human degradation and misery, horror at the blankness of a destiny without hope, these are forces which impel men to choose a religion; and the choice so made under emotional rather than intellectual pressure, is not the result of deliberate investigation. If we assume that this is the right and natural order of things, and admit that the intense convictions that drive men to decisions in matters of religion lie in the province of emotion rather than in that of thought, we are but accepting as axiomatic that which experience and history, at least in a majority of cases, affirm. And yet it is possible, nay commendable—yes, and in some cases even a matter of sacred dutyto consider with calm deliberation this question of the choice of a religion. we mean The phrase itself may be understood, however, in different senses, according to the meaning we attach to the term "religion." If by "religion" we mean the particular rule of life, or working faith, by which a man's life is guided and conducted, the sum-total of the convictions which dominate his actions, thoughts, and words, then the question of choice becomes of enormous importance. If by "religion merely a formulated creed or set of beliefs which a man professes irrespective of his conduct and actions, the question of choice, however interesting from the historical point of view, is of extremely little moment; or, if we mean merely the outward conformity to some sort of ceremonial observances, as when an Anglican has been baptized and confirmed, and follows all the prescribed Ordinances without ever inquiring or thinking what it all means. But, again, if by "religion" we mean the practice of a body of persons, who, as a Church or society, conform together with respect to any particular matters of faith, or of ceremonials, or rules of conduct, the question of choice again assumes a matter of practical importance to the individual choosing. The subject, therefore, divides itself naturally into two parts (1) the choice of a working faith as a rule of life, and (2) the choice of a community or denomination with which to enter into fellowship as to dogma, ceremonial, and service. Any religion of formulated profession apart from conduct, or which is regarded as consisting only in the due performance of ceremonial observances, may be here omitted as ignoble and useless. But before we can enter on any discussion of the choice of a religion as a spiritual rule of life, we are bound to consider an objection that is brought a priori before us by those thinkers who traverse the whole matter, denying that we have any freedom of choice, such as the title of the subject implies. This is not the place to enter on any discussion of the old battle of Freedom of the Will as against the domination of irrevocable Destiny. While it is true that modern science has been invoked in favour of Determinism, on the ground that in the physical world every action is the result of pre-existing and determinate causes, and is subject to the laws of the conservation of energy, it is nevertheless equally true that modern science has shown that there are in operation selective forces which do not involve any expenditure of energy, their action being purely directive, not energetic. With the recognition of these anergic forces the argument based on the physical law of the conservation of energy vanishes. But if modern science is not thus to be invoked in favour of a rigid determination of every action as the effect of antecedent causes which are themselves in turn equally antecedently determinate, it assuredly gives no licence to loose thinking as to the inevitableness of natural laws either in the world of matter or in that of mind and soul. Causes do result in effects; and the effects remain. The children do still have to suffer for the sins of their fathers. Prayer does not restore an amputated limb, nor faith remove a hereditary taint of disease. In this sense we are as subject to the inevitable working of laws as the most rigid Necessitarian would lay down. "The moving Finger writes, and having writ Nor all your tears wash out one word of it." When we assert, against the Necessitarians, the freedom of the will, we are asserting not that the laws of nature are not sure and inevitable, but that man, so far as he is able to set the laws of nature to work, is the master to choose, at least in many cases and within wide limits, whether, and when, and in what degree, they shall come into operation. And it is in this same sense that we assert also the freedom of the soul to make choice in matters of religious belief. Spiritual laws exist, but we are free to choose in many things as to whether they shall come into operation. At one period or another the soul must treat every religious truth as an open question, and exercise a spiritual judgment in arriving at a decision thereon that is what we mean by freedom of choice in matters of religious belief. It is everyday knowledge that in the orthodox The Churches, Roman, Greek, and Anglican, the right of private judgment in matters of belief is flatly denied: the Church itself, in each of these three sects, maintains its sole right to lay down what is permissible in matters of belief. It brands as heretic and sceptic him who dares to choose for himself. St. Augustine, a man of great religious experience and insight, one whose thoughts after sixteen centuries still sway many of our accepted beliefs, held the view that Original Sin, in the inherited transgression of our first parents Adam and Eve, deprived men of freedom of choice. We are not likely to accept nowadays any such fantastical proposition. Dr. Pusey, in his "Rule of Faith," lays down broadly the dictum: "We were not meant ourselves to have any choice." phrase appears to admit that we really have a freedom of choice, but to imply that we have no right to exercise it; that to choose would, in fact, be sinful or contrary to the Divine intention. The attitude of mind revealed by this sentence is very significant. Though the faculty of judgment, of spiritual discernment, has been given to us, we are not meant to exercise it. It is as though one should say to a man who used his eyes to observe where he was going"My friend, we were not meant ourselves to have any sight we must walk by faith, and see only what the proper authorities allow us to see." That is the voice of the ecclesiastic everywhere, and in every age. Entirely otherwise sound the voices of the seers, the prophets, the men of instinctive vision and spiritual purpose. "Choose you this day whom ye will serve," was the call of Joshua to those who halted between the service of Jahveh and the service of the gods beyond the River. These were more noble," we read in the Acts of the Apostles concerning the men of Beroa, " than those in Thessalonika, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily whether these things were so.' Jesus Christ Himself, in one of His discourses, according to the Gospel of Luke, appealed to the crowd about Him with the memorable words : "And why do ye not even of your own selves judge what is right?' This appeal to the personal perception of right may be paralleled by the apostolic injunction, "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good." Both Christ and His Apostle recognise the duty of private judgment; both recognise the innate instinct to search for the truth, and commend it. To discover for one's self what truth is, and having seen it to follow it, that is a privilege not to be curtailed, a duty not to be denied, to the seeking soul. His faith is only second-hand who has not sought for himself what truth is. His religion is a poor affair if it has been accepted only as a matter of tradition and authority, as merely the correct thing for the society in which he moves. is this unintelligent, unspiritual acceptance of beliefs that have come down to us enforced by the weight of the pious tradition of centuries that makes a large part of that which passes for religion so terribly insincere. And in a time of advancing thought there is ever a tendency on the part of the otiose or the preoccupied to let others do their thinking for them; to accept as of faith all that is presented with authority. For fear of believing too little, they are ready to believe too much. Having renounced the duty of private judgment they swallow wholesale the dogmas of It |