« AnteriorContinuar »
equally noble sacrifices on the part of their parents, wives, sisters, and sweethearts, the sacrifices which the government is urging the rest of us to make seem merely trifles. And yet one does hear complaints of the hardships imposed by the heatless Mondays, the meatless Tuesdays, the wheatless Wednesdays, and the porkless Saturdays, the Tuesdays without movies, and the nights wtihout electric signs.
Let us see to it that no complaints are heard from us who glory in our Christian inheritance. Certainly those of us who have learned to submit to Catholic discipline in the observance of Lent and Ember Days and Fridays, in obedience to the teaching of the Prayer Book, may feel now that we have not learned our lesson in vain. Our Church training has developed in us a power and willingness to make sacrifices, which stand us in good stead in these days of our country's need. Let us endeavor, quietly and without boasting, to set the example of obedience to those of our fellow citizens who have never been taught the value and the necessity of self-denial.
Preaching on War Subjects
HE clergy are often sorely perplexed in these days as to how much they ought to preach about the war. There are many things to be said for and against such preaching. Undoubtedly the clergy may through their sermons give considerable help to the government in the prosecution of the war. They may stimulate recruiting; they may persuade their young men to respond joyously when drafted into service; they may appeal to men and women to fulfil their patriotic duties in paying income taxes, conserving fuel and food, contributing to war relief work, and knitting for the soldiers and sailors. They may do much to convince people of the righteousness of our cause, and the legitimacy of this particular war,-in answer to all the arguments of the pacifists.
On the other hand there are many reasons why the clergy should preach directly on war subjects as infrequently as possible. Their people are hearing about the war every day of the
week from every public speaker, in every theatrical performance, from the raucous cries of the newsboys on the streets, and in every social gathering. They are reading about the war every day in the newspapers and magazines, on flaming posters and government billboards, in circulars and letters that come like snowflakes through the mails, and in the best-selling books of the day. It would seem as if the people ought by all these agencies to be sufficiently impressed, and impelled to fulfil their patriotic duty. Is there not a grave danger that if the clergy from their pulpits are continually to speak on the same subjects, the people may soon become insensible and indifferent to their duty? Or may they not conclude that, to escape from such a fate, they ought to stay away from church altogether?
When we go to church we are supposedly surrounded by an unworldly atmosphere, and brought into vital contact with things unseen and eternal. That ought to result in the renovation of our minds and the refreshment of our souls. It is as if we were permitted now and again to escape from the turmoil and confusion of our daily life, and be lifted up to the wind-swept heights of the mountain, from whose summit we may see heaven and God. If such were our good fortune, we should no doubt return to our difficult tasks in the world greatly stimulated and invigorated.
The clergy, when they give out their Sunday notices, must perforce speak of many matters connected with the war, such as the work of our War Commission. Furthermore no one would deny that it is the duty of the clergy to preach often on intellectual and spiritual difficulties which arise out of the present world crisis. It does seem however that if they aim in their preaching to strengthen and enlighten the faith of their people, to create in their hearts a thirst for righteousness and justice, to move them to greater zeal for the conversion of souls and the extension of the Kingdom, and to make spiritual realities more real to them, they will be doing far more to develop unselfish and patriotic Christian citizens, than they could by preaching directly about the war.
John Morley and the New Era
N the Introduction to the two interesting volumes of "Recollections," recently brought out by Lord Morley, he writes, "The world is travelling under formidable omens into a new era, very unlike the times in which my lot was cast." We wonder if the author of these "Recollections" has seriously asked himself how far he and the spiritual and intellectual tendencies with which he identified himself in younger life are responsible for the formidable omens of this new era.
The liberal and rationalistic atmosphere of the Oxford of 1860 shook the foundations of his evangelical faith, and caused him to abandon his intention of studying for Holy Orders. Together with such kindred spirits as Matthew Arnold, Swinburne, Meredith, Huxley, Pater, Lewis, Harrison, Leslie Stephen, and Pattison, he wielded a powerful influence, through The Fortnightly Review, toward the diffusion and encouragement of rationalistic standards in things spiritual and temporal alike. As these men have weakened the hold of religious and governmental authority upon the men of their times, may they not be said to have paved the way for the religious and political anarchy which is so alarming a sympton of our present social order? It is a strange irony of fate that the logical consequences of the very principles he espoused in his younger days should now prove so distasteful to him.
All of which is an excellent commentary upon the cheap sophistry, with which we are all familiar, that it does not make any difference what one believes so long as one is trying to live a good life. Lord Morley himself admirably insists upon the importance of a right belief on p. 71 of his first volume: "Difference of opinion may mean a good deal after all. Pope Paul III, whatever may have been his secret drift, was spinning no cobwebs when he admonished his Council of Trent that 'Belief is the foundation of life, that good conduct only grows out of a right creed, and that errors of opinion may be more dangerous even than Sin'."
On the last page of the second volume, Lord Morley frankly admits that it is debateable whether his school of thought has
been a beneficent influence in the modern world. After speaking of the achievements of Liberalism, he continues:
"A painful interrogatory, I must confess, emerges. Has not your school-the Darwins, Spencers, Renans, and the rest-held the civilized world, both old and new alike, European and transatlantic, in the hollow of their hand, for two long generations past? Is it quite clear that their influence has been so much more potent than the gospel of the various churches? Circumspice. Is not diplomacy, unkindly called by Voltaire the field of lies, as able as it ever was to dupe governments explicable purposes, and turning the whole world over with blood and tears to a strange Witches' Sabbath?"
Dr. Slattery on the Holy Communion
HEN so zealous a pastor and so graceful a writer as the Rector of Grace Church, New York City, essays to set forth what the Holy Communion means to him, as he does in The Churchman for Jan. 26th, we naturally take up the article with keen delight and eager anticipation. We are spurred on by his statement at the outset that he does not profess to offer an exhaustive explanation of the Holy Communion. He endeavors rather "to discover one of those 'broken lights,' which when blended give humanity a somewhat larger vision of the truth.” He says further, "I shall frankly speak of an explanation which helps me, not daring to think it complete, not wishing it to displace in any reader's mind the concept that is already there."
After this promising introduction, it may seem ungracious to say that we are grievously disappointed with his proffered explanation. It may be only an explanation proceeding from one man's private judgment; but we cannot help feeling that it is an explanation which explains away all that is most precious and sacred in this wonderful sacrament. It may be only a "broken light"; but what if it does not blend with the other broken lights of Christian tradition?
Dr. Slattery makes the suggestion that recent thought has taught us not to draw so sharp a line between the spiritual and the physical. With this suggestion in mind, he thinks it possi
ble that our Saviour in the words of institution was directing the attention of the disciples, not so much to the bread, as to the breaking of the bread; and through this, not so much to His body, as to "the breaking of His body, the giving of His whole life in the sacrifice of the Cross." Thus he would paraphrase our Lord's words of institution as follows:
"Behold, I break this bread, and give it to you, that on its breaking you may live. This act is my body, my character, my soul. Take this breathing act into your lives. Feed upon it. Be my act through history. Receiving the breaking of my body, do you be broken with me for the love and salvation of men."
In answer to the important question, In what way is Christ present in the Holy Communion? Dr. Slattery states that "He is present as at the Last Supper and as at the supper at Emmaus: that is, He is at the head of the Feast." Furthermore, the only difference between His presence in the Holy Communion and His presence everywhere else in the world, is that in the Holy Communion His presence is recognized by us.
We rub our eyes in amazement. What authority has Dr. Slattery quoted for any such interpretation of this Gospel ordinance? We search his article in vain for an answer. There is surely no trace of such teaching in the whole current of Christian tradition, from St. Paul down to our own day. Martin Luther would have been horrified at such teaching. Can it be possible that this is a true explanation of the Holy Communion, and that for nineteen centuries after Christ it has never been advanced by any authoritative teacher?
The words of our Prayer Book liturgy are perfectly plain. They emphasize repeatedly the truth that in the Holy Communion we are partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is of course true, as Dr. Slattery reminds us, that the Article teaches that "the Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." Nobody denies that. The point is, that it is the Body of Christ that is given, taken, and eaten, and not the breaking of the Body on the Cross. Let us beware lest we become like the unhappy