Idols and Ideals. By 11. D. Conway. (Trubner.)—Mr. Conway rejects
for himself the description of "Agnostic," not being willing to allow that any region of existence is unknowable, Ho wishes to retain the term " God," though he considers that to attribute personality to the conception thus named is superstitious. Mr. Matthew Arnold's "stream of tendency outside us making for righteousness" seems to please him. "Is there," he asks, " in the universe any reason apart from the brain of man, or any principle of love beyond that manifested in the human heart? For myself, I cannot doubt that there are in nature these supreme elements which make and mould us, rather than we them." The conception of apersonal God is at least mere intelligible than those " supreme elements." Just before Mr. Conway has said, " What I worship is my ideal, as perfect as I can make it," Those confessions of faith seem to us somewhat contradictory. At one time the writer worships an ideal which he has himself made ; at another he believes in " elements " which have an existence quite inde- pendent of him or any human being, and which are not only inde- pendent of man, but even powerful over him. This is to make en "idol " of an " ideal," to create, just as any maker of a graven imago does an object of worship, and then to bow down to it as that which rules him. And how does this suit with the moral evolution which Mr. Conway believes in ? If that be true, these " elements " are over changing. Ten thousand years ago they wore not what they are now ; ten thousand years hence they will be quite different again. Morality, in ‘this view, is the expression of accumulated instincts. Lot the ac- cumulation go on, and what is true and good to-clay will on some morrow—only distant as we judge of distance—become untrue and base. Mr. Conway writes with eloquence and force, and we aro often interested, often pleased with what he says. But he frequently offends by dogmatism and narrowness. Surely a little reflection might have led him to spare the offensive remark that the iterations in the Litany are vain repetitions, which "compel every clergyman to be a praying- machine." It is the natural language of entreaty, to whomsoever it may be addressed, to say the same thing again and again. Has Mr. Conway ever hoard a child bogging for anything ? The chapters in which Mr. Conway discusses the real character of Christ are full of assumptions which are quite preposterous. It would carry us too far to examine them at length. Lot one instance suffice. The Gospel of St. Murk is, he says, "an evident compilation" from Matthew and Luke. When was there ever a compiler who added minute details so characteristic and striking that, if they did not come from some authentic source, they argue the most consummate ingenuity ?
Previous page
