ページの画像
PDF
ePub

is evidently not merely a brain and nervous system, on which externals act and which reacts on them. The person is distinctly a new factor, a different order of being, of which consciousness is the peculiar characteristic. This consciousness involves sensibility and a will-the power to choose and act; otherwise there is no meaning to life, no morality in it, no value in experience. Every day and every hour the will is met with alternatives of conduct, and it must choose between them. The very fact that we do choose, and do act, establishes the necessity of a belief in freedom. This freedom is at once our glory and our shame, for it involves the power to do right and the power to do wrong; otherwise we are not free and can scarcely justify God. His omnipotent goodness is not so evident unless we give man a share in the responsibility.

But what of omnipotent goodness in a world of free souls? Is not there a contradiction here? How can we reconcile an almighty Will that makes for righteousness with countless free and individual wills that very often choose unrighteousness? We wish to believe in the freedom of man. In order to establish it, can we afford to let go of an overruling goodness? No; the soul cries out for it. The universe must be moral, else pessimism is true. Our highest instincts demand a "divinity that shapes our ends," and shapes them ever in wisdom toward the better life. Here, then, is the paradox. In the last analysis, we are free only so far as we choose the righteous life. In countless alternatives, we may choose wrongly. Through agelong experience we may suffer, as we run against the immutable moral order. Meantime we rail against a cruel fate. There is no real freedom for us. But when, finally, the light breaks in upon our imprisoned souls and we see the truth, then comes the glorious liberty of the sons of God. We find a true and ever-progressive freedom in obedience to the universal purpose. We find that this brings us all we desire, with everlessening friction and suffering-with ever-increasing coöperation in the creation of a better world.

Philosophically, then, we have found the solution of our paradox. We have found that there is no real contradiction, but that the two sides of it are only the parts of one harmonious whole. But experimentally we shall probably find abundant evidence still of some contradiction. The self-will and the divine will are not always clearly differentiated. We shall have numerous temptations; we shall make mistakes. But, having once decided which will we shall serve, we must seek wisdom to help us to discriminate. "There is a guidance for every one, and by lowly listening we shall hear the right word." The important thing is the motive. Beyond that, we have God-given powers for our use. We must use our judgment, compare values, determine tendencies, and choose the course that presents the weight of evidence in favor of its being in accordance with the divine purpose. I do not say that it is easy to avoid mistakes. To live divinely is no trifle; it is worthy the consecration of all our powers-and such we must give it. The extreme of self-renunciation is just as mistaken as the opposite extreme of selfishness. The middle course alone presents the opportunity for the fullest life. If we will walk in that way, we must live the serenely poised life; we must listen, learn, experiment: yet must we also act with the consciousness of love and wisdom and power. We must not fear mistakes nor live in dread of them. If they come, they are but transitory. The brave soul learns the lesson in these and presses forward to build some success on the ruins of the failure. Thus, by doing the will, we learn of the doctrine; and ever stronger and surer and freer the self-will becomes, in its relation to the divine fate that is shaping the universe.

Closely associated with the paradox we have just been considering is the one of activity and quietism. If our wills are to become one with the Divine Will, and if this at-one-ment involves a contemplation of God, the things of the spirit, and the inner life, is there any place for strenuousness? Let us see if the two positions are absolutely opposed and irreconcila

ble. One of the bottom planks of the New Thought philosophy is that all health, happiness, peace, and power come from within. We have quoted, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you," as the highest statement of the divine law. We have said: Get your thoughts and ideas right, and all other things will shape themselves accordingly. We have so emphasized the inner realm as being the realm of causes, and therefore of remedies, that this one thing alone differentiates ours from all other present methods of healing disease, of curing sin, and of effecting social reforms. Let us not depart from it; it is fundamental and radical. Those who have sincerely accepted this truth, and have lived it, know the joy, the freedom, the abundant life thus revealed in the soul; and through this knowledge they are freed from the sensations, the selfinterest, the fears, beliefs, and pleasures that have so long held them in bondage to matter. Insight and guidance come to them; they are no longer perplexed; they know the way.

Surely, no higher experience can come to one than this, wherein we lay aside the limitations of finitude and take on the glories of infinity. But is it more than an experience? Is it all of life? Can we wholly escape the limitations, the finite relations and activities, that press upon us in this world of time and space? Ought we to seek escape from them, when there is so much we can do to help those about us? Monasticism thought so, and sought the highest life in retirement from the world. Mysticism in its extreme forms thought so, and found its chief occupation in the peaceful contemplation of the one glorious Spirit. The Vedanta, the pure idealism of Berkeley, and Christian Science have reached the same practical result through their teaching that all external things are simply Mâyâ, or illusion. The extreme laissez-faire evolutionists have come to the same conclusion by making evolution their Absolute, and saying, "We can do nothing; leave it all to evolution."

But the intellect is not satisfied to have so many facts ex

cluded from the premises and relegated to the domain of illusion. Nor are such teachings in accordance with the highest ideal of man's place in the world as a free, self-conscious individual, sharing in a creative power and purpose that are ever making for better conditions and a fuller life here and now. Judge them by their results when applied consistently to the extreme, and they have given us abundant fruit, not of the Spirit surely, but of a dreamy inactivity, a self-satisfied repose, an unsympathetic selfishness, a weary waiting for the Infinite to manifest Himself. Doubtless we all have comfortable friends who say that "all is good" and "there are no poor." We have seen the believers in universal illusion quite busy in looking after the material stuff that their dreams are made of. We know too well the cry of "Laissez-faire!" We see those who wait for the guidance of the Spirit so much that they never do anything really spiritual. Bliss Carman has described in his own trenchant way "the debauchery of mood." "Our fathers made duty their priestess; we have made of mood a god." Flabby subserviency to this fickle master becomes a paresis, a growing paralysis, of all that is noblest in man.

On the other hand, I am not arguing for the busy tinkering with externals that has so long characterized reform methods. The anxious struggle for results leaves out of account the great First Cause, and is not, therefore, inclusive. Of Quixotic endeavors, fanatical crusades, and multiplicity of laws, we have had too much. Civilization by the Gatling gun is our present national policy, and strenuousness sits in the VicePresident's chair.

Between the two extremes, the earnest idealist stands almost bewildered, and perchance conscience makes a coward of him and "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought." But the philosopher comes to his aid and says: "Behold a paradox. Both are true, and he alone lives the fullest life who chooses the synthetic ideal." The calm, peaceful life of the Spirit must be the soul of all action;

and just as much is action needed to make the silence dynamic and full of meaning. Swedenborg has emphasized for us the great truth of the divine influx-the divine Love and Wisdom flowing into the soul of man: love the power, and wisdom the guidance. Both are necessary. At the same time he has emphasized equally the great doctrine of use-that things are of value only as they are used. Emerson has emphasized selfreliance, the truth that each man stands for a particular fact that no one else can represent so well. Likewise he has given us "The Oversoul," an inspiring conception of man's relation to the Infinite. Both these seers recognized the unity between the two extremes.

First establish in your consciousness the relation between the Oversoul and your own higher self. Then, with purposeful self-affirmation, consecrate that self and all its powers to strenuous activity in the field that is best adapted to you. But through it all must one keep to moderation. The ecstasy of the Deific vision needs to be converted into wise and masterful and poised action. Enthusiastic, yet sensible; spontaneous, yet not without a purposeful will and choice; at ease, yet zealous. "More and more the surges of everlasting Nature enter into me, and I become public and human in my regards and actions," says Emerson. Let the revelation of silent communion show us the ideal. This revelation will be continuous, progressive, but always in accord with an underlying Harmony, which wills that righteousness and wholeness and peace shall come upon the earth. Let us patiently, prayerfully, persistently, thoughtfully devote ourselves to this ideal and grow into it. Not content with ourselves nor with the social order, but ever conscious of a better, let us coöperate with the Power that is working through us and through all men.

One other great paradox may well claim our attention, for it follows in orderly sequence the two we have just considered. Assuming that man is created with a capacity for freedom and for development into a conscious sharer in the divine creative

« 前へ次へ »