FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283  
284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   >>  
ctual living organs of God himself, for the expressions quoted above--and many others could be given--come to no less than this. It follows that since any man could unite himself to "the flesh and bones" of God by becoming a Christian, Paul had a perception of the unity at any rate of human life; and what Paul admitted I am persuaded the Church of Rome will not deny. Granted that Paul's notion of the unity of all mankind in one spirit animating, or potentially animating the whole was mystical, I submit that the main difference between him and the Evolutionist is that the first uses certain expressions more or less prophetically, and without perhaps a full perception of their import; while the second uses the same expressions literally, and with the ordinary signification attached to the words that compose them. It is not so much that we do not hold what Paul held, but that we hold it with the greater definiteness and comprehension which modern discovery has rendered possible. We not only accept his words, but we extend them, and not only accept them as articles of faith to be taken on the word of others, but as so profoundly entering into our views of the world around us that that world loses the greater part of its significance if we may not take such sayings as that "we are God's flesh and his bones" as meaning neither more nor less than what appears upon the face of them. We believe that what we call our life is part of the universal life of the Deity--which is literally and truly made manifest to us in flesh that can be seen and handled--ever changing, but the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever. So much for the closeness with which we have come together on matters of fact, and now for the _rapprochement_ between us in respect of how much conformity is required for the sake of avoiding schism. We find ourselves driven through considerations of great obviousness and simplicity to the conclusion that a man both may and should keep no small part of his opinions to himself, if they are too widely different from those of other people for the sake of union and the strength gained by concerted action; and we also find the Pope declaring of one of the brightest saints and luminaries of the Church that we need not follow him when it is plainly impossible for us to do so. Is it so very much to hope that ere many years are over the approximation will become closer still? I have sometimes imagined that the doctrine o
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283  
284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   >>  



Top keywords:
expressions
 

accept

 
greater
 

animating

 
literally
 

Church

 

perception

 
approximation
 

avoiding

 

rapprochement


respect
 

conformity

 

required

 

schism

 

closer

 
doctrine
 

handled

 
manifest
 
universal
 

changing


yesterday

 

driven

 

imagined

 

matters

 

closeness

 

plainly

 

strength

 

people

 

gained

 

follow


declaring
 

brightest

 

saints

 
concerted
 

action

 

widely

 

conclusion

 

simplicity

 
obviousness
 
considerations

luminaries

 

impossible

 
opinions
 

difference

 

Evolutionist

 

submit

 

mystical

 

potentially

 

import

 

prophetically