« PreviousContinue »
through the zodiac of danger to at least republican institutions." But how does the writer propose to "save the rich ?” First, he replies, the “strong arm of the law ought to be used in bringing about a more equal distribution of wealth.” While realizing the delicacy of pressing such a point he suggests: “Let there be laws passed which will make labor and capital coordinates in every enterprise where they are called upon to assist each other. Let the cooperative system be compulsory in all cases where capital employs labor or where labor seeks to employ capital.” Secondly, much "might be done through our colleges, the public press, churches, etc., in creating a public conscience that will so severely condemn excessive money-getting as will make it impossible for selfish millionaires to live at peace in any well-educated community.” And, lastly, the author is persuaded that “it is possible by faithful preaching through all the instrumentalities mentioned to create a better conception of what success is than is now held by the average millionaire. . . . Christ's success is wholly owing to the fact that he taught and lived in direct opposition to everything that now makes it possible for a man to be a millionaire in this life. Can we not make the rich see this ? Can we not make them feel it? Can we not make them act upon it?” The author's closing position as to the laying up of earthly treasures is the extreme view whose observance would render great riches impossible: “Every Christian is here to do good. Of course this involves a proper care for himself and his family; but beyond providing for these what is needful for education and reasonable comfort no Christian man has a right to lay up a dollar. As has already been intimated, he may retain enough means for a reasonable capital on which to do business for the Lord; but whatever is beyond this is sin, and the sooner he learns this fact the sooner our plea for the return to primitive Christianity will be understood and respected.”
In two foreign periodicals for January the existing controversy in the English Church receives consideration. The article in the Edinburgh Revier is entitled “The Unrest in the Church of England," and makes six recent publications on the subject the basis of its discussion. The first of these is the Archbishop of Canterbury's "Charge Delivered at his first Visitation,” in which he states that “among the modern clergy the doctrine of Hooker as to the real presence in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is giving place to a doctrine akin to consubstantiation.” Sir William Harcourt, as a participant in the discussion, has written a series of vigorous letters " to the Times, in which he “has set himself at the head of the more distinctly Protestant section of Church feeling. He alleges that a vast conspiracy exists among the clergy to · Romanize' the National Church. By means of special services' and the gradual introduction of Roman forms and practices the ritualistic clergy are attempting, he says, to undermine the triumphs of the Reformation and to bring about the return of Englishmen to Roman doctrine and ultimately to the Roman fold.” In Canon Gore's recent volume is expressed the dissatisfaction of different writers with “ a constitution which makes Parliament virtually the sole legislative authority for the Church of England. The authority of Parliament, it is urged, is more and more centered in the House of Commons, an assembly consisting, not merely of Churchmen or even of Christians, but having also among its members, in greater or less number, Jews, infidels, and heretics. Yet Parliament, and only Parliament, can alter a paragraph, or article, or single line of a single rubric of a book which was framed in substance more than three and a quarter centuries ago.” The three other publications on which comment is made are by Drs. Maitland, Ball, and Warren respectively, the conclusion of the whole article being the belief that “ the general desire of the English lay world is to uphold in Church and State on its main lines the system which, with occasional modifications, has existed since the Reformation.” The second article on the same general subject is found in the London Quarterly Review, and is entitled “The Present Crisis in the Church of England.” Besides its notice of the publications of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Canon Gore already mentioned it gives a large consideration to the results of the Oxford movement as suggested by the recent history of Walter Walsh. Three "evil features" of this movement have been “the thinly veiled spirit of insubordination to the rightful authority of the bishops;" the "adoption of a position which requires the constant exercise of a faculty for drawing oversubtle distinctions and for skillfully evading actual illegality," and which “must of necessity undermine the habit of robust truthfulness which is, above all else, vital to moral integrity;" and, lastly, “ the secrecy of the movement,” “the multiplication of societies whose objects, proceedings, and members are hidden from the light of day,” and the “deliberate and ostentatious adoption of the principle of * reserve in communicating religious knowledge.' The conclusion of the whole, according to the reviewer, J. Scott Lidgett, is that dises tablishment is “the probable issue of the present situation; and the programme of the reformers shows that disestablishment might probably bring a great accession both of vigor and of wisdom to the Church itself."
21-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XV.
THE Review of Reviews for February is largely devoted to topics relating to the late war with Spain or to its results. Among its papers one of much interest is entitled “ Aguinaldo: A Character Sketch.” The writer exalts its hero to a lofty rank among leaders—too lofty, it may be, to meet the best judgment of many. The notable company in which he places Aguinaldo is indicated as follows: “When any man holding & high position is praised on the one side and abused on the other he generally is a person of more than average ability. When the praise and the abuse divide the reading public of a dozen civilized countries he may be justly regarded as a character of considerable historical impor. tance. The personages who have passed through this ordeal in the present century include Napoleon Bonaparte, Disraeli, Gladstone, Louis Napoleon, and-greatest of all-Bismarck. To this list may now be added the name of the great Filipino insurgent, Aguinaldo.” While this estimate seems extravagant regarding one who has not yet won his rank by any great achievement in war or statecraft, it nevertheless appears from the sketch that Aguinaldo ranks far above his fellows in native gifts. Such opportunities, furthermore, as fortune has brought him for study and improvement he has diligently improved. Belonging also to "a community which for more than three hundred years has undergone a political, civil, and ecclesiastical tyranny of th nounced type,” he has shown a skill in leadership which for the islands of the far East is remarkable. So that we can at least accept the conclusion of this biographical sketch as a moderate estimate of the case, "He has done better than anyone possibly believed, a year ago, and he has shown the world that the Filipino is capable of that self-control upon which all good government must be based.” And with a measure of generous regret we may also contemplate Aguinaldo's latest reverses in war and the probable disappearance of his star below the horizon.
To the mention of the London Quarterly in a previous paragraph a fuller reference may now be added. The January number appears in a new dress and begins a new series. Besides its article on “The Present Crisis in the Church of England” its table of contents has: “The Effect of the Recent War upon American Character," by C. J. Little, D.D.; “ The Historical and Spiritual Christ,” by R. M. Pope; “Vacation Rambles of a Naturalist,” by L. C. Miall, F.R.S.; “David Hill,” by S. R. Hodge; “Palestinian Syriac Lectionaries of the Bible,” by Agnes Smith Lewis; “ The Wound Dresser,” by R. C. Cowell; “Egypt and the Soudan,” by U. A. Forbes; “Sport in the Caucasus,” by H. D. Lowry; “Methodism and the Age,” by the Editor. The number is a strong issue, and does honor to English Methodism.
In the Presbyterian and Reformed Review for January is found the following table of contents: 1. “ Christianity and the Cosmic Philosophy,” by Professor H. C. Minton, D.D. ; 2. “The Metaphysics of Christian Apologetics: V. Immortality,” by Professor W. B. Greene, Jr., D.D.; 3. “Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, The Representative Theologian of the Nineteenth Century,” by Rev. James Lindsay; 4. "The Modern Hypothesis and Recent Criticism of the Early Prophets: Isaiah,” by Professor Geerhardus Vos, D.D.; 5. “Herbert Spencer, “Our Great Philosopher,' versus The Known God,” by D. S. Gregory, D.D.; 6.
John of Barneveldt, Martyr or Traitor," by Professor H. E. Dosker, D.D.; 7. Critical and Historical Notes; 8. Review of Recent Theologo ical Literature.
RELIGION, THEOLOGY, AND BIBLICAL LITERATURE. Freedom and Mediation. By Rev. ALBERT J. LYMAN, D.D. Pamphlet, pp. 2.
Boston: Alfred Mudge & Son, Printers, 24 Franklin Street. Price, paper, 20 cents.
This is the sermon preached by appointment before the National Council of Congregational Churches, at Portland, Ore., on Sunday, July 10, 1898. The text is Eph. ii, 14: “He is our peace.” The introduction is in part as follows: “Whether the letter to the Ephesians were written, as some assert, in the year 59 or 10, when Paul was a prisoner at Cæsarea, or two or three years later from the period of the early imprisonment at Rome; whether it were definitely addressed to the Epbesian Church, which Paul peculiarly loved, or was intended rather as an encyclical, and sent to Ephesus because that city was the capital of proconsular Asia-in either case the document has, on the whole, held its own against the storm of critical assault, and vindicates itself as being the authentic product of Paul's mind at the full maturity of its power. Its so-called 'insipidities of diction are insipid only to unspiritual critics, who fail to discern in the noble carelessness and even redundance of phrase, which a more self-conscious art might prune away, the natural expression of a man writing at white heat and pouring out his whole soul to men whom he perfectly trusts. The letter, in truth, for spirit and substance, is on the very highest Pauline level, “exceedingly full,' to use Chrysostom's noble eulogy of this epistle; "exceedingly full of thoughts and lofty things, so that what Paul nowhere else even utters, that he here explains.'” Speaking of the cleavage of present religious thought in every Christian communion between “conservative” and “liberal" tendencies, Dr. Lyman says: “Would any man dare to say that each side, upon this issue, does not possess a truth, though the truth may be more conspicuously manifest on one side than on the other? Would any man dare to say that the irenic creeds, articulating the common faith of the Church universal, do not express also much of the very mind of Christ? •Vox Ecclesiæ, vox Christi.' From my soul I believe it. And, on the other hand, is it not possible that the Protestant axiom of the right of private judgment reaches the very point of its both legitimate and logical fulfillment and finish in the critical methods of the present hour ? But what can mediate between sentiments which seem so far asunder as these, except intelligence, perfectly free and fair, and inspired, moreover, with the supreme energy of the Christlike love? Now, the perfect type of such liberty of intelligence is found in Jesus himself, and only by means of it could he 'abolish' the .enmity' to which the apostle refers. But, perhaps, we have not been accustomed to regard our Master as incarnating liberty as well
as love. Our Christology must be finer. It must discover in Jesus the typical freeman, in Christ the divine incarnation of freedom itself. Let us dare to surmise that only God's free self in man's free self can be, in the perfect sense, our peace.' Begin, if you will, down on the firm ground floor of undoubted historical data. See how free Jesus stands as a man, in relation to the human life of his time—this beautiful young Stranger of thirty-three-in the midst of the crowd. Who was he? Everybody's Free Friend; so that the rigorists found fault with this very thing, namely, the genial freedom of the way he had. This spirit of freedom in Jesus was, indeed, most reverent and delicate, but not less daring than it was delicate. Into it entered no drop of selfishness or disdain or haughty pride, and it was pervaded with a most sweet acquiescence with the Father's law. It was the freedom of a Christ, yet it was freedom. And he followed this free spirit so far that in outward forms he broke loose both from the civic ambitions and the religious customs of his times, while perfectly fulfilling, indeed, the deeper spirit of both. He loved not lawless, but unfettered things. He loved nature, and he loved little children, and he moved about Palestine as free as the wind, and as law-abiding. And when we carry the analysis as far as we dare toward the profounder and diviner mysteries of that God-man, we yet never lose the note of liberty in connection with that of love. 'I lay down my life,' he murmurs. "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.' Under God and his law Jesus Christ surely stood for liberty as well as love. The incomparable charm of his matchless grace was the beauty of love in its freedom to serve. And this liberty wbich Jesus Christ displayed was an intellectual liberty. What large, free play of mental faculty in the responses, the maxims, the discourses of Jesus ! Indeed, there can be no true liberty without liberty of intelligence. Thought and freedom are correlatives. Let us insist upon that when it is the fad to assume the contrary. Against the pseudo-science which flaunts the philosophy of fatalism; against the current fatalistic literature—the literature of the iron chain, the literature of Ibsen and Maeterlinck and Hardy and Hall Caine, which plays the dead march in front of the jail, which invokes upon its art the benediction of despair-let us dare, with a sober gayety and faith, still to maintain that the ultimate force is a force, not of fate, but of free will and love.
God is not passionless and relentless—a Matterhorn at midnight—so much as he is Calvary, with the resurrection coming on. Freedom is a part of reason and a part of love, and, together with reason and love, is incarnate in the Christ. Wide, fair, fluent, delicate, Christ's intelligence commanded both sides of every partition wall.' With sweetest grace and steady poise, it could disentangle the good from the evil, the true from the false, and unite the partial excellences on both sides in one “new man, 80 making peace.' Mediation between men, therefore, might we dare