Apocalyptic eschatology no one could even wish to revive. But this does not mean that Biblical eschatology—the expectation of the great Event—must be dissolved in the modern hope of the gradual amelioration of the world in the course of historical evolution. We cannot but feel how great a breach that would constitute between our thought and the [pg 042] mind of Jesus. Schweitzer remarks upon the heavy dose of “resignation” which such a view implies. Strange that we do not more often realise this! Does our optimism blind us to the fact that we shall not partake in “the far off divine event”—except our spirit survive the bodily death? _There_—in the hope of life beyond death—is the expectation which we substitute for apocalyptic eschatology,—a substitution so natural that it came about without observation. S. Paul lived in the expectation of the coming of the Lord, but he evidently felt no sense of incongruity when he expressed the feeling that “to depart and be with Christ is very far better”—he was referring to the natural death of the body and the hope of life immediately beyond it. This is the hope which has ever since characterised the Christian Church. To dwell upon that hope, to set our “affections upon things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God”—that is “heavenly mindedness.” With respect to the feeling at the base of it, it is not so very different from apocalyptical eschatology. In this view Christian ethics still remains “conditional”—you may call it _Interimsethik_ if you like. The conduct it requires of us is conditioned by the hope of a future [pg 043] life and is absurd under any other supposition. “The practice of the presence of God” is the most fundamentally important religious exercise. But if we succeed in persuading ourselves that here and now we have the only kingdom of God we shall ever know; if all our interest and effort is absorbed in realising a kingdom of God upon earth; then not only have we need of “resignation,” but we cannot avoid feeling the breach between our thought and activity and that of Jesus. We are puzzled to distinguish between worldly and heavenly mindedness because even our religious interest is focussed upon this earth, as the sphere not only of our moral duty but of our ultimate hope—the gradual evolution of a perfect human society. That is what we have made of the Kingdom of God, interpreting it uneschatologically. Is not this after all a more credulous hope than that which expects a divine intervention, a “regeneration” of heaven and earth, which shall prepare the fit abode for the perfect society? And does it not strike at the very roots of the religious sentiment when we distract the mind from its natural interest and curiosity about the Beyond? Our personal fate is not so much involved in the far off amelioration of human society as in something [pg 044] much nearer, very near and imminent, the estate just beyond death. It is not altogether without reason that