Skip to main content
Read page text
page 1
Xiterac^ (Sutbe AND RATIONALIST REVIEW. [ESTABLISHED 1885.] G b e No. 2^. (New Series.) O C TO BER i , 1898. Monthly; T wopence. Contents. Concerning Salvation. B y Charles T . Gorham . 145 Natural Ends. By Charles E. Hooper . . 146 Christian Clay-Modelling. By F . J. Gould . 147 Agnosticism and Atheism. By Charles W a tts . 148 Philosophy on a New Footing . . .148 Life in a Modern Monastery . . .149 Signs and Warnings . . . . .151 random Jottings. . . . . .152 CH A T S ABOUT BOOKS AND M ISCELLANEA : X I V . — W ith Mr. F. J. Gould ..... 154 Recent French Books . . . .156 rationalism in the Magazines . . .156 Monthly Magazines . . . . .157 Vicious Propaganda by Christian Publishers ; Was James Thomson (B.V.) a Pessimist ? Celestial Fiction ; O f Killing out Desires. S h o r t N o t i c e s . . . . . .157 C o r r e s p o n d e n c e :— T h e Gifford Trust . . . 158 Conccrnino Salvation. P r o b a b l y nineteen out of every twenty persons, if asked the meaning of the term “ salvation,” would reply that it consisted in escape from the wrath of God, and that this escape could be secured only by a heartfelt belief in the doctrine that someone else has already suffered the penalty in anticipation, and so averted the doom which would otherwise justly fall on every human being. No doubt many o f the more intellectual Christians perceive the painful crudity of this theory, and modify it in various ways suggested by individual taste and fancy rather than by the dictates of enlightened reason. We well remember the late Rev. Edward White, a good and able man, frequently asserting from the pulpit with great emphasis that the substitutionary theory o f the atonement was untenable, and that we were driven to the conclusion that it was God himself who, in human form, provided and accepted his own death in satisfaction of the violation of his own laws. Those were not the preacher’s exact words, but they fairly represent his view, a view which seems at least as fertile in difficulties as that which it was intended to supersede. Others, again, hold that the death of Jesus was not a sacrifice, but a manifestation of God’s love, operating as a spiritual incentive to virtue. This, however, is based on the unsatisfactory assumption that the violation o f law carries with it the penalty of death, and that it matters not whether the penalty falls on the guilty or on the innocent; which is merely the old theory in a less commercial form, the pagan notion of sacrifice amended to suit the growth of the secular intelligence. Nothing was heard o f such emasculated dogmas during the long centuries in which the Christian Church held unchallenged control of the European intellect. I f such theories are an improvement on the ancient ferocity of theological dogmas, it is undoubtedly to the progress of secular thought that the improvement is due. _ The simple query, “ Are you saved ?” which is so frequently put by an aggressive but uncultured body of believers, ¡s, it must be confessed, a puzzling one to answer— puzzling because the data for a satisfactory answer are non-existent. A R a tio nalist hardly know» how-tp convey to the inquiring believer the smallest appreciation of the barbarous anthropo­ morphism and thedisastrous egotism which lurk within these three short words. To expose them in these columns is superfluous; every Rationalist can do the critical work for himself. We pass on to consider the higher and better significance of that freely-employed but misleading term, “ salvation.” O f this better meaning many Christians have a fairly clear perception, though for the most part they hold it in subordination to the lower meaning above referred to. Primarily salvation ought to mean, even if it does not mean, moral health and spiritual stability. In accordance with the process by which many words, and especially theological terms, become endowed with wider meanings, the notion of escape from danger is receding in favour of the more purely ethical idea. Certainly the etymology of the word “ salvation ” justifies its older meaning. Sa lvus, safe, implies refuge from peril. But, in the main, Christianity has held the peril to lie in punishment rather than in the loss of moral vigour. Salvation should be regarded as a state of freedom from the dominion of evil impulses, not as a means by which Divine wrath may be cheated of its victim. How greatly has the predominance of the latter view demoralized Christian thought! How often is it taken for granted that the evil of sin consists in its imminent liability to fearful, perhaps never-ending, punishment ! How eagerly is grasped that imaginary sacrifice by which the punishment is supposed to be averted, and the burden of apprehension is rolled away ! The real evil of sin consists partly in the injury it causes to others, partly in the debasement which overtakes him who yields to it. The real salvation is that which in this life removes the sin, not that which in another life removes the punishment. Very slowly the true view is superseding the false ; but, even where it is perceived, it is by the average Christian still held in conjunction with, or in subordination to, the imperfect conception that the creature needs to be saved from the anger of its Creator. If, then, salvation is a state in which the shackles of evil are broken and cast away, in which social and benevolent impulses take the place of the anti social and malevolent impulses, how is the change to be brought about, and of what nature is the agency to be enployed ? Here again is a parting of the ways. The orthodox Christian holds that the human being is practically powerless to effect this change himself, that a supernatural influence must work upon his nature, and that with it his nature must co-operate. The Rationalist holds that there is no sufficient evidence of even the existence of such a supernatural agency, and that, if it does exist, we know nothing of its mode of operation. He further believes that there are many secular influences which, in this life, and either singly or in subtle combination, work for good upon the moral, intellectual, and spiritual faculties of man. That the significance of these influences should frequently be misapprehended is not surprising. Human credulity has in all ages been to an extraordinary degree prone to accept and reverence assumed beings and agencies of supernatural character, and most religions have strongly fostered the tendency. The very crudity, the essential paganism, of the orthodox theory of salvation, appeal far more powerfully than does the higher view to the narrow and semi-enlightened devotee. During the past month a rather piteous letter has appeared in one of the religious papers from a minister who has given up the gospel of terror, but who finds the gospel o f the fatherhood of God “ powerless to save.” Is not that a clear indication of the hold which lower conceptions have gained on current religious thought ? I f men and women want to be “ saved,” whether from imperfection or from punishment, they must do the work

Xiterac^ (Sutbe AND RATIONALIST REVIEW. [ESTABLISHED 1885.]

G b e

No. 2^. (New Series.)

O C TO BER i , 1898.

Monthly; T wopence.

Contents.

Concerning Salvation. B y Charles T . Gorham . 145 Natural Ends. By Charles E. Hooper . . 146 Christian Clay-Modelling. By F . J. Gould . 147 Agnosticism and Atheism. By Charles W a tts . 148 Philosophy on a New Footing . . .148 Life in a Modern Monastery . . .149 Signs and Warnings . . . . .151 random Jottings. . . . . .152 CH A T S ABOUT BOOKS AND M ISCELLANEA : X I V . —

W ith Mr. F. J. Gould ..... 154 Recent French Books . . . .156 rationalism in the Magazines . . .156 Monthly Magazines . . . . .157

Vicious Propaganda by Christian Publishers ; Was James Thomson (B.V.) a Pessimist ? Celestial Fiction ; O f Killing out Desires. S h o r t N o t i c e s . . . . . .157 C o r r e s p o n d e n c e :— T h e Gifford Trust . . . 158

Conccrnino Salvation.

P r o b a b l y nineteen out of every twenty persons, if asked the meaning of the term “ salvation,” would reply that it consisted in escape from the wrath of God, and that this escape could be secured only by a heartfelt belief in the doctrine that someone else has already suffered the penalty in anticipation, and so averted the doom which would otherwise justly fall on every human being. No doubt many o f the more intellectual Christians perceive the painful crudity of this theory, and modify it in various ways suggested by individual taste and fancy rather than by the dictates of enlightened reason. We well remember the late Rev. Edward White, a good and able man, frequently asserting from the pulpit with great emphasis that the substitutionary theory o f the atonement was untenable, and that we were driven to the conclusion that it was God himself who, in human form, provided and accepted his own death in satisfaction of the violation of his own laws. Those were not the preacher’s exact words, but they fairly represent his view, a view which seems at least as fertile in difficulties as that which it was intended to supersede. Others, again, hold that the death of Jesus was not a sacrifice, but a manifestation of God’s love, operating as a spiritual incentive to virtue. This, however, is based on the unsatisfactory assumption that the violation o f law carries with it the penalty of death, and that it matters not whether the penalty falls on the guilty or on the innocent; which is merely the old theory in a less commercial form, the pagan notion of sacrifice amended to suit the growth of the secular intelligence. Nothing was heard o f such emasculated dogmas during the long centuries in which the Christian Church held unchallenged control of the European intellect. I f such theories are an improvement on the ancient ferocity of theological dogmas, it is undoubtedly to the progress of secular thought that the improvement is due. _

The simple query, “ Are you saved ?” which is so frequently put by an aggressive but uncultured body of believers, ¡s, it must be confessed, a puzzling one to answer— puzzling because the data for a satisfactory answer are non-existent. A R a tio nalist hardly know» how-tp convey to the inquiring believer the smallest appreciation of the barbarous anthropo­ morphism and thedisastrous egotism which lurk within these three short words. To expose them in these columns is superfluous; every Rationalist can do the critical work for himself. We pass on to consider the higher and better significance of that freely-employed but misleading term, “ salvation.”

O f this better meaning many Christians have a fairly clear perception, though for the most part they hold it in subordination to the lower meaning above referred to. Primarily salvation ought to mean, even if it does not mean, moral health and spiritual stability. In accordance with the process by which many words, and especially theological terms, become endowed with wider meanings, the notion of escape from danger is receding in favour of the more purely ethical idea. Certainly the etymology of the word “ salvation ” justifies its older meaning. Sa lvus, safe, implies refuge from peril. But, in the main, Christianity has held the peril to lie in punishment rather than in the loss of moral vigour. Salvation should be regarded as a state of freedom from the dominion of evil impulses, not as a means by which Divine wrath may be cheated of its victim. How greatly has the predominance of the latter view demoralized Christian thought! How often is it taken for granted that the evil of sin consists in its imminent liability to fearful, perhaps never-ending, punishment ! How eagerly is grasped that imaginary sacrifice by which the punishment is supposed to be averted, and the burden of apprehension is rolled away ! The real evil of sin consists partly in the injury it causes to others, partly in the debasement which overtakes him who yields to it. The real salvation is that which in this life removes the sin, not that which in another life removes the punishment. Very slowly the true view is superseding the false ; but, even where it is perceived, it is by the average Christian still held in conjunction with, or in subordination to, the imperfect conception that the creature needs to be saved from the anger of its Creator.

If, then, salvation is a state in which the shackles of evil are broken and cast away, in which social and benevolent impulses take the place of the anti social and malevolent impulses, how is the change to be brought about, and of what nature is the agency to be enployed ? Here again is a parting of the ways. The orthodox Christian holds that the human being is practically powerless to effect this change himself, that a supernatural influence must work upon his nature, and that with it his nature must co-operate. The Rationalist holds that there is no sufficient evidence of even the existence of such a supernatural agency, and that, if it does exist, we know nothing of its mode of operation. He further believes that there are many secular influences which, in this life, and either singly or in subtle combination, work for good upon the moral, intellectual, and spiritual faculties of man. That the significance of these influences should frequently be misapprehended is not surprising. Human credulity has in all ages been to an extraordinary degree prone to accept and reverence assumed beings and agencies of supernatural character, and most religions have strongly fostered the tendency. The very crudity, the essential paganism, of the orthodox theory of salvation, appeal far more powerfully than does the higher view to the narrow and semi-enlightened devotee. During the past month a rather piteous letter has appeared in one of the religious papers from a minister who has given up the gospel of terror, but who finds the gospel o f the fatherhood of God “ powerless to save.” Is not that a clear indication of the hold which lower conceptions have gained on current religious thought ?

I f men and women want to be “ saved,” whether from imperfection or from punishment, they must do the work

My Bookmarks


Skip to main content