Part 4 (2/2)

A child quickly seizes the concrete; the idea of the child Jesus or the man Jesus is readily grasped by a child's intellect; the G.o.d of the Old Testament, the ”magnified man,” is also, though more dimly, understood.

These conceptions of the childhood of humanity suit the childhood of the individual, and it is far more difficult for the child to realize the idea of G.o.d when he is divested of these materialistic garments. Yet I speak from experience when I say that it is by no means impossible to train a child into the simplest and happiest feelings as regards the Supreme Being, without degrading the Divine into the human. By one name we can speak of G.o.d by which He will be readily welcomed to the child's heart, and that is the name of the Father. Most children are keenly alive to natural beauties, and are quick to observe birds, and flowers, and suns.h.i.+ne; at times they will ask how these things come there, and then it is well to tell them that they are the works of G.o.d Thus the child's first notions of the existence of a Power he cannot see or feel will come to him clothed in the things he loves, and will be free from any suggestion of fear.* Even those who regard G.o.d from the stand-point of Pantheism may use natural objects so as to train the child into a fearless and happy recognition of the constant working of the Spirit of Nature, and so guard the young mind against that shrinking from, and terror of G.o.d, which popular Christianity is so apt to induce. The lad or girl who grows up with even the habit of regarding G.o.d as the calm and mighty motive-power of the forces of Nature, changeless, infinite, absolutely trustworthy, will be slow to accept in later life the crude conceptions which incarnate the creative power in a virgin's womb, and ascribe caprice, injustice, and cruelty to the mighty Spirit of the Universe.

* The ordinary shrinking of a child from the idea of a Presence which he cannot see, but which sees him, will not be felt by children whose only ideas about G.o.d are that He is the Father from whose hand come all beautiful things. In any home where the parents' thoughts of G.o.d are free from doubt and mistrust, the children's thoughts will be the same; religion, in their eyes, will be synonymous with happiness, for G.o.d and good will be convertible terms.

There is a deep truth in the idea of Pantheism, that ”Nature is an apparition of the Deity, G.o.d in a mask;” that ”He is the light of the morning, the beauty of the noon, and the strength of the sun. He is the One, the All... The soul of all; more moving than motion, more stable than rest; fairer than beauty, and stronger than strength. The power of Nature is G.o.d... He is the All; the Reality of all phenomena.” The child fed on this food will have scarcely anything to unlearn, even when he begins to believe that G.o.d is something more than Nature; ”the created All is the symbol of G.o.d,” and he will pa.s.s easily and naturally on from seeing G.o.d in Nature to see Him in a higher form.

Of course, as a Theist, I should myself go much further than this: I should speak of all natural glory as but the reflection of the Deity, or as the robe in which He veils His infinite beauty; I should bid my children rejoice in all happiness as in the gift of a Father who delights in sharing His joy with His creatures; I should point out that the pain caused by ignorance of, or by breaking natural laws, is G.o.d's way of teaching men obedience for their own ultimate good: in the freedom and fulness of Nature's gifts I should teach them to see the equal love of G.o.d for all; through marking that in Nature's visible kingdom no end can be gained without labour and without using certain laws, they should learn that in the invisible kingdom they need not expect to find favouritism, nor think to share the fruits of victory without patient toil. To all who believe in a G.o.d who is also the Father of Spirits such teaching as this comes easily; as they themselves learn of G.o.d only through His works, so they naturally teach their children to seek Him in the same way.

The questions, so familiar to every mother, ”Can G.o.d see me?” ”Where is G.o.d?” can only be met with the simple a.s.sertion that G.o.d sees all, and is everywhere. For there are many childish questions which it is wisest to meet with statements which are above the grasp of the childish mind.

These statements may be simply given to the child as statements which it is too young either to question or to understand. Nothing is gained by trying to smooth down spiritual subjects to the level of a child's capacity; the time will come later when the child must meet and answer for itself all great spiritual questions; the parent's care should be to remove all hindrances from the child's path of inquiry, but not to give it cut-and-dried answers to every possible question; religion, to be worth anything, must be a personal matter, and each must find it out for himself; the wise parent will endeavour to save the child from the pain of unlearning, by giving but little formal religious teaching; he cannot fight the battle for his child, but he can prevent his being crippled by a fancied armour which will stifle rather than protect him; he can give a few wide principles to direct him, without weighing him down with guide-books.

But even the most general ideas of G.o.d should not be forced on a childish mind; they should come, so to speak, by chance; they should be presented in answer to some demand of the child's heart; they should be inculcated by stray words and pa.s.sing remarks; they should form the atmosphere surrounding the child habitually, and not be a sudden ”wind of doctrine.” Of course all this is far more troublesome than to teach a child a catechism or a creed, but it is a far higher training. Dogma, _i e_., conviction petrified by authority, should be utterly excluded from the religious education of children; a few great axiomatic truths may be laid down, but even in these primary truths dogmatism should be avoided. The parent should always take care to make it apparent that he is stating his own convictions, but is not enforcing them on the child by his authority. So far as the child is capable of appreciating them, the reasons for the religious conviction should be presented along with the conviction itself. Thus the child will see, as he grows older, that religion cannot be learned by rote, that it is not shut up in a book, or contained in creeds; he will appreciate the all-important fact that free inquiry is the only air in which truth can breathe; that one man's faith cannot justly be imposed on another, and that every individual soul has the privilege and the responsibility of forming his own religion, and must either hear G.o.d with his own ears, or else not hear Him at all.

We have noticed that the moral sense awakes before the religious (I must state my repugnance to these terms, although I use them for the sake of clearness; but morality _is_ religion, although religion is more than morality, and the so-called religion which is not morality is worthless and hateful). There remains then to consider what we will call the second side of religion, although it is by far its most important side.

True religion consists not only in feelings towards G.o.d, but also in duties towards men: the first, n.o.ble and blessed as they are, should, in every healthy religion, give place to the second; for a morally good man who does not believe in G.o.d at all, is in a far higher state of being than the man who believes in G.o.d and is selfish, cruel or unjust. Error in faith is forgiveable; error in life is fatal. The good man shall surely see G.o.d, although, for a time, his eyes be holden; the evil man, though he hold the n.o.blest faith yet known, shall never taste the joy of G.o.d, until he turns from sin, and struggles after holiness. Faith first, and then morality, is the war-cry of the churches; morality above all, and let faith follow in good time, is the watch-word of Theism; so, among us, the princ.i.p.al part of the religious training of our children should be morality; religious feeling may be over-strained, or give rise to self-deception; religious talk may be morbid and unreal; religious faith may be erring, and must be imperfect; but morality is a rock which can never be shaken, a guide which can never mislead. Whether we are right or wrong in our belief about G.o.d, whether we are immortal spirits or perishable organizations, yet purity is n.o.bler than vice, courage than cowardice, truth than falsehood, love than hate. Let us, then, teach our children morality above all things. Let us teach them to love good for its own sake, without thought of reward, and they will remain good, even if, in after life, they should, alas! lose all hope of immortality and all faith hi G.o.d. A child's natural instinct is towards good; a tale of heroism, of self sacrifice, of generosity, will bring the eager blood flus.h.i.+ng up to a child's face and wake a quick response and a desire of emulation. It is therefore well to place in children's hands tales of n.o.ble deeds in days gone by. Nothing is easier than to train a child into feeling a desire to be good for the sake of being so.

There is something so attractive in goodness, that I have found it more effectual to hold up the n.o.bility of courage and unselfishness before the child's eyes, than to descend to punishment for the corresponding faults. If a child is in the habit of regarding all wrong as something low and degrading, he quickly shrinks from it; all mothers know the instinctive ambition of children to be something superior and admirable, and this instinct is most useful in inculcating virtue. Later in life nothing ruins a young man like discovering that morality and religion are often divorced, and that the foremost professors of religion are less delicately honourable and trustworthy than high-minded ”worldly men;” on the other hand, nothing will have so beneficial an effect on men and women entering life, as to see that those who are most joyful in their faith towards G.o.d, lead the purest and most blameless lives. ”Do good, be good” is, as has been well said, the golden rule of life; ”do good, be good” must be the law impressed on our children's hearts.

Whatever ”eclipse of faith” may await England, whatever darkness of most hopeless scepticism, whatever depth of uttermost despair of G.o.d, there is not only the hope, but the certainty of the resurrection of religion, if we all hold fast through the driving storm to the sheet-anchor of pure morality, to most faithful discharge of all duty towards man to love, and tenderness, and charity, and patience. Morality never faileth; but, whether there be dogmas, they shall fail; whether there be creeds, they shall cease; whether there be churches, they shall crumble away; but morality shall abide for evermore and endure as long as the endless circle of Nature revolves around the Eternal Throne.

NATURAL RELIGION VERSUS REVEALED RELIGION.

ONE is almost ashamed to repeat so trite an aphorism as the well-worn saying that ”history repeats itself.” But in studying the course taken by the advocates of what is called ”revealed religion,” in seeing their disdain of ”mere nature,” their scornful repudiation of the idea that any poor natural product can come into compet.i.tion with their special article, hall-stamped by heaven itself, I feel irresistibly compelled to glance backwards down the long vista of history, and there I see the conflict of the present day raging fierce and long. I see the same serried ranks of orthodoxy marshalled by bishops and priests, arrayed in all the splendour of prescriptive right, armed with mighty weapons of authority and thunderbolts of Church anathemas. Their war-cry is the same as that which rings in our ears to-day; ”revelation” is inscribed on their banners and ”infallible authority” is the watchword of their camp. The Church is facing nature for the first time, and is setting her revealed science against natural science. ”Mere Nature” is temporarily getting the worst of it, and Galileo, Nature's champion, is sorely pressed by ”revealed truth.” I hear scornful taunts at his presumption in attacking revealed science by his pretended natural facts. Had they not G.o.d's Own account of His creation, and did he pretend to know more about the matter than G.o.d Himself? Was he present when G.o.d created the world, that he spoke so positively about its shape? Could he declare, of his own personal knowledge, that it was sent hurtling through s.p.a.ce in the ridiculous manner he talked about, and could he, by the evidence of his own eye-sight, declare that G.o.d was mistaken when He revealed to man how He ”laid the foundation of the earth that it never should move at anytime?” But if he was only reasoning from the wee bit of earth he knew, was he not speaking of things he had not seen, being vainly puffed-up in his fleshly mind? Was it probable, _a priori_, that G.o.d would allow mankind to be deceived for thousands of years on so important a matter; would in fact--G.o.d forgive it!--deceive man Himself by revealing through His holy prophets an account of His creation which was utterly untrue; nay, further, would carry on the delusion for century after century, by working miracles in support of it--for what but a miracle could make men unconscious of the fact that they were being hurried through s.p.a.ce at so tremendous a rate? Surely very little reverence, or rather no reverence at all, was needed to allow that G.o.d the Holy Ghost, who inspired the Bible, knew better than we did how He made the world. But, the theologian proceeds, he must remind his audience that, under the specious pretext of investigating the creation, this man, this pseudo-scientist, was in reality blaspheming the Creator, by contradicting His revealed word, and thus ”making Him a liar.” It was all very well to talk about _natural_ science; but he would ask this presuming speculator, what was the use of G.o.d revealing science to us if man's natural faculties were sufficient to discover it for himself? They had sufficient proofs of the absurdities of science into which reason, unenlightened by revelation, had betrayed men in past ages. The idea of the Hindoo, that the world rested on an elephant and the elephant on a tortoise, was a sad proof of the incapacity of the acutest natural intellect to discover scientific truth without the aid of revelation.

Reason had its place, and a very n.o.ble placer in science; but it must always bow before revelation, and not presume to set its puny guesses against a ”thus sayeth the Lord.” Let reason, then, pursue its way with belief not unbelief, for its guide. What could reason, with all its vaunted powers, tell us of the long-past creation of the world? Eye hath not seen those things of ages past, but G.o.d hath revealed them to us by His Spirit. A darkness that might be felt would enshroud the origin of the world were it not for the magnificent revelation of Moses, that ”in six days G.o.d created the heaven and the earth.” He might urge how our conceptions of G.o.d were enlarged and elevated, and what a deep awe filled the adoring heart on contemplating the revealed truth, that this wonderful earth with its varied beauty, and the heavens above with their countless stars, were all called forth out of nothing within the s.p.a.ce of one short week by the creative fiat of the Almighty. What could this pseudo-science give them in exchange for such a revelation as that? Was it probable, further, that G.o.d would have become incarnate for the sake of a world that was only one out of many revolving round the sun? How irreverent to regard the theatre of that awful sacrifice as aught less than the centre of the universe, the cynosure of angelic eyes, gazing from their thrones in the heaven above! Galileo might say that his heresy does not affect the primary truths of our holy faith; but this is only one of the evasions natural to evildoers--and it is unnecessary to remark that intellectual error is invariably the offspring of moral guilt--for consider how much is involved in his theory. The inspiration of Scripture receives its death-blow; for if fallible in one point, we have no reason to conclude it to be infallible in others. If there is one fact revealed to us more clearly than another in Holy Scripture, it is this one of the steadfastness of our world, which we are distinctly told, ”cannot be moved.” It is plainly revealed to us that the earth was created and fixed firmly on its foundations; that then there was formed over it the vast vault of heaven, in which were set the stars, and in this vault was prepared ”the course” for the sun, spoken of, as you will remember, in the 19th Psalm, where holy David reveals to us that in the heavens G.o.d has made a tabernacle for the sun, which ”goeth forth from the uttermost part of the heaven, and runneth about unto the end of it again.” Language has no definiteness of meaning if this inspired declaration can be translated into a statement that the sun remains stationary and is encircled by a revolving earth. This great revealed truth cannot be contradicted by any true science. G.o.d's works cannot contradict His word; and if for a moment they appear mutually irreconcileable, we may be sure that our ignorance is to blame, and that a deeper knowledge will ultimately remove the apparent inconsistency.

But it is yet more important to observe that some of the cardinal doctrines of the Church are a.s.sailed by this novel teaching. How could our blessed Redeemer, after accomplis.h.i.+ng the work of our salvation, ascend from a revolving earth? Whither did He go? North, south, east, or west? For, if I understand aright this new heresy, the s.p.a.ce above us at one time is below us at another, and thus Jesus might be actually descending at His glorious Ascension. Where, too, is that Right Hand of G.o.d to which He went, in this new universe without top or bottom? How can we hope to rise and meet Him in the air at His return, according to the most sure promise given to us through the blessed Paul, if He comes we know not from what direction? How can the lightning of His coming s.h.i.+ne at once all round a globe to herald His approach, or how can the people at the other side of the world see the sign of the Son of Man in the heavens? But I cannot bring myself to acc.u.mulate these blasphemies; all must see that the most glorious truths of the Bible are bound up with its science, and must stand or fall together. And if this is so, and this so-called natural science is to be allowed to undermine the revealed science, what have we got to rely upon in this world or in the next? With the absolute truth of the Bible stands or falls our faith in G.o.d and our hope of immortality; on the truth of revelation hinges all morality, and they who deny to-day the truth of revealed science will tamper tomorrow with the truth of revealed history, of revealed morality, of revealed religion. Shall we, then, condescend to accept natural science instead of revealed; shall we, the teachers of revelation, condescend to abandon revealed science, and become the mere teachers of nature?

Thunders of applause greeted the right reverend theologian as he concluded--he happened to be a bishop, the direct ancestor in regular apostolical succession of a late prelate who inherited among other valuable qualities the very argument which closed the speech above quoted--and Galileo, the foolish believer in facts and the heretical student of mere nature, turned away with a sigh from trying to convince them, and contented himself with the fact he knew, and which must surely announce itself in the long run. _E pur si muove!_ Fear not, n.o.ble martyr of science: facts alter not to suit theologies: many a one may fall crushed and vanquished before the Juggernaut-car of the Church, but ”G.o.d does not die with His children, nor truth with its martyrs;” the natural is the divine, for Nature is only ”G.o.d in a mask.” So, looking down at that first great battle-field between nature and revelation I see the serried ranks break up and fly, and the excommunicated student become the prophet of the future, Galileo the seer, the revealer of the truth of G.o.d.

It is eternally true that nature must triumph in the long run.

Theories are very imposing, doubtless, but when they are erected on a misconception the inexorable fact is sure to a.s.sert itself sooner or later, and with pitiless serenity level the magnificent fabric with the dust. It is this which gives to scientific men so grave and calm an att.i.tude; theologians wrangle fiercely and bitterly because they wrangle about _opinions_, and one man's say is as good as another's where both deal in intangibles; but the man of science, when absolutely sure of his ground, _can afford to wait_, because the fact he has discovered remains unshaken, however it be a.s.sailed, and it will, in time, a.s.sert itself.

When nature and revelation then come into contact, revelation must go to the wall; no outcry can save it; it is doomed; as well try and dam the rising Thames with a feather, as seek to bolster up a theology whose main dogmas are being slowly undermined by natural science. Of course no one nowadays (at least among educated people, for Zadkiel's Almanac I believe still protests on Biblical grounds against the heresy of the motion of the earth) dreams of maintaining Bible, _i e_., revealed, science against natural science; it is agreed on all hands that on points where science speaks with certainty the words of the _Bible must be explained so as to accord with the dictum of nature_; _i e._, it is allowed--though the admission is wrapped up in thick folds of circ.u.mlocution--that science must mould revelation, and not revelation science. The desperate attempts to force the first chapter of Genesis into some faint resemblance to the ascertained results of geological investigations are a powerful testimony to the conscious weakness of revealed science and to the feeling on the part of all intelligent theologians that the testimony graven with an iron pen on the rocks cannot be contradicted or refuted. In fact so successfully has science a.s.serted its own preeminence in its own domain that many defenders of the Bible a.s.sert loudly, to cover their strategic movement to the rear, that revelation was not intended to teach science, and that scientific mistakes were only to be expected in a book given to mankind by the great Origin of all scientific law. They are freely welcome to find out any reasons they like for the errors in revealed science; all that concerns us is that their revelation should get out of the way of advancing science, and should no longer interpose its puny anathemas to silence inquiry into facts, or to fetter free research and free discussion.

But I challenge revelation further than this, and a.s.sert that when the dictates of natural_ religion_ are in opposition to those of revealed _religion_ then the natural must again triumph over the revealed.

Christianity has so long successfully impressed on human hearts the revelation that natural impulses are in themselves sinful, that in ”the flesh dwelleth no good thing,” that man is a fallen creature, thoroughly corrupt and instinctively evil, that it has come to-pa.s.s that even those who would be liberal if they dared, shrink back when it comes to casting away their revelation-crutches, and ask wildly _what_ they can trust to if they give up the Bible. Their teachers tell them that if they let this go they will wander compa.s.sless on the waves of a pathless ocean; and so determinedly do they fix their eyes on the foaming waters, striving to discern there the trace of a pathway and only seeing the broken reflections of the waving torches in their hands, that they do not raise their heads and gaze upwards at the everlasting stars, the silent natural guides of the bewildered mariner. ”Trust to mere nature!”

exclaim the priesthood, and their flocks fall back aghast, clutching their revelation to their bosom and crying out: ”What indeed is there to rely on if this be taken from us?” Only G.o.d. ”Mere” G.o.d indeed, who is a very feeble support after the bolstering up of creeds and dogmas, of Churches and Bibles. As the suns.h.i.+ne dazzles eyes accustomed to the darkness, as the fresh wind makes s.h.i.+ver an invalid from a heated room, so does the light of G.o.d dazzle those who live amid the candles of the Churches, and the breath of His inspiration blows cold on feeble souls.

But the light and the air invigorate and strengthen, and nature is a surer medicine than the nostrums of the quack physician.

”Mere” G.o.d is, in very truth, all that we Theists have to offer the world in exchange for the certainties of its Bibles, Korans, Vedas, and all other revelations whatsoever. On points where they each speak with certainty, our lips are dumb. About much they a.s.sert, we confess our ignorance. Where they know, we only think or hope. Where they possess all the clearness of a sign-post, our eyes can only study the mistiness of a valley before the rising sun has dispelled the wreathing clouds.

They proclaim immortality, and are quite _au fait_ as to the particulars of our future life. They differ in details, it is true, as to whether we live in a jewelled city, where the dust is gold-dust and the gates pearls, and spend our time in attending Sacred Harmonic Societies with an archangelic Costa directing perpetual oratorios, or whether we lie in rose-embowered arbours with delights unlimited, albeit unintellectual; but if we take them one at a time they are most satisfactory in the absolute information afforded by each. But we, we can only, whisper--and the lips of some of us quiver too much to speak--”I believe in the life everlasting.” We do not pretend to _know_ anything about it; the belief is intuitive, but is not demonstrable; it is a hope and a trust, not an absolute knowledge. We entertain a reasonable hope of immortality; we argue its likelihood from considerations of the justice and the love which, as we believe, rule the universe; we, many of us--as I freely confess I do myself--believe in it with a firmness of conviction absolutely immovable; but challenged to _prove_ it, we cannot answer.

”Here,” the revelationists triumphantly exclaim, ”is our advantage; we foretell with absolute certainty a future life, and can give you all particulars about it.” Then follows a confused jumble of harps and houris, of pasture-field and hunting-grounds; we seek for certainty and find none. All that they agree in, _i e_., a future life, we find imprinted on our own hearts, a dictate of natural religion; all they differ in is contained in their several revelations, and as they all contradict each other about the revealed details, we gain nothing from them. Nature whispers to us that there is a life to come; revelation babbles a number of contradictory particulars, marring the majesty of the simple promise, and adding nothing reliable to the sum of human knowledge. And the subject of immortality is a fair specimen of what is taught respectively by nature and by revelation; what is common to all creeds is natural, what is different in each is revealed. It is so with respect to G.o.d. The idea of G.o.d belongs to all creeds alike; it is the foundation-stone of natural religion; confusion begins when revelation steps in to change the musical whisper of Nature into a categorical description worthy of ”Mangnall's Questions.” Triune, solitary, dual, numberless, whatever He is revealed to be in the world's varied sacred books, His nature is understood, catalogued, dogmatised on; each revelation claims to be His own account of Himself; but each contradicts its fellows; on one point only they all agree, and that is the point confessed by natural religion--”G.o.d is.”

From these facts I deduce two conclusions: first, that revelation does not come to us with such a certainty of its truth as to enable us to trust it fearlessly and without reserve; second, that revelation is quite superfluous, since natural religion gives us every thing we need.

I. Revelation gives an uncertain sound. There are certain books in the world which claim to stand on a higher ground than all others. They claim to be special revelations of the will of G.o.d and the destiny of man. Now surely one of the first requisites of a Divine revelation is that it should be undoubtedly of Divine origin. But about all these books, except the Koran of Mahomet, hangs much obscurity both as regards their origin and their authors.h.i.+p. ”Believers” urge that were the proofs undoubted there would be no room for faith and no merit in believing.

They conceive it, then, to be a worthy employment for the Supreme Intelligence to set traps for His creatures; and, there being certain facts of the greatest importance, undis-coverable by their natural faculties, He proceeds to reveal these facts, but envelopes them in such wrappings of mystery, such garments of absurdity, that those of His creatures whom he has dowered with intellects and gifted with subtle brains, are forced to reject the whole as incredible and unreasonable.

That G.o.d should give a revelation, but should not substantiate it, that He should speak, but in tones unintelligible, that His n.o.blest gifts of reason should prove an insuperable bar to accepting his manifestation, are surely statements incredible, are surely statements utterly irreconcileable with all reverent ideas of the love and wisdom of Almighty G.o.d. Further, the believers in the various revelations all claim for their several oracles the supreme position of the exponent of the Will of G.o.d, and each rejects the sacred books of other nations as spurious productions, without any Divine authority. As these revelations are mutually destructive, it is evident that only one of them, at the most can be Divine, and the next point of the inquiry is to distinguish which this is. We, of the Western nations, at once put aside the Hindoo Vedas, or the Zendavesta, on certain solid grounds; we reject their claims to be inspired books because they contain error; their mistaken science, their legendary history, their miraculous stories, stamp them, in our impartial eyes, as the work of fallible men; the nineteenth century looks down on thee ancient writings as the instructed and cultured man smiles at the crude fancies and imaginative conceits of the child. But when the generality of Christians turn to the Bible they lay aside all ordinary criticism and all common-sense. Its science may be absurd; but excuses are found for it. Its history may be false, but it is twisted into truth. Its supernatural marvels may be flagrantly absurd; but they are nevertheless believed in. Men who laugh at the visions of the ”blessed Margaret” of Paray-le-Monial a.s.sent to the devil-drowning of the swine of Gadara; and those who would scorn to investigate the tale of the miraculous spring at Lourdes, find no difficulty in believing the story of the angel-moved waters of Bethesda's pool. A book which contains miracles is usually put aside as unreliable. There is no good reason for excepting the Bible from this general rule. Miracles are absolutely incredible, and discredit at once any book in which they occur. They are found in all revelations, but never in nature, they are plentiful in man's writings, but they never deface the orderly pages of the great book of G.o.d, written by His own Hand on the earth, and the stars, and the sun. Powers? Yes, beyond our grasping, but Powers moving in stately order and changeless consistency.

<script>