SUNDAY READING.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 February 1922, Page 9

SUNDAY READING.

DETERMINISM “And I cast it into the fire and there came out this calf.” —Exodus XXXII. 24, (By Rev. A. H. Collins, New Plymouth.) These are the words of Aaron to Moses. They were intended to turn the edge of rebuke and escape the burden of personal accountability. Moses had gone up to the Mount of God. His absence had extended over six weeks, and the people began to say their leader had lost his way, or perished in the fire. They grew restless and mutinous. They besought Aaron to make some visible symbol, like the gods down in Egypt, and Aaron, yielding to their clamor, fashioned a golden calf out of the people’s jewellery. Man is a religious animal, and it is part of the instinct of his nature to substitute the objective for the unseen. The repeated lapses of Israel into idolatry were due to the crave for some visible symbol of Deity. “Show us the Father!” cried Philip, and it was the outspoken desire to see and believe. The crucifixes and pictures of the Roman Church have their origin in the desire to aid faith by eight.

THE UNSEEN AND ETERNAL. Churches and sacraments are concessions to the same fact of man’s inability to grasp the unseen and the eternal. Wlhen Moses heard of the people’s aposlacy his anger burned, and when he sought of Aaron an explanation of the part*he had played in this disloyalty to God, this was the answer: “I cast it into the fire and there came out this calf.” What he meant was this: “I’m not to blame. I am to be pitied. The people would have a god like the other nations, and 1 could not prevent it. I simply yielded to circumstances. I simply took the ornaments of gold and cast them into the fire. I am the innocent victim of an unhappy chance. Don’t please blame me; blame the people, blame the fire and the gold.” It does not sound very rational, does it? It was certainly not very manly. We should have thought better of Aaron if he had “owned up” and said: “I see now it was wrong. I admit that in a weak moment I yielded to clamor. I ought to have stood up against the proposal, and if need be ‘resisted unto blood.’ I have blundered and sinned. Pray for me. Help me. The Jxird pardon my iniquity, for it is great.” A confession like that would have earned our respect. OUR FAULT,, TOO.

But it does not lie with us to utter wild and whirling 'words on this subject. “They who live in glass houses must not throw stones.” Aaron’s fault is our fault, too, and "his. plea of irresponsibility is one we have learned to repeat with fatal facility. Examples vary, but the same principle operates. Adam meanly said: “The woman Thou gavest me did tempt me.” The woman passed it on to the serpent. Balaam smote the dumb beast. The New Zealander speaks of “heredity and environment.” and thinks the blame has been transferred. It is the old delusion under a new name. “I cast it into the fire and there came out this calf.” Done down into plain Saxon it means: “I am the victim of circumstances beyond my control. My life has been subjected to the fire of criticism, trade customs, society rules and prejudices, and I am the result. When you are at Rome, you'must do as Rome does. You must give and take. It is no use running counter to the drift and drive of things,” and so on and so on. ad nauseum. Now, what is all the maudlin speech intended to do? It is intended to salve a sore conscience and shift responsibility. Instead of saying “I am to blame, I am guilty, I have sinned,” we take refuge behind the old plea: “I cast it into the fire and there came out this calf.”

THE INTELLECT OF SIN. One of the most gifted and influential “teachers in England some years ago laid it down as a cardinal principle that “the intellect cannot sin.” He said “there was no such thing as infidelity of the intellect.” He said: “Infidelity is departure from fidelity or faithfulness, and is a term which applies to insincere, immoral or irreligious conduct and feeling and not to beliefs or doubts or disbeliefs honestly held.” According to this statement the intellect is as innocent for thinking so and so as the eye is innocent for seeing green where there is green, or the ear for hearing music. That is to say a man is not rsponsible for his thoughts, because he cannot help the form they take. A popular lecturer in America said the same thing, only in a more thorough-going fashion. Here are his words: “Nothing can be more certain than that no human being can by any possibility control his thoughts. We are in this world —we see, we hear, we feel, we taste; and everything in Nature makes an impression on the brain; and that won-

derful something enthroned there, with these materials, weaves what we call thought; and the brain can no more help thinking than the heart can help beating. The blood pursues its old accustomed round without the will; the heart beats without asking leave of us; and the brain thinks in spit£ of all we we can do. This being true, no human being can be justly held responsible for his thoughts any more than for the beating of his heart. You will notice the one says that whatever the intellect holds- or believes, it holds and believes innocently. The other goes farther and declares that we have no control whatever over our thoughts, which means, of course, that we have no control over our actions. We are no more to blame for the complexion of our thoughts than for the color of our hair or the shape of our hose! By way of practical illustration of the influence of such teaching, let me quote an imaginary conversation between a father and his son. Said the father: “John, your school report this term is very unsatisfactory. How is it? Why don’t you prepare your leKsons properly? Aren’t you ashamed that such an account should be sent home?” Replied the son: “I can’t help it, father; it is not my fault.” “Not your fault!” exclaimed the parent, “Not your fault! Whose fault is it?” “Don’t you remember, father,” rejoined the boy, “that the lecturer whom you took me to hear said that we cannot control our thoughts; my thoughts will constantly go to the ica and the games, and they won’t stick to my books; how, then, can I help having a bad report?” The father said little and thought much, for he had not expected to see the teaching of his favorite lecturer so qucikly put into practice. BASED ON A FALLACY. But this notion is very common. It is thought to be quite the correct thing, a:-d a sign of advanced thought. The' idea is based on a fallacy. It is one thing to say a man cannot eontrrl his thoughts; and it is quite another thing to say he cannot control the formation of his thoughts. I am not hawking for flies. I am. not •blowing theological soap bubbles. Suppose a lad, who had thrown a stone and smashed your window 'should tell you that his hand and arm had no control over themselves. What would you say? “Quite so,'my lad; your hand and arm cannot control themselves, but you ought to control them, and it is with you I am going to deal. I shall not punish your arm, I shall punish you.” If a man were to plead as an excuse for swearing that he had no control over his tongue, you would tell him plainly that he can and he ought. “The intellect cannot sin?” Of course it cannot, but the man who owns the intellect can. He can lead it astray; he can misuse it; he can present evidence and motive, or withhold evidence and motive, and he is accountable for the use he makes of his intellect, as the boy is accountable for the use he makes of his arm. To deny this is to deny personal responsibility. CONDUCT DETERMINED BY THOUGHT. Conduct is ultimately determined by thoughts. If a young fellow constantly thinks about pilfering money from his employer, or of gaining money by gambling, you may depend upon it he will, sooner or later, do the thing he has thought ,alx>ut. His one hope of right, actions is that his thoughts shall be right, so that the subject resolves itself into this: “Have we control of ourselves, or have we not? If we have, we must be able to control our thoughts, for out of„these conduct is woven, and if we have no power over our thoughts and deeds, farewell, a long, sad farewell, to moral responsibility. We are machines, and not men. “DETERMINISM.” I have stressed this single point because of its supreme importance. There is a specious doctrine abroad? called “Determinism.” Young people, and some who "are no longer young, are using the doctrine in a way that saps their personal aiSeou.nJia'b'ility. They speak of “heredity” and “environment” in a way that empties the word “ought” of its solemn sanctions. Sin is said to be an infirmity, an immaturity, a mere skin disease. Man needs a schoolmaster, not a savid’Ur. Man is to be pitied more than blamed. I know that “heredity” counts. I know that

"environment” counts. It/is easier to live a good life when a man has clean blood in his veins, and where the air is pure and food wholesome, and books and pictures and music are available. I know that the companionship of intelligent, well-mannered people helps. We should think and speak charitably of multitudes who are “not so much born into the world as they are damned into it” “born in a brothel and suckled on gin.” God pity them. He will judge mercifully. HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY. But when every allowance is made for “heredity” and “environment,” it still remains true that man is a responsible, moral being, and not a puppet, not an automatum. Man is more than (his clothes. Man and not his circumstances must rule. It is conscience, and not public opinion, that should guide. “Every man shall give an account of himseif unto God.” The Bible is a very tender Book. On its granite peaks is the light and warmth as of setting suns. But the Bible is quite explicit on the subject of human accountability, Jesus Christ never treats sin as a theological problem. Conscience, too, says: “The sin is thine; thou didst it. It is true that the conditions of •my life were determined by my ancestors. The strength of my arm, the soundness of my heart, the limits of my intellect, and the bias of my will, were settled by iny birth. But though the conditions of life were settled for me, life itself is mine. The material with which T have to work was given me. but the way I use the material rests with me. My temperament may bo sluggish or explosive, and I have to determine whether I give it rein or control and subdue it. I may have inherited a crave for strong drink, but it rests with me to determine whether I come home drunk or sober. I had no choice as to the place of my birth, and the language 1 speak, hut I am responsible for the use I make of my mother tongue, whether to worship or to swear. I am not the sport, of chance. I am not a lump of putty to he squeezed into any shape. I am a living, responsible* moral being; gifted with the power of self-determination. No power on earth ean compel me to do wrong, and God. the All Merciful, pledges His help to the man who bravely dares and nobly strives.