(b.) Tlieological Ethics.— Thh is grounded upon seme religion or theologj'. But in this aspect the science is broad enough to cover every religion. The ethics might be theological, and at the same time Buddhistic, or Mohammedan, or Brahminical. Theological ethics, therefore, might be a system on which the fundament- al principle of moials had been perverted by the ad- mixture of cruel and impure superstitions, just as a f o- called philosophical ethics might be atheistic or pan- theistic.
(c.) Christian Ethics. — Christian ethics is theological ethics limited b}- Christianit}-. As thus stated, it n ight appear to be narrower than either philoso]ihical <ir theological ethics, but in reality it is far otherwise. Philosophical ethics is Christian so far as it is true and just, and, from the very nature of Christianitj-, as con- taining a complete account of human duty, it must even be broader and deeper than all human philosophies vhich relate to it. As to the relati( n of Cliristian eth- ics to any other supposed theological etliics, or lo all other theologies in their moral aspects taken togethei-, its position must be that of judge among them all ; it must measure them all, eliminating whatever is false, restoring what is lacking, or rather supplanting them one and all as the only standard of moral truth and duty.
Besides, Christian ethics, considered as a science, and hence as a field for speculation, covers the wl-.ole ground. Philosoph j- and theology, in their ethical re- lations, arc entirely within its scope. It must judge them both wherever it touches them. It has made ethics, and indeed all s];eculation, a different thing from what it was before it entered into human thought, and it aims to master all human thinking within its sphere. It is, to be sure, amcna])le to pliilosophical thouglit, and cannot repel the tests of right reason ; it readily enters into the struggle with every adverse in- tellectual tendency, carrying with it a divine confi- dence that alone contains the infallible and indestruc- tible norm of humanity regarded as moral.
Christian ethics, indeed, considered as speculative, is not infallible. God has given the ethical norm, but man is obliged to speculate for himself. Evidently the complete form of Christian ethics, considered as philosophical, has not yet been reached. Its condition is yet militant, both in relation to false systems and to its' own development. The genuine Christian ethics, in the scientific sense, lies scattered in various human treatises, in part is yet to be born, and remains to be evolved in the coming ages, and to be wrought into a system of beneficence and beaut}- which shall settle down on the whole human race, at once an atmosphere
ETHICS
320
ETHICS
of divine and filial love, and an antidote to discord, in- justice, and all impurity.
"As between theological and philosophical specula- tion, so between theological and philosophical ethics, in so far as they are speculative, we must make a Strong distinction. The latter pair differ precisely as the former do. But, much as philosophical and theo- logical ethics differ, thej' are not opposites. "Within the Christian world. Christian ethics, like philosophj' in general, must always be essentially Christian. It has always been so, as the result of an inviolable his- torical necessity, but in different degrees at different periods of time, and in the several stages of its prog- ress. There maj^, indeed, arise a relative hostilit}' be- tween philosophical ethics and the contemporaneous Christian teaching, or even a hostility between ethical writers and Christianitj'- in general ; or, rather, such a hostility is unavoidable precisely in the degree in Avhich humanity fails to be penetrated by Christianit}'. But, so long as this continues to be the case, it must be a proof of imperfection, not in philosophy only, but also in Christian piety. For even if Christian piety, looking at the doctrine in itself, should be convinced that it possessed the true results, yet she possesses her treasure without the scientific al)ility to understand it, or to vindicate it to the understanding of others. It is, therefore, as science, still imperfect. A result of this will be that theological ethics will share in the imperfection. So long as the moral consciousness of the Christian, which is specifically determined by the church of which he is a member, does not clearly rec- ognise itself in the forms of morality prevailing in his circle, a Christian ethical philosophy must remain a want — a desideratum. This, however, is only to say that this want will last while the general moral senti- ment and that of the Church remain apart. The more nearly each approaches perfection in its own sphere, the nearer they come to being one. If we conceive of each as perfect, thej^ remain two only in form, i. e. not different in their method, but only in the order ac- cording to which, under the same method, they scien- tifically arrange themselves.
" What h:is now been said of the relation between philosophical and theological ethics, holds of the latter only so far as it is conceived of as speculative. In other modes of treating theological ethics, especially in the traditional, it is easy to conceive that the relation would be different It must be distinctly af- firmed that a Christian character belongs to philosoph- ical ethics throughout the Christian world. Wc do not mean that it oiyht to be so, but that it reall}' is so ; not, indeed, always in the highest and fullest sense, and as it ought to be, but still, in such a sense, whatever men may be conscious of, that without Christianity it never could have been what it is. In the Christian world there is no element of the moral or intellectual life which is not associated with some result of Cliris- tianity, itself undeniably the ground-principle of the historical development of our whole Christian times- It can never be sufficiently remembered, especially in our own times, that what is actually Christian, and, in- deed, what is essentially and specifically Christian, reaches, in all the relations of life, far l)eyoiid the sphere to which usage gives the name of (.'hrlstlan, or of wliich the present generation is at all conscious as Christian. The Christian element inheres in the very blood of tliat portion of humanity wliicli passes under tlie name of (^hristendom. This is not the less true because certain individuals belonging to the Cliristian communit}'^ may not feel its regenerating power. Ik- sides, that would be a poor ethical system, considered as philosophy, which should ignore the great facts through which morality becomes Christian, and which should refuse to tliose facts the controlling position which actually Ijelongs to them in making the moral world what, in point of science, it has become. These great facts, let men close their eyes as they will, are