poetry is the supernatural. Posted in his "watchtower," in full sight of "God's Facts," "the Immensities," and the Verities," he stimulates the intellect only to paralyze the power of action. What is his grand fundamental remedy? Self-annihilation. Does this mean more than St. Paul's words, "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection"? If so, is the sense conveyed in the following passage? —“In fact, Christian doctrine, backed by all the human wisdom I could ever hear of, inclines me to think that Ignatius, had he been a good and wise man, would have consented at this point to be damned, as it was clear to him that he deserved to be. Here would have been a healing salve for his conscience, one transcendent act of virtue,

66

these works (says Mr. Carlyle, in days before he became a rhapsodist) was Goethe himself. In this unlooked-for and unexampled popularity he was far from feeling that he had attained his object: this first outpouring of his soul had calmed its agitations, not exhausted or even indicated its strength, and he now began to see afar off a much higher region, as well as glimpses of the track by which it might be attained. To cultivate his own spirit, not only as an author but a man, to obtain dominion over it, and wield its resources in the service of what seemed Good and Beautiful, had been his object, more or less distinctly, from the first, as it is that of all true men in their several spheres. According to his own deep maxim, that "Doubt of any kind can only be removed by action," this object had now become more clear to him; and he may be said to have pursued it to the present hour, with a comprehensiveness and an unwearied perseverance, rarely if ever ex-which it still lay with him, the worst of emplified in the history of such a mind.

sinners, to do. To die forever, as I have deserved; let Eternal Justice triumph so, since otherwise it may not.'" Is it not plain that in this passage is nothing of significance for human nature,

Evidently there is nothing new in Goethe's aspiration. The subjection of the flesh to the spirit is the very essence of the doctrine of St. Paul. If the cul-nothing of practical import, nothing but ture preached by Goethe be, indeed, the the intoxication of paradox? So, again, new gospel that Mr. Carlyle maintains, it in Mr. Carlyle's social philosophy, in his must possess a larger catholicity and crusade, for instance, against "Downing power of being translated into life and Street," when, after a whirlwind of invecaction than is shown by Christianity.tive against the Diabolus spirit of Red Now, we doubt if any man has ever done Tape, the reader, in a moment's breathmore to render action impossible than ing-space, looks for the inspired advice, Goethe's first English disciple, Mr. Car- the oracle counsels profoundly, "Able lyle. Action is what he has always been men! Get able men in Downing Street!" preaching, and yet in the same breath he In such bewildering chances do we find has poured contempt on present action ourselves in our journeys with Mr. Carof every kind, whether as connected with lyle, at one moment transported on a the past, or constructive of the future. celestial metaphor, the next stranded As we all know, he is content that "old upon a barren platitude! Why is this? sick society" should be burnt, in the And how comes the serene philosophy faith that, somehow or other, "a phoenix" of Goethe to be translated into the turis to arise out of its ashes. Yet who so bulent and discontented system of his scornful as he of the vast army of nos-disciple? For our own part, we think trum-mongers, liberals, economists, utili-the reason is not far to seek. Mr. Cartarians, and other professors of the lyle's ideals are wholly un-English. "Dismal Science," who make shift to put something in the place of what they desire to destroy? The reason is that Mr. Carlyle is a poet, and sees the inadequacy of these materialistic systems. But while all great poetry stimulates to action, by "holding as 'twere the mirror up to nature," the sphere of Mr. Carlyle's

England is not Weimar, nor is the purely literary culture, which could develop itself at liberty in a petty German Court, undisturbed by even the rumour of politics, qualified to succeed amidst the vehement political life of a great and ancient nation.

A far more systematic attempt, how

ever, to naturalize "culture" in England diately arises, is the perfection thus enhas been made by another disciple of joined identical with that perfection Goethe. No one has more persistently which consists in a "harmonious develpreached the necessity of this new re-opment of all sides of our humanity"? ligion than Mr. Arnold; but perceiving We are thus led to ask for a clear deficlearly the unpractical nature of Mr. nition of the common and traditional Carlyle's mission, he has thrown his own conception of Christianity, and we shall efforts into the form of exposition, and not find it better than in the words of has in every way sought to popularize his Bishop Butler, a writer for whom Mr. creed by indicating how it is to be em- Arnold professes the highest admirabodied in our national life. Nor has he tion: been by any means unsuccessful in enThe divine government of the world, imgrafting his ideas on literary society. plied in the notion of religion in general and Like all the Girondin party, he knows of Christianity, contains in it that mankind is thoroughly the value of phrases, and the appointed to live in a future state; that every very word "culture" itself, "6 perfec-one shall be rewarded or punished respectively tion," "sweetness and light," "Hebra- for all that behaviour here which we compreism," "Hellenism," and others now so hend under the words virtuous, morally good, commonly found in current literature, or evil; that our present life is a probation, a have been disseminated by his influence. state of trial, and of discipline for that future notwithstanding the objections which And no wonder, for if any man could found a gospel on refinement it would necessity against there being any such moral men may fancy they have from notions of be Mr. Arnold. Graceful and humane in plan as this at all; and whatever objections his temperament, a master alike of litera- may appear to be against the wisdom and ture and style, capable of receiving crit- goodness of it, as it stands imperfectly made icism with temper, and retorting it with known to us at present; that the world being wit, this true disciple of Goethe has re- in a state of apostasy and wickedness, and the ceived from fortune every gift, except sense of their condition and duty being greatly the power to "see himself as others see corrupted among men, this gave occasion for him." "Culture," he says, "is to be an additional dispensation of Providence, of reccommended as the great help out of but containing in it many things strange and the utmost importance, proved by miracles, our present difficulties," and if, after exnot to have been expected; a dispensation of amination, the remedy seems to be some- Providence which is a scheme or system of thing less than the philosopher's stone, things carried on by the mediation of a divine it will not be for want of clear exposition Person, the Messiah, in order to the recovery and unwavering faith on the part of its of the world, yet not revealed to all men, nor apostle. proved with the strongest evidence, but only to such a part of mankind, and with such particular evidence, as the wisdom of God thought fit.

one;

Mr. Arnold, pursuing his meritorious object of making his system precise and popular, starts with a definition: "Culture, which is the study of perfection, Here is a plain and manly statement leads us to conceive of true perfection, of Christianity, with all its difficulties, as developing all sides of our humanity, it has been accepted by every Church, by and, as a general perfection, developing every sect, and by the vast majority of all parts of our society." And he subse-individual Christians, since the time of quently shows that the question has a re-its first dispensation. "A future state of ligious, political, and social aspect, in which triple division of his subject we shall do our best to follow him.

To be perfectly cultivated we must, according to Mr. Arnold, be perfectly religious, and to be perfectly religious we must have a proper understanding of the Bible. A significant admission from a philosopher of that party which, in its first rise, did its utmost to annihilate Christianity as a baneful superstition! Yet, so far as regards his own end, Mr. Arnold is right; for is it not the precept of the Founder of Christianity, "Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect"? The question, however, imme

rewards and punishments," "our present life a state of probation," "a dispensation of Providence carried on by a divine Person, the Messiah," these are conceptions, which perhaps give a somewhat rude shock to the idea of a perfection looked for in the actual world, and consisting in the serene "development of all sides of our humanity." The orthodox belief, however, Mr. Arnold says, is a failure; the working classes will have nothing to say to it. Though it is hard to see how, in the sight of reason, this fact affects the question, Mr. Arnold considers it a valid argument against the truth of the popular faith, and a reason for

reversing the time-honoured conclusion, respecting Mahomet and the mountain Since the working classes, he seems to argue, will not come to Christianity, we must suit Christianity to the working classes. To bring about this result he considers it will be necessary to eliminate dogma from religion; in other words, to distil out all the supposed facts on which the Christian revelation is based, and to take the residuum of idea as the real heart and essence of the matter. For this purpose he proposes to apply to Christianity the highly popular modern doctrine of evolution. Each age, he says, has had its own conception of Christianity, and each age has been making, slowly but surely, towards the modern professorial standpoint. Something here appears to us somewhat to savour of that petitio principii, which we have seen to be such a frequent apparition in revolutionary logic. Mr. Arnold, however, does not hesitate to give the names of great Christian divines as being, like himself, evolutionists in religion. Thus he shows that Dr. Newman maintains the development of doctrine, though arguing from the premise to a wrong conclusion. Butler also speaks of truths in the Scripture which may yet be discovered. But Dr. Newman is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and as for the passage which Mr. Arnold quotes from Butler, it is simply an argument from the analogy of nature to prove the impossibility of comprehending per saltum the whole mystery of Christianity.

Butler never meant to say that the same fact could be true at one time and not at another, nor would the man who spoke of "a divine Person, the Messiah, carrying on a dispensation of Providence," have allowed the following theory of Mr. Arnold's to be an undiscovered "truth:

The book contains all that we know of a wonderful spirit, far above the heads of his reporters, still farther above the head of our popular theology, which has added its own misunderstanding of the reporters to the reporters misunderstanding of Jesus. And it was quite inevitable that anything so superior and profound should be imperfectly understood by those amongst whom it first appeared, and for a very long time afterwards: and that it should come at last to stand out clearer only by time, Time, as the Greek maxim says, the wisest of all things, for he is the unfailing discoverer.

Translating the word "time," which the writer is of course too modest to do for himself, we therefore arrive at this

result, that the scheme of Christianity, as stated above in the quotation from Butler, and understood by the whole Christian world for nineteen centuries, has been one vast mistake, which has only been cleared up by the arrival of the year 1873 and the interposition of Mr. Arnold.

We do not exaggerate. Let Mr. Arnold himself state what his theory of development embraces :

This premature and false criticism is all of one order, and it will all go. Not the Athanawhole creed; not this creed only, but the three sian Creed's damnatory clauses only, but the creeds: our whole received application of science, popular or learned, to the Bible. For it was an inadequate and a false science, and could not from the nature of the case be otherwise.

66 un

We naturally ask, with some curiosity, The work of Jesus,' What remains? “ Mr. Arnold says, "was to sift and renew the idea of righteousness, and to do this He brought a method and He brought a secret. His apostles, when they preached His gospel, preached repentance unto life and peace through Jesus Christ. Of these two great words, repentance, we shall to the method, and the find, attaches other, peace, to his secret." Does Mr. Arnold really think this stilted paraphrase of the gospel is the revelation of an discovered truth"? By no means. "The holders of ecclesiastical dogma," he says, "have always, we must remember, held and professed the Bible dogma" (¿.e. his Their eccleown exposition of it)" too. siastical dogma may have led them to act falsely to it, but they have always held it. The method and secret of Jesus have always been prized." Why, then, is our modern philosopher so anxious to get rid of all Christian dogma outside his own special system? "The cause lies in the Bible being made to depend on a story, or set of asserted facts, which it is impossible to verify." The Christian religion, as Mr. Arnold says, and the arguments in defence of it, rest on the assumption of a Personal Ruler of the Universe, and this cannot be verified. Religion, we are told, must no longer be a matter of faith, based on revelation, the evidence for which is based merely on probability, but must be made a matter of science.

That there is an enduring power, not our selves, which makes for righteousness is verifiable, as we have seen by experience: and that Jesus is the offspring of this power is

verifiable by experience also. For God is the criticism of a great misunderstood uauthor of righteousness; now Jesus is the Son thor." And this is what St. Paul really of God, because He gives the method and meant by the resurrection from the secret by which alone righteousness is pos- dead :sible. And that He does give this we can verify again by experience; it is so! Try! and you will find it to be so!

And this is religion in its scientific form which is to convert "the masses"! Had Mr. Arnold been a little more accustomed to close reasoning, and rather less assured of his own infallibility, he would have perceived that the whole of the above passage is made up of assumptions quite as arbitrary as any which he deprecates in the popular theology. Take two for instance. How can it be verified that there is "an enduring power, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness"? Clearly this question is one of metaphysics. The origin of the moral perception in man is assigned by some to intuition, by others to education, and by Mr. Darwin to a social instinct, arising out of evolution and inheritance. Whichever conclusion a man accepts, it is plain that he must satisfy himself with reasoning which amounts to no more than probability. How, again, can it be verified that righteousness is alone possible by the method of Jesus? Was there no righteousness in the world before the Christian era? St. Paul clearly implies the contrary when he says, "When the Gentiles which have not the law do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves."

All impulses of selfishness conflict with Christ's feelings. He showed it by dying to and sympathy, you can die to them also. them all; if you are one with Him by faith Then, secondly, if you die with Him, you become transformed by the renewing of your mind, and rise with Him. The law of the spirit which is in Christ becomes the law of your life also, and frees you from the law of sin and death. You rise with Him to that harmonious conformity with the real and the eternal, that sense of pleasing God, which is life and peace till it becomes glory. If you suffer with Him, you shall also be glorified with Him.

There is something almost incredible in this sang froid. It is, of course, true that St. Paul speaks of Christ's death and resurrection in the metaphorical sense expounded by Mr. Arnold; but is it not obvious that the whole force of the metaphor is derived from a belief in the actual fact? Had St. Paul's belief been based on mere intellectual perception, what would be the meaning of the passionate cry, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Or what significance would there be in the experience of Christians of all persuasions, in the selfinflicted penance of St. Benedict, the spiritual conflicts of Luther, and Bunyan's ever-haunting remorse, if the above calm professorial statement were the real With this extraordinary facility of veri- sum of the matter? But what follows is fication, however, it may be supposed more amazing still. We are to belie ve Mr. Arnold has little difficulty in dealing that when St. Paul spoke to the facts of with any facts that conflict with his own Christ's resurrection, and based on them conclusion. Yet for a philosopher who the sublime argument which for countmaintains that the whole fabric of his-less generations has brought hope and torical Christianity is based on a delu- consolation to the grave-side, he did not sion, there is surely much to be accom- know the meaning of his own words. plished in clearing away those "miracuious" facts which, as Butler says, prove the divine sanction of the Christian dispensation. As, however, the position of Mr. Arnold is different from that of philosphers who deny the whole truth of Christianity, he deals little with the quality of the evidence for the Resurrection, the cardinal point of Christian theology, and confines himself almost entirely to an elaborate demonstration that his doctrine. his whole doctrine, and nothing but his doctrine, is the actual doctrine of the Apostles. The object of his essay "St. Paul and Protestantism" is, he says, "not religious edification, but the true

Very likely it would have been impossible for him to imagine his own theology without it (viz., a belief in the actual Resurrection),

but

Below the surface stream, shallow and light,
Of what we say we feel, below the stream,
As light, of what we think we feel, there flows,
With noiseless current strong, obscure, and deep,
The central stream of what we feel indeed,

and in St. Paul's case this happens to
coincide with the ideas of Mr. Arnold.

This is no place for theological argument. We have contented ourselves with a simple exposition of Mr. Arnold's philosophy, because we wish to show that, while surveying the popular faith with

that the Irish Church was not disestablished in the interest of Eternal Justice, but to satisfy the political importunity of a coalition of Roman Catholics and Nonconformists. He would probably admit that the Irish Land Bill sprang out of considerations not wholly dissimilar. He has no more faith in ballot-boxes, reform bills, cotton, rail

superior disdain, he does not understand ism is all that we, who do not profess its meaning. "A perfection developing that creed, can desire. He sees plainly all sides of our humanity" is what everybody desires, but the real question is, how is this harmony to be attained when the very principles of our nature are in apparent conflict? To the discord between the desires and the will all philosophy, Heathen or Christian, bears testimony. The universal human experience is expressed in Plato's story of Leontius and his eyes,* in Ovid's words, "Video ways, and other machinery, as means to meliora proboque, deteriora sequor," as perfection, than Mr. Carlyle. And he well as in St. Paul's declaration, "When has also a failing not prevalent in his I would do good evil is present with me." party- -a propensity to humour, and a What distinguishes Christianity from genius for embodying the weak points of philosophy is its recognition of the truth his friends in lively caricatures and sugthat fact must be met with fact, that the gestive phrases, which to the Tory mind radical imperfection of the human will are full of salt and savour. can only be cured by the supervention of a perfect and divine power. The belief in this external power, exemplified either in St. Paul's conversion or the conversion of Sampson Staniforth, the Methodist soldier, by which Mr. Arnold vainly endeavours to depreciate St. Paul's, is the motive of Christian practice. But Mr. Arnold's notable scheme of culture is to cure selfishness by means of self, to oppose bare idea to hard fact, to enforce a law of which he would abolish the sanction. It is possible that, when he goes to the masses," and, after denying the resurrection of the Dead, proves to them how necessary it is for every one who would become a cultivated person "to rise to a harmonious conformity with the real and the eternal," his hearers may not discover that he is discoursing platitudes. But in that case we shall next expect to hear of him lecturing to vast and eager audiences in the United States on the “undiscovered truths,” that honey placed on the tongue produces a sensation of sweetness, or that wood when brought into contact with fire is accustomed to be consumed.

We come now to the politics of culture, and, after a general survey of the region, we find ourselves rather in the difficulty of St. Patrick, who having to write on snakes in Ireland, could only say, "In Ireland there are no snakes." It is not that Mr. Arnold has nothing edifying to tell us on the subject. Far from it. Nature made him a critic, and did not indispose him to be a "candid friend." "I am a Liberal," he says, "but a Liberal tempered by experience and reflection," and his attitude towards popular Liberal

Plato, Republic, Book iv.

Culture, however, we must remember, pretends to be something more than critical; it is to help us out of our present difficulties. One of our present difficulties, as Mr. Arnold justly says, is that we have no sound centre of authority. We have no idea, like some of the Continental nations, of a State as a centralizing and directing power, and consequently our constitutional system of checks, whenever an emergency arises, is apt to leave us at the mercy of any powerful will, like Mr. Beales or Mr. Bradlaugh, who, having the courage of their opinions, can seize on the situation. All very true. Still, we cannot help feeling that this light-hearted criticism comes rather strangely from one of a party whose whole policy has been to remove power from the aristocracy, which, however imperfect, was certainly a centre, and to vest it exclusively in the middle class, which, outside the Constitution, has neither unity nor cohesion. Mr. Arnold, however, is a philosopher, and, like all his kind, can stick to his colours and separate his principles from their consequences. "The salvation" (and he uses the word with quasi-religious unction) "of the country is to be looked for from the middle,” or, as he calls it, “the Philistine" class. Only this class must first get rid of its Philistinism, and adopt the means of "salvation" which culture points out to it. And what are these? To found the idea of a State on our best self.

By our best self we are united, impersonal, at harmony. We are in no peril from giving authority to this, because it is the truest friend we all of us have, and, when anarchy is a danger to us, it is to this authority we may turn with sure trust.