vital connection,-then the logical passage and the hypothesis break down. The interpretation of our moral consciousness which is needed must proceed by another way; and this way is shown by Dr Martineau himself.

Before we proceed to consider this third line of thought, we must look further at some of the bearings of the inadequate interpretation of conscience which we have just examined.

The idea of God's moral

relations to Man, which is involved in it, is of great historical importance. It was worked out consistently by Kant, and, in the form which he gave it, is known as Ethical Deism. With Kant the mere binding force of the "categorical imperative" is made the basis on which rests belief in God, in His moral government of the world, in a future life, and in human freedom. All these are inferential postulates from our moral nature, which taken in itself is conceived as so absolutely self-sufficient as to have no need of any interaction with God. In this case, the view taken of Redemption naturally identifies it with individual moral progress, -a "salvation" which is worked out by the

natural activity of the individual mind, and which implies nothing more on the divine side than the original creation of man and his endowment with Reason and free-will. Kant's own statement has special features which we need not enter into; but his meaning is at one with the results of what we have called Dr Martineau's second line of thought, which may be thus summed up: "God's part is done when, having made us free, he shows to us our best; ours now remains to pass from illumination of conscience to surrender of will." 1

The great mistake of the Kantian conception lies in its ethical individualism, which leads to an inadequate view of human life, and especially of moral evil and its remedies. This defect is deeply rooted in much of modern Unitarian Thought. I owe much to Unitarian thinkers, and feel it a privilege to have been under Unitarian influences, and to serve the group of Churches called by this name; but none the less do I believe that there is a serious weakness in the current Unitarian presentation of re

1 Martineau, Seat of Authority in Religion, p. 106.

ligion, which may be detected in Dr Martineau's writings whenever he is on the line of Ethical Deism.

The idea is that each man, as a moral personality, rests entirely on himself, on his own Reason and personal freedom, and may make moral advance independently of the influences of Nature and human society. The human race consists of a vast number of spiritual "atoms"; and between them there is no moral "reciprocity" or "solidarity," such as makes possible a common spirit capable of being divinely educated. Hence Dr Martineau, seeking for the Seat of Authority, makes no appeal to the history of mankind, or to the past or present experience of our of our race. There can be no degrees of truth"; the true can be separated from the false; and for this, the reason and conscience of the individual man are sufficient :

66

If the sacred leaven diffuses itself through the mass of our humanity, and in quickening our nature is dissolved into it, there remains no rule for separating what is divine and authoritative except the tests by which in moral and spiritual things we know the true from

the false, the holy from the unholy. . . . Reason for the rational, conscience for the right—these are the sole organs for appreciating the last claims upon us, the courts of ultimate appeal, whose verdict it is not only weakness but treason to resist.1

Hence Dr Martineau will not hear of any "legislative function vested in the general assembly of dead and unborn men, together with the miscellany of living populations," and in speaking of a supposed manufacture of "Right by social vote," he pours scorn on public opinion as a moral influence. Men are separate units, created alike; each one is a type of human nature. Thus, without asking a question of our fellowmen, we know that the revelation of authority to one mind is valid for all. This is not Dr Martineau's last word, as we shall see; and it is a view which has died out of the higher thought of the time; but it survives by the mere dead weight of inherited prejudice, in much of the popular political and religious thinking of the day.

This view of life weakens the Unitarian

1 Seat of Authority, p. 169.

doctrine and strengthens the adverse doctrine. It weakens Unitarian doctrine because it leads to a non-recognition of the truth contained in the ancient dogmas of inherited evil and man's moral incapacity. There is a special reason for this with men like Kant and Martineau. There are among us some who, by their very purity of heart and stainless integrity of character, tend to under-estimate the weakness of ordinary humanity and exaggerate the power of moral freedom. Hence they may fail to understand the full meaning of Sin: that it is more than any act or series of acts,-that it comes to be a corruption of character which is not cured by ceasing to disobey. They miss seeing the hold which evil may have on human nature. The following passage from Martineau reveals the writer to us:

Whoever is faithful to a first grace that opens on him shall receive another in advance of it; and, if still he follows the messenger of God, angels ever brighter shall go before his way. Every duty done leaves the eye more clear, and enables gentler whispers to reach the ear; every brave sacrifice incurred lightens the weight of the clinging self which holds us back; every storm of