Transcriber's Notes:
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_ and bold text by =equal
signs=.
Small uppercase have been replaced with regular uppercase.
Characters after a carat are superscripts.
Blank pages have been eliminated.
Variations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the
original.
The Incarnate Purpose
The
Incarnate Purpose
Essays on the Spiritual Unity of Life
By
G. H. Percival
London
Williams & Norgate
14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden
1908
Contents
CHAP. PAGE
1. THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH 1
2. THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS UNSEEN 21
3. THE ALCHEMY OF LOVE 48
4. THE HERITAGE OF PAIN 65
5. THE VESTURE OF GOD 91
6. SPIRITUAL CORRESPONDENCE 122
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