Page images
PDF
EPUB

task. Some persons, however, condemn Trades Unions as utterly evil, and wish nothing short of their abolition. But this opinion, though excusable on account of the just abhorrence excited by the crimes which have been committed by unionists, and the folly perpetrated by unions, is not a judicious and calm opinion. For unless its upholders are prepared to show that the club system is bad in principle, it is unreasonable to prohibit its application to skilled and unskilled labour. In fact, the principle has long ago been conceded with general approbation in respect of what are called Benefit Societies, such as sick funds and burial clubs; and if it be right for men to combine to protect themselves against the calamities of life, surely it is arbitrary and illogical to declare that it is wrong for them to combine to secure the advantages of life. But it is sometimes argued that each man is well enough able to look after his own interests, and all he wants is a fair field, that is to say, the absence of external impediments. This, however, is refuted by experience. Such is human nature that a man requires the help of combination to enable him to do that which he knows it would be his interest to do, and also the coercion of law to restrain him from doing that which he sees clearly will injure him. In proof of the latter part of this remark we may refer to the employment of children in factories. The persons who most earnestly invoked the interference of the Legislature to prohibit this evil were the very parents who sent their children to work in the factories. Human nature is a very complicated machine, and human law must necessarily be complicated (though not confused) to regulate the action of its many and strange forces. The popular fallacy that that people is governed best which is governed least, is not so popular as it was. It arose from the mischiefs which resulted from ill-adjusted laws, and it made the mistake of assuming that the mischief was the consequence of law, and not of ill-adjustment. The world has much yet to learn upon the application of law to social and economical subjects; and the first step in the advance which it has to make or rather is making is to get rid of the delusion that true freedom consists in the absence of restraint. Mankind has a deep lesson set it in these words, The perfect law of liberty.'

The most interesting form of economic combinations which has, hitherto, been tried, has not been at work long enough to furnish sufficient data for general conclusions. We refer to the union of the interests of capital and labour in Co-operative Societies. This system has not blotted the new page it has turned over in our social history; but as for the Trades Union system, it, alas! has done little else than blot its page with black crimes and egregious blunders.

Here we must conclude our review of this able and instructive

and (especially at the present time) deeply interesting book. Perhaps we cannot do better than allow it to bid its own farewell in its own concluding words :—

"The laws of nature were not appointed by the great Lawgiver to baffle His creatures in the sphere of conduct, still less to confound them in the region of belief. As parts of an order of things too vast to be more than partly understood, they present, indeed, some difficulties which perplex the intellect, and a few also, it cannot be denied, which wring the heart. But, on the whole, they stand in harmonious relations with the human spirit. They come, visibly, from one pervading mind, and express the authority of one enduring kingdom. As regards the moral ends they serve, this, too, can be clearly seen, that the purpose of all natural laws is best fulfilled when they are made, as they can be made, the instruments of intelligent will, and the servants of enlightened conscience.'

Hitherto we have spoken exclusively to the book and to its subject. We have not diverted into the many lines of thought of which it is suggestive. We have, moreover, taken the book upon its own ground, and looked at the various questions it deals with in its own light. The specially theological aspect of those questions we have, so far as it was possible, kept out of view. But this has not been altogether possible, simply because the questions themselves were root questions, about which theology was quite as much interested as science. Again and again, as the reader will have observed, we have trenched closely on the domains of theology when we have spoken in the language of science; and at those points we felt strongly inclined to translate the language of science into the language of theology. But we refrained, because we did not wish to misrepresent the tone and bearing of the book we had in hand. The Duke of Argyll is in the camp of the men of science, but he is employed in persuading them that they are working a futile work in throwing up entrenchments against the men of theology. We have been standing within the lines of the men of theology, but we have endeavoured to point out to them that their interests are identical with the interests of the men of science; because the interests. of both are all engaged about truth. And now one word we must speak more distinctively theological. Christians, and especially Catholic Christians, should hold very firmly to that anchor-truth of the Christian faith, the universal, undivided reign of the Holy Spirit. Never should they for one moment allow that there is, or ever has been, or can be, any region in the whole order and constitution of things, whether material, moral, or spiritual, that is not subject to Its divine sway. Never should they concede, either to the pretensions of the men of science or to the exclusive dogmatism of the men of theology, that the power and work of the Divine Spirit is shut out of any sphere of nature. And yet this has been done by those who have handed over, with a blind readiness, the material world to the

laws of nature, in order to reserve what they deemed to be the spiritual world to the rule of the Divine Spirit. But to these pseudo-spiritualists, as well as to the materialists who err in the opposite direction, the first page of Genesis administers a rebuke, "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters;' and there is nothing either in the Book of revelation or in the records of nature to say that matter has been withdrawn from the dominion of the One Spirit. It only requires that this error of secluding the operation of the Spirit within a certain sphere, and leaving all without that sphere to the control of natural laws, should be pushed further, in order to reproduce in principle, if not in form, that ancient heresy which held a duality of powers in the universe, and, while it reserved spiritual existences to the reign of one Supreme God, committed matter to the control of the Demiurge. The bond of peace' between theology and science is only to be secured through the common belief in the unity of the Spirit.'

And the unity of the Spirit involves the unity of truth, of which the Spirit is the Divine guardian and teacher. On the other hand, the universality of the truth implies the universality of the Spirit's operation. They who believe in this most firmly will not hastily start aside when they are told by thoughtful men, whether in the ranks of science or of theology, that there is no reason to limit the domain of nature to the material world, or to exclude from its sphere any whatsoever of the things visible and invisible.' Nor, again, will it seem to him a thing incredible that the domain of law should be co-extensive with that of nature, and that mind as well as matter, the metaphysical as well as the physical, should submit to its wide-spread reign. Nothing, perhaps, betrays so surely the weakness or the disease of a man's faith as his being alarmed and in doubt about the safety of truth. To feel anxiety concerning one's own apprehension of the truth is, indeed, both reasonable and wise; but to be cast into agitation for the ultimate triumph of truth itself argues either ignorance of, or unbelief in, the mission of the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, to take care of truth, and to show its treasures to earnest and trustful hearts. Truth is not in human keeping, though its discovery be the highest reward of human effort, and its revelation the most blessed bestowal of Heaven's gifts. Neither is truth the exclusive possession of any one portion of mankind. No sect of religionists, no school of philosophers, no party of politicians can rightfully declare that the whole truth is theirs, and theirs alone. Verily, truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven:' but just as the Sun of righteousness sheds His quickening beams over the whole earth, so will the scattered blades of truth be found to grow, here more thickly, there more sparsely, but in some measure everywhere, testifying to the unity of the Spirit from Whom

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

it daws its life, and promising the ultimate restoration of the Spirit's universal reign. How wise, therefore, was Clement of Alexandria when he wrote amidst the jarring conflicts of his day, 'Let all, both Greeks and barbarians, who have aspired 'after the truth-both those who possess not a little and those who have any portion-produce whatever they have of the 'word of truth; and could also add, 'So, then, the barbarian 'and Hellenic philosophy has torn off a fragment of eternal 'truth, not from the mythology of Dionysus, but from the 'theology of the ever-living Word. And he who brings again together the separate fragments and makes them one, will with'out peril, be assured, contemplate the perfect word, the truth.'1 The language of a true philosophy concerning the reign of law needs only to be translated into the language of devout theology in order to express the deepest belief of a Christian; and the phraseology which speaks of supreme will accomplishing purpose by power exercised in combining or contriving the forces of nature, we gladly exchange for the words of Hooker, who was both a good philosopher as well as a sound divine: With us there is one only Guide of all agents natural, and He both the Creator 'and Worker of all in all, alone to be blessed, adored, and 'honoured by all for ever.' 2

[ocr errors]

POSTSCRIPT.-The writer of the foregoing article, like the writer of the book which it reviews had, when he wrote it, the first edition of Mr. Darwin's 'Origin of Species' to quote from. But the reader ought to consult p. 238 of the fourth edition of that work, in order fairly to judge of the author's opinions concerning beauty as a purpose in nature. That the conceptions of the beautiful vary according to the culture, progress, and conditions of nations and individuals, no one will venture to deny; but the same may be said of other things besides beauty, which things, nevertheless, most persons will allow to be fulfilments of purpose. Mr. Darwin is quite right in trying to save his theory from the disastrous consequences of admitting the purpose of beauty; but it hardly follows that beauty is not a purpose because the Chinese have queer notions (as they seem to us) about the beautiful. Collect all the examples you can of various and inconsistent ideas of beauty, and you are only storing up cumulative evidence to show that there is a purpose to be fulfilled in respect of beauty, and irrespective of utility.

1 Stromata, lib. i. cap. xiv.

2 Eccl. Pol. 1. iii. 4.

158

ART. VI.-England and Christendom. By HENRY EDWARD, Archbishop of Westminster. London: Longman, Green

& Co. 1867.

PROBABLY most of our readers are more or less familiar with the three pamphlets which have during the last three years proceeded from the pen of the Archbishop of Westminster. The last and longest of the three was noticed in this review soon after its appearance in the spring of 1866. Dr. Manning has seen fit to reprint it, together with the two previous brochures, in a handsome volume, which contains a hundred additional pages by way of preface, but with no alteration, as far as we can discover, of the rest of the contents of the volume. In that review we took occasion to draw a contrast between the two representatives of the two schools of thought which divide the empire of the Roman Church between them-the Liberal school, as represented by Dr. Newman, and the Ultramontane, headed by Archbishop Manning. The prominent characteristic of Dr. Newman may be said to be love for those from whom he finds himself separated, whilst the Archbishop's line is an uncompromising and contemptuous denunciation of the errors from which he rejoices that he is freed. The latter is evidently quite unable to see how it is possible that persons whom he once acted with should not take the same step which fifteen years ago he was himself induced to take; whilst the other, with an equally firm persuasion that that step which he had some years before ventured on was right and imperative, knows and understands the difficulties which prevent different minds from seeing things all from the same point of view. We have looked through the Archbishop's volume again, and have considered the Introduction, which, as we have said, is the only part that claims to be new. But new as it is in form, it adds little or nothing to the argument of the volume which it ushers into public notice. It is neither more nor less than what each of the three separate publications was, viz. an attempt to make the most of the various disasters which have befallen the Church of England, to disparage it in comparison with Dissenting communities, whilst ignoring all that has been so often repeated on the other side of the question, and all that can be urged against the Roman communion in the way of scandal and offence. If we had no other means of judging, we should suppose, from Dr. Manning's style of writing, that within the pale of the Roman communion all was peace and serenity, whilst the Church of England presented an appearance of nothing but anarchy and

« PreviousContinue »