each individual, so as to render him "without excuse," is obviously ill-adapted to form the basis of a church which necessarily contains old and young, earnest and lukewarm, good and bad, and even among the good, persons of every varying stage of spiritual experience and sanctity, whose reason will therefore give forth relatively discordant answers when questioned. It follows that natural reason, though sufficient to give each individual man such an apprehension of Divine Truth as makes him responsible to a Judge, who knows his opportunities and will make allowance for errors which are not the fault of his own free will, totally fails when established as a court of appeal, and called upon to prescribe a code of truths which may form the basis of an organized religious community. Again, the leaders of the Brahmists fell into the very error which was manifestly incidental to their claim. They acted as if infallible, and confidently proclaimed their own views as undoubted truths of natural religion. But though generally good and earnest men, they were far from perfect, and to a most laudable love of God and zeal for virtue they united a far from laudable bias against revelation in general, and a nineteenth century spirit of condemnation of all that was old and time-honoured. In accordance with the principle we have just stated, errors of the will generated errors of the intellect; and hence they maintained that natural reason condemned the practice of penance and asceticism, the incarnation of the Deity, objective (or as they call it) book-revelation, and other similar truths; the fact being that natural reason tells us nothing decisive about the incarnation of the Deity, approves, when fully vivified by the constant practice of virtue and meditation, of penance as a means of more intimate union with God, and instructs the mind, as we argue further on, to regard an objective revelation as at least highly probable and desirable. Natural reason, then, though sufficient for man's probation as a rational creature, does not lead to religious unity; this the Brahmists have found out, and we may confidently urge it as a satisfactory sign of progress that they have begun to recognize the importance of virtue, not merely for its own sake, but also as qualifying the intellect for religious truth. The two lectures delivered in 1863 are nearly identical in tone; they both point out the inconsistency of their opponents in making the belief in God subsequent to, instead of independent of, revelation; and confidently take their stand on intuition as a full and adequate foundation for a universal natural religion. One of them, it is true, admits "the necessity of external influences, as occasions for calling forth the latent intuitions of the mind. ... Education is necessary, not that it may put Theistic truths into the mind which were not there previously, but that it may develop the truths already existing there, and, with the aid of sound logic, constitute a complete and scientific system of natural theology" but though this train of thought, if followed up, would have proved fatal to the value of intuition as a bond of religious unity, the speaker manifests no apprehension of its dangerous tendencies, and lightly passes on to other subjects. In a few years, however, we find a most marked change in tone; the two lectures in 1866 were both by Keshub Chunder Sen † (whose position can best be understood by saying that he is to the Bengallee Brahmists what Father Faber was to the London Oratorians), and created a great sensation in Calcutta. Both manifest a most unsettled state of convictions; an intellectual uncertainty similar to the state of mind of the Tractarians when the bishops began openly to charge against them. Though no formal retractation is made, it is evident that the notion of intuition as supplying an innate bond of doctrinal union among mankind on religious subjects, has vanished. The first lecture is for a non-Christian so appreciative a eulogy of Jesus Christ, that the Protestant missionaries had reason to hope that it indicated a most important accession to their ranks. The second, on Great Men, was intended to damp these expectations by explaining, in a non-Christian sense, the drift of the previous lecture. As far as the lectures enable one to gather the speaker's mind, he endeavours to extricate the Brahmist theory from its difficulties by admitting revelations, but not infallible revelations. In fact, consciously or unconsciously, he appropriates the Protestant theory of the Church and applies it to the revelation itself. All great religious geniuses, he says, are inspired by God to propagate important religious truths; still they are not infallible in their teaching; they may err; and the individual mind must in the last resort, decide for itself what to accept and what to reject. The language in which the leader of Hindoo Theism speaks of our Blessed Lord deserves to be extracted: Whatever differences there may be on strictly theological questions, I must say I am no hater of Christianity, much less of Jesus Christ. I cherish the profoundest reverence for the character of Jesus, and the lofty ideal of moral truth which he taught and lived. . . . There can be no question that Jesus was commissioned and destined by Providence for the great work which he came to perform. . . . He sacrificed Himself for the benefit of mankind. It was from no selfish impulse, from no mistaken spirit of fanaticism, that he bravely and cheerfully offered himself to be crucified on the cross. He laid his life down that God might be glorified. I have always regarded the cross as a beautiful emblem of self-sacrifice unto the glory of God, one which is calculated to quicken the higher feelings and aspirations of the heart, and to purify the soul; and I believe there is not a heart, how *The Brahmo Somaj Vindicated, p. 17. This gentleman is, we believe, on his way to England; in fact, he will probably be in England when this article appears. ... callous and hard soever it may be, that can look with cold indifference on that grand and significant symbol... Verily he was above ordinary humanity. Sent by Providence to reform and regenerate mankind, he received from Providence wisdom and power for that great work. . . . Blessed Jesus, immortal child of God! For the world he lived and died. May the world appreciate him and follow his precepts. . . . The two fundamental doctrines of Gospel ethics, which stand out prominently above all others, and give it its peculiar grandeur, and its pre-eminent excellence, are, in my opinion, the doctrines of forgiveness and self-sacrifice; and it is in these we perceive the moral greatness of Christ. [And addressing his fellow-countrymen in his peroration, he says]:-And the better to stimulate you to a life of self-denial, I hold up to you the cross on which Jesus died. May his example so influence you, that you may be prepared to offer even your blood, if need be, for the regeneration of your country.* These strong expressions naturally led to his being misunderstood, even by his own followers. In his next lecture he vindicated himself by the process of "levelling up." He indicated that his view of our Saviour was that He was Primus, but that He was only Primus inter pares. He says that God manifests Himself to man in a twofold manner-in nature and in history. But in what manner does God manifest Himself in history? Through great men. . . . A great man is a giant among pigmies; he towers above the level of ordinary humanity. His greatness is unmistakable. It is through these great men, these leaders of mankind, that God reveals Himself to us in history; in short, they constitute what we mean by God in history. . . . That some nations have carried their reverence for prophets so far as to deify them, and worship them as God, or rather God in human shape, does not in the least appear to me surprising or unaccountable, however guilty they may be of man-worship. For if a prophet is not God, is he a mere man? That cannot be. Such an hypothesis would not adequately explain all the problems of his life. The fact is, as I have already said, he is both divine and human; he is both God and man. He is a "God-man." He is an incarnation of God. Yes, I look upon a prophet as a divine incarnation; in this sense that he is the spirit of God manifest in human flesh. True incarnation is not as popular theology defines it, the absolute perfection of the divine nature embodied in mortal form; it is not the God of the universe putting on a human body, the infinite becoming finite in space and time, in intelligence and power (!). It simply means God manifest in humanity, not God made man, but God in man. Man, however great he may be, however excellent and divine his character, is human, and as such liable to all the imperfections and infirmities of man, and the thousand evils which flesh is heir to. He is not generically different from the human kind, but is simply exalted above it in degree. Made of the same flesh and blood, endowed with the same constitution as ordinary men, he is far superior to them, on account of the high destiny of his * Jesus Christ; Europe and Asia, pp. 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 25, 30. life, the divine commission he bears, and the large measure of moral force which he naturally possesses for the successful accomplishment of the same. When, therefore, he is honoured above others as God's incarnation, we are to understand his superiority to be one of degree, not of kind... Great men appear when they are needed. . . . In the established economy of Providence they are special dispensations to meet the pressing wants of humanity.* ... The attitude which the individual should assume towards the inspired Great Man is thus described : This makes every one of us feel a deep moral interest in them, and leads us to place ourselves in an attitude of reverent loyalty towards them, that we may receive from them the precious boon which they were designed and destined by God to confer on us. We cannot dishonour or trifle with them; we cannot dispose of them, as mere great historic characters, with empty praise and admiration, we must regard them as God's manifestation to each one of us, and so open the whole heart to them, that it may be filled with all that is great, noble, and divine in them. We should so love and revere them that, under their influence and with their will, we may find Him whom they reveal.t No test is suggested anywhere to enable a disciple to distinguish the chaff from the grain, to know what portions of a Great Man's teaching are stamped with his imperfections, and to be rejected as erroneous. Like all other theories which endeavour to set up natural reason as the antagonist of revelation, this is absolutely suicidal. If there is one feature which stands out more prominently than another in the teaching of Christ of the Christian and Jewish prophets, it is that of doctrinal exclusiveness. If the Evangelists are to be trusted (apart from the question of their inspiration) as correct exponents of Christ's teaching, the Being whom the Brahmist leader considers the first of men-of whom he says, "It is my firm conviction that his teachings find a response in the universal consciousness of humanity," said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemned." And the same idea is spread broadcast throughout Christ's teaching. If His followers can be supposed to be untrustworthy exponents of His views on this point, what guarantee have we that a single word, a single idea of His has been correctly handed down to us? Now the virtue of doctrinal latitudinarianism is spoken of as a kind of first principle among Brahmists; they speak of Christian exclusiveness in precisely the same manner as * Great Men, pp. 6, 9, 11. + Ibid., p. 7. Protestants do of Catholic exclusiveness. Was Christ wrong? If so, even according to their view the Greatest of Men was wrong on a point which obviously distorted the whole of His practical teaching, and has left its ill effects behind it for eighteen centuries: one too "who received wisdom and favour from Providence for that great work."* How much more, then, may the Brahmists themselves be wrong on any one of the doctrines which are the cornerstones of their system. As a fact, exclusiveness for what each one regards as true, is the natural offspring of love and earnestness for truth, as latitudinarianism is the natural product of lukewarmness and apathy. The Brahmists hold a smaller body of truth than Christians; hence they wish Christians to fraternize with them on religious questions; but they are exclusive, and properly exclusive, towards those who reject what they consider essential truth, and the more earnest of them have recently created a schism rather than keep up unity with the others who would not accept their doctrines. Plainly the question at issue is, what truths are essential and what not? and exclusiveness is as transparently a virtue for the former as it is a fault for the latter. It occasions no surprise then to find that during the last three or four years Brahmism, as a coherent system of religion, built upon a specific rule of faith, has been in a state of dissolution. The Brahmists are slow to admit it; but the fact is patent to an outsider, and in none of the later publications which have fallen into our hands do we find any attempt to vindicate their original theory from the fatal objections which have been urged against it, though there is also no open admission of its failure. On the other hand, amid the unsettlement of mind thus caused, it is possible to trace a growing and sometimes striking appreciation of principles which are essentially Catholic, as we must endeavour now to show. In order to facilitate our task, and make it more complete, it is necessary to state what we believe to be the ordinary as well as correct theory as to the manner in which faith is a moral probation, although it concerns questions mainly intellectual; this will enable us to bring out clearly the principles which should combine to lead a man whose mind is a tabula rasa in religion to faith in Catholicity. As a matter of fact, such persons have hitherto been few and far between, though everything seems to indicate that they will be more numerous in future; but all we say applies, mutatis mutandis, to those who believe in some erroneous religious system, and who thereby already hold a certain number of important truths, which they would otherwise have to acquire, and which, consistently followed up, tend to lead them out of their own religion and towards Catholicity; as, for instance, the dogmatic principle in the case of earnest Protestants. Catholicity, we need scarcely say, requires as *Jesus Christ, &c., p. 5. |