250 



REMARKS BY THE REV. CANON W. SAUMAREZ SMITH, D.D. 

 (Principal of St. Aidan's Theological College, Birkenhead). 



Mr. James's paper is a useful one, however " inadequate " such *' a brief 

 treatment " of such a vast subject may, and must, be. It is suggestive, and 

 lays down clear lines upon which rational discussion may proceed. And 

 the need of such discussion, as the writer points out at the commencement 

 of his paper, is found in the very hasty way in which superficial notions 

 about science and philosophy are taken up and diffused ; so that what may 

 be termed an " anti-traditional " and " anti-religious " bias is created on 

 insufficient grounds, and is often regarded as a sign of courage and culture ! 



With reference to Mr. James's first question, it is well to remember that of 

 absolute " Optimism " and " Pessimism " no finite creature can possibly be 

 an adequate judge. No one save an Infinite, Self-existent Being, prior to, 

 and the ultimate cause of, all finite existences, can be omniscient ; and 

 without omniscience who can say what system of things is best or ivorst ? 

 In defining, then, for purposes of discussion. Pessimism, and its antithesis, 

 Optimism, we mean the respective theories that all things tend to evil, and 

 that all things tend to good. Which of these theories is the more reason- 

 able and philosophical ? If we take a merely materialistic, — i.e., an 

 essentially atheistic, — basis for speculation, we shall find it hard to defend 

 any Optimistic theory ; but if we are Theists, we shall be able to contend 

 (i.) that it is reasonable to expect good from God ; (ii.) that God must be 

 the better judge of the whole scheme of things than finite man can be ; and, 

 if we are Christian Theists, we can add (iii.) that God has given us a series 

 of Revelations which inform us of a remedial and restorative purpose which 

 dominates the history of human development — revelations which, while 

 they recognise a mystery of evil, unfold a greater mystery of good. 



To all who want suggestive thoughts about Pessimism let me commend 

 an admirable lecture upon the subject in Professor Flint's Antithcistic 

 Theories, Very clearly does he show that Schopenhauer and Hartmann's 

 doctrines are "essentially Buddhistic," setting forth "a modified Buddhism 

 without Buddha " ; and that, while they thus make the Nihilistic theory 

 less extravagant and legendary, they at the same time render it barren, 

 abstract, and repellent. By eliminating the personal element which mingles 

 with all the teaching of Buddhism they take away the sole support of an 

 emotional character which, as it were, clothes with a positive garb an 

 essentially negative creed. 



Mr. James points out that Schopenhauer and Hartmann are " both Pan- 

 theists of an unusually nebulous description " ; and assuredly, when we try 

 to represent to ourselves the " alogical " Will by whose endless strivings 

 Schopenhauer asserts this evil world to have been brought forth, and to be 

 maintained in misery ; or the " unconscious (mind ?) " in which Hartmann 



