Is It A Promise, Or A Declaration ?

High , the blessed counsels of the Evetlasting Trinity were now to be openly and personally communicated to weak and fallen man . Therefore well did the heavenly host begin with an asiription of glory to T . G . A . 0 . T . U . for this manifestation of incomparable and imperishable love ; and then also seasonably as well and justly did the same bright denizens of a happier sphere assert that in this glad announcement Avas wrapped up for ever on earth Peace and good will . If only the message was rightly received—if only the truth Avas actually mastered—if only the fact Avas firmly believed

in—there Avas the offer , amid ihe narroAving and antagonistic tendencies of earthly society , of the blessed possibili ty of Peace and good will for man . Under the shadoiv of that Diviner Tower of Strength , and Hope , and Salvation—of that " Great Rock in a weary land , "—there was henceforth to be an ' ' outcome , " if men so ivilled it , so looked at it , so aided the beneficent declaration of the Lord of Heaven and Earth—namely , a living era of Peace and good Avill—though man seemed willing rather to be at enmity with his fellow-man—though hostile passions and bitter hatred marred and devastated ivith their fell power the wondrous area of Humanity .

II . But as if to prevent error—as if to forecast exaggeration—as if to deal ivith the infirm susceptibilities ancl darkened minds of men—the Divine Teacher of our holy religion especially declared that He , humanly speaking , came , " not to send peace on earth , but a sword , " and that it must needs be that " offences'' came—divisions , troubles , tumults , sedition , heresies;—but "woe" to the indii'idual by whom they actually did come to this suffering and sstranged creation of ours . III . Thus it Avill be seen , then , that the " exegesis" of Professor Tyndal is profoundly incorrect , and that neither text nor context support his interpretation . Indeed ,

as I regard it now , calmly and seriously , his whole argument , Avhich rests upon it , falls , so to say , ivith a crash ! To suppose for one moment that such a statement , however dogmatic , is any valid objection to the A'erity of Religion or the historical certainty of Christianity , for instance , would be an insult to our common sense , to say nothing to its being most antagonistic to all the rules ol right reasoning and correct interpretation .

IV . If Professor Tyndal is ivrong—as he certainl y is—in declaring such a " pa ? an " of angelic sympathy- —a " Promise "—I do not see Avhat force remains , Avhat propriety endures , ( so to say ) , in his open attack , or in his latent insinuation . It is , if seriously intended as a disparagement of Religion , as Aveak as Aveak can be , and hardly deserves notice , or demands refutation , from those who read or understand their Bibles . But as in these unlettered and excitable days assertion is often mistaken for argument , and

assumption is accepted for proof , it seems to me ivell , especially having regard to ivhat is passing in France and elsewhere just IIOAV , under the standard of Material Infidelity , and so-called Scientific Scepticism , to point out to all my Brother Masons how and Avherein so distinguished and so popular a teacher as Professor Tyndal has gravely and greatly erred . If the old axiom , " Ne sutor ultra crepidam , " be still , to some extent , at any ratetrueshall I be blamed by any if I say thisthat while I am willing to follow

, , , and listen to Professor Tyndal in pure Science , I absolutely decline to accept him , in any sense , as my tutor in Theology . I do not Avish to seem to be too ready to take offence , or to cast stones at those who differ from my religious views , but I feel bound to point out the danger to many ardent students and anxious intellects of some of the refined and questionable speculations of the hour .

Nothing is so dangerous in this ivorld , for the present and future welfare of us all alike , as any attempt to iveaken the general foundations on Avhich Religion safely and triumphantly stands . We have outlived the age of coarse attack and unbelieving immorality ; we have parted ivith , let us trust for ever , the polished sarcasms of Bolingbroke and the shallow sophistry of Volney ; Ave have , I repeat , left behind us Hume and Gibbon , we have forgotten Priestley and Thomas Paiue . But there lies before us a more subtle temptation , a more dangerous trial , to-day . Science is made to speak Avith distinctive voice in respect of all Ave hold most sacred ancl most true . " The voice may be Jacob ' s voice , but the hands are the hands of Esau . " Whether then we have to deal with older or later scepticism , with uncouth or