ARTICLE IV.

SOME CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY FROM HERBERT SPENCER.

BY REV. ALVAH S. HOBART.

THOUGHTFUL Christians firmly believe there is perfect. harmony between natural and the supernatural revelations of moral law. If there seems to be any disagreement, they are willing to wait until further investigation shows it to be only a seeming difference. It is, however, a duty to make known the harmony when it is found to exist and seek for it when hidden. The purpose of this article is to compare a treatise on scientific morality with Christian morality, to put the "Data of Ethics," which Mr. Herbert Spencer thinks he has discovered by scientific observation, alongside the "Data of Ethics" which the Christian finds written in the Scripture, and observe the points of harmony. In doing this it is to be remembered that the conclusions to which Mr. Spencer comes are all that concern us. Neither the arguments by which he has convinced himself nor the attitude of his mind in the investigation are of any importance in this discussion, except as they may throw light on his conclusions. The fact that he approaches the subject from the opposite side, and that he is searching up the stream for its source, while the Christian starts at its source and goes down the stream, gives a tone to his words which is, in a great measure, unfamiliar to the Christian ear. This must be acknowledged, at the outset and endured, and the data, as established, alone be considered.

The following data contain the substance of his conclusions:

DATUM I. Conduct is relatively good when it is well

adjusted to its end, It is absolutely good when its end is good. Hence, it follows that good conduct is that which. is well adjusted to a good end.

DATUM 2. A good end is one which results in a desirable state of feeling, whether it be called enjoyment or happiness. In other words, happiness is the good end, and such conduct as secures it is good.

DATUM 3. Happiness can not be taken as an immediate aim, but throughout the largest part of conduct must be entirely set aside and replaced by other guidance.

DATUM 4. Happiness is not to be taken in its physical sense, nor for the present moment only, but in its widest sweep and longest reach.

Happiness of self alone is not to be sought, but the happiness of others is to be included.

These data are the conclusions of his book. Much space is given to applying and adjusting them to the yet imperfect state of society. But it is fair to say that these cover the ground of his teaching.

Concerning datum one, there is no question between us. It is more properly a definition of terms; yet it is a part of his argument. We use the word right where he uses good; nevertheless, his meaning is our meaning. Though we do not consciously analyze the word it will be found to spring from the idea of results. We call that right action which ultimately ends in right. And we judge of conduct by its fruits. The Christian teaching is expressed in the saying: By their fruits ye shall know them." This refers the question of the quality of an action to its final results, and transfers the question of moral standard to the second datum.

Datum 2. This, upon the face of it, has such an appearance of small selfishness, that it excites in Christian students a recoil of disgust and immediate vigorous dissent. We owe it to ourselves, however, thoroughly to understand him. It is to be remembered that he is searching for a rule of moral conduct in the same way that men search for VOL. V, No. 19-23

a law of physical health. He must find it by observation, for, in his judgment, there is no revelation of what is right and wrong morally in any way different from that in which the right and wrong of eating and drinking is revealed. Both are to be determined by experience and observation. He stands, therefore, with a keen eye to the results only of moral precepts. To him it does not matter who promulgates a rule of conduct, nor what authority it claims for itself or is claimed for it. He is intensely engaged with the inquiry, What are its fruits? His argument concerning any given rule is this: (1.) That rule is right which ends in happiness. (2.) This rule ends in happiness. (3.) Therefore this is right. But this first premise is a conclusion of an unexpressed syllogism, namely: (1.) All is right which is in accordance with the purpose of the power that controls the universe. (2.) The purpose of the power that controls the universe is the happiness of the beings that are in it. (3.) Therefore all which promotes the happiness of these beings is right.

One of the firmest convictions of Mr. Spencer's mind is a thing which even he can not prove, but yet accepts. without question-that the "Power which works in evolution" (as he sees fit to name it, and he writes it with a capital) works toward happiness. He calls those who dispute this idea "devil worshipers," and declares that they are "beneath argument." He revels in the joyous assumption that if we knew the whole law of our whole being, and obeyed it, we should be supremely blessed. Our sorrow and pain are but the friction of moral machinery out of order, or the goads of the "power that works" to turn us into the path that ends in true happiness.

It is here that in his abstract principles he is in harmony with Christian ideas. We reason, (1.) All is right which is in harmony with God's purpose. (2.) God's purpose is to promote the happiness of his creatures. (3.) Therefore all which promotes the happiness of his creatures is right. And the truth of the argument will appear if we, for the

moment, assume the contrary to be true, and say: (1.) All is right which is in harmony with God's purpose. (2.) God's purpose is sometimes to promote the misery of his creatures. (3.) Therefore some right things must end in misery-a conclusion which neither Christian nor scientist is willing to admit.

(It must be remembered that we are speaking only of what is right for man. With the ethics of the Creator we have nothing to do.) We hold, as does Mr. Spencer, that some things produce a temporary pain, which are, nevertheless, right, but the ripened fruit of all right conduct will be happiness. Richard Baxter wrote, "All Christ's ways of mercy tend to and end in the saint's joy. He discovers their future happiness, that their joy may be full." And that is the preacher's message in all ages. In accord with it is Dr. Wayland's statement: "We know that we are so made as to derive happiness from some courses of conduct, and to suffer unhappiness from others. Now no one can doubt that the intention of our Creator in these cases was that we should pursue the one course and avoid the other."

The Westminster Catechism," which is a competent witness to what Christian teaching has been, says that the immediate motive of man should be to "glorify God," but it adds, as the end of such conduct, "to enjoy him forever.” And, indeed, the appeal of the Scriptures is constantly made to the human heart through the window that looks out. toward happiness.

Mr. Spencer would say that the fact that a certain kind of conduct promotes happiness is conclusive evidence that it is in accord with the "power that works." power that works." We should say such promotion of happiness is one of several conclusive evidences that it is in accord with God's purpose. Our difference is not contradictive. He is not over against us as Ebal was over against Gerizim. He is upon a hillside, while we are above him on the same hillside, seeing all that he sees and much that he does not see. He can not pass

final judgment upon any specified course of conduct, because he says I do not know yet what will be the full outcome. We can say that God, who knows conduct from its conception to its end, and who desires to promote our happiness, has pointed out the way, and says, walk ye in it.

But it will be said that there is a selfishness in his position which is contrary to the Christian ideal. Mr. Spencer does not feel the weakness of his position with the same set of nerves that we do, but he feels it, nevertheless, and in the next datum it is considered. Before we pass to consider it, however, it is but just to ourselves that we remember that he is not dealing with subjective conditions of mind, but only with objective rules of conduct—and, further, that a most important factor of moral conduct is entirely ignored by him.'

Concerning the apparent selfishness of the statement that happiness is the end to be sought, it may be said that while Christian ethics admit that all right conduct will end in happiness, and is usually accompanied with happiness, they deny that happiness ought to be an immediate aim. As another has said, "it is to be had by not seeking it."

But here Mr. Spencer is in harmony with our position, for datum three declares that happiness can not be taken as an immediate aim, but in a large part of conduct must be entirely set aside and replaced by other guidance. He seems to have seen the impossibility of deciding our path of duty by such a standard. He recognizes the fact that conduct is complex in its make up, and that the actions of to-day are but seeds sown, whose results are to come to-morrow and tomorrow and to-morrow. We are but threads woven into the web of human history. Our actions affect hundreds today and thousands to morrow, hence no man can look upon his own conduct and decide its merit by the feeling it gives him just at that moment, for he does not know what untold consequences he may bring upon himself. Hence, he must have "other guidance," says Mr. Spencer. Thinking of man only as a social animal, he does not feel the impera