No. 39. (N ew S e r ie s .)

Xitetat^ 6 tube

AND RATIONALIST REVIEW.

[ESTABLISHED 1889.]

S E P T E M B E R 1 , 1899.

Monthly ; T wopence.

Contents.

Chapel R oyal R eligio n . By John M. Robertson . 120 Cui B ono ? By A. G. W. . . . , " Wagner’s Great “ R el ig io u s” Drama. By Morgan

PAGE

So that God Incarnate did not know how unintelligent many of his creatures had been created. He came down to earth to seek and save the lost, the poor, the ignorant, the “ unintelligent,” the “ babes and sucklings” of the intellectual life, and his method was to be paradoxical, figurative, emotional, puzzling, alarming. Mr. Davies insists, and explains :—

A r g l e s ................................................................131 E volutionary T heories Criticised . . A Writer upon Heresies . . . “ Sam uel Davidson . . _ ’ A T y p e of P essim ism . . . ’ S igns and Warnings . . . . . ■ • • i 34 Random J ottings . . . _ .137 Chats with th e B ygone. I.—With Marcus Aurelius

Antoninus. By F. J . G. . . , _ _ ,^g Rationalism in th e Magazines . . , 40 S hort Notices .'—Theology in Verse ; An Anti-Chris-

tian Prophet of the Lord . . ,

t

“ Questionable Propacandism.” By Charles Watts i 4-> “ I mpersonal De i t i e s ” : A Letter and a Rejoinder . 14 2

Cbapel 1Ro\>al IR d io io n . A n unwittingly instructive sermon was preached a few weeks ago at the Chapel Royal, St. Jam es’s, by the Rev. J . Llewellyn Davies, vicar o f Kirkby Lonsdale, Westmoreland. Mr Davies is a scholar and, for a clergyman, a thinker, as those who have met him in discussion know ; and, in the sermon in question he revealed with a surprising plainness the extent to which he has realized the fallacy o f the religion he is ordained and paid to preach. The instruction his discourse affords lies not in its attempted solutions of Christian difficulties, but in its implicit avowal o f the extent of * Nothing is more familiar in modern discussion about Christianity than the position that its practical ethic is substantially faultless, even ideal, and that all that needs eliminating is its supernaturalism. Men who have never brooded anxiously over its teachings are often heard to say how adequate is its guidance, how wise and winning the teaching o f the Founder, how superior his spirit to that of rival teachers. The “ sweet reasonableness o f J e s u s ’ ’ was Mr Arnold’s most confident formula. Mr. Davies makes rather short work of that optimism.

Taking as his text the words, “ He said unto them, Do ye not understand?” Mr. Davies went (for a clergyman) very straight to the fact that the teaching of the Gospel Jesus is admittedly cryptic and perplexing to the very men whom he is supposed specially to be preparing for the task of enlightening the world. Naturally, Mr. Davies did not ask with what sane conception of salvation and revelation such nrocedure is consistent. God Incarnate, in the terms o f the case, selects twelve disciples, deliberately bewilders them, and then reproaches them because they are bewildered. Such a crux, for clerical purposes, is best left a lo ne; but Mr Davies does the best he can. I quote the report of the D a i ly News .—

“ The Saviour’s teaching was always to be understood in the spirit. Readers of the Gospel failed in general to perceive how emotional, paradoxical, figurative, dramatic, our Lord was. In St. Luke we found words of His which were startling if taken literally: ‘ I f any man comcth after me and hatcth not his own father and mother and brethren and sisters, yea, and his wife also, he cannot be my disciple.’ No one, it was to be assumed, was unintelligent enough to assent to the literal meaning of this utterance.”

“ In the 10th chapter of St. Matthew were these words : ‘ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.’ The truth was that Christ came to strengthen family affections ; but what did he mean by these words ? He was speaking paradoxically. He was deeply impressed with the consequences of following Him. He would not let crowds go after Him in the mistaken belief that His supporters were going to have a good time. His disciples would often have to cause anger to their nearest relations, and He would not allow any who were attracted by Him to be ignorant of it.” Then where, in this case, was the paradox ? Did he, or did he not, do certain things ; did his teaching have certain effects ; and has it ever ceased to have them ? I f there was risk of profound misunderstanding—and all Christian history has shown there was— wherein is Christ’s teaching more efficacious than that of any other teacher ?

To the rational student the case is clear enough. The writers and compilers of the Gospels— it may be, the speakers whom they at times report—were more or less exalted mystics, whose teaching, in two cases out of three, had regard to the expected speedy end of the world ; a circumstance which Mr. Davies seems constantly to ignore, as he well may. Rationally considered, the Gospel is no guide for the modern world ; but Mr. Davies is ordained to make it appear s o ; and so he frames for bis and his hearers’ relief the conception of a God become incarnate in order to propound paradoxes, enigmas, delusions :—

“ There was another saying of Christ’s, one that had remained hard even to many of His disciples. It was: ‘ My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed’ ; but Jesus Himself gave the explanation : ‘ It is the spirit that quickeneth. The flesh profiteth nothing. The words I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.’ Men turned constantly to a carnal conception on this subject. They made a merit of treating the question by the letter. When Christ spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood they said there must be some way other than spiritual in which Christians could feed on the flesh and blood of Jesus. Our Lord’s dramatic manner was found in the Sermon on the Mount : ‘ Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel tliee to go a mile, go with him twain.’ Then there was the precept beginning ‘ Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, for it is God’s throne ; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool.’ But none of these teachings were to be taken literally. They must be understood in the spirit. If we understood and accepted the Lord’s principle, we should find it possible to do the opposite of what He verbally commanded, in order to obey Hint in spirit.” At this stage let us squarely put the question : Wherein consists the Christian revelation, on its moral or didactic side, if it is deliberately left to every reader to reverse any or every precept when he is of opinion that “ the spirit ” is what he himself would prefer to have it ? In other words, what purpose is served by a revelation which invites reversal and rejection at the hearer’s pleasure? Who is “ the Saviour,” Jesus or Mr. Davies or any other? The formula