seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil; rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love." THE GREATEST OF THESE IS LOVE, for there needs no religion of the future" to tell us this.

Or again, is it meant that the natural affections which bind us to one another are of " supreme value," in the sense that their claims are necessarily above all other claims, and that we ought not to endanger these affections for any consideration? Surely this cannot be meant; to assert this would be to strike at the root of all morality. "He that loveth father or mother more than Me," said Christ, "is not worthy of Me." And whatever any Positivist may think of this remarkable and lofty claim, he would surely never dream of denying that considerations of private affection ought to yield to the claims of conscience and duty. He would not defend a father who should commit a fraud in order to promote the welfare of his children. And I cannot doubt that he would admire the character of the man or woman who should cleave to truth and honour, at the cost of endangering or even of losing -the love of the dearest relative or friend. Mr. Lewes, therefore, cannot mean to proclaim that human love is of such "supreme value" that it is entitled to demand from us the sacrifice of morality.

What, then, does he mean? Probably this: that the love which human beings cherish towards each other and towards their race is man's chief treasure; that we know of no higher love in the universe; and

that a love for humanity ought to prompt us to the noblest life, without any thought of a personal God or of a personal immortality. The Positivist would substitute the religion of humanity, the worship and love of the human race, for the worship and love of the living, personal God. It is here that we differ from him. We deny the "supreme value of human love," if it be meant by this that there is nothing higher in the universe. Noble and precious indeed is the pure, unselfish affection which human creatures can cherish for one another: it is certainly one of our dearest possessions. But there is one thing which is higher and more precious still, and that is the love which the Father in heaven bears towards every human soul. God is love": and His love towards us is the one thing which is of absolutely "supreme value." It is His love which is the fountain of all other love; it is His love which has given us the friends who care for us; it is His love which bestows upon our own hearts the faculty of loving. And any religion which shuts out from view God and immortality, whilst it may appear to be increasing the worth of human love by speaking of it as "supreme," does in reality lessen its significance and preciousness, and tends to dry up some of the sources of its inspiration.

Thus, suppose we regard the love of a mother for her child, or the love of youth and maiden, however pure and noble, as being merely a subtle form of animal instinct; suppose we regard the love of friends and country and humanity, and all the unselfish devotion which flows from these affections, as due simply to certain movements in the brain, which men cannot control; and suppose, further, that we

دو

regard all these affections as not only having their origin in dust, but as also going back into dust in the grave, is it possible that we can still attach the same sacredness, significance, and value to human love? Or, if this planet of ours is destined in the course of ages to become uninhabitable, and if science compels the Positivist to believe that humanity, as such, is thus destined to be blotted out of the universe, what becomes of the "immortality of his influence," and how does the worship and love of "humanity appear in the light of this final consummation? Surely the value of human love must depend on the value of the nature that loves and is loved. Surely human affection becomes a much grander thing when we believe that, however it may be associated with the bodily frame, it is the affection of a spiritual and immortal creature, "made in the image of the Creator." The love of a mother for a child, does it not become far more significant and precious when we regard it as implanted by the God whose very nature is love? Our own dear ones who have passed away through death, what of their love for us ? Will it become more holy and precious in our thought if we think of it as converted into ashes, dust, and gas? Is it not far more valuable when we think of it as abiding still, when we feel that we can still love, not a mere memory, but a living friend, whom we hope yet to meet again in "the Father's house"? Yes when it is immortals that love immortals, the love itself becomes a grander and more precious thing. Then it is seen that love is too sacred a thing to be tampered with, and to be made the mere sport and plaything of an hour; that no man, even though he

be a human colossus, like the German Goethe, has any right to trifle with human affections. Then, too, when all men are seen to be the children of God, spiritual creatures destined for immortality, we feel that there is a far higher basis for the love and the service of humanity. The "brotherhood of man" has its true foundation in the "Fatherhood" of God. And so, any "religion of the future," which ignores God and immortality, may preach, as it will, "the supreme value of human love," but this " supreme value " will not be so valuable as the human love which is seen to have its spring in the higher love of God, and which even death itself cannot destroy.

III. THE CHRISTIAN ESTIMATE OF THE HUMAN INTELLECT.

WE Come now to threefold contrast.

the third point in Mr. Lewes's "The religion of the future," he says, "instead of proclaiming the imbecility of the human mind, will proclaim its grandeur." Here, once more, we have both an indictment and an ideal.

Look, first, at the indictment. Supposing it to be here suggested that Christianity "proclaims the imbecility of the human mind," I ask whether this charge can be substantiated by adequate evidence. The question is not whether many foolish things have not been uttered in the name of Christianity, for this, of course, must be admitted. It must be acknowledged that Christian men, in dwelling on the necessity for faith, have sometimes under-estimated the powers of the human intellect, and undervalued the kind and amount of knowledge which comes from the exercise of these

powers.

It may be that they have sometimes even represented the call to faith as a demand to believe incredibilities. And it is quite true that narrow and ignorant Christians have often spoken with contempt of human learning, and have gloried in clinging to beliefs which science has demonstrated to be no longer tenable. But even this falls a long way short of "proclaiming the imbecility of the human mind"; and, moreover, the essential question is not as to what mistaken or narrow Christians may have said on this subject, but as to what is the attitude of the Christian religion, as such, towards the human intellect.

Look, then, at the teaching of Christ and His apostles-look at the general tone and spirit of the New Testament and consider whether it is fairly open to the charge of "proclaiming the imbecility of the human mind." Jesus Christ does not, indeed, come before us in the Gospels either as a man of science or as a philosopher-technically so called. He was educated in no human school of learning or philosophy. "According to the flesh," He was a man of the people, and, until He was thirty years of age, lived the life of a Galilean peasant. It was no part of His mission to engage in scientific research, or to examine how far the exercise of reason could carry men in the pursuit of knowledge. It was not even any part of His specific mission to urge men directly to the due cultivation of their intellectual powers. His was other and far higher work. He came as a Prophet- -a Seer-a religious Teacher and Reformer—yea, as the Revealer of the Eternal God. He came to reconcile men to their Father in heaven-to make them true and loyal citizens of the kingdom of righteousness and love.