Billeder på siden

that in fact it is not so. The Epicurean doctrine of happiness does not separate it from pleasure. But pleasure as meant by Epicurus is not the pleasure of the profligate or the debauchee, but that enjoyment of the fitting things of life which involves neither present nor future pain whether of body or mind. In the Aristotelian

system happiness receives what we conceive to be a close approximation to a just interpretation. "The aim of all moral action is eudæmonia or happiness. Eudemonia results from the peculiar work which belongs to man as man. The peculiar work of man cannot consist in merely living, for plants also live, nor in having sensations, for these are shared by man with the brute creation; it can only consist in a life of action under the control of reason."1 But this definition of happiness limits to a minority the possession of the summum bonum, for without doubt the majority of men live merely in the sensual plane, in simple sense pleasure, and with a countless multitude the gratification of the demands of two senses, or even one, seems to be the chief object of life. The drunkard and the glutton have little or no regard for the beautiful and grand either in nature or art. If they live a life higher than plants they certainly live on a level with animals. "The lusts of the flesh, of the eyes, and of the other senses, when separated from the affections and desires and delights of the spirit, are altogether similar to the lusts of brute creatures, and consequently in themselves are bestial. Hence it follows that in proportion as any one indulges in the lusts of the flesh he becomes a brute beast."2 Now Aristotle's definition of happiness is deficient in one particular. True happiness must always result from the Zwỳ TрaкTIKỳ, life of action, but an element necessary to its completion is the guidance of Divine reason. Human reason must be directed by spiritual truth, which is the expression of Divine reason. The definition of happiness as given above has yet to be completed; for Aristotle conceives that "for complete happiness a sufficient provision of external goods is essential, since these are necessary for active manifestation of virtue, just as the equipping of the chorus is necessary for the representation of a dramatic work." Here, again, the definition excludes the majority from participation in complete happiness, since the multitude have not a "sufficient provision of external goods." It should seem then that the happiness of Aristotle is unattainable under


1 Ueberweg, History of Philosophy, i. 172.
2 True Christian Religion, p. 328.
3 Ueberweg, History of Philosophy, i. 172.

the existing state of society. We now pass to an explication of happiness by a modern exponent. The Utilitarian principle of morals has a theory of happiness. John Stuart Mill says, "According to the greatest happiness principle, as above explained, the ultimate end with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments both in point of quantity and quality."1 Now the pleasures of enjoyment as here understood are those which call into exercise the higher faculties both of sense and mind. The pleasures of the highly intellectual senses of sight and hearing are of a higher order than those of the remaining. They are pleasures, too, of universal enjoyment. Thousands can look upon a beautiful landscape while only a few can partake of a luxurious dish, or taste the choicest productions of a nobleman's garden. The cultivation of the higher faculties enlarges the sphere of happiness. The happiness of a savage is widely differenced from that of an educated man. But it may be replied, An ignorant sense-living carter is happier than your educated lady or your philosopher. We think not. He may be more contented; he is satisfied with the sensual delights of his life; he is not conscious of, nor does he desire, a higher degree of happiness. But the intelligent and instructed man or woman is conscious of the incompleteness of his happiness, and therefore unremittingly strives by culture of head and heart to increase it. "A being of higher faculties," says John Stuart Mill, "requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type. But in spite of these liabilities he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence." And again, "It is true that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied, and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for as the world is constituted is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections if they are at all bearable, and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of these imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify. It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the 1 John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 17.

He who is not dissatisfied with


question." To this we subscribe. his state of mind or heart cannot reach complete happiness. believe that the old saying that a contented mind is a continual feast is only partly true. Discontent springing from envy and a restless ambition is a destroyer of happiness and an evil; but dissatisfaction originating from a consciousness of spiritual and even intellectual imperfections is an incentive to the attainment of greater happiness. The happiness defined by John Stuart Mill is a factor in the doctrine of Utility, and this as taught by Utilitarians is not far from the teaching of the Word of God. It now remains to give a final definition of happiness. Now if perfect happiness be known anywhere, certainly heaven must be the state where it is fully realized. What is the nature then of heavenly happiness? "All the delights of heaven are conjoined with uses and are inherent in its inhabitants;"2 and the happiness of heaven consists "in sincerely desiring the good of others more than their own, and in serving them for the sake of their happiness from pure love, without any selfish hope of reward."3 This appears to us to be an ultimate definition, and expresses the nature of the highest good, the summum bonum. If, then, this definition of happiness be granted as a fitting one, ought we to say that he has lived in vain who has in this world attained such happiness? in a word, ought we to say that his life has not been worth the cost? The answer to this we shall endeavour to

give in our next paper.



AFTER the Reign of Terror Napoleon I., as Consul of the French Empire, promulgated a law in the tenth year of the Revolution recognising all forms of worship, and subsidizing, amongst others, the ministers of the Reformed Church of France. Three churches were set apart to its use in Paris. The first, strange to say, was that of St. Thomas, adjoining the Louvre, in which, two centuries earlier, the well-known preacher Panigarola celebrated the St. Bartholomew massacre in presence of Catherine de Medicis, Charles IX., and his 1 John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, p. 14. 2 True Christian Religion, 402.

3 Ibid., 408.

brother Henry, King of Poland. This building was subsequently demolished during the extension works at the Louvre, and another handed over to the Reformed Church in its stead, viz. the Church of the Oratoire, built in 1622, and noticed in French annals as the spiritual home of such men as Hénault, Dumarsais, Malebranche, Mascaron, and Massillon. The Reformed Church still holds its services there ; and it now has upwards of twenty churches and meeting-houses in the Paris district alone. It is governed by a consistory, including a Presbyterian Council of twenty-four members, twelve being pastors who sit ex officio, and twelve laymen, six retiring every three years and being re-eligible, and fifteen ministers and lay representatives. The work of this Church in Paris is divided into seven parishes. The members, however, are free to attend any church they please, and to select any of the ministers for the religious instruction of their children. According to the official returns published in 1876 there were twenty-four Sunday-schools in Paris and its vicinity, containing 2748 scholars and 277 teachers. The electoral list, for the purposes of voting to the Presbyterian Council, contains the names of those only who are able to declare themselves thirty years of age or upwards, to have resided within the district for two years, or, in the case of strangers, three years at least; prove their admission into the Church by producing a certificate of their first communion; declare that they attend worship according to the Reformed rite; in case of marriage that they received the nuptial benediction within the Protestant pale; that they bring up their children in the same religion; and that they are sincerely and heartily attached to the Reformed Church of France. And no one is allowed to vote, either for the council or the consistory, whose name has not been inscribed prior to the 1st of January of the year in which the election takes place. With these restrictions the number of electors, as far as the register for Paris and its neighbourhood is concerned, is considerably under 2000. The ministers, assisted by lay visitors, attend the colleges, lyceums, hospitals, and prisons, having equal rights with the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church.

In studying the work of the French Reformed Church, I have been struck with the admirable system of relief prevalent in France as compared with that of our own country. As the general reader is aware, there is no Poor Law in France. The absence of any ultimate refuge such as the workhouse for the indigent or the recklessly prodigal, is a very strong incentive to sobriety, temperance, and thrift; and that the French working classes are conspicuous for these virtues cannot be denied. We find, then, that whilst all recognised religions are estab

lished by the State, and maintained by an annual vote from the Budget, the Church in France-whatever form she may assume in creed or ritual-is constituted the Church of the poor. She is bound to exercise proper supervision over their wants, spiritual and temporal alike, and in this way a bond of union is established between all classes which may subserve a high and noble purpose if the Church is but true to her mission, zealous unto all good works. We note, in the first place, that the alms thus distributed are the freewill-offerings of the Lord's people. In the second place, the members add a blessing to the gift by personally supervising its distribution, instead of employing extensive and costly, nay, wastefully extravagant machinery for that purpose, as in England. The Diaconat, or Council of Deacons attached to the Reformed Church, is, at Paris, divided into ten local relief committees, each representing a church. These deacons number a hundred and twenty-six. They are nominated by the pastors and elected by the Presbyterian Council. Each relief committee meets once a week at the church to which it is attached, the pastor occupying the chair, for the purpose of hearing applications for assistance, whether in the form of money, medicine, bread, or clothing. No poor person is entitled to relief unless at the recommendation of the visiting deacons, a report being submitted week by week with that object; and an annual sum is allotted to each committee for relief purposes by the general assembly of deacons, according to the requirements of each parish. The functions of this assembly are of a purely administrative character, and no modification of its constitution can be introduced without the sanction of the Presbyterian Council. I may add that about one-half of the money thus contributed is raised by a weekly offertory at the doors of the church, the remainder being received from collections made at baptisms, marriages, and burials, and from legacies and special gifts. These frequently take the form of food and clothing sent direct to the committee on the occasion of its assembling for the weekly distribution. Many free schools are supported by the Reformed Church for the children of the indigent classes belonging to her pale, and are under the regular inspection of committees, each consisting of six gentlemen in respect to the boys' schools, and of six ladies for the girls'.

It will be seen that the principle of the relief system described is somewhat similar to that of the Elberfeldt plan, by which a number of the better class residents, appointed for that purpose, take charge of the poor relief in the several districts into which the place is divided, and such persons themselves visit the cases. A report on the system was published a few years ago by Mr. Tufnell, one of the inspectors of the Local Government Board.

« ForrigeFortsæt »