No. 42. (New Series.)

Xtteran? (3 tube

AND RATIONALIST REVIEW.

[ESTABLISHED 1885.]

DECEM BER i, 1899.

C on ten ts .

Monthly ; T wopence.

T he Exigencies of Belief. By Francis Neale . 177 Paganism in Christian Worship. By Lector . 178 L ittle Vega. By F. J. Gould . . . .179 A Manifesto of Agnosticism . . . .180 Mr. Lecky’s Reflections . . . .180 The Supremacy of Mind . . . .181 A Sociological Scripture . . . .183 Ethics and Sociology . . . . .183 Random Jottings . . . . . .184 Grant Allen. By Edward Clodd . . .185 Signs and Warnings ( G leaned fro m the R e lig io us

P r e s s) ...... 186 Rationalism in the Magazines . . .187 Short Notices . . . . . .188 CORRESPONDENCE .-— Destroyers of Men’s Faith, by

W. R. Standage ; The Jelly-Fish Alliance, by Credo Optima . . . . . . .189 Our Letter-Box . . . . . .189

£be j£Lriocnctcs of Belief. It is possible that the progress of modern thought in the elimination o f the supernatural has been over-estimated in regard to the prevalence of results. It may he that the advance has not been so general or so well-assured as sometimes we are disposed to imagine. The world is slow to change, and reformers are apt to be unwarrantably sanguine. Reactionary impulses have to be taken into account, as well as the possibility of divergences which mean delay. But, due allowances being made, who can doubt that the fate of the old systems o f theology is sealed ? Of this no better evidence could be afforded than the singular straits to which orthodox believers seem now to be reduced.

No longer do we find the exponents of the old supernaturalism opposing their assailants with the boldness born of conscious strength. They resist the inroads of Rationalism with some show of courage, but it is easy to see that the defence is weak, because half-hearted, and that the combative spirit has undergone a curious process of evaporation. Could these exponents order things in their own way, controversy with scepticism, we may be sure, would be at an end, and all their efforts would be directed to mere doctrinal exposition. In this pusillanimity there is encouragement to continued attack. Fainéant, indeed, should we be, and recreant knights of progress, if we failed to extend the territory already won. The concessions made from time to time to stave off the destruction of the old beliefs are but preliminaries to the total surrender that must eventually come. Many of these concessions afford interesting material for study. Some o f them are desperate resorts— steps taken under the stress of exigency and impossible to be retraced. All o f them disclose an unwilling accommodation to the spirit of the age, a reluctant abandonment o f error demanded by considerations o f expediency. One o f the eloquent divines of the Established Church discoursed, a few years ago, on what he called the “ changed aspects o f unchangeable truths.” The idea conveyed in these words is the keynote of most o f the religious apologetics o f the present time. The dogmas and doctrines of the ancient faith are alleged to have undergone no change in themselves. They are said to remain as they were ; any alteration that has taken place is not in them, but in us— in the appearance they now present to us, in the way in which we are now led to regard them, in our changed methods of interpretation and acceptance. This line of defence has the merit of theoretical subtlety ; but, when examined in connection with any of the concrete dogmas and doctrines of the current theology, its weakness is apparent. The changed aspect will be found, in many instances, to be so violent an alteration of essential features as to completely destroy the identity and reality of the supposed truth, transforming it into an absolute delusion. By this process the old terminology may be retained, but that which it represents is something entirely different from anything we have been accustomed to associate with it, and the procedure stands condemned as disingenuous and misleading. The God of the Jews depicted in the Old Testament is an entirely different and distinct God from that of the cultured modern Theist. Something more than a change of aspect displays itself here. The Word of God as presented by I lean Farrar is not the divine revelation accepted by our forefathers, and by many simple-minded, unenlightened believers of the present time. Prayer nowadays has so changed its aspect that it has ceased to be prayer, in the true acceptation of the term. It is no longer an appeal for specific blessings, made in the hope that they will be granted in consequence of, and in response to, the supplication. It is purely subjective in character and effect, and is a species of self-communion that should be allotted some other and more accurate designation.

The retention of the old names, in order to impart a nominal reality to beliefs that have long been abandoned, may be a tactical move to the present advantage of systems of supernaturalism, but it is one that, we cannot doubt, will be visited with just retribution in the end. Though an exigency of belief, it is nonetheless indefensible, and, to all practical ends and purposes, it is a pious fraud. This “ paltering in a double sense” is one of the great blots on the Broad Churchism and liberal orthodoxy of our time. The preachers mean one thing, their hearers accept it as another— and naturally enough too, because they attach to the terms the old and familiar interpretations. The mental reservations o f the pulpit foster delusions in the pew. They are known to do so, and the only apology that is offered is that the time for general enlightenment has not yet arrived. Nor will it ever arrive until the hands of the professional exponents of supernaturalism are forced. Upon the earnest friends of liberal thought devolves the duty of accelerating the approach of that period when the truth, and the whole truth, shall be made clear.

Is it not incumbent upon the preachers of present-day theology to openly and fearlessly inform their flocks of that which has been discarded, as well as to insist upon their acceptance of that which is retained? Why do they not with equal freedom and candour direct the attention of their followers to the “ changed aspects” of formerlyreceived traditions— if they prefer by that euphemism to describe the debris of shattered idols, the wreckage of rejected fables and ideas ? Why, in fact, do they not disclose what they think and know themselves rather than what they desire their flocks to think and know ? Why do they not take their people into their confidence? With so large an army of men specially trained, equipped, and maintained for the purpose of expounding and disseminating the truth in matters theological, it is surely discreditable, even if it be accountable, that so many of these appointed