appears to all impartial minds to be not only of doubtful service to the cause of Religion as a whole, but also to cast discredit on the ability of any particular creed to sustain an examination in detail of its articles. In an era when most things touching the health and general well-being of men are subjected to critical inquiry, it would be strange if their spiritual welfare should escape remark. Science has much to say about the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the habits of our daily lives; and we listen to what is said with due respect, because we know the aim of Science to be the improvement of the conditions of life through the elimination of error and harmful prejudice from the paths of progress; and because, by regulating our conduct by the reasonable principles recommended, we may contribute towards the amelioration of those conditions under which future generations of men will enter upon their inheritance of the earth. Is the authority claimed and exercised by the Church over the souls and minds of men to be unquestioned? Is the training of spiritual consciousness less important than the education and nourishment of the body? Scientific criticism may not be perfect, or its judgments infallible; but such as it is to-day, why may not its methods be applied to the elimination of falsehood and ignorance from things religious as well as from things secular?

The acquisition of knowledge has afforded throughout recorded history a perpetual basis for controversy on all matters which have excited sufficient interest or curiosity to command serious attention. It is difficult to think of any so-called natural phenomenon that has not at one time or other given rise to critical investigation, pursuit of which has sharpened the perceptions and widened the understandings of those whose energies have been engaged, and has thus contributed towards elucidation of the controverted subject. Especially is this remarkable in the declared differences between the exponents of scientific and religious doctrine. By reason of an intimate concern with the affairs of men, the methods of acquiring and imparting knowledge employed by the authoritative instructors of sacred and secular consciousness, offer an open field for controversy and challenge the criticism of all thinking persons. It will be admitted that the manner in which discussion is carried on, no less than the character of the conclusions arrived at, exerts an educative influence upon all questions of contemporary interest, so that, apart from the elucidation of Truth (which is the ideal end of controversy, but rarely its immediate outcome), an examination of the merits of conflicting opinions, or, in other words, a criticism of opposing opinions, would appear desirable if only as prefatory to the attainment of a more complete comprehension of the matter under dispute. The ultimate value of all such controversy is to a large extent determined by criticism, which acts as a salutary check on the tendency of most disputants to devote more attention to the question of who is right than of what is true; and where discussion is unattended by such restraint, a certain vagueness of purpose and procedure is apt to seduce controversy from the path of rectitude into a ramble among the byways of personal prejudice, which argues ill for the elucidation of the original subject under dispute.

But in considering the utility of controversy between the exponents of scientific and religious doctrine, it should be borne in mind that a victory accruing to either disputant can be of tentative value only unless and until its permanent worth be certified by course of time to be indeed demonstrated evidence of intrinsic verity. Until this is so proven the last word has not been said, although the path towards a more complete settlement of the point at issue may have been in some measure cleared of an impeding refuse of erroneous ideas and prejudices. Therefore verdicts determining the merits of conflicting opinions relating to abstract or speculative thought can rarely be regarded as final, and it appears unreasonable for either priest or scientist to resent as an outcome of controversial differences an issue favourable to his opponent, since only in the event of a subsequent endorsement of its intrinsic truth by inclusion in the commonly accepted facts of natural knowledge can the ruling of the judgment remain in force. Therefore, since the avowed object of both disputants is the elucidation of Truth, which process necessitates a concomitant elimination of Falsehood, neither priest nor scientist should resent such a satisfactory outcome of their contentions. For if the results of controversial criticism be not endorsed by the course of time, but are shown instead to be errors of judgment, rectifiable by succeeding generations of men whose advance in power of discernment is attested by the ability to eradicate from doctrine errors hitherto undemonstrable as such, the justification of controversy is even so sufficiently proven, inasmuch as its employment has brought about an expurgation of Falsehood, which accomplishment is, in the dual interests of Science and Religion, as important as the affirmation and confirmation of Truth.

A retrospective view of religious and scientific doctrine does indeed reveal controversy, accompanied by criticism, as a considerable factor in the evolution of knowledge, and its employment is clearly recognisable as a means of expurgating much that was false in ideas held in former days. It is reasonable to suppose that the same drastic spirit of controversial criticism so apparent in the past and so active in the present, will continue to operate in the future. But an examination of the controversial methods exercised to-day shows a remarkable change of tactics from those in use, say two hundred years ago—a change that is the direct result of the displacement of ancient weapons of war by modern arms. Evidence has supplanted the use of subtle verbal argument and carefully constructed syllogisms, whose premises were frequently contrived to corroborate foregone conclusions—a method not compatible with that earnest desire for truth above all things which is the war-cry of modern times. Evidence is everywhere proclaimed as the proper test for truth; and he who enters the field of controversy to-day, whether he be the champion of scientific or of religious doctrine, must, if he wish to obtain a serious hearing, come equipped with evidence of the truth of what he propounds, and with evidence of the falsehood of what he refutes.

This change in the method of controversial criticism affects all branches of learning, and is gradually bringing about a reform in educational matters that bids fair to shake the foundations of many lines of long-established conventional thought. Nowhere is the change more apparent than in the working of our schools. A child is no longer punished for asking the reason of what he is taught; lessons learnt by rote are a disgrace alike to schoolmaster and scholar. It is not the pupil who is impertinent in demanding, but the teacher who is inefficient and culpable if he cannot supply satisfactory evidence of the truth, the reality, the reason of his instruction. The kindergarten system; the elaborate construction of object-lessons contrived by means of illustration to exercise the child's reasoning faculties; the nature study, so swiftly establishing its place in the national curricula—all these are the outcome of the demand for evidence as the proper test of supposed truth, and are significant of the spirit of the age. Young people are encouraged to think for themselves; to accept authority only when there is evidence forthcoming of its right to be so acknowledged; to look for evidential testimony of all that they are called upon to receive as facts.

Upon the subject of education, Science and Ecclesiasticism are now engaged in what, seen in the light of after days, may well appear as one of the most important controversies of the age. And it is upon the very question of the fitness of evidence as a legitimate test of truth, especially with regard to the suitability of its application to religious as well as to secular instruction, that the chief difference turns. While Science, convinced of the efficacy of evidential testimony, employs the principle as a weapon of attack and defence in controversial warfare, the ambiguous attitude of Ecclesiasticism towards a similar mode of procedure places her at a hopeless disadvantage against her antagonists, deprives her of influence in most matters of intellectual importance, and stamps her as a deterring factor in the progress of the world. What fighting power, equipped with obsolete weapons of the eighteenth century, would be justified in hoping to meet with success in an engagement with a foe who carried modern arms?

If children are taught to regard evidence as a proper test of truth in matters of secular interest, and to disregard that principle in connection with their religious instruction, it follows as a matter of course that a line of distinction must be drawn between secular and religious education. It is regrettable that, interwoven as the two elements have been for centuries in the training of children, their division now seems necessary and imminent. Had they continued to work harmoniously together, the present differences between scientific and ecclesiastical methods of instruction might have been averted. But it is lamentably evident that in adopting an attitude of disapproval towards criticism of her articles, the Church is bringing about a division in educational matters that is becoming more and more pronounced. What kingdom divided against itself can stand? How can we expect to train our children in the ways of Truth if we give them no consistent standard for estimating what is true? How dare we hope to rear a generation worthy of its inheritance of nearly twenty centuries of established Christianity, when we formulate a religious standard of integrity in opposition to that of the secular knowledge of the world?

But it is not only over the Education Question that Science and Ecclesiasticism are virtually at war, although the conflicting principles underlying this controversial difference are illustrated by that dispute. It is not only children who suffer bewilderment by being asked to reconcile irreconcilable elements in their education. Both Science and the Catholic Church profess to be searchers after and upholders of Truth, yet year by year a chasm between them widens as their fundamental differences in procedure become defined; and year by year the number of honest thinkers who cease to regard themselves as members of the Church, or as under her authority, increases. So long as Ecclesiasticism continues to maintain an attitude of resentment towards criticism of religious doctrine, so long must this exodus of intelligence from the Church induce a practical development of the Christian ideals outside ecclesiastical circles.

It cannot be too vigorously affirmed that criticism of the pretensions of Ecclesiasticism is not necessarily an attack upon Christianity. Scientific research has never harmed or demolished the truth in doctrine attributed to Christ. Indeed, the simplicity and beauty of His teaching (in so far as this can be ascertained from a careful study of the Gospels) never shines so convincingly, and never exerts greater influence for good upon mankind, than when, under rational criticism, it is freed in some measure from the accumulation of centuries of superstitious ideas too long supported by the approval of Ecclesiasticism. Science has no quarrel with Christianity as such. A Christian Church, cleansed from all that obscures and dishonours Truth—a Church devoted to the practical furtherance of the ideals contained in Christ's Gospel of Love—would always have the ready help and support of Science. It is not from the Gospel of Love that men turn away to-day, but from dogmas antagonistic to reason, substituted for that gospel and taught by the Church as Truth in the name of Christ. It is not out of a spirit of irreverence that men demand evidence of the truth of what the Church offers them as Christian doctrine, but from an earnest desire to be faithful to that ideal of Truth which is surely the religious, as well as the secular, glory of life.

The figure of Christ stands as the centre of certain axioms professedly conducive to a right understanding of life and the right conduct of men, and He drew to Himself as supporters of His doctrine all sorts and conditions of men who became more or less imbued with the ideas of their Master. The accounts of His three years' mission which have come down to us in the present forms of the Gospels may or may not truly report His actual sayings and doings, and may or may not contain doctrine actually taught by Him. What is written, or by whom written, matters less than an assurance of its intrinsic truth when such is interpreted as doctrine applicable to the spiritual needs of men to-day. All that is true in the writings connected with the mission of Christ requires no miraculous accompaniment to demonstrate its truth: the only requisite standard by which its verity should be tested is that afforded from generation to generation by the current standard of knowledge. Is not the application of scientific methods of criticism to that grand conception of life and its responsibilities which we associate with the name of Christ, the highest compliment we can pay to His memory? For whether He really spoke certain words, did certain deeds, and taught certain doctrines, as in the Gospels He is reported to have done; whether He shared the errors of His age and is directly responsible for the introduction of teaching that is incompatible with known scientific facts; or whether He has not, perhaps, been made the scapegoat for the ignorance of those who came after Him—are questions of insignificant importance compared with the necessity for eliminating falsehood, by whomsoever spoken or written, from doctrine put forth as spiritual truth for thinking men of to-day.

In the estimation of many educated and unprejudiced persons, the fabric of Church government seems to have its origin in the perverted imaginations of men rather than in the ethical teaching of Christ, so far as this can be ascertained by a careful study of the books constituting the New Testament. Considering the discrepancies in the various sayings and doings of Christ as reported by the authors of those several books, the solution of the question as to what He really said and did becomes very difficult, and is complicated in all branches and phases of the history of the Christian Faith by subsequent accretions, finding their origins in the superstitions of the age, and for which no reasonable warrant seems to exist. We have, therefore, in an endeavour to reconcile the teaching of the Church with the supposed teaching of Christ, to fall back on the internal evidence of the intrinsic truth contained in His accepted sayings and doings. Acceptance of these as true occurrences depends upon how far they are consistent with established scientific facts. Truth is Truth, whether its unveiling to the understanding be achieved by Science or Religion. Investigation of the evidence of a supposed truth either, by certifying its verity, leads to its surer stability, with proportionate increase of honour; or, by tracing and eliminating error, gives higher value to the remaining purified residue. If the supposed teaching of Christ were found to be consistent with the modern teaching of Science, the mutual endorsement would be a further guarantee of the verity of the question in point, both in its religious and its scientific aspect. But if an examination of Christian doctrine reveals the presence of dogma utterly irreconcilable with known scientific facts, then, if the cry for Truth raised by both teachers is sincere, the rejection of that which defiles Truth is incumbent upon the disciples of Religion as well as upon those of Science.

The belligerent attitude of Ecclesiasticism towards criticism of her doctrine reflects indirectly discredit upon the Founder of Christianity. To bolster up falsehood taught and written in Christ's name is no honour to Him. The magnification of natural into supernatural occurrences, out of mistaken zeal for His glory, and the refusal to accept the verdict of rational investigation of the evidence for the truth of such occurrences, is not the way to further the ends of Christianity. Is it conceivable that the founder of a code of ethics calculated to meet the needs of men could desire exemption from an examination of the doctrine he taught and believed to be true, or, still less, of doctrine taught in his name, for the truth of which he has given no guarantee? Is it possible that Christ would have resented the idea of a future amplification of His doctrine on the lines of truth by men who perceived the spirit of His teaching, and who desired to honour Him by freeing it from its envelope of superstition, reflecting the errors of the ages through which it had passed? Did not He promise to men a Comforter who would abide with them for ever: "Even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him.... The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.... When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me" (St John xiv. and xv.).

Did not Christ thus challenge the criticism of the future? Did not He plead for His teaching to be tested by the Spirit of Truth which, proceeding from God, the Father of all life, is present in the world as the guiding principle of all knowledge then, now, and to come? What is that sin against the Holy Ghost impossible of forgiveness, but sin against the Spirit of Truth, which is a deliberate falling short of the glory of God?

II
THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS UNSEEN

The difficulty felt in reconciling the idea of man's possession of an immortal soul with his supposed evolutionary physical descent is in many cases responsible for the exclusion of the scientific interpretation of life from the religious outlook. It is very naturally asked at what point in his development man obtained the spiritual faculty designated by the name of Soul, possession of which constitutes his chief claim to immortality. If he be indeed the product of an evolutionary process entailing the precursion and sacrifice of millions of generations of beings inferior to his present organisation; if his progenitors existed at some remote and unrecorded period of the history of the world, when distinction between man and beast was unknown, when did his separation as a spiritual creature occur? If some process of psychical evolution endowed him with a soul, may not other creatures than man, as yet insufficiently developed, obtain eventually similar spiritual attributes? How then, can the destiny of man be said to be superior to that of the beasts? Is there really such a thing as the soul? What are its distinctive qualities, and how is its presence in personality to be recognised? In short, is a belief in the immortal soul of man compatible with the evolutionary theory of his physical descent? If acceptance of the scientific explanation of his ancestry destroys the justification of his hope for immortality, is not life thereby robbed of its spiritual significance?

The history of mankind is a history of religion, wherein we may observe man's idea of the nature of God and of his own relation towards God, keeping pace with his development as an intellectual and spiritual creature. When we review this evolutionary process, involving millions of generations of progenitors and covering immeasurable æons of time, we see emerging the creature destined to be known as man. With the slow dawn and growth of his intelligence, accompanied by a reaching out into an ever-widening environment, comes a dim perception of life and power outside himself—an acting force that is greater than his own. In apprehending the existence of God, man is evolved as a spiritual creature and stands in a kingdom of his own, destined to realise his essential unity with God as the Spirit of Life, in whose likeness he is made. His apprehension of the existence of a spiritual God has given him a soul. He sets about fulfilling his destiny. His attitude towards other organisms is that of Providence—of that Over-Lord who before his own spiritual birth was his own Providence, i.e. an active power outside himself and greater than his own. From this time forth his dominion is felt in the world as a governing force. His ability and authority increase with intellectual growth, until, as in the present day, the generation, development and extinction of species in the animal and vegetable kingdoms are to a certain extent modified by him according to his will and for his own ends.

Throughout his wonderful career we find his Deity representative of his own growing powers, and of his own attitude towards the governing forces of Nature. His conception of God is, in fact, the chronicle in serial form of his evolution as an intellectual and spiritual creature, a chronicle which faithfully records his progress and reflects his changing conditions of life.

A study of the religions of men of past ages is thus a study of the index of their lives, their thought, their social and moral status, enabling us to estimate their positions in the evolutionary scale of humanity. As we review this register of the life-stories of mankind, we find the idea of the nature of God keeping pace with intellectual advance. But although the distinguishing characteristic of man, even in his crudest stage, is always his idea of and his worship of a Deity, mankind as a whole has never worshipped at any one time the same idea of God. In the past as well as in the present, the many religions existing and obtaining credence and support all over the inhabited world give a fair idea of the intellectual and moral status of the people they represent. The ethical value of any religion is not gauged by an estimate of the number of its devotees as compared with those of any other religion. Its existence merely represents the mental state of those who are its adherents. As a rule, a religious creed is built upon a supposed special revelation of God; but to the scientist religions appear also as revelations of mankind. To him their value is retrospective and deductive, inasmuch as they offer evidence of intellectual growth, which he perceives to be the natural precursor of those spiritual conceptions of the nature of God which may become in course of time consolidated into dogmatic formulæ.

The extinction or survival of a religious creed as an active force points to the extinction or survival of that type of mind of which the creed was the reflection. Progress forbids uniformity of type and equality of structure on the spiritual as well as on the physical plane of life. Change and variety of religious feeling are necessary to the evolution of the soul, and should be welcomed as evidence of its growth. But not until, from the several types of man now inhabiting the earth, one were proved fit to survive in the struggle for existence and capable of maintaining its supremacy, could mankind worship the same idea of God. If this should ever occur, the change in the spiritual consciousness of man might be as stupendous and of consequences as far-reaching as that crisis in his physical evolution when the brute, becoming apprehensive of a God, was born into spiritual life and became possessed of a soul.

But the inequality of species cannot be adopted as the calculative basis of comparative virtue in the evolutionary scale, since the relative positions of organisms can only be determined by an examination of the degree of consciousness possessed by each in comparison with the others. For instance, although we say that a horse is a more highly organised creature than a rabbit, meaning thereby that according to our estimation he presents a more complicated mechanism, yet such a comparison of physical susceptibility is necessarily imperfect, because limited by the degree of our own discrimination. For since the correctness of our judicial opinions rests upon our ability properly to appreciate the true relation between intelligences and their environments different from our own, it follows that our criticism of their comparative complexity can be no criterion of intrinsic individual merit. The same inadequacy of human judgment applies to any attempt to estimate the degree of spiritual consciousness possessed by various organisms. Such endeavour may be successful in establishing a comparative standard for a rational criticism of religious creeds in their relation to physical evolution; but it is powerless to affix a stationary standard of morality to differently constructed intelligences.

The possession by creatures of faculties differing from those of others does not necessarily make for superiority or inferiority. That is to say, differentiation of type does not determine merit. A man is not superior to a horse because his structure and powers are unlike those of the horse; nor is a rabbit or a bird inferior either to a horse or to a man, since the organisation of all these creatures is adapted to different usage. Thus, the possession of a highly specialised brain does not in itself make of man a superior order of creation. The use or abuse of faculties, and the obedience or disobedience to the laws of being, offer the only standard by which the comparative superiority, inferiority, or equality of creatures of different organisation can be fairly estimated. And only by a similar comparison of the response to spiritual environment displayed by the followers of religious creeds can an approximate idea of their value be formed.

It is unreasonable to dissociate the evolution of any one organism from the evolution of the whole of life. All creatures have a common origin in the Spirit of Life, and if we believe that all things work together for good in the manifestation through love of this vital energy, all organisms are seen to be of mutual help in the development of spiritual consciousness as well as in the perfecting of physical form. There exists, therefore, no warrant for assuming that the physical and spiritual evolution of man is achieved more for his own separate good than for the common benefit of all forms of life; or that organisms other than man have not, or will never have, those spiritual conceptions of the nature of God which signify the development of what we designate as Soul.

Because all creatures are the works of God's hand—images of the Divine Will—evolutionary growth must surely bring them increasing consciousness of union with the essential Spirit of Life, which is at once the source and end of their beings. We are justified in assuming that the Creator does indeed draw from all His creatures recognition of an order dependent upon the manner and purpose of their kind. But though it be granted that perception of the presence of spiritual attributes in organisms may be resolved into an appreciation of the ability of creatures to conceive ideas of the nature of God, verification of any such supposed ability depends upon the standard of Truth upon which investigation is based.

Now, although evidence is rightly regarded as a proper test of all truth possible of comprehension, there may be apprehended the existence of infinite truths not demonstrable in their entirety, because their adequate expression necessitates faculties not possessed by the finite intelligence of man. When essential truth is in some measure perceived, it is always evidence that brings about comprehension; but when only dimly apprehended and shrouded in mystery, the intellect reaches forward into realms too hazy and undefined to allow of a deduction of evidential testimony in support of something not yet within the demonstrable scope of reason.

The ability to adduce evidential testimony in support of a declaration of supposed facts is essentially an artistic faculty, and a necessary part of the equipment of every teacher, whether he draw his accredited inspiration from religious, scientific, or artistic sources, if he desire to perform effectually his educational function. The work of an artist is the evidence of his art, by means of which he may promulgate his convictions and secure converts to his creed.

But while, comparatively speaking, few men set out to preach and teach some special gospel for the purpose of urging it upon their brethren, every man offers in his own person evidence of character which may become an educational factor in the lives of his fellow-men. We know and esteem a man by his works, which are the expression of his convictions and the fruit of his being. Without the evidence of virtue in the lives of those who profess to possess it, we are not justified in believing in its reality.

The artistic power of producing and recognising evidential testimony of supposed truths is part of the divine birthright of all men. The supreme Artist of Life, God, through whose works of art men may perceive the Spirit of Life, through whose creative energy the gospel of Infinite Truth is continuously made manifest, has given to man his body as a temple of truth, whereby the light of the spirit may shine out in evidence of its being. Made in the likeness of God, the handiwork of the Divine Artist, he manifests the glory of his Creator in his own human works of art—his creative powers witnessing to the essential divinity of his being. His senses give him evidence of his physical environment, and his reason, as the summary of sense, rightly seeks for verification of all that is announced to him as fact. But his senses cannot give him adequate evidence of his psychical environment, because its mere apprehension entails a transcending of the spirit over the medium of the flesh, thereby carrying vision beyond the point where verification of what is seen is possible, and where, attempting its expression, the vision becomes a shrunken incoherent thing, utterly inadequate as a likeness of what it is supposed to represent.

The poet, the seer, the musician, the sculptor know something of this inability to reach in their work expression worthy of its conception. And if this is so with the artist, how much more so with the genius, who is compelled by a force he does not wholly understand, and yet is possessed of some executive power of demonstration!

The genius lives in advance of his time, having a flash-like insight into knowledge hidden as mystery from the understandings of his fellow-men. He suffers the loneliness of the pioneer who, treading a path where none has trod before, leaves an open way with marks of guidance and explanation for those who come after him. But such a man has compensation for the lack of human fellowship in his consciousness of achieving work capable of raising the standard of thought in the minds of those who behold it. They may not understand, but they can admire. They acknowledge the work of genius—an attitude which is conducive towards a fuller appreciation of what they admire. They behold, in fact, evidence of something they do not fully understand, but which they apprehend to be true. Thus art fulfils its divinely ordered purpose in the evolution of the human mind, its educational influence being traceable in all records of human progress.

But there are spiritual ideals, visions of beauty, symphonies of harmony, unseen by earthly eyes, unheard by earthly ears, wholly impossible of demonstration, which remain for ever unexpressed and uncomprehended by those who have apprehended them. These seers of visions and dreamers of dreams have not, perhaps, the artistic power by which an attempt could be made to transcribe the vision in a manner legible to the ordinary human understanding. Or there exists, perhaps, no adequate evidence by which even a genius is able to express what he has apprehended in ideal and abstract thought. Yet to the dreamer, the seer, the genius an ideal is none the less true because he cannot certify its truth by evidence that would convey its verity to other persons.

One of the facts that the theory of the evolutionary descent of man and the evolutionary development of his soul has made clear is that there is no limit to his future acquirements of thought and understanding. Mental growth is a continual feeling after knowledge a little in advance of comprehension—of knowledge still hidden as mystery, to be approached only by a consistent application of the intellect towards the discovery of the evidence of truth in all things submitted to consideration. Speculative thought acts as an impetus to the mind to set about the finding of evidence that shall induce a natural growth of knowledge from mystery. Were there no knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, its development could not continue, for stagnation of thought, checking mental activity, must lead subsequently to degeneration. It is the effort to get, rather than the getting, which is the zest of existence. Without the hunger of mind and body, how could the nourishment necessary for the continuity of mental and physical life be obtained?

Truth is infinite, as God is infinite, and apprehension of this divine fact does not rest upon evidential testimony. But comprehension entails the evidence of reason, and is necessary to the evolution of the human understanding. Such evidence forms a link between mystery and knowledge, and offers a means by which the maturing intellect of man may obtain a gradual conversion of mystery into knowledge. Desire must precede fulfilment. May not the longing to penetrate ever further into mysteries not as yet, by reason of our imperfections, demonstrable to our intellects, be the pioneer of the discovery of truths now unknown, but which in the fulness of time will be given as the spiritual inheritance of all those who, being pure in heart, shall see God in a light of revelation that has kept pace through all ages with the evolution of mankind?

In such a manner does it seem that the desire for proof of human immortality should be considered.

It is difficult to conceive how, on the physical plane of existence, evidence of the survival of human individuality after death could be obtained.

The results of modern psychical research would seem to show that it is possible for the spirit of a dead person to be temporarily reinvested with a physical form other than its own body, and to communicate by this means with living persons. It is suggested that a spirit can so control a living person as to direct itself through him as a medium for some purpose not necessarily known to him. It is further suggested that, presupposing the survival of individual consciousness after death to be a fact, a disembodied spirit might so possess a living person with its influence as to become virtually reincarnate. It is known in ordinary life that the will of one person can so influence the thoughts of another as practically to annihilate his individuality, which, falling more and more completely beneath this dominating mental force, becomes finally a mere passive instrument of another's will. Is it not possible that this same domination of one personality over another, so often noticed in life, may be continued after death in an even more intense degree, and thus provide proof of the survival of individuality?

Unfortunately, although such hypotheses have been supported by psychical evidence and phenomena seemingly confirmative of their truth, there has been as yet no positive assurance that this so-called proof of survival of individual consciousness is not the result of telepathy either deliberately or innocently evoked from an extreme sensitiveness of the medium to the mental suggestions of those who desire to see the particular phenomena that are subsequently produced.

The Catholic Church asserts the possession of incontrovertible proof of the reality of human immortality, teaching that, unless the resurrection from the dead of the body of Christ be accepted as an actual historical fact, the Christian religion must of necessity become a vain and purposeless thing. But the evidence adduced in support of this doctrine is, from a scientific point of view, by no means conclusive. It is not, however, from Christian dogma alone that the hope of immortality has been born in the human breast; and justification for the reasonableness of that hope does not therefore rest solely on evidential testimony of the truth of the miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Although it would seem that the survival of individual consciousness after death, whether it be attested by a possible spiritual reincarnation, or whether by the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection, cannot be regarded as assured by any evidence satisfying the requirements of scientific criticism, yet we are not therefore justified in assuming that confirmation of the reality of these spiritual apprehensions of human immortality will be for ever withheld from the human understanding. Man, being capable of foreseeing death as an inevitable termination of his earthly existence, has conceived the idea of spiritual survival as a possible corollary of physical life. But for the justification of this hope there is as yet no conclusive evidence, since demonstration of its truth necessitates a transference of thought from the finite reckoning to that of Infinite Truth veiled as yet in mystery.

A creature which by reason of its organisation lacked the intellectual capacity to imagine its death, could not know the desire for immortality. Before man arrived at that stage in his evolution when he was able to foresee his death as an inevitable occurrence, we may suppose that he knew no craving for life after death. But the instinct of self-preservation, common to all forms of life, becomes in him the natural precursor of the hope of immortality—that spiritual desire which gives a special and divine character to humanity. That intellectual development which gives the capacity to foresee the inevitableness of physical dissolution is thus responsible for the apprehension of a spiritual survival of death. Recognition of the truth that the life of the world continues after the individual has suffered physical death carries with it some consciousness of the circulation of other vital force. Knowledge of death is thus preliminary to man's perception of the continuity of life, and a necessary preparation for his acquisition of such consciousness of impersonal vitality as leads to his apprehension of a Spiritual God, whence he perceives his own vitality to be derived. With recognition of God as the Divine Spirit of Life, his hope of immortality is justified of its conception. For if the life of God be in man, his spirit cannot die. Is not this self-knowledge the spiritual birthright of all men, to which Christ referred in the words, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (St John iii. 3)?

Out of a knowledge of death, consciousness of spiritual life is evolved, from which springs the desire for immortality. "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. xv.).

The evolving intellect of man has given him knowledge of the inevitableness of death as the termination of physical existence, and from this evolution of intellect is born the spiritual apprehension of the resurrection of the dead—of that immortality of the Divine Spirit of Life which is the veritable essence of the teaching of Christ, and which finds endorsement in the modern scientific interpretation of the laws of Nature. Does not the evolutionary theory of the descent of man, by showing his spiritual development to be in accord with the scientific explanation of his origin, endorse the words of Christ relating to his spiritual inheritance of immortality?

Hope, the outcome of the imaginative or creative faculty in man, is the pioneer of knowledge, for it is by that reaching out of the human mind into realms of speculative thought that ideas and apprehensions, if true, become gradually clothed with evidence of their truth, according as the spiritual and physical evolution of man makes him more capable of approaching the illimitable and infinite glory of God.

The self-education of a child is achieved by a continual process of verification of his speculative thought by evidence. His ideas are regulated by the evidence he can deduce capable of realising them, when they are instantly registered as experience, which forms an ever-broadening base for further speculative flights of the imagination. As the mind matures, this faculty of speculative thought becomes, under the name of initiative, the germ of all undertakings calling for personal direction and action. A man undertakes to do certain things because he has confidence in his executive powers. He has experienced the evidence of his capability and verified his powers, and he therefore dares to go boldly forward into wider fields of action. A child still crudely experimenting for evidence of the truth of his own small infantine powers of apprehension, has as yet no conception of yet vaster knowledge awaiting his more matured mind. The knowledge and power possessed by his father are a mystery to him, calling forth his respect and awe, so that he scarcely dares to think he may one day be as wise himself.

The knowledge of God and of Infinite Truth which a man has not in its completeness is a mystery to him, calling forth his respect and awe as his own powers inspire his little son with a like veneration. But nothing forbids a man from changing the mystery of God into a knowledge of God, if he have understanding capable of meeting the revelation, just as there is nothing to forbid a child from making the mystery of his father's knowledge his own possession if he have adequate power of comprehension.

Evidence is a proper test of all truths possible of comprehension, but it is no test of the existence of Infinite Truth, by which the world and the affairs of men are formed for a purpose withheld as yet in its entirety from the imperfect human understanding.

Where it has been given to man to penetrate some way into the knowledge of so-called Natural Law, a beautiful coherency in the structure and continuity of life has always been observed. The Unity of Nature, and the working together of the Whole of Life, is a fact, the evidence of which has been deduced and declared over and over again in corroborative detail as the results of scientific investigation. Could the history of the intellectual attainments of man be to-day unrolled before his wondering gaze, there would, we are told, appear no break in the perfect continuity of his ascending life, but instead a perpetual adjustment of the evidence of his speculative thought—of evidence so contrived as to keep pace with his capacity to understand. And could his future history be in a like manner revealed to him to-day; could he foresee that mysteries, now so incomprehensible, are yet destined to be comprehended by him as knowledge, we are justified in believing there would appear the same beautiful coherency in his spiritual evolution which has marked his material progress in the past.

When man is ready to receive the verification of the immortality he hopes for, but for which he has as yet no scientific evidence, we may be sure it will be given to him. Signs are not wanting that this almost universal craving of the human race is not to remain for ever unsatisfied. Meanwhile, can we not watch one hour? The day is certain when we shall all in our own persons receive confirmation of the truth of our apprehensive hope for immortal life. Can we not, then, in acquiescence with the Will of God, which all experience teaches us to be a directing Will for Good, rest content in the belief that because evidence of a truth is never withheld from those capable of understanding it, so we, when we are ready for a verification of this desire of the soul, may be given the evidence for which we hope?

III
THE ALCHEMY OF LOVE

One of the most perplexing and saddening problems of life, which presents itself in mournful frequency to thoughtful minds, is that of so-called unmerited suffering. This seeming injustice, co-operative throughout Nature with the struggle for existence, is a stumbling-block to many thinkers to whom the creed of propitiation for sin and suffering in the person and mission of Christ, as well as those dicta of Natural Science which declare the sacrifice of the weak and helpless to be a necessary accompaniment of evolutionary life, appear rather as different aspects of vicarious suffering than as reconciliating explanations of its compatibility with the supreme government of a God of Love. Is it not the fact that a large proportion of our trouble and perplexity concerning certain problems of spiritual morality has origin in our resentment at the seeming injustice of the operation of the law of suffering? In grief and sadness of heart we cry out against the infliction of sorrow and pain upon those who are made to suffer vicariously for the wrong-doing of others. Surely a God who wreaks vengeance for one man's sin upon his innocent children cannot be a God of Justice! Surely the dealing out of madness as the reward for superlative endeavour, strenuous idealism of thought, and consistent self-denial, the inflicting upon finely organised sensitive temperaments a capacity to suffer in a measure scarcely appreciable by coarser natures, cannot be by the direction of a God of Love! When we behold the visitation of such mental and physical torture upon pure and upright men and women, whose conduct seems utterly undeserving of punishment, we ask ourselves if such things can be in accord with the supreme government of Divine Love. Our hospitals and asylums are recruited largely from the ranks of those who suffer from the wrong-doing of others. Inherited disease and tainted environment set from birth a handicap tantamount to foredoomed life-failure upon the children of the multiplied unfit, whose continued tenancy of the earth constitutes a deterring factor in progressive life. If these things are done by divine ordinance, surely the laws of human justice, framed for the punishment of wickedness and vice, and for the maintenance of virtue and its reward, are more in accord with a true conception of a government of Love and Justice! Can it truly be the Will of God that the innocent shall suffer for the guilty, the pure for the impure, the just for the unjust? If so, for what end are these things ordained?

Most of us have at one time or other "withered and agonised" under the relentless insistency with which some such ideas as these have intruded upon our spiritual tranquillity. We try to put them aside as beyond our understanding. We tell ourselves that we lack faith, that we are not meant to comprehend the mysteries of God. And yet, if the Creator endows His creatures with the ability to question, and thus approach, the border-land between Known and Unknown, Seen and Unseen, can it indeed be irreverent or presumptuous to look to Him for guidance from mystery into knowledge, from ignorance into understanding?

If the revelation of God be indeed a revelation throughout Nature, chronicled by the evolving collective consciousness of Creation; and if the incarnate purpose of Love be recognisable as the vesture of the Spirit of Life, God; can a like unfolding of the Will of Love be withheld from personal and individual understanding?

It is clear that problems of spiritual morality must be approached from the spiritual plane of thought. That which pertains to the manifestation of spiritual consciousness and which is subject to the time-limit of human calculation must be dissociated from apprehension and contemplation of the eternal verities. If we would regard life as a Whole, and thus attain a right appreciation of the relation of individual consciousness to spiritual unity, we must learn to live in the Whole. If we desire a true understanding of the government of life; if we would conduct aright our critical inquiry into the methods by which the law of suffering manifests the progressively revealed Will of Love; if we would behold this Will of Love pictured upon the face of life, and receive the same spiritual illumination upon our souls, we must first establish a right attitude of heart and mind towards the divine revelation.

Differences noticeable between the religious and scientific interpretations of certain phenomena are not necessarily fundamentally hostile the one to the other, since each represents an opposing point of view rather than a contradictory likeness of fact. Any system of reflective thought, registered as opinion and propagated as substantial truth, may appear in opposition to any other established line of thought; but neither should be on this account judged as wholly right or wholly wrong, since each may be a perfectly correct impression of the thing seen, if the reflective machinery available has been properly employed. For whether artistic perception be utilised as an aid to the desire so to interpret Nature as to provide an endorsement of psychical apprehension, or whether it be directed towards the production of evidence for the verification of intellectual conjecture, the alternative result of a religious or a scientific interpretation of life is equally dependent upon focus for its representation in kind.

Under certain unlike conditions of light and distance, two artists engaged in the representation of the same object produce totally different impressions of the thing seen. Difference of focus in the actual outward vision; difference of personality, whereby difference in the mental powers of registration, reconstruction and expression becomes apparent, are together productive of difference in representation. A discerning critic does not, however, condemn either picture as worthless or incorrect because the one does not resemble the other. He knows that a just opinion of their respective values rests upon his ability to gauge that relative difference of focus which is responsible for their dissimilarity. The worth of his criticism depends upon his capacity so to focus his own point of view as to embrace and reconcile the differences of aspect in the representations submitted to his judgment. Given this ability, he is aware that his perception of the reconciled differences has enlarged his own appreciation of what he is called upon to judge. His criticism becomes his own enlightenment. Thus it appears that true critical appreciation is based upon the focussing of diverging points of view into converging actuality; and only when inquiry is attended with such impartial discernment can elucidation ensue.

The question of suffering, particularly of vicarious suffering, is one which, from the intimate nature of its bearing on the spiritual as well as on the physical aspect of human consciousness, gives rise to certain apparent irreconcilable differences between the religious and the scientific interpretation of its place and meaning in the scheme of life. On the one hand we have the point of view derived from that type of mind which cannot dissociate suffering from sin, regarding each as a concomitant consequence of a derangement of the divine and originally perfect order of Creation by reason of the intervention of Evil in opposition to God's Will for Good. Such is the creed of pessimistic suffering—a practical denial of the progressive action of the Spirit of Love. On the other hand, there is the point of view derived from that type of mind which believes the susceptibility of organisms to contrasting sensations to be a necessary factor in spiritual as well as in physical evolution. Such is the creed of optimistic suffering—the affirmation of the inherence of the divine Spirit of Life in all creatures, whereby pain and evil are shown to be as truly ordained by God as those opposing elements of consciousness known to us as joy and good, to the end that for evil so much good more, for sorrow so much joy more, may be evolved through the transmuting and progressive purpose of His Will.

Here, then, are two aspects of the phenomenon of suffering—two pictures of life drawn from two points of view—the one apparently so irreconcilable with the other as to make it difficult to realise that it is indeed one and the same objective which is subjected to critical inquiry, i.e. the compatibility of sin and suffering in a world created and controlled by a God of Love. But we are not justified in condemning, on the score of dissimilarity of conception and treatment, either representation as incorrect or worthless. The point of focus is responsible for their seeming contradiction. May not, therefore, some adjustment of our powers of critical discernment give us a point of focus which shall embrace both aspects, reconcile their seeming contradictions and differences, and enable us to draw one comprehensive conclusion from them both, to the enlightenment of our intellectual and spiritual consciousness? Our analytical appreciation is directed towards a fair consideration of different aspects of a natural phenomenon. Is it not possible to attain a vantage-ground above the divergence of aspects high enough to allow us to behold the spiritual and physical signification of suffering as one harmonious accompaniment of spiritual and physical evolution, in accord with the divine directing Will of Love?

As, within the physical universe, sound-waves, once set in motion, must circulate for ever, ripple on ripple, in widening vistas of echoing reproduction, unless broken in their course by contact with some barrier capable of arresting and absorbing the progress of vibration; so, in spiritual consciousness, the influences for good and evil which emanate from all effort, whether individual or collective, volitionary or involuntary, must circulate for ever throughout Infinity, unless checked, broken, absorbed, cancelled by centralization in some interposing and receptive agent. And so, within the Communion of Love, the saints on earth, chosen by God as worthy to co-operate in the divinely appointed regenerating purpose of life, may summarise and transmute the effects of evil into good by means of their own suffering; may so sanctify their minds and bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit, that they may be found worthy to share the passion of Incarnate Love in the redemption of the world. It is the Will of God, it is the Law of Life, that we bear each other's burdens; that the just suffer for the unjust, the innocent for the guilty, the pure for the impure! Not in ourselves or by ourselves alone can sins of commission and omission be expiated; not by our own unaided efforts can we arrest the consequences of action. Life is a whole, and individual thought and action touch the whole, and their effects are felt by the whole. We derive no virtue in ourselves from ourselves alone. Do we not owe our very ability to discriminate between good and evil, our standard of right and wrong, our civilization, our culture—nay, in short, the whole of our evolving realization of the Love of God—to the collective consciousness of Creation, which is a continual revelation of God? Do not we stand to-day as inheritors of wisdom accumulated by the united efforts of mankind in past times, and as guardians of this, the world's increasing consciousness of God, revealed throughout all Time, throughout all Creation? According as our forefathers struggled and attained, do we in our generation enter upon the inheritance of the earth. Thus the progressive spiritual consciousness of the world is at once our inheritance and our trust. We are debtors to the past and custodians of the future generations of our kind. Through the infinite condescension of God in employing mankind as a medium of His revelation, the privilege of realising the increasing purpose of His Will is placed within our keeping. Made in the image of God, man is endowed with the creative faculties of his Maker. The Creator wills that His creatures shall consciously share in the glory of creation, whereby through the perfecting of spiritual apprehension is revealed the Kingdom of God. Are we willing to take up the cross of sacrifice and suffer gladly with and in the passion of Incarnate Love? If we are indeed judged worthy of use in the elimination of evil by conversion through suffering of the effects of evil into elements of good, must we not rejoice in our participation with Divine Love in the revelation of the glory of God? If we are called upon to surrender ourselves, our minds and souls and bodies, as a reasonable sacrifice in the service of Love; if we are chosen by God to suffer in Love and with Love in the progressive redemption of the world from evil by the translation and transmutation of its effects in ourselves through suffering into recreated good; shall we not uplift our hearts and minds and souls in praise, prayer and thanksgiving, in that we are thus consciously brought into the Holy Communion of Love?

All creation groaneth and travaileth together, but it is not given to all forms of life to suffer consciously and willingly in co-operation with the divine government of life. Participation in the redemption and salvation of the world through Love is the privilege of those only who are born into spiritual apprehension of their essential unity with God, and who thus become one with Him in the transmuting purpose of His Will. These are they who, obeying the command of Love to resist not evil, become agents of the divine Alchemist. But the power thus to suffer willingly in the transmuting process of spiritual progress implies a dual susceptibility of physical and psychical consciousness which is the peculiar privilege of mankind. The whole organic world lies under that law of suffering which ordains that the sacrifice of individual interest shall form the collective and increasing good of life. But to humanity alone as yet has been given perception and power to share consciously in the divine government of Creation. As part of the organic world we are bound by the law of suffering, but we are not condemned to suffer in total ignorance of the purpose behind the working of the Will of God. We are spiritual beings, made in the image of God, and endowed with a birthright of free-will. We are called upon to suffer gladly in Love and for Love, so that the Creator may be glorified in His creatures. We are chosen instruments of the divine Will, but we are free to accept or refuse our election into active service in the Communion of Love. Shall we give ourselves to God in willing co-operation with the divine regenerating purpose of life? Or shall we resent the sacrifice of ourselves in the forwarding of His Will? We are offered co-operation with the Spirit of Life, whereby we may become the agents of divine healing in the progressive redemption of the world, and whereby the effects of evil may be transmuted into elements of good. We are called upon to share the passion of Incarnate Love and to take up willingly the cross of sacrifice. If we disregard the divine command to suffer gladly, we reduce ourselves to the level of the unenlightened brute creation, thereby proving ourselves unworthy of our vocation to conscious and active membership of the Communion of Love, inasmuch as we stultify the divinely implanted powers of transmutation and redemption within us, and hinder the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth.

For, if men are responsible to a certain extent for their own suffering and disease of mind and body; if payment in their own persons is exacted as a just result of ignorance, or as the punishment of abuse of knowledge; yet the consequences of thought and action are not thereby entirely arrested. Life is a Whole, and the conduct of the members of the spiritual Communion of Love must affect the Whole for evil or good. By our willing acceptance of our suffering as the transmuting agent for the conversion of the effects of ignorance and of active evil into elements of recreated good; by our endeavours to add to the world's accumulating consciousness of the Love of God by means of our own rightly directed thought and action; by our readiness to suffer in ourselves the physical and psychical effects of evil, and translate them into good, may we not prove ourselves more worthy of our high vocation to the Communion of Love?