Without dwelling further upon the physical elements of man, there are three const.i.tuents or functions of personality prominent in the New Testament which claim our consideration, reason, conscience and will. It is just because man possesses, or _is_ mind, conscience and will, that he is capable of responding to the life which Christ offers, and of sharing in the divine character which he reveals.
(2) The term _nous_, or reason, is of frequent occurrence in the New Testament. Christianity highly honours the intellectual powers of man and accords to the mind an important role in apprehending and entering into the thoughts and purposes of G.o.d. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy G.o.d with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind," says Jesus. Many are disposed to think that the exercise of faith, the immediate organ of spiritual apprehension, is checked by the interference of reason. But so far from faith and reason being opposed, not only are they necessary to each other, but in all real faith there is an element of reason. In all religious feeling, as in morality, art, and other spheres of human activity, there is the underlying element of reason which is the characteristic of all the activities of a self-conscious intelligence. To endeavour to elicit that element, to infuse into the spontaneous and unsifted conceptions of religious experience the objective clearness, necessity and organic unity of thought--is the legitimate aim of science, in religion as in other spheres. It would be strange if in the highest of all provinces of human experience intelligence must renounce her claim.[17] The Ritschlian value-judgment theory in its disparagement of philosophy is practically a dethronement of reason. And the protest of Pragmatism and the voluntarists {64} generally against what they term "Intellectualism"[18] and their distrust of the logical faculty, are virtually an avowal of despair and a resort to agnosticism, if not to scepticism. If we are to renounce the quest for objective truth, and accept "those ideas only which we can a.s.similate, validate, corroborate,"[19] those ideas in short which are "practically useful in guiding us to desirable issues," then it would seem we are committed to a world of subjective caprice and confusion and must give up the belief in a rational view of the universe.
(3) In spite of the wonderful suggestiveness of M. Bergson"s philosophy, we are unable to accept the distinction which that writer draws between intuition and intelligence, in which he seems to imply that intuition is the higher of the two activities. Intelligence, according to this writer, is at home exclusively in spatial considerations, in solids, in geometry, but it is to be repelled as a foreign element when it comes to deal with life. Bergson would exclude rational thought and intelligence from life, creation, and initiative. The clearest evidence of intuition is in the works of great artists. "What is implied is that in artistic creation, in the work of genius and imagination, we have pure novelty issuing from no premeditated or rational idea, but simply pure irrationality and unaccountableness."[20] The work of art cannot be predicated; it is beyond reason, as life is beyond logic and law.[21]
But so far from finding life unintelligible, it would be nearer the truth to say that man"s reason can, strictly speaking, understand nothing else.[22] "Instinct finds," says Bergson, "but does not search. Reason searches but cannot find."[23] "But," adds Professor Dewey, "what we find is meaningless save as measured by searching, and so instincts and pa.s.sions must be elevated into reason."[24] In the lower creatures instinct does the {65} work of reason--sufficiently for the simple conditions in which the animal lives. And in the earlier stages of human life instinct plays an important part. But when man, both as an individual and as humanity, advances to a more complex life, instinct is unequal to the new task confronting him. We cannot be content to be guided by instinct. Reason a.s.serts itself and seeks to permeate all our experiences, and give unity and purpose to all our thoughts and acts.
The recent disparagement of intellectualism is probably a reaction against the extreme absolutism of German idealism which, beginning with Kant, found fullest expression in Fichte, Sch.e.l.ling and Hegel. But the true way to meet exclusive rationalism is not to discredit the function of mind, but to give to it a larger domain of experience. We do not exalt faith by emptying it of all intellectual content and reducing it to mere subjective feeling; nor do we explain genius by ascribing its acts to blind, unthinking impulse. "The real is the rational," says Hegel.
Truth, in other words, presupposes a rational universe which we, as rational beings, must a.s.sume in all our thought and effort. To set up faith against reason, or intuition against intelligence is to set the mind against itself. We cannot set up an order of facts, as Professor James would have us do, outside the intellectual realm; for what does not fall within our experience can have for us no meaning, and what for us has no meaning cannot be an object of faith. An ineradicable belief in the rationality of the world is the ultimate basis of all art, morality and religion. To rest in mere intuition or emotion and not to seek objective truth would be for man to renounce his true prerogative and to open the door for all kinds of superst.i.tion and caprice.
III. In the truest sense it may be claimed that this is the teaching of Christianity. When Christ says that we are to love G.o.d with our minds He seems to imply that there is such a thing as intelligent affection. The distinctive feature of our Lord"s claim is that G.o.d is not satisfied when His creatures render a merely implicit obedience; He {66} desires also the enthusiastic use of their intellect, intent on knowing everything that it is possible for men to know about His character and ways. And is there not something sublime in this demand of G.o.d that the n.o.blest part of man should be consecrated to Him? G.o.d reveals Himself in Christ to our highest; and He would have us respond to His manifestations with our highest. Nor is this the att.i.tude of Christ only. The Apostle Paul also honours the mind, and gives to it the supreme place as the organ of apprehending and appropriating divine truth. Mr. Lecky brings the serious charge against Christianity that it habitually disregards the virtues of the intellect. If there is any truth in this statement it refers, not to the genius of the Gospel itself, nor to the earlier exponents of it, but rather to the Church in those centuries which followed the conversion of Constantine. No impartial reader of St.
Paul"s Epistles can aver that the apostle made a virtue of ignorance and credulity. These doc.u.ments, which are the earliest exposition of the mind of Christ, impress us rather with the intellectual boldness of their attempt to grapple with the greatest problems of life. Paul was essentially a thinker; and, as Sabatier says, is to be ranked with Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Kant, as one of the mightiest intellectual forces of the world. But not content with being a thinker himself, he sought to make his converts thinkers too, and he does not hesitate to make the utmost demand upon their reasoning faculties. He a.s.sumes a natural capacity in man for apprehending the truth, and appeals to the mind rather than to the emotions. The Gospel is styled by him "the word of truth," and he bids men "prove all things." Worship is not a meaningless ebullition of feeling or a superst.i.tious ritual, but a form of self-expression which is to be enlightened and guided by thought. "I will pray with the understanding and sing with the understanding."
It is indeed a strong and virile Christianity which Paul and the other apostles proclaim. It is no magic spell they seek to exert. They are convinced that there is that in {67} the mind of man which is ready to respond to a thoughtful Gospel. If men will only give their unprejudiced minds to G.o.d"s Word, it is able to make them "wise unto salvation." It would lead us beyond the scope of this chapter to consider the peculiar Pauline significance of faith. It is enough to say that while he does not identify it with intellectual a.s.sent, as little does he confine it to mere subjective a.s.surance. It is the primary act of the human spirit when brought into contact with divine truth, and it lies at the root of a new ethical power, and of a deeper knowledge of G.o.d. If the apostle appears to speak disparagingly of wisdom it is the wisdom of pride, of "knowledge that puffeth up." He warns Timothy against "science falsely so called." On the whole St. Paul exalts the intellect and bids men attain to the full exercise of their mental powers. "Be not children in understanding: but in understanding be men."[25]
If, as we have seen, the body be an integral part of man, and has its place and function in the Christian life, not less, but even more, has the mind a special ethical importance. It is to the intelligence that Christianity appeals, and it is with the rational faculties that moral truth is apprehended and applied to life. Reason in its broadest sense is the most distinctive feature of man, and by means of it he exerts his mightiest influence upon the world. Mental and moral growth are closely connected, and personal character is largely moulded by thought. "As a man thinketh in his heart so is he." Not only at the beginning of the new life, but in all its after stages the mind is an important factor, and its consecration and cultivation are laid upon us as an obligation by Him in whose image we have been made, and whom to know and serve is our highest end.
[1] See Author"s _Ethics of St. Paul_.
[2] Cf. Murray, _Sandbank of Christian Ethics_. See also Hegel, _Phil.
der Religion_, vol. ii. p. 210 ff., where the ant.i.thesis is finely worked out.
[3] Gen. i. 26; Eccles. vii. 29; Col. iii. 10; James iii. 9.
[4] See Hugh Miller"s _Essays_, quoted by Murray, _op. cit._, p. 137.
[5] Cf. W. James, _Varieties of Religious Experience_, pp. 81-86.
[6] Cf. Goethe"s _Faust_. See also Nietzsche, _Gotzendammerung_ for trenchant criticism of Rousseau.
[7] Murray, _idem_.
[8] Max Muller, Fraser, _Golden Bough_, and others.
[9] Anfange des Christentums.
[10] Cf. Ottley, _Christian Ideas and Ideals_, p. 52. "Christianity does justice both to man"s inherent instinct that he has been made for G.o.d, and to his sense of unworthiness and incapacity."
[11] _Pensees_, part ii. art. 1.
[12] Emerson.
[13] Ed. Caird, _Critical Philosophy of Kant_, p. 35.
[14] See Author"s _Ethics of St. Paul_.
[15] Ottley, _idem_, p. 55.
[16] Luke xxi. 19.
[17] Cf. John Caird, _Introd. to the Philosophy of Religion_.
[18] Cf. Wm. James"s _Pragmatism_ and _A Pluralistic World_.
[19] _Idem_, p. 201.
[20] Cf. Bosanquet, _The Principles of Individuality and Value_.
[21] Bergson, _Evol. Creat._, p. 174 f.
[22] Cf. E. Caird, _Kant_, vol. ii. pp. 530 and 535.
[23] _Evol. Creat._, p. 159.
[24] _Hib. Jour._, July 1911.
[25] Some sentences in the above are borrowed from the writer"s _Ethics of St. Paul_.
{68}
CHAPTER V
THE WITNESS OF CONSCIENCE
Pa.s.sing from the physical and mental const.i.tuents of man, we turn to the more distinctly moral elements; and in this chapter we shall consider that aspect of the human consciousness to which mankind has given the name of "conscience."
No subject has presented greater difficulties to the moralist, and there are few which require more careful elucidation. From the earliest period of reflection the question how we came to have moral ideas has been a disputed one. At first it was thought that there existed in man a distinct innate faculty or moral sense which was capable of deciding categorically man"s duty without reference to history or condition. But in modern times the theory of evolution has discredited the inviolable character of conscience, and sought rather to determine its nature and significance in the light of its origin and development. Only the barest outline of the subject can be attempted here, since our object is simply to show that however we may account for its presence, there is in man, as we know him, some power or function which bears witness to divine truth and fits him to respond to the revelation of Christ. It will be most convenient to consider the subject under three heads: I. the history of the Conception; II. the nature and origin of Conscience; and III. its present validity.
I. _History of the Conception_.--"The name conscience," says a writer on the subject, "appears somewhat late in {69} the history of the world: that for which it stands is as old as mankind."[1]
1. Without pushing our inquiries back into the legendary lore of savage life, in which we find evidence of the idea in the social inst.i.tutions and religious enactments of primitive races, it is among the Greeks that the word, if not the idea of conscience, first meets us. Perhaps the earliest trace of the notion is to be found in the mythological conception of the Furies, whose business it was to avenge crime--a conception which might be regarded as the reaction of man"s own nature against the violation of better instincts, if not as the reflection or embodiment of what is popularly called conscience. It can scarcely be doubted that the Erinnyes of Aeschylus were deities of remorse, and possess psychological significance as symbols of the primitive action of conscience.[2] Though Sophocles is less of a theologian than Aeschylus, and problems of Ethics count less than the human interest of his story, the law of Nemesis does find in him dramatic expression, and the n.o.ble declaration put into the mouth of Antigone concerning the unwritten laws of G.o.d that "know no change and are not of to-day nor yesterday, but must be obeyed in preference to the temporary commandments of men,"[3] is a protest on behalf of conscience against human oppression. And even in Euripides, regarded as an impious scoffer by some scholars,[4] there are not wanting, especially in the example of Alcestis, evidence of belief in that divine justice and moral order of which the virtues of self-devotion and sacrifice in the soul of man are the witness.
Socrates was among the first teachers of antiquity who led the way to that self-knowledge which is of the essence of conscience, and in the "Daemon," or inner voice, which he claimed to possess, some writers have detected the trace {70} of the intuitive monitor of man. Plato"s discussion of the question, "What is the highest good?" involves the capacity of moral judgment, and his conception of reason regulating desire suggests a power in the mind whose function it is to point to the highest good and to subordinate to it all the other impulses of man. In the ethics of Aristotle there is a reference to a faculty in man or "rule within," which, he says, the beasts lack.
But it is among the Stoics that the word first appears; and it is to the Roman moralist, Seneca, that we are indebted for the earlier definite perception of an abiding consciousness bearing witness concerning a man"s own conduct. The writings of Epictetus, Aurelius, and Seneca approach in moral sublimity and searching self-a.n.a.lysis the New Testament Scriptures. It was probably to the Stoics that St. Paul was indebted for the word _syneidesis_ to which he has given so distinctive a meaning that it has coloured and determined the whole later history of the moral consciousness.
2. But if the word as used in the New Testament comes from Greek sources the idea itself was long prevalent in the Jewish conception of life, which, even more than the Greek, was const.i.tutive of, and preparatory to, the Christian view. The word does not, indeed, occur in the Old Testament, but the question of G.o.d to Adam, "Where art thou?" the story of Cain and the curse he was to suffer for the murder of his brother; the history of Joseph"s dealing with his brethren; the account of David"s sin and conviction, are by implication appeals to conscience. Indeed, the whole history of Israel, from the time when the promise was given to Abraham and the law through Moses until the denunciations of wrong-doing and the predictions of doom of the later prophets, is one long education of the moral sense. It is the problem of conscience that imparts its chief interest to the book of Job; and one reason why the Psalms in all ages have been so highly prized is because they are the cries of a wounded conscience, and the confessions of a convicted and contrite heart.
{71}
3. If we turn to the New Testament we find, as we might expect, a much clearer testimony to the reality of the conscience. The word came into the hands of the New Testament writers ready-made, but they gave to it a richer meaning, so that it is to them we must go if we would understand the nature and the supremacy of the conscience. The term occurs thirty-one times in the New Testament, but it does not appear once in the Gospels. It is, indeed, princ.i.p.ally a Pauline expression, and to the apostle of the Gentiles more than to any other writer is due the clear conception and elucidation of the term. It would be a mistake, however, to a.s.sume that the doctrine itself depends entirely upon the use of the word. Our Lord never, indeed, employs the term, but surely no teacher ever sounded the depths of the human heart as He did. It was His mission to reveal men to themselves, to convict them of sin, and show the need of that life of righteousness and purity which He came to give. "Why even of yourselves," He said, "judge ye not what is right?" Christ, indeed, might be called the conscience of man. To awaken, renew and enlighten the moral sense of individuals, to make them know what they were and what they were capable of becoming was the work of the Son of Man, and in contact with Him every one was morally unveiled.
The word occurs twice in Acts, five times in Hebrews, three times in the Epistles of Peter, and more than twenty times in the Pauline Epistles. St. Paul"s doctrine of the conscience is contained in Romans ii. 14, 15, where he speaks of the Gentiles being "a law unto themselves," inasmuch as they possess a "law written in their hearts,"
"their conscience bearing witness, therewith accusing or excusing them." The idea underlying the pa.s.sage is the responsibility of all men for their actions, their condemnation in sin, and their acceptance in righteousness. This applies to Gentiles as well as Jews, and it applies to them because, though they have not the explicit revelation of the law, they have a revelation of the good in their hearts. The pa.s.sage therefore teaches two things: (1) That man has received a {72} revelation of good sufficient at all stages of his history to make him morally responsible; and (2) That man possesses a moral faculty which indeed is not a separate power, but the whole moral consciousness or personality in virtue of which he recognises and approves of the good which, either as the law written in his heart or as the law communicated in the Decalogue, has been revealed to him, and by whose authority he judges himself.