HAVING taken a general survey of the fields of human activity, and having noted the general characteristics of the movements progressing therein, we will now turn our attention to the more important of the religious movements of the day.

      Among the notable products of the activity of recent years is a crop of "new theologies" and other religious novelties. The presence of these new movements, and the rapidity with which they are spreading, testify unmistakably to the fact that the old religious beliefs and systems are unsuited to the temper and thought of the present generation of men. Beyond all question there is something wrong either with the ancient faith or with the modern man. Where the latter is the judge and the final authority in such matters, he decides without qualification that the trouble is with the ancient faith; and he will listen to, and support, only such teachers as make it their study to confirm him in this judgment.

      But our immediate purpose is not so much to decide the merits of the controversy between the modern man and the ancient faith, as to note with impartial scrutiny the leading characteristics of these new movements, and to compare them with the prophetic [86] Scriptures cited above. In so doing, our plan will be, not to give our own appreciation of those movements, for that (however fairly it might be done) would be open to question and suspicion; but to let the leaders and accredited mouthpieces of the several movements state, in their own words, the essential features of each.

      While conducting this examination, we are to keep in mind the substance of the predicted condition of human affairs at "the time of the end," which is briefly:--

      1. That an era of great industrial expansion was to come.

      2. That this era would culminate in a monstrous monopoly, or organization of world-wide scope.

      3. That this coming system should embrace, regulate, and control both the secular and the religious interests of mankind, being at once commercial and ecclesiastical.

      4. That the basic principle of this new economic and social order would be the divinity of humanity.

      5. That this colossal system should be headed, at the time of its maximum development, by a man of transcendent genius, endowed with superhuman intelligence and abilities,--in short by a "Superman."

      We can sufficiently acquaint ourselves with the main characteristics of the present religious drift by examining the New Theology of Old England and the New Theology of New England.

      It is a matter of regret that, in pursuing this [87] inquiry, it becomes necessary to mention the names of certain men who are prominent in religious circles. The writer would much prefer to conduct the discussions in an impersonal manner, for his controversy is not with individuals, however mischievous their teachings, but wholly with the teachings themselves. For the former, his only wish is that God may grant them "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil" (2 Tim. ii. 25, 26). But as for their doctrines, seeing that these are openly and directly opposed to all that is vital in "the doctrine of Christ" and in "the gospel of God concerning His Son," the writer cannot do otherwise than denounce them as among the greatest of all the dangers that now menace the welfare of men.

      The reader, therefore, is asked to remember that the names of prominent men are mentioned in these pages solely because they themselves have publicly identified their names with the doctrines which we have undertaken to examine.

      The term "New Theology" has become quite familiar of late through the very general interest aroused by a book published under that name, whose author is Rev. R. J. Campbell, pastor of the London City Temple. It would seem, however, that much more attention has been paid to certain extravagant utterances, found here and there in the book, than to [88] the leading features of the doctrine set forth therein. These occasional extravagant utterances appear to me to be the expression rather of the author's exuberant disposition, than of his sober thought; and, for that reason, we should be misled if we were to take them (as many of his critics have done) as stating material parts of the doctrine of the New Theology. Very few religious leaders, teachers, and theologians, would care to associate themselves with the extreme statements in which Mr. Campbell occasionally indulges.

      On the other hand, Mr. Campbell declares, and truthfully, that while he may have been the first to formulate the distinctive teachings of the "New Theology," those teachings did not originate with him, but, on the contrary, are to be found in, and constitute the essence of, the forward movements now occurring in every part of Christendom. He points out, and it cannot be successfully denied, that the same doctrines in substance, however named and in whatever terms they may be formulated, are flourishing and spreading in the Church of Rome, in the Church of England, in French Protestantism, in Lutheranism, and in the Congregational and other Evangelical Churches of England and America. In all these divisions of Christendom "the same attitude is being taken by many who are not even aware that the name New Theology is being applied to it." (p. 13).

      First, let it be noted that the New Theology is accurately described as a "movement." It is not a systematized body of stable doctrine, but is a theology [89] in process of formation, undergoing constant and rapid change in its forms and details, and hence is recognizable only by its essential and relatively stable features. It is not a platform upon which one might find standing ground for his religious conceptions, but an inclined plane, down which those who commit themselves to it are rapidly sliding to conclusions whereof the leading characteristics may be easily discerned.

      The main feature of the theology propounded by Mr. Campbell is a special variety of the doctrine of Divine Immanence. Mr. Campbell labours hard (and to little purpose) to distinguish his special kind of Divine Immanence from other varieties of that doctrine; but this distinction, if it exists, is of no real importance. The quotations given below will show how thoroughly Mr. Campbell identifies God with man, and man with God, leaving between them no difference that is of any real value or practical importance. The essence, then, of the New Theology is the Deification of Man. Count the number, and it will be found "the number of Man."

      A striking characteristic of the New Theology, as presented by Mr. Campbell, is that its doctrines are not supported by even the semblance of proof; and indeed, owing to the peculiar character of the system, they do not require such support. Those who accept the doctrines of Christianity do so (and have always done so) for the reason that those doctrines have the support of evidence deemed by Christians to be of [90] the highest grade of proof, namely, the "testimony of God" given in His Word. But the essence of the New Theology is that "we know nothing and can know nothing of the Infinite Cause whence all things proceed, except as we read Him in His universe and in our own souls." In other words, we have no Divine revelation. In this passage the Bible is set aside by implication; but as we will see later on, Mr. Campbell in express terms repudiates it; and this, of course, is absolutely necessary in order to make place for the distinctive doctrines which are now being introduced through various channels, including the "New Theology."

      "It is," says Mr. Campbell, "the immanent God with whom we have to do"; and in lieu of proof of this fundamental proposition we are told that it is an "obvious fact" (p. 5). Of course, if the "fact" be "obvious," "proof of it would be superfluous. In order to ascertain, according to Mr. Campbell, whether or not a statement is true, one is always to appeal--not to the evidence but--to the god within him. "Never mind what the Bible says about this or that, if you are in search for truth, but trust the voice of God within you."

      It is important to note that Mr. Campbell makes many radical doctrinal statements, and makes them in the most dogmatic fashion, without the slightest attempt to support them by proof. In this, of course, he is entirely consistent. It would manifestly be quite unnecessary to cumber his pages with evidences of the [91] truth of his doctrines, seeing that, according to the essential principle of the New Theology, every human being has within himself the only and infallible source and judge of the truth.

      A good illustration of the operation of this fundamental principle is furnished by what Mr. Campbell says of the account of the fall of man contained in Genesis iii. He tells us that, while the narrative there given is a myth, "it does contain a truth," namely, that when the "Infinite" became the finite creation (for remember that God and the created universe are one according to the New Theology) there was "a coming down from perfection to imperfection," and this coming down of God to become the finite universe was "of the nature of a fall." Thus Mr. Campbell sets the author of Genesis right in an important particular, telling us that the writer of that ancient document was correct in stating that there had been a fall, but was in error in saying that it was man who fell, the fact being (says Mr. Campbell) that it was God who fell. Man, says Mr. Campbell, is not a fallen creature, but is, and always has been, a rising creature--rising steadily to his true level, which is Deity.

      We are mot now concerned with the stupendous blasphemy of this doctrine, but only with the astounding fact that it is presented for acceptance without any semblance whatever of supporting proof. It is assumed that man, who professes himself unable to believe his own fall,--though that event be declared [92] upon the authority of Scripture, and though it be confirmed by the manifold evidences of his fallen condition within and around him,--is bound to accept (or perhaps we should say is free to accept) unquestioningly the statement of Mr. Campbell that it was God who fell, although that stupendous assertion is unsupported by either authority or evidence.

      But such is the logical result of the cardinal doctrine of the New Theology. If, indeed, man has within himself the infallible discerner of truth, it necessarily follows that proof of any proposition becomes wholly superfluous. But this convenient principle, if fully carried out, would logically be destructive of the New Theology, as of every other; for so soon as the intelligent disciple learns that the source and arbiter of truth is within himself, and that the imaginations of his own heart possess the highest sanction that is to be had, he will certainly not be so foolish, so inconsistent, and so false to his cardinal principle, as to put aside his own notions, sanctioned by the god within him, for those of Mr. Campbell or of any one else. The moment the cardinal principle of this New Theology is accepted, every one not only may, but must, be the author of his own "new theology," and must reverently take all his instruction from, and direct all his worship to, "the god within." One who adopts the principle, "never mind what the Bible says about this or that if you are in search of truth, but trust the voice of god within you," will certainly understand, as a necessary corollary, that if he [93] is not to mind what the Bible says, still less should he mind what Mr. Campbell says, "about this or that."

      Thus the first lesson of the New Theology teaches its disciples to pay no heed to its other lessons; and that this first lesson will be generally heeded can hardly be doubted, because the time is fully ripe for its acceptance.

      That man should come ultimately to worship himself was a foregone conclusion from the first transgression whereby sin entered the world and death through sin. The far-off goal which man started to attain by his own efforts when he departed from his Creator's purpose in making him (Gen. i. 26-28) was to become "as God" (Gen. iii. 5, R. V.). And the great spirit of evil who instigated the present "career of humanity," and who has encouraged and aided it in all its long and painful progress, is now sedulously teaching through "his ministers, transformed as the ministers of righteousness" (2 Cor. xi. 15), that the last stage of the great journey has been reached, and that man has actually become "as God."

      We quote some other passages from Mr. Campbell wherein the divinity of humanity is asserted:--

      "Where, then, some will say, is the dividing line between our being and God's? There is no dividing line except from our side" (p. 34).

      The force of this exception is that human beings make a dividing line where none really exists. This they do by failing to recognize their essential oneness [94] with God, just as the estuary or arm of the sea might think itself a limited affair, not recognizing its essential oneness with the mighty ocean. (This is Mr. Campbell's own illustration of the doctrine.)

      "My God is my deeper self, and yours too; He is the self of the universe, and knows all about it. He is never baffled, and cannot be baffled; the whole cosmic process is one long incarnation and uprising of the being of God from itself to itself." (p. 35).

      In spite of the obscurity of this utterance its essential meaning is plain enough, and the impression it may make upon the reader must depend mainly upon his apprehension of how "sin in the flesh" appears in the eyes of the thrice-holy God. By those who have the faintest apprehension of this, the assertion that sinful man and the Holy God are essentially one can be regarded only as shocking blasphemy.

      When, therefore, we hear unblushingly proclaimed, and by one who passes as a Christian minister, this hideous doctrine of the Deity of humanity, and when we find that doctrine taking in men's hearts and minds the place of "the doctrine of Christ," we can in a measure understand what stirred the heart of the Apostle when he wrote in the chapter already quoted, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. xi. 3). [95]

      Again Mr. Campbell says:--

      "Fundamentally the individual is one with the whole race and with God" (p. 39).

      "Strictly speaking, the human and the Divine are two categories which shade into and imply each other. Humanity is Divinity viewed from below. Divinity is humanity viewed from above" (p. 73).

      "The New Theology regards all mankind as 'being of one substance with the Father'" (p. 41).

      Of course, it follows from this that there is no accountability for sins and wickednesses.

      If all mankind is of one substance with the Father, then God cannot be dissociated from the doings of men, and indeed He has been and is the Participator with man in all the wicked doings which the Bible denounces. It is of such as teach and hold such things that the Lord says:--

      "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself; but I will reprove thee" (Ps. l. 21).

      Indeed, according to New Theology, there is no punishment; and, in fact, there is no one to punish the offender, if there were an offender to be punished. Here are Mr. Campbell's declarations on that subject:--

      "There is no such thing as punishment, no far-off Judgment Day, no great white throne, and no Judge external to ourselves" (p. 213). [96]

      "And who, pray, is the judge? Who but yourself? The deeper self is the judge, the self who is externally one with God" (p. 215).

      It is safe to predict, in that event, that the culprit, if there could be one according to this system, would escape with a very light sentence; or more probably would receive the commendation of the Court.

      It is also safe to say that this comfortable teaching will commend itself highly to the evil-doers of this lawless age. Indeed, it is the avowed purpose of the New Theology to furnish a system of doctrine which shall meet with popular favour. This brings us to the recognition of the important place in this system which is held by the principles of Democracy.

      We have already reminded our readers that the essence of Democracy is that the will of the people is the supreme law. The majority must control in every matter of common interest. From this principle it is easy to pass to the assumption that the will of the people is right, and that the test of every doctrine is its popularity. This assumption will be found to be inherent in all the new theologies and religious movements of our day. Whether or not a doctrine be true is not important; the important question is, Does it suit the taste of the multitude? Will the people approve and accept it? Will it get the votes?

      The principles of Democracy are necessarily involved in the New Theology; for if humanity is Divine, then it follows inevitably that whatever humanity may approve has the Divine sanction. Speaking [97] of this aspect of the New Theology, Mr. Campbell says:--

      "This higher, wider truth which sweeps away the mischievous accretions which have made religion distasteful to the masses, is the religious articulation of the movement towards an ideal social order" (p. 225).

      A moment's reflection on conditions which exist throughout Christendom at the present time will show us how widely this principle of Democracy prevails, and how profoundly it affects the thought of the day. Preaching is largely controlled, not by the consideration of faithfulness to the message of the Word, but by the desire to satisfy the wishes of the congregation by whom the preacher is "supported"; not by reference to what men need, but by reference to what they want. To ascertain the taste of the populace, so as to present that which is palatable to the masses, many experiments are being tried, whereby God is dishonoured and His wrath provoked every day.

      No doubt it is very pleasing to the masses to be told that "all mankind is of one substance with the Father." On the other hand, what renders the truth of God "distasteful to the masses" is the repeated and uncompromising testimony of His Word that man is by nature a sinner, utterly corrupt, whose imaginations are evil, whose very righteousness are filthy rags, whose tendencies are to go astray; that men are, one and all, from the least to the greatest, wholly lost, undone, dead in trespasses and sins, [98] under present condemnation, in the grasp of death, find destined, unless saved by the grace and power of God, to eternal perdition. It is very "distasteful to the masses" to be informed that man is, not only "ungodly," but also "without strength" (Rom. v. 6), insomuch that he is unable to do anything whatsoever to recover himself out of his evil estate. Hence the New Theology openly declares it to be an important part of its mission to sweep away everything that is "distasteful to the masses," and to substitute for Truth such a system of teaching that every man can find in it what is thoroughly suited to his tastes. That such a system will commend itself to popular approbation is reasonably certain; and if the people approve it, then, according to the principles of Democracy, it has justified itself, and earned a permanent place among human institutions.

      This brings us to the observation that in the New Theology there is, of course, no "salvation" in the Scriptural sense of that word. Man needs no Saviour, for there is nothing to be saved from. Salvation, therefore, according to New Theology, consists in attaining to a knowledge of the oneness of the individual with God, and with the whole human race. For this purpose, man is his own saviour. Salvation, according to Mr. Campbell, consists "in ceasing to be selfish" (p. 210). He says:--

      "Every man who is trying to live so as to make his life a blessing to the world is being saved himself in the process" (p. 210). [99]

      "There is no stopping-place between sinner and Saviour. This is the way in which men like Robert Blatchford of the Clarion¹ are being saved while trying to save. . . . His moral earnestness is a mark of his Christhood, and his work a part of the atonement. Not another Christ than Jesus, mind! The very same. Mr. Blatchford may laugh at this,² and call his moral aspirations by quite a different name. Well, let him; but I know the thing when I see it. This is Salvation" (p. 211).

      We have now seen that, according to the New Theology, man is essentially divine; and, in order that there may be no mistake about the doctrine, we are assured that even a man who openly derides the Christ of God is one with Him, and that the dead works of the infidel and scoffer are "part of the atonement" made by the Saviour of men. It is thus made perfectly obvious that the main purpose of that movement is to put Man in the supreme place.

      The New Theology thus clearly discloses that its aim is to prepare the way for that ultimate condition of human society in which a man shall oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped (2 Thess. ii. 4). It perfectly fulfils this prominent feature of the prophecies mentioned above. [100]

      We have also seen that the New Theology incorporates in itself the essence of pure Democracy, and squarely plants itself upon confidence in the inherent powers of man.

      We now come to consider the important fact that the tendency of the New Theology is towards the formation of a system wherein the religious and business interests of humanity shall be consolidated, thus fulfilling another striking feature of the prophetic Scriptures.

      Mr. Campbell declares that Christianity has, for the moment, lost its hold upon men; but he predicts the recovery of its hold through identifying itself with the great social movements of the age, which are now taking place in every civilized country in the world. These movements, he says, are pressing towards "universal peace and brotherhood." Here we clearly perceive the ideal of the great Confederacy.

      Mr. Campbell then makes the significant statement that the great social movement is really the same movement as that which, in the religious sphere, is coming to be called the New Theology. "This fact," he says, "needs to be realized and brought out."

      Here, then, is a clear statement of the fact that the great social movements, and the great religious movements of our day, though apparently far apart in some respects, are "really the same movement," and that all are advancing rapidly towards the formation [101] of one organization or social system, which shall be both secular and religious.

      Here are some pertinent passages from Mr. Campbell's book:--

      "Assuredly Christianity has for the moment lost his hold. Can it recover it? I am sure it can, if only because the moral movements of the age such as the great Labour Movement, are in reality the expression of the Christian spirit, and only need to recognize themselves as such in order to become irresistible. The wagon of Socialism needs to be hitched to the star of religious faith." (p. 8).

      "The great Social Movement, which is now taking place in every country of the civilized world towards universal peace and brotherhood, and a better and fairer distribution of wealth, is REALLY THE SAME MOVEMENT as that which, in the more distinctively religious sphere, is coming to be called the New Theology. This fact needs to be realized and brought out.

      "The New Theology is but the religious articulation of the social movement" (p. 14).

      Mr. Campbell points out (pp. 251-254) that the present conditions of life of the great masses of humanity are intolerably unjust, and abound in all sorts of evils and miseries. He calls attention to the existence of slums and sweat-shops, of paupers and able-bodied unemployed, of abject poverty and [102] degradation, of over-crowded and disease-breeding tenements. He argues that the existing Economic System is the cause of these conditions; for of course he does Dot recognize them as incidents and results of the self-chosen "career of humanity," suggested by the spirit of evil. He then refers approvingly to Socialism, which he calls "the movement towards social regeneration," and which he declares to be "really and truly a spiritual movement."

      With this movement he thoroughly identifies the New Theology, saying:--

      "In fact the Labour Party is itself a church, in the sense in which that word was originally used; for it represents the getting together of those who want to bring about the Kingdom of God. The New Theology, as I understand it, is the theology of this movement, whether the movement knows it or not, for it is essentially the gospel of the Kingdom of God."

      "This higher, wider truth, which sweeps away the mischievous accretions which have made religion distasteful to the masses, is the religious articulation of the movement towards an ideal social order" (p. 255).

      Evidently, it is only necessary for Socialism to permit itself to be styled "Christian" in order to make its distinctive doctrines acceptable in many quarters where that name still retains a value, although everything that it once signified has been cast aside. It is the "ideal social order" which is the real aim of the [103] New Theology; and we have already observed that the essential characteristics of this ideal are the marks of that great system, described eighteen centuries ago in the Word of Truth, in which the activities of man, in his self-chosen lines of progress and civilizations, are to have their culmination.

      On this point Mr. Campbell says:--

      "This then is the mission of the New Theology. It is to brighten and keep burning the flame of the spiritual ideal in the midst of the mighty social movement which is now in progress."

      In this day, when the word "science" is being freely used by theologians of a certain class to intimidate ignorant and thoughtless people, and to furnish a substitute for the Word of God as the foundation of religious systems, it is important to note carefully the position assigned to science in these new movements, and then (as we propose doing later on) to subject the claims of this "science" to a rigid examination. On this point Mr. Campbell says:--

      "Again, the New Theology is the religion of science. . . . It is the recognition that, upon the foundations laid by modern science, a vaster and nobler fabric of faith is rising than the world has ever before known" (p. 15).

      Those "who profess and call themselves Christians" should mark well the expressions of this sort, with which current religious literature abounds, and which are producing a very general impression to the effect [104] that "science" has, to a greater or less extent, removed or disturbed the foundations upon which Christian faith has rested through the centuries. These statements are rapidly preparing the minds of people, in this day of shallow thinking, to accept any doctrine brought forth in the name of "science." The Psalmist anxiously inquires "If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?" (Ps. xi. 3). To that question the New Theology has its answer ready, namely, "We shall build upon the foundations laid by modern science a vaster and nobler fabric of faith than the world has ever before known."

      Mr. Campbell further develops the idea of Unification, and shows the breadth of the New Theology, by declaring its practical identity (not only with the social movements of the day, but also) with the forward movements in various ecclesiastical systems, such as "Modernism." He says:--

      "In the Church of Rome the movement (i. e. New Theology) is typified by men like Father Tyrrell, whose teaching has led to his expulsion from the Jesuit order, but not so far from the priesthood.

      "In the Church of England a large and increasing band of men are looking in this direction and are making their influence felt. Of these perhaps the most outspoken is Archdeacon Wilberforce; but he is by no means alone.

      "A movement has begun in the Lutheran [105] Church. It has existed for a long time in French Protestantism.

      "In the Congregational and other Evangelical Churches of England and America the same attitude is being taken by many who are not even aware that the name 'New Theology' is being applied to it" (p. 13).

      Here is the plain declaration that, in various companies, under different standards, and along different but converging roads, the religious crowds are pressing towards a common goal. That goal has but recently burst upon their rapturous vision, but it was foreseen and foretold long ago by the seer of Patmos. Commercialism in a religious garb, an ecclesiastical Trust, a world-wide Confederacy embracing all human interests, is now the ideal which arouses the enthusiasm of mankind and inspires the movements which are stirring in all the religious bodies of Christendom.

      Some little mental effort is required in order to realize the significance of all this; and the reader will do well to ponder these things, and try to grasp the meaning of the strange and ominous fact that, in systems so widely different and so long bitterly antagonistic, there has suddenly sprung up a common ideal, which is of such potency as to start them all in motion along converging lines towards a common destination. There has been nothing like it in the history of mankind; and it follows necessarily that the outcome must be something transcending all previous human experience. [106]

      As already stated, Mr. Campbell's New Theology is not a stable system, but a rapidly shifting movement. Many of its doctrines are too extravagant and foolish even for this unthinking and credulous generation. We are therefore not concerned with its details (which will quickly disappear), but with its tendencies. Despite all its vagaries, crudities, and blasphemies, it is doing the work of spreading the ideals of religious and industrial Federation on the basis of the Divinity of Man in quarters where those ideals might not otherwise find ready acceptance.

      New Theology also furnishes one of many indications that the history of corrupt religion has now entered upon its final stage. From it we may learn that Commercialism has now supplied to Religion the fundamental principle by which the former is regulated, namely, that the purveyors of doctrine must be controlled, like the purveyors of all other commodities, by the universal "law of supply and demand." On every side we see evidences of the recognition of this "law" in the conduct of ecclesiastical institutions. What the public demands, these "advanced theologians," who cater to it, give all diligence to supply. Their study is, not to show themselves "approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of truth," but to show themselves approved unto men, "handling the Word of God deceitfully," or setting it aside altogether.

      But, what is perhaps the most striking thing about [107] the New Theology is its claim of kinship with Socialism of the sort represented by Mr. Robert Blatchford of the London Clarion, who publicly, and even exultingly, avows himself in infidel. We are confronted, then, in the New Theology, with a religion which, while retaining the name "Christian," yet is in full accord in every essential matter with infidel Socialism. Surely it is but a short step from this to a system in which all shades of religious opinion shall be blended harmoniously in subordination to the great principle of the Solidarity of Mankind, or the Brotherhood and Divinity of Man.

      Mr. Blatchford, in reviewing Mr. Campbell's book, declares that its main doctrines are but paraphrases of those advocated in his own book, God and My Neighbour.³ He says:--

      "Mr. Campbell is a Christian minister, and I am an infidel editor; and the difference between his religion and mine is too small to argue about. But I sail under the Jolly Roger."

      The "New Theology," says Mr. Blatchford, is "God and My Neighbour with the soft pedal on. It is Thomas Paine in a white tie.  . . the Ingersoll fist in a boxing glove."

      Mr. Blatchford is at pains to point out the full agreement in matters of substance between his own teachings and those of the New Theology, saying:--

      "Mr. Campbell calls nature God. I call nature nature. [108]

      "Mr. Campbell thinks we ought to have some form of supernatural religion, and that we ought to associate with Christ. I prefer a religion of humanity without idolatry.

      "Mr. Campbell thinks Jesus the most perfect man that ever lived. I think there have been many men as good, and some better. But beyond these differences I think I may venture to say there is nothing Mr. Campbell believes that I deny, and nothing I believe that he denies. Beyond these differences I am as much a Christian as is the Rev. R. J. Campbell; and the Rev. R. J. Campbell is as much an infidel as is the editor of the Clarion.

      "Mr. Campbell rejects the doctrines of the fall and the atonement. He denies the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the resurrection. He denies the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, and he rejects the idea of divine punishment and an everlasting hell. So do I.

      "Mr. Campbell abandons the orthodox theory of sin, and says that selfishness is sin, and that unselfishness is morality and salvation. So do I.

      "These are bold assertions, and perhaps Mr. Campbell may think them too sweeping; but the proof is easy. The best proof is a comparison of the 'New Theology' with my 'infidel' books."

      Here, then, in the course of the progress of "this present evil age" (Gal. i. 4) we have arrived at a brand of "Christianity" which differs so little from [109] the most radical variety of infidel Socialism that the points of difference are "too small to argue about"; indeed they are far less important than many existing differences between members of the same religious denomination. It may be fairly inferred from this that we are not far from a religio-commercial basis upon which all men who reject the Word of God and the Christ of God can solidly unite, and unite in such strength as to assume the complete control and direction of the religious and secular affairs of a consolidated human society.

      We now cast our eyes upon the American continent in order to take note of the progress which, in this newer civilization, has been made by the ideals of the unification of mankind, and the consolidation of all human interests.

      New England was once the home of sound doctrine. Its rocky soil was originally populated by men who feared God, implicitly believed and submitted to the authority of His Word, and rested their hope of salvation wholly upon the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary. Such were the religious convictions of the men who laid the foundations of the New England commonwealths, and such have been the convictions likewise of their descendants for many generations.

      One of the oldest and best known churches in this important section of the American Republic is the [110] "Old South Church" of Boston; and its name has long been associated with sturdy orthodoxy.

      The present pastor of that Church, Dr. George A. Gordon, has lately contributed to the Harvard Theological Review⁴ (an Unitarian quarterly) a notable article, significantly entitled "The Collapse of the New England Theology." A few extracts from this article will afford a good indication of the present drift of religious thought in New England, and of the stage of departure from the old beliefs at which this movement has now arrived. And what is more pertinent to the present subject, these extracts will show what headway has been made (in what was once the centre of orthodoxy, and still is perhaps the centre of intelligence and learning of the American continent) by the movement which aims at the exaltation of Man and the formation of the great system of the end-times. The very title of the article is deeply significant; for whether one regards what has occurred as a calamity or as a benefit, in either view of the matter the word "collapse" indicates that the change which has taken place is one of the most radical sort.

      Dr. Gordon might, more aptly and more honestly, have entitled his article the "Collapse of the Doctrine of Christ," for that is what he assumes to be a fact, and what he undertakes to explain. He does not undertake to prove the collapse, but assumes it as a fact too palpable to require proof. Apparently Dr. Gordon deemed it expedient to make some concession to [111] the few who still cling to the old beliefs, and so he has partly veiled the purport of his article under the title quoted above.

      Mr. Huxley adopted a similar expedient when he gave in America a course of lectures attacking the Genesis account of Creation. In doing this, he discreetly directed his attack against what he called the "Miltonic Cosmogony." But though he diplomatically gave it this name, the teaching he was opposing was not that of Milton, but that of the Sacred Scriptures. In like manner it doubtless seemed to Dr. Gordon that a "Christian" minister, in attacking the doctrine of Christ, would do well to call that doctrine by another name. Hence the title "Collapse of the New England Theology."

      Dr. Gordon explains that what he means by the "New England Theology," is the teaching of Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Hopkins, Nathaniel W. Taylor, and other godly preachers, mighty in the Scriptures, men who received and preached the Bible "not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the Word of God" (1 Thess. ii. 13), and who proclaimed forgiveness of sins and eternal life through faith in the crucified and risen Son of God. This theology, which is virtually "the faith once for all delivered unto the saints," has, according to Dr. Gordon, undergone a total collapse; and taking the collapse for granted as an obvious and indisputable fact, he undertakes to show what brought it about.

      In pursuing this subject, we will consider--first, [112] the fact of the change which Dr. Gordon calls a "collapse"; second, the explanation be gives for the collapse; and third, the new system of theology which is supplanting that which has collapsed.

      That Dr. Gordon has good reason for assuming his premises, will not, probably, be very seriously disputed, it being a conspicuous fact that the churches of New England have, in large and increasing numbers, departed from the preaching of the truths proclaimed so powerfully and fruitfully by those great preachers of a bygone day. The people who "support" the ministers have a perfect right, according to the accepted standards of the day, to the kind of preaching which suits them. It would be manifestly unreasonable to expect them to "pay for" the kind of preaching they dislike; and it is quite certain that the cultured and prosperous classes of to-day will not endure the doctrines of the old New England theology.

      Still, making full allowance for all this, it may be questioned whether Dr. Gordon is justified in describing the great change which has undoubtedly taken place as a "collapse." Students of Scripture will readily identify it as "the apostasy" (2 Thess. ii. 3) which is to take place before the Man of Sin should be revealed. This condition of Christendom upon which Dr. Gordon comments, and which the Bible foretells, was to be characterized, according to Scripture, by intolerance of sound doctrine on the part of [113] church-goers, and by their heaping to themselves teachers, instead of receiving the teachers sent to them from God. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own desires shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Tim. iv. 3, 4).

      While many would warmly deny that the old New England preachers proclaimed "the truth," and that the successors to their pulpits have substituted "fables," no one can fairly dispute that the church attendants of to-day have "turned away their ears" from the doctrines to which their fathers listened, that they have "given heed" to doctrines which involve the contradiction of everything formerly held to be essential; and further, that they uniformly exercise the right of "heaping to themselves teachers" who are strictly held to the duty of teaching the things which their ears itch to hear.

      Dr. Gordon himself fully recognizes, and is in entire accord with, the principles of Democracy. The "rights of man" is the great ruling principle of the day (i. e. of "Man's Day"); and unquestionably among the rights upon which men most stubbornly insist is the right to have the kind of teaching which is acceptable to the majority, namely, the teaching which exalts man, extols his achievements, lauds his progress and his sciences, and prophesies the glorious outcome of his heroic endeavours. This popular demand might be accurately voiced in the words of [114] the prophet Isaiah, who speaks of "children that will not hear the law of the Lord; which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits; get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us" (Is. xxx. 9-11).

      Here, then, is Dr. Gordon's description of the theology of the old New England preachers which, he says has collapsed:--

      "These thinkers without exception held the Sovereignty of God, whether construed as including or not including the fall; they held to the innate depravity of mankind; they traced this universal condition of the race to the sin of the first man;.  . . they were agreed that without atonement there was no forgiveness of sin, and that this necessary atonement had been made by Jesus Christ; they were united in the belief that the Holy Spirit is essential to the conversion and regeneration of man, that till the Spirit's influence descends upon him man is helpless in the presence of his moral obligation; that when the divine grace comes it is irresistible;.  . . and they were unanimous in their conviction that true believers in Jesus Christ will persevere to the end and be saved with an everlasting salvation."

      While Dr. Gordon's definitions here given could be improved upon, it is nevertheless perfectly clear [115] that he is attempting to describe the essential doctrines of the Bible, and that in saying that the theology whereof the above doctrines were the substance has collapsed, he is, in effect, saying that the teaching of the Bible has collapsed. In fact, one count in his indictment of the old New England preachers of Christ is that they were in bondage to a book.

      He thus describes the attitude of these preachers of the old doctrines:--

      "The attitude of indiscriminating reverence towards the Bible was, on the part of the New England divines, the inheritance of faith. They were in bondage to a book; and while it was the supreme book to which they were in bondage, the fact that here, in this greatest sphere of the free intellect, they had no dream of the function of the intellect, is another reason why their domain has passed away."

      "Their ideal of the sphere of reason was a meagre and restricted ideal."

      While the language used by Dr. Gordon is more guarded than that of Mr. Campbell, and while the former is more cautious than the latter in advancing his propositions, it is quite clear that their meaning is in substance the same. In the sentences just quoted we have the very clear statement that one of the mistakes of the old New England preachers was that they subordinated the human intellect to the Bible, instead of subordinating the Bible to the human intellect. [116]

      It will be observed that one of the prominent characteristics of all these movements of the day is a determined effort to discredit the Bible, and to set aside its claim of authority over mankind. Democracy implies a state of freedom from all authority except that which is self-imposed. But this exception is really not an exception at all, since authority that is self-imposed is authority in name only. Mankind has so far carried into practice the theory of "self-government" (so called) that there is now, in the progressive countries of the world, no claim of authority to be reckoned with except that of the Bible. The voice of this troublesome book cannot apparently be silenced. Even in this progressive day its unwelcome demands sound in the ears of men. Its claim of absolute authority over the acts, and words, and even thoughts, of men is still heard, and its demand that they shall render to it implicit obedience as the unchangeable Word of 'the living God, has not yet been disposed of. Although men conduct theological seminaries equipped with learned professors, and employ the most gifted minds to teach and preach "the freedom of the human intellect," and to proclaim the end of the old order of submission to the Bible, nevertheless the voice of the latter has not yet been wholly stifled. This voice is now the chief, if not the only, remaining obstacle in the way of pure Democracy; and hence the tremendous efforts which have been, and yet are being, put forth to get rid of it. "That which restrains" must be first taken out of the way, and [117] then shall that Lawless One be revealed (2 Thess. ii. 7, 8).

      Moreover, the description which the Bible gives of the present era of confederation, of the great system in which it is to culminate, and particularly of the Superman who is to be its bead, is so full and circumstantial, that these characters would be recognized by those who know the Scriptures the moment they appear upon the scene.

      It is therefore essential to the success of Satan's last and greatest undertaking, that the way for it should be prepared by discrediting the Bible. This, doubtless, is the mission of the Higher Criticism, which, notwithstanding that the emptiness of its pretensions and worthlessness of its "results" have been thoroughly exposed, has nevertheless succeeded in spreading among the masses of church-goers and others the idea that the doctrine of an inspired and authoritative Bible has been discarded by all competent scholars; and that the few who cling to that antiquated notion are either ignorant, feeble-minded, or fanatical. It is for this purpose that we see arrayed against the authority of Scripture the imposing names of Science, Progress, Freedom of Intellect, Scholarship, and the like. These be the names of the modern Philistines which defy the armies of the living God.

      This work of the Higher Criticism and its allies has created an atmosphere in which it is possible for the apostles of the new theologies to proclaim the [118] emancipation of the human intellect from "bondage to a book," and boldly to say to those in quest of the truth, "Never mind what the Bible says about this or that," thus cutting them off from the only deposit of Truth to which human beings have access.

      In commenting upon the progress of the principles of Democracy among the nations of the world, it is worthy of mention that since the writer began to put these notes into shape for publication, two events of great importance have taken place, by which those principles have been vastly extended. One of these is the curtailment of the autocratic power of the German Emperor, and the other is the establishment of popular government in Turkey.

      Having ascertained what the system is which, according to Dr. Gordon, has collapsed, we now look for the reasons advanced by him in explanation of that collapse. At first we would ask, Where has the change occurred which is responsible for the collapse? Not in the doctrine, of course, for that is changeless. It must be, then, that the people of the present generation are different, in radical respects, from those who accepted the old New England Theology. Yes, the change is in the people. The children are not as were their forefathers; and from what Dr. Gordon says about the freedom of the intellect in these advanced days, it is evident that the great change which [119] accounts for the collapse of the New England Theology, is one of an intellectual sort.

      How, then, have the people changed intellectually--for the better or for the worse? Is it improvement, or deterioration? Let Dr. Gordon answer that question. He says:--

      "This age is characterized by a strong aversion to severe thinking. Immediacy has become a habit, perhaps a disease."

      That is to say, the people of the present time are impatient, restless, excitable, demanding instant results, shunning all processes of intellectual labour, requiring that even the news of the day be conveyed to them in large headlines, which can be taken in at a single glance of the eye. No one has time to think or to do anything that requires deliberation. Everybody is in a hurry to catch a train; and when they reach their destination the next question is, "Where shall we go?"

      This is what Mr. Gordon means by "immediacy"; and he emphatically declares the intellectual state of the modern man to be such that immediacy is "a habit," and "perhaps a disease."

      He further says on this point:--

      "There was in those days eagerness to attack and master a difficult subject, a keen interest in a matter that, in order to be understood, had to be read a score of times."

      "To-day, whatever cannot be understood in the twinkling of an eye is generally regarded with [120] aversion. The supreme heresy in thinking is the call to intellectual toil."

      Such being the mental characteristics of this generation, it might be safely left to any honest and unbiased mind to say whether we have not here a full and satisfactory explanation of the "collapse" of the New England Theology. Surely, in this shallowness, superficiality, and intellectual sloth which characterize the present day, and in the feverish pursuit of money and pleasure which absorbs its energies, is to be found an explanation fully adequate to account for the rapid development of that apostasy which Dr. Gordon regards as progress in religious thought.

      Yet Dr. Gordon is so illogical, and so blind to conclusions which follow inevitably from his own premises, as to attribute the "collapse" of the New England Theology to its defective character when tested by the present-day standards of knowledge and morality. He says:--

      "The chief cause of collapse must be found in the character of the ancient creed."

      "It fell from power because it was found beneath the best religious consciousness of the time. It was found to be outgrown in two fundamental ways, it was outgrown in knowledge and in ethical conceptions."

      These are very weighty statements, and we will do well to grasp fully their import. The discarded doctrines, says Dr. Gordon,--which, be it remembered, are the essential Christian verities proclaimed by the [121] Bible,--have been found to be beneath the best religious consciousness of the present time. This generation, having come to a knowledge of itself, has found that the "ancient creed" had been outgrown in two ways, both of them "fundamental," namely, (1) in knowledge and (2) in conceptions of righteousness. More simply stated, this generation is too learned and too good for the ancient creed. Therefore they have discarded it, and are demanding something nearer to their own high level. The Bible is outgrown by the modern man: in knowledge and in righteousness! Who says so? The modern man himself says so, and who is there to gainsay it?

      This explanation demands a careful examination; and when examined it will be found to be saturated with the concentrated essence of the religion of Humanism. It involves two important assumptions--namely, first, that the popular taste is the final test of doctrine; and second, that man himself is his own saviour through the process of evolution. This will more clearly appear from subsequent quotations; but at this point we would notice again the assumption which is involved in all the utterances of this sort, so often heard from the pulpits and read in the religious papers, namely, that the final test of the soundness and fitness of a doctrine, or system of doctrine, is whether or not it finds favour with the religious crowd. If it is popular, it is right; if not popular, it is by that fact alone discredited and condemned. [122]

      This test is a corollary of the doctrine of "the survival of the fittest"; and its general acceptance is also aided largely by the subtle influence of the principles of Democracy. No one seems to question the test, or to ask if acceptability to the mass of people be really an infallible proof of sound doctrine. That is simply taken for granted.

      Doubtless there have been incidents of a similar sort in times past. In the progressive days of King Ahab, for example, opportunity was afforded to the learned doctors of theology--the graduates of the seminaries patronized so generously by that eminently devout and religious queen Jezebel--to employ their gifts and learning in framing explanations accounting for the collapse of the Israelitish Theology, as expounded to previous generations by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel. And we may assume that the exponents of the new and popular theology of that day improved the opportunity to the entire satisfaction of their congregations, and that they put forth their learned explanations with all the garnishment of ponderous diction and polysyllabic utterance. And we may also assume that, if the discourses of these eminent theologians had come down to us, we should find, on examining them, that the substance of their sapient explanations was that the ancient creed had fallen from power because it was beneath the best religious consciousness of the times, that those deceased prophets had been in bondage to the Book of the Law, that they failed to apprehend the function of the [123] free intellect, and that their theology had been outgrown in knowledge and in ethical conceptions.

      For, if the will of the people is the true test of doctrine, that test was just as valid in Samaria, in the days of those very religious rulers, Ahab and his royal consort, as in Boston in the days of President Roosevelt.

      The New England Theology "fell from power," says Dr. Gordon, "because it was found beneath the best religious consciousness of the time." Did not Christ then, and His teaching, "fall from power" for the same reason? Was not He, by the unanimous voice of the people, rejected and cast out to the Roman executioners, and for the reason that His teaching was displeasing to the religious crowd and their leaders? If Dr. Gordon had been living in that day, would he not have found, in the facts of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ, all the materials for a profound discourse upon the "Collapse of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ?" And would not that discourse have commended itself to the best religious consciousness of tile time? Was not the principal charge against Him that of blasphemy against the Most High? And does not Dr. Gordon specifically charge against the old New England preachers that the doctrines of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, so fervently and unceasingly preached by them, "are the worst blasphemy ever offered to the Most High?"

      We see, then, that the written Word of God is being subjected at the present day to precisely the [124] same treatment as that to which the Incarnate Word submitted when among men; and this is at the hands, not of the publicans and harlots and sinners--for the common people still hear Him gladly--but at the hands of the learned doctors of theology, the accredited religious leaders, in association with the intellectual and political authorities, and with the religious crowd who are subject to their influence. Their cry to-day is the same as it was nineteen centuries ago, "Away with Him, Away with Him;" and "We will not have this man to reign over us." Were any religious mandates ever better established by "the will of the people" than these? Were any teachings ever so "distasteful to the masses" as those of Jesus Christ? The crucifixion answers these questions with an emphatic "Never."

      But this assumption of the infallibility of the popular taste in matters of doctrine is utterly unfounded. Against it we need only to say that what is true is not, and never has been, popular; and that what is popular is not, and never has been true.

      Further items of the indictment which Dr. Gordon brings against the New England Theology are--lack of originality (for being in bondage to a book they had no freedom to originate doctrine), "the restricted use of the human reason," and the persistent "refusal to learn from Unitarianism."

      On the latter point Dr. Gordon says:--

      "Unitarianism is the complement of [125] Trinitarianism no less than its rival; that is, if the Trinitarian belief in a social God is to live, it must be matched with the Unitarian belief in a social humanity. If with the Trinitarian we say God is Father, with the Unitarian we must say MAN IS THE INALIENABLE CHILD OF GOD."

      This, again, is a highly important statement. Dr. Gordon avows himself a Trinitarian; so we see here a mediation between these two systems, which, through all the centuries since the days of Arius and the Nicene Creed, have been supposedly antipodal and irreconcilable. But even such differences yield to the potency of the modern idea of Consolidation. Unitarian-Trinitarianism is therefore to be counted as one of the products of this productive age.

      Then again, this statement of Dr. Gordon brings clearly into view the idea of the Solidarity of Man. This is the meaning of the phrase "social humanity." As God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are One God, even so, says Dr. Gordon, all men are one, there being no distinction between those who are "sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal. iii. 26, John i. 12, 13, 1 John v. 1) and those of whom the Lord Jesus said "Ye are of your father, the Devil" (John viii. 44). And this doctrine is dogmatically asserted (though without the slightest attempt to support it by proof) in the statement that man is the inalienable child of God."

      Thus, as Dr. Gordon approaches the subject of that theology which is at the present time coming into the [126] room of the discarded and collapsed theology of bygone days, we begin to discern the now familiar outlines of the religion of Humanism,--the exaltation and worship of Man.

      So much for the ancient belief which has "fallen from power," and for the explanation of its "collapse," as given by Dr. Gordon. What chiefly interests us is the system which is taking its place in the thoughts of the men of New England. As to this new religious system Dr. Gordon has a clear answer. He says:--

      "When we come to man, we have a being whose essential nature is love. If God does not answer to man here, He falls below the work of His hands."

      "HUMANISM is our greatest word, because it covers the greatest fact we know, the phenomenal world of MAN."

      Again, we will do well to look carefully into the countenance of this new theology (which indeed is not new at all, but as old as Eden) and to listen carefully to the tones of the voice by which its pleasing doctrines are proclaimed. Undoubtedly it comes up fully to the recognized standard of the day in containing nothing that is in the slightest degree "distasteful to the masses." Hence there can be no doubt of its almost universal acceptance.

      Then again, it challenges God to punish the [127] rejectors of Christ, and the despisers of His unspeakable gift, by telling Him that, if He does so, He will fall below the work of His own hands. Modern Man is thus set up as the standard by which God must regulate His own behaviour.

      The chief significance of the statement that man's essential nature is love, is that it puts man in the place of God, by assigning to the former the highest definition, which God has given us of Himself, "God is Love." (1 John iv. 8). This blasphemous doctrine most effectively exalts man to the supreme place, and is equivalent to asserting his Divinity.

      But if man is love it is pertinent to ask an explanation of the outcries of the oppressed, the suffering, the needy. Why these courts, and prisons, and police? Why these demands of labourers, complaining that their hire is kept back by fraud? And why these enormous and increasing armaments on land and sea, under the burden of which governments are becoming bankrupt, and the people of all the "progressive nations" are being oppressed by intolerable taxation? Against whom are these ingenious and destructive engines, and these devilish explosives being prepared by beings whose essential nature is love? Is it an uprising of the animal kingdom, or an invasion of demons that is feared?

      Surely a more palpable untruth than Dr. Gordon's definition of the essential nature of man was never uttered. But we must not lose sight of the standard by which modern preaching is governed, namely, that [128] not what is true, but what is pleasing to man, is to be proclaimed and taught; and surely it is quite acceptable to the unreconciled and unpardoned sinner to be told that his essential nature is love.

      Congregations now sit as judges of the utterances that proceed from the pulpit. They listen critically, and freely announce their decision, pronouncing the sermon "good" or "bad"; and from their decision there is no appeal. If man's character and achievements are lauded, and particularly if the divinity of humanity and the salvation of all men are proclaimed, the preacher is pretty sure of the coveted approbation. But if he should declare that human nature is unspeakably corrupt, that all men are by nature children of wrath, that those who believe not are condemned already, and that those who know not God and obey not the gospel of Christ will surely go to endless perdition, the sermon would be adjudged "bad," and there would probably ensue a lively agitation for the preacher's resignation.

      Then again, Dr. Gordon's definition of man is a flagrant and insolent contradiction of the Word of God; and this will still further commend it to "the best religious consciousness of the time."

      The Bible declares that men are by nature "full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful" (Rom. i. 29-31); that "there is none upright among men; they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his [129] brother with a net" (Mic. vii. 2); that their "mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, their feet swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known"; (Rom. iii. 14-17); that all, even the regenerate, were once "living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another" (Titus iii. 3); being "alienated and enemies in their minds by wicked works" (Col. i. 21). And the Lord Jesus summed up the "essential nature" of the world in three words, "Me it hateth" (John vii. 7).

      Or, if the essential nature of men of these times is love, it is in the sense stated in 2 Tim. iii. 2-4, namely, that men are lovers of their own selves, lovers of money, and lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.

      The statement that "Humanism is our greatest word," and that "the phenomenal world of man" is the greatest fact that we know," exalts man and his world to the highest place. God has magnified His word above all His Name (Ps. cxxxviii. 2); but man has now a greater word in "Humanism"; and the work of God in creation, and the mediatorial work of Christ Jesus in redemption and Reconciliation by the Blood of His Cross, must now (if these be facts at all) take a subordinate place to that which is "the greatest fact we know," namely, the "world of man."

      But against this there are some who, though they be persons accounted of no importance in the "world [130] of man," can yet say "the phenomenal world of man" is not the greatest fact that we know. 'We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may KNOW HIM THAT IS TRUE' (1 John v. 20).

      The "world of man," then, comes into the central place of the New Theology of New England. That world of gigantic industrial projects and achievements, which awe the imagination of Man, its creator, and impel him to the worship of himself as divine; that world which is the enemy of God and the hater and murderer of Christ, becomes the centre of a religious system, supported and extolled by the preachers it so liberally patronizes. We thus find ourselves again at the confluence of the two great currents of Business and Religion, and see all things preparing for that prodigy which is to result from this fusion of abominations.

      And Dr. Gordon fittingly concludes his article in these notable words:

      "Let us, so says Humanism, hold to the reality and worth of man's world, and use it as our surest instrument in our endeavor to ascertain the character of the Eternal."

      Not so spoke the New England Theology of by-gone days. Knowledge of the Father, according to that teaching, was to be had only through the Son. The words of the Lord Jesus Christ were taken to be conclusive as to that. "I am the Way. No man cometh [131] unto the Father, BUT BY ME." "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father." "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me" (John xiv. 6, 9, 11). "Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him" (Matt. xi. 27). And concerning "the world of man" to which the New Theology refers us for knowledge of God, Christ said, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John xv. 18, 19).

      But the New Theology sets aside the revelation which God has given of Himself in the Incarnate Word and in the Written Word, and proclaims that the surest instrument we have for ascertaining His character is "man's world." It calls upon men to hold fast to that which God has judged, and which He will utterly destroy. Those who follow this voice are not the sheep of the Good Shepherd; "for they know His voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers" (John x. 4, 5).

      Whose voice then is it? They who truly know God through believing His Word will instantly recognize in this exhortation that other voice to which the mother of human kind hearkened, and by means of which man was lured into the path of destruction. With what infinite subtlety has this masterpiece of [132] deception been prepared? Surely we have here the very "depths of Satan" (Rev. ii. 24). For we must admit that the character of the workman may be, to some extent at least, ascertained from the study of his work; and God Himself tells us that His invisible things, even His eternal power and Godhead, are to be clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made (Rom. i. 20). The "phenomenal world of man" may, therefore, be indeed scrutinized for the purpose of ascertaining the character of the power that is back of it; but the power back of it is not the eternal power and Godhead of the Almighty God, but that of the prince of the power of the air, who is spoken of in Ephesians ii. 2, where we read that we all in time past walked "according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the Spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." But unhappily the people have not been taught the important truth that Satan is the prince (arcwn, i. e. ruler or governor) of this world, and the god of this age. On the contrary, they have been generally taught that God is the instigator of the "career of humanity," and that He is aiding and admiring the progress of man's wonderful civilization. Thus, in their ignorance of the truth which the Bible so clearly states, they are exposed to the danger of heeding and following such an exhortation as that quoted above. Those who follow that exhortation would indeed be led to the god of this world, and it has been the design of that [133] mighty being since the creation of man to attach the latter to himself.

      Two voices out of the realm of the unseen speak to humanity. One voice says "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away and the lust thereof" (1 John ii. 15-17). The other voice says, "Let us hold to the reality and worth of man's world, and use it as our surest instrument in our endeavour to ascertain the character of the Eternal."

      We need only put these sayings side by side in order to make it clear to all who are not hopelessly deceived, that if one saying is the voice of God, the other is that of Satan.

      In dwelling at this length upon Dr. Gordon's discourse, we have not attached undue importance to it; for its significance does not proceed wholly from the prominence of its author, or the prominence of the pulpit occupied by him, but mainly from the fact that it affords a good indication of the profound change which has taken place in the religious thought, not of New England merely, but of a much wider area, and an indication also of the complacency with which that change is viewed by the religious multitude, and by those from whom the latter take their opinions. It shows, moreover, that the new theological system, which has already, to a great extent, [134] placed the old New England Theology, corresponds in its essential features with the Ecclesiastical Commercialism described in prophecy as the culmination of the unrestrained (i. e. democratic) activities of mankind.

      With all that Dr. Gordon says touching the nature and extent of the change that has taken place, the present writer is in substantial accord. Dr. Gordon has not overstated the magnitude of the event. But the writer takes issue with Dr. Gordon as to the character and result of the change. Dr. Gordon calls it progress." The writer calls it "apostasy."

      But the great system, religious industrialism, or "Humanism," of which Dr. Gordon is one of the heralds, will require a leader capable of grasping its huge and complicated affairs; and so it is quite fitting that another article, in the same periodical from which we have so extensively quoted, should voice the general expectancy which exists in many quarters, of the coming of the great genius, the "Superman." We should not forget that the world has its hope as the Christian has his. And the world's hope is well founded, for Christ not only said "I will come again," but He also said, "Another shall come in his own name."

      We quote the concluding words of this second article, as follows:--

      "And we still wait for THE GENIUS who shall [135] state our fundamental faith in accordance with that insight which the modern man has gained."

      And they who are waiting for the genius shall not wait in vain. The genius will surely come, and his statement of faith will be one to which all that dwell upon the earth will give heed whose names are not written in the book of life of the slain Lamb.

      "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast; for it is the number of Man."

      Already we have seen phenomena which, if their significance were fully grasped, would be startling. We have seen ancient systems, which seemed to have settled down to a condition of permanent lethargy and stagnation, suddenly stirring themselves and exchanging the condition of rest for one of motion. Beholding these strange events, a judicious and competent observer (Dr. Broda) declared that "never before in the history of mankind have the forces of religion suffered so great a convulsion"; and he speaks of this general uprising as "the religious crisis through which all the civilized races are now passing."

      But not only is this general stirring a new and unprecedented thing; but, stranger still, we have seen that the moving bodies (so far as we have examined them) are actuated by a common impulse, impelled by [136] common ideals, and are advancing towards a common destination.

      Let us look now In quite another section of the great religious field; namely, to the large and important domain occupied by Roman Catholicism.

      Those who pay any attention at all to current events (and the number of these is not great), have become fairly familiar with the headway which Rationalism ("the leaven of the Sadducees," who were the rationalists of Christ's day⁵) has made in the various Protestant denominations, and as the result of which a large number of the theological seminaries have come into the hands of those who deny the essentials of the Christian faith. But the affairs of the Church of Rome are managed more discreetly, insomuch that its dissensions and other domestic troubles are in large measures guarded from outsiders, and such heretical movements as may spring up within it do not come prominently, if at all, into public notice.

      But there is at the present time a movement in progress within the domain of the Church of Rome, a movement solely of Romanists who have no thought whatever of separating from their Church, and which is so formidable, so portentous, so radical in its aims, and is gathering strength and boldness at so prodigious a rate, that its existence cannot be concealed. The movement, indeed, is one of the sensations of the times, there having been, in all the long and varied [137] career of that great ecclesiasticism, nothing in the faintest degree resembling it.

      This movement is such as to have shaken to its very centre the system in which it is taking place. It seems not to be possible to expel from the fold those who are participating in it; but the movement has called forth the thunders of the Vatican in the form of an Encyclical letter, for which it would be difficult to find an equal in length, in weightiness of subject-matter, and in the vehemence and extremity of the denunciatory language employed in it. Yet the movement is so strong, self-confident, and defiant, that its leaders dare to publish the Pope's Encyclical as an "appendix" to a volume in which they set forth their own principles and purposes. This movement is called "Modernism," and the name is an indication of its character.

      If the movement were wholly detached and entirely unrelated to any other of the current movements, it would still be of great interest and importance. But what lends it interest of a surpassing character is the fact that its essential principles and avowed purposes are identical in substance with those of the other great movements of the day, with which it has no apparent connection, and that it is hence a movement designed to carry the Church of Rome bodily in the direction of that very commercial ecclesiasticism which is the subject of our present investigation.

      Nor would this result be so difficult of accomplishment as might at first sight appear. The aim of the [138] Church of Rome has always been temporal power and authority. It is already a political ecclesiasticism, aspiring to primacy in all the affairs--secular, domestic, and religious--of all mankind. It has, moreover, a head to whom unique authority and power are ascribed. In fact, the form and machinery for the great Consolidation of the end-times are already in existence. What stand chiefly in the way of applying these externals to the fulfilment of the dream of "the modern man," are certain doctrines,--remnants or distortions of the faith once delivered unto the saints,--which are still insisted upon as essential features of the creed of Romanism. These must be removed before the Church of Rome is ready for a part in the formation of the great Religious Syndicate; and it is precisely for this, that is to say, for the removal of the obstructing doctrines, that the movement called "Modernism" has been inaugurated. This is not a matter of inference on our part, for the Modernists plainly and definitely state their purpose, as we shall presently see. They could, of course, go outside the Church of Rome and be entirely free to hold and preach their doctrines--that is, the doctrines of "the modern man." But that would not accomplish their avowed purpose, for which it is absolutely necessary that they should remain in "the Church"; so in the Church they propose to remain.

      There is, therefore, nothing transpiring at the present day which is more significant of the drift of the times, or which speaks more solemnly and clearly of [139] the approaching convulsion which is to remove all the things that can be shaken (Heb. xii. 27), than this extraordinary movement within the bosom of the Church of Rome. It is startling indeed to find in that quarter the new ideas of Democracy, the Supremacy of Human Reason, the Solidarity of Mankind (embracing those without "the Church" as well as those within); to find the authority of "Science" exalted above the Word of God; and to find this group of ideas gathering force to an extent that threatens to sweep that ancient system (i. e. Romanism) away from the seemingly secure moorings which have attached it for so many centuries to scholasticism and the old traditions.

      The book from which we will quote in order to show the nature and purposes of this movement, is entitled The Programme of Modernism, written originally in Italian, and translated into English by "Father" Tyrrell, an English priest, and one of the prominent leaders of the movement.

      The authors refer at the outset (p. 5) to "the ideals which govern the activity of THE WORLD to-day, and which are Christian in substance." The Modernists, therefore, start with a "world" whose controlling ideals are in substance "Christian." It would seem that no greater abuse of the word "Christian" were possible than to apply it to the ideals which govern the activity of the world to-day, which activity finds its outlet almost exclusively in the pursuit of wealth and pleasure. But the significance of [140] this statement lies in its association of religion and business, which are to be harmonized and unified in the coming Consolidation of human interests.

      Concerning the old foundations of the Christian faith the Modernists are very explicit, saying:--

      "The pretended bases of faith have proved themselves rotten beyond cure."

      The meaning of this admits of no doubt; and coming from Romanists it is equivalent to saying that the Bible and Church tradition (these being the bases of the faith of Rome) have proved themselves rotten beyond cure.

      The reader will recall that this is the starting-point of the New Theology, namely, the discovery that the old foundations are unable to sustain an edifice of faith adapted to the needs of "the modern man," necessitating a movement away from the old position to a new basis.

      In this connection it is instructive to recall that the word "apostasy" (which is the original Greek word translated "a falling away" in 2 Thess. ii. 3, and which designates the event that is to come first, just preceding the advent of the Man of Sin) means a moving away bodily from an original position. What then are we to anticipate when we see the professing body, Catholic and Protestant, making a movement which its leaders themselves describe as an abandonment of the old foundations, and a transference of the edifice of faith to foundations entirely new, and laid by the hands of Man himself. [141]

      Again, the question "If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?" (Ps. xi. 3) comes to mind. But this event, which would reduce the righteous to utter helplessness and dismay, causes no more concern to the Modernists than to the New Theology; for the former describe their movement as an attempt to transfer the rational defence of faith from the "tottering basis" on which it has heretofore rested, to a more secure foundation (p. 16).

      The relation of the Modernists to the Higher Criticism is likewise clearly stated by themselves. They say "We avow ourselves critics pure and simple" (p. 17); and they laud the work of the "illustrious critics" and accept without qualification "the assured results of criticism." They refer also to "Dr. Charles Briggs, the illustrious critic, well known for his Catholic tendencies." (Dr. Briggs owes his notoriety to the circumstances that he was, after trial, expelled from one large Protestant denomination for heresy, and was very promptly received and made a minister in another large Protestant denomination, where he is still disseminating his views.)

      The Modernists also pay deference to "Science" as the real source of light and truth, saying:--

      "We Modernists cannot in conscience withdraw ourselves from the light of truth, and put ourselves in harsh opposition to science and its leaders" (p. 33).

      But this belongs to the new foundations upon which [142] the Modernists propose to build, and before considering these we should first note some of the faults which they have discovered in the old foundations, particularly the Bible. Of that they say:--

      "As the words are not directly from God, so neither are the ideas, since they often clash one with another. The whole book, words and ideas alike, is the work of man, without thereby ceasing to be wholly, as to both words and ideas--a distinction which we can set aside as unknown to antiquity--the work of God" (p. 37).

      Concerning the origin of the Old Testament they say:--

      "The children of Israel were on the same religious level as the other nations" (p. 41).

      Jehovah of Hosts was, therefore, no more than Baal, Molech, Remphan, or Ashtoreth. According to the Modernists the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, did not choose those patriarchs and their descendants to be to Himself a peculiar people. He did not bring the Israelites out of the land of Egypt and give them the fiery law amid the thunders of Sinai. It is not true that to the Israelites were committed the oracles of God, and that unto them pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore (Rom. ix. 4, 5). [143]

      Nor have the Modernists any greater regard for the New Testament than for the Old. They say:--

      "Criticism has done for the Gospels what it has done for the Pentateuch."

      They regard the Gospel by John, for example, as being in the nature of an historical romance written with a religious purpose. And inasmuch as the writers of classical fiction deem it perfectly legitimate to put long speeches into the mouths of their characters, such as would be presumably appropriate to the personages and circumstances portrayed, even so the author of this Gospel invented the discourses it contains. Thus they speak (p. 46) of the words which the Evangelist John has "put into the mouth of John the Baptist.

      Coming to that part of the inspired Word which God has communicated to men through His servant Paul, they say that the latter--

      "had a very complicated and artificial theology of his own" (p. 72).

      When, therefore, Paul declared that the Gospel message proclaimed by him was not after man, that he neither received nor was taught it of men, but by direct revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal. i. 11, 12); and when he solemnly declared, as he said again and again, "this we say unto you by the word of the Lord," this devoted servant of Christ uttered deliberate lies.

      It follows that, according to Modernism, the whole fabric of Christianity has been reared upon the [144] foundation of the grossest, the most gigantic, and the most inexcusable and inexplicable series of falsehoods that have ever been fabricated, Indeed, the statements of the Bible-writers, which the Modernists and "illustrious critics" characterize as falsehoods, constitute a system of lies too vast, too complicated, and too void of anything like the motives which govern human conduct, to have been the work of mere men, particularly as these men did not work in concert. The premises of the Modernists lead logically to the conclusion that the foundations of Christianity were not only not the work of God, but were the work of a superhuman spirit of evil. If they believe their own premises, then they have stated the case mildly in declaring that the bases of the old faith are "rotten beyond cure."

      Coming now to the central doctrine of Scripture, the Person of the Divine Redeemer, they say:--

      "Paul had already speculated as to the pre-existence of Christ" (p. 83).

      And they account for the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Eternal Son of God, by saying that it originated some centuries after the life of Jesus Christ, and was the product of the "Messianic notion" of the Jewish people combined with the apocalyptic notion" of One who was to appear in the clouds, which "notions," when transferred to Greek soil, which had for centuries been fertilized by the filthy beliefs in heroes springing from carnal intercourse between gods and human beings, gave rise to the "notion" of a unique relation between Christ [145] and the Father. But this is so incredibly blasphemous that the doctrine must be given in their own words. They say:--

      "The Messianic notion of the Son of David, and the apocalyptic notion of One who was to appear in the clouds,.  . . when transferred to Greek soil, where parentage between gods and heroes was a common belief, opened the road to the notion of a unique relation between Christ and the Father, and even of an identity of nature" (p. 84).

      Thus the Modernists set wholly aside the doctrine of a Divine Redeemer, made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and putting away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and they account for the belief of the saints of all ages in the Incarnation of the Son of God by a theory so shockingly profane that it surely seems that to them, if to any one, apply those terrible words: "who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith He was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to (i. e. insulted) the Spirit of Grace" (Heb. x. 29).

      The Modernists sum up the work of the "illustrious critics" by saying that--

      "Criticism has reconstructed the whole story of the evolution of Christianity" (p. 90).

      That the Modernists, in common with the advanced theologians of the Protestant sects, regard the human reason as the seat of final authority in respect of all [146] matters of doctrine, appears at many points in their manifesto. For example, they speak of--

      "arguments from miracles and prophecies which offend rather than impress the modern mind" (p. 98).

      Here again we perceive the tacit assumption that the test of a doctrine is, not whether or not it be true and sufficiently authenticated, but whether it be regarded with favour or with disfavour by the "modern mind." It will also be noted that, according to the Modernists, the supernatural elements of Scripture--miracles and prophecies--are offensive to the modern mind, and hence must be discarded.

      The reader will readily perceive how necessary it is to the carrying out of Satan's programme (which is virtually the avowed "Programme of Modernism") that prophecy should be thoroughly discredited and brought into contempt. Hence the pains manifested in all the literature of these cognate movements to inculcate the idea that the "modern mind" regards prophecy with contempt and derision. It was thus at the first coming of Christ; for then, as now, the religious leaders, through ignorance and contempt for prophecy, fulfilled the prophecies which were read by them every Sabbath day. As it is recorded: "For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found [147] no cause of death in Him, yet desired they Pilate that He should be slain" (Acts xiii. 27, 28).

      The Modernists recognize that their movement is part of a great spiritual upheaval which is taking place throughout the Christianized countries of the world (and which, as we have seen, is not confined to them). They say:--

      "Undoubtedly a, crisis has arisen in the very centre of Catholic thought" (p. 129). "A great spiritual crisis, which did not begin to-day, but has to-day reached its culminating intensity, troubles all the religious bodies of Europe--Catholicism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism."

      The idea of a great crisis, and a general movement to take up new religious ground, is a very captivating and stimulating idea; and the terms in which the advanced (and advancing) theologians refer to it, indicate the enthusiasm it has the power to arouse. It is the cry of "Excelsior!" to which many will respond who care neither for the things that are behind, nor the things that are before, but whose blood is stirred, and whose fleshly zeal is quickened, by the rallying cry of any forward movement wherein the masses take part.

      We have now heard the reasons which the Modernists give for abandoning the old bases of faith, and for stigmatizing them as "rotten beyond cure"; and we look next with deep interest to the results they are setting out to accomplish. [148]

      As to this, the "Programme of Modernism" is very definite and explicit. The standards they have adopted for the reformed Catholicism, for which they are labouring, are those of the MODERN WORLD. Nothing less, or other, than the complete amalgamation and unification of the Church and World is the object of their hopes and efforts. Full well do they realize that a great religious system is to be reared upon the basis of the divinity of Humanity, and is to control the "titanic industrial energies" of mankind; and they see clearly that, if in this system the Church of Rome is to occupy the position of authority and power, it must quickly forsake its antiquated doctrines, and place itself squarely upon the platform of Humanism. For this they toll and suffer, being well content, in such a cause, to incur the frown of the Church authorities, with all its disagreeable consequences. They have caught the vision of the great Unification, and it has fired their hearts with an unquenchable enthusiasm. That they will press on to its realization, with ranks constantly augmented by other hosts who have been aroused by the same vision, cannot be doubted; for so it is written, and these things must needs come to pass. The voice of Him who sees the end from the beginning has said: "Behold, I have told you before."

      Speaking of the aspirations, ideals, and language of the "modern world," with its great commercial enterprises, grounded upon faith in the powers of man, and [149] ruled by the principle of consolidation, the Modernists say:--

      "We have set to work to master that language, to grasp those ideals, (in order) to complete the reconciliation of the old Catholic tradition with the new thought and new social aspirations. Through a living, and not merely local, contact with the world in which we dwell, we have come to dream of a GREAT UNIFICATION" (p. 136).

      The great system of the end is now so close at hand that men of every nation, class of life, and religious preconceptions, are catching a view of it, and are filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur and magnificence of the sight. The Modernists understand perfectly the source of this inspiration. It comes, as they plainly say, from the World in which they dwell, and they have obtained it by a living instead of merely a local contact with it. This thrilling and inspiring vision is not for those who set their affections on things above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God; it is not for those who have died with Him to the world and its things, and whose life is hid with Christ in God (Col. iii. 2, 3). It is for those whose life is in the world, who boast of a living contact with it, and whose affections are set on things below "where Satan's throne is" (Rev. ii. 13). It is, say the Modernists, through a living contact with "the world in which we dwell." And thus is being fulfilled that which was written by the seer of Patmos when he beheld, eighteen centuries ago, the symbolic [150] vision of the great Unification, and when, in speaking of its animating spirit, he said: "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names are not written in the book of life of the slain Lamb." "And he causeth the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast." "And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by means of those miracles which he had power to do" (Rev. xiii. 8, 12, 14).

      And furthermore, the Modernists are fully imbued with the spirit of the age, in that they look to the power of man himself to bring about this great unification of the religious and industrial affairs of all mankind, in identifying themselves with the "democratic movement," and in proposing to found the new edifice upon the basis of contemporary science and philosophy. They say:--

      "We have girt ourselves for the task of bringing the religious experience of Christianity into line with the data of contemporary science and philosophy, and of emphasizing the religious and Christian elements that go to the constitution of the democratic movement" (p. 136).

      Finally, they truly speak of "contemporary civilization" as being "saturated with the scientific spirit and eager with democratic aspirations," and confidently predict the "inevitable ascendency of the democracy."

      The "great Unification," whatever its name may be, is indeed inevitable; and the principles of [151] Democracy are undoubtedly among the potent factors that are operating to bring it into existence. Thus, whichever of the great movements of the day we may follow, it brings us at the end of its course to the exaltation of Man to the supreme place, and to the consolidation into one colossal system of all the interests and affairs of humanity.

      Nebuchadnezzar, the great head of the greatest world-power, had a dream of "a great image, whose brightness was excellent: and the form thereof was terrible" (Dan. ii. 31). Probably it was in an attempt to represent this vision that the king made an image of gold, and set it up in the plain of Dura, and called upon all them that dwell upon the earth, of all "peoples, nations, and languages" to fall down and worship the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up (Dan. iii. 1-5).

      And now, in the latter days, the Modernists (both within the Church of Rome and without it) are coming to dream of a great image whose form is imposing and awe-inspiring, and whose brightness is excellent. We cannot doubt that there is a terrible reality corresponding to this dream, and which will surely form a dominating part of the "religious experience" of all those who dwell upon the earth; for they will be compelled to worship the image of the beast. It likewise will be an image of gold, since money is the form of the chief idol to which the people of this idolatrous age are bowing; and it will in some way greatly surpass the image set up in the plain of Dura, for, while [152] the number of the latter was sixty and six, the number of its antitype will be six hundred and sixty and six.⁶

      "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast."

      Those who fail to count the number accurately, and to perceive that it is the number of Man, will doubtless be among the company of those who worship the beast and his image, and who have his mark in their right hands or in their foreheads.

      The purpose of Modernism, and the formidable character of the movement, can best be learned by reference to the Encyclical letter which the present occupant of the papal chair has issued against it. This remarkable document occupies more than one hundred closely printed octavo pages. In perusing the quotations which follow, the reader must remember that these scorching and blistering words of invective and denunciation are not directed against heretics or opponents of the Roman Catholic Church, but against members of its hierarchy, who are actively ministering at its altars and preaching to its people. And in order to measure the defiance and self-confidence of the Modernists, the reader should also [153] member that this Encyclical is published by the Modernists themselves as an appendix to the "Programme of Modernism," from which the foregoing quotations have been taken.

      Furthermore, the reader will notice that the language employed by the Pope to characterize the doctrines and aims of Modernism is not less severe, but rather more so, than that used by the present writer, who, therefore, cannot be justly accused of exaggerating the significance of this new, but powerful, movement.

      The Pope, at the beginning of the document, calls attention to the--

      "notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church"; and who "assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man."

      These, surely, are the terms of indignation which an Evangelical Christian would use to describe the purposes of the Modernists.

      The Pope, in scathing language, but with singular lucidity, describes the method employed by the Modernists, and other schools of Rationalists and Higher Critics, in arriving at their "assured results." Their method is to decide as to the truthfulness of any statement of Scripture, and particularly of any act [154] or words attributed therein to the Lord Jesus Christ, by considering what they themselves would have been likely to do or say under similar circumstances.

      There is not, and never has been, any evidence to support the conclusions of the Higher Critics. All they have to go upon is the text of the sacred writings itself. It is purely by the exercise of their own intuitive perceptions that they are enabled to split up a book of Scripture into numerous fragments, to assign various bits of the dismembered whole to different "sources," to say whether a given passage is or is not "genuine," to pass upon its authorship, and to give the approximate date at which it was written. It is, of course, impossible for an outsider to bring these "results" to any test, for his inability to recognize their validity is, according to higher critical standards, conclusive evidence that he is destitute of the intuitive powers which the critics employ in reaching them. Moreover, there is no test to which they can be brought. The evidence on which they rest cannot be examined, f or they do not rest on evidence. Hence it is at the peril of one's reputation for both scholarship and mental acumen, and of being disapproved as hopelessly behind the science of the age, that one dares to question any of these "results." This risk is too great for many of the present generation of theologians (particularly its younger members) to incur; and in this way the ranks of the higher critics are recruited. [155]

      The Pope thus describes their method:--

      "Their method is to put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then to attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. They proclaim that Christ was not God, and never did anything Divine; and that, as man, He did and said only what they, judging from the time in which He lived, consider that He ought to have said and done" (p. 199).

      And the Pope speaks of:--

      "Their boundless effrontery by which, if one of them makes any utterance, the others applaud him in chorus, proclaiming that science has made another step forward; while if an outsider should desire to, inspect the new discovery for himself, they form a coalition against him. He who denies is decried as one who is ignorant; and he who embraces and defends it has all their praise" (p. 205).

      "The domineering overbearance of those who teach the errors, and the thoughtless compliance of the more shallow minds who assent to them, create a corrupted atmosphere which penetrates everywhere, and carries infection with it" (p. 205).

      "They are ready to admit, nay to proclaim, that Christ Himself manifestly erred in determining the time when the Kingdom of God was to take place." [156]

      Evidently the Pope classes the Modernists among those of whom the Apostle Peter spoke in saying: "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts (or inclinations), and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" (2 Pet. iii. 3, 4).

      The Pope calls particular attention to that prominent doctrine of Modernism which declares that, in every man, believer and unbeliever alike, is the germ of the Christ-nature. This, as we have seen, is the essence of the new Religion which has sprung up simultaneously in so many different quarters, and under different names, but which is best described as "Humanism,"--the attribution to man of the Divine nature. On this point he says:--

      "They would show to the non-believer, as hidden in himself, the very germ which Christ had in His consciousness, and which He transmitted to mankind" (p. 211).

      We see from this statement that Mr. R. J. Campbell was fully justified in claiming that Modernism is in substance the same movement in the Church of Rome which is, outside that system, known as the New Theology.

      As to what necessarily follows from the teaching of the Modernists, the Pope says:--

      "The rigorous conclusion from this is the identity of man with God, which means Pantheism." [157]

      It would be more accurate to say that the identification of man with God means Humanism; although many (but not all) forms of Humanism do, indeed, identify the universe also with God, which is Pantheism.

      We thus see, both from our own examination, and from the Pope's thorough study and lucid description of the movement known as Modernism, that its essential principle is identical with that of the new theologies, and of infidel Socialism.

      Thus the attention of the world is being insistently called to a platform, already in process of construction, and rapidly nearing completion, whereupon New Theology, infidel Socialism, Humanism of all varieties, and Modernised Romanism, may stand shoulder to shoulder, and may enjoy congenial fellowship, while striving for that great ideal--the Unification of Humanity through the exercise of its own inherent powers.

      As to the effect of Modernism, the Pope has this to say:--

      "Their system means the destruction, not only of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion."

      This is undoubtedly true in the sense intended, for by "religion" the Pope means Christianity; but, to be more precise, the effect of the system will be, not to destroy all religion, but rather to establish an universal Religion, embracing the secular as well as the [158] spiritual interests of humanity, and exercising authority over all human beings and In respect of all human affairs.

      Or, in other words, the Modernists have "girt themselves for the task" of bringing into existence precisely that sort of a Consolidation as is pictured in the 13th chapter of Revelation, in which task they are being effectively aided by nearly all discernible human activities, and, most effectively of all, by the mighty spirit that now energizes in the sons of disobedience (Eph. ii. 2).

      The Pope pronounces his judgment upon the whole system of Modernism in these notable and weighty words:--

      "And now, with our eyes fixed on the whole system, no one will be surprised that we should define it as the SYNTHESIS OF ALL HERESIES."

      That is to say, all heresies combined into one system.

      The Protestant reader, having some idea of the power of the Pope over members of the Catholic hierarchy, and of the doctrine of papal infallibility, may well 'ask whether such a scorching blast as this from the Vatican will not instantly wither Modernism to its very roots, and scatter its fragments like chaff to the four quarters of the earth. The answer is, that it will have no such effect. This tremendous papal utterance is treated by the Modernists as a mere criticism upon their aims and doctrines, and as a comment so harmless that they can, without [159] prejudice to the task for which they have girt themselves, print and circulate it in various languages. Will the Encyclical arrest Modernism? On the contrary, it will simply test and bring into display the strength of that movement. It may curb the outward activities of the Modernists for a season; but their view of the matter is that the present Pope is an accident--"a parenthesis," as he has been styled--and when his little interval of power is ended, then the movement will proceed with increased vigour and accelerated pace. And, perhaps, the next Pope may be a Modernist himself! Stranger things have happened in Rome.

      Once more we change our point of view in order to take a look at another movement of thought, which, after all, is not a different movement, as will be speedily seen, but merely a phase of the movement we have been already considering. This phase of the present drift of things has for its prophet and historian, Rev. Dr. Newman Smythe of New Haven, a Protestant clergyman.

      Dr. Smythe's "Coming Catholicism" is not that ancient ecclesiastical system known as Roman Catholicism. The latter is not in reality catholic, whereas the catholicism which Dr. Smythe's prophetic gaze has decried is a religious system which shall be really universal. It will command the assent of all mankind, and be the religion of a consolidated humanity. [160]

      Dr. Smythe discerns unmistakable signs of the coming of this great ecclesiastical system, and he gives excellent reasons for the predictions he makes. The reader will probably be prepared to accept Dr. Smythe's main conclusion, particularly when he learns that the "Coming Catholicism" is to be a grand combination of Business and Religion, that its religious framework is to be something worthy of "a world of titanic, industrial forces," and that the principle which stimulates the movement is the exaltation of Man, by means of his own achievements, to the place of God.

      The full title of the book from which we will now present extracts is "The Passing Protestantism and the Coming Catholicism."

      It will be startling to some readers to find a Protestant clergyman calmly directing attention to the "passing of Protestantism," just as it will startle others to find the Pope of Rome denouncing a strictly Romanist movement as the "synthesis of all heresies." But we are living in a day of strange events; and others yet more strange are coming swiftly.

      The author of "Coming Catholicism" first proposes the important questions: "What can Christianity now do in the world?" "What shall be the religious life of the people?" What is the prospect for "a reunited Christianity"? And we may briefly anticipate his detailed answers to these questions by saying that Dr. Smythe fully shares the views of Mr. Campbell, Dr. Gordon, and the Modernists, to the [161] effect that the prospects of "a reunited Christianity" are excellent, and that those prospects are to be realized by the establishment of a religious system from which Christ Himself shall be wholly excluded, along with everything which heretofore has been regarded as distinctively "Christian."

      Dr. Smythe calls attention at the outset to the unusual religious activity which has been observable for some years past, and which has resulted in the disintegration of systems that have, for a long time, been fairly stable in doctrine and observances, He says that "it has of late years been the breaking up rather than the making of creeds"; and he makes the very important statement that--

      "there are to be discerned signs of the passing of the Protestant age of history" (p. 8).

      In this connection the author notes, and very clearly sets forth, some of the signs which justify the foregoing statement, such as--

      "the relaxation of authority in our Protestant Churches." "Religion has lost authority in the family life." He notes "The weakening of religious restraints among the children of Protestants"; whereas "Romanism speaks with authority to the whole family" (p. 15).

      We cannot quote extensively from this part of the book; but the foregoing passages will suffice to show that Dr. Smythe has examined the surface conditions of our times to good purpose. [162]

      The immediate result of this, he thinks, is that people,--

      "may now seek after new cults, or remain content with feeling themselves to be religious in general, with no beliefs in particular."

      But such condition could only be a transition stage. Such a general breaking up of long-existing systems must be the preparation for a change of some unusual sort. And Dr. Smythe is evidently impressed with the very significant fact that this disintegration of ecclesiastical systems is accompanied by a revolt against the existing economic system, and also by many and striking indications of the coming of a NEW SOCIAL ORDER.

      Dr. Smythe is only one of many observers who note the breaking up of existing religious systems, and the relaxation of the hold of the churches and their ministers upon the consciences, and even upon the interest and attention, of the people. The evidences of this disintegration are so pronounced as to alarm even the editor of one of the popular American magazines, who, confounding (as most people do) the ecclesiastical institutions of this Sardis state of the Church--which have a name that they live but are dead (Rev. iii. 1) with real "Christianity," expresses the fear that "Christianity is dying, and dying fast." This editor, in order to aid in averting what he regards as a threatened calamity, has procured the assistance of a minister well known on both sides of the Atlantic, Dr. Charles H. Aked, giving to the latter a [163] commission to write a series of articles under the significant title of the "Salvation of Christianity." These articles are now appearing at the rate of one a month. The most interesting point about them is the fact that, what Dr. Aked, and those who share his views, regard as "Christianity," is deemed by them to be now in such a bad case as to require special efforts for its "Salvation." But, happily, what Dr. Aked regards as "Christianity" is something quite different from true Christianity, and is, in fact, not worth saving. If it were, Dr. Aked's remedy would certainly hasten its demise, for that remedy consists, so far as disclosed, mainly in repudiating every important item of Christian doctrine. This popular preacher declares that "the old motives and sanctions and prohibitions have lost their hold: the new are not sufficiently grasped by preachers nor understood by the people."⁷

      It is true that the old sanctions, etc., have lost their hold upon many preachers, though not yet upon all. It must also be conceded that the departure from the old faith which Dr. Aked, Mr. Campbell, Dr. Gordon, and other popular leaders so loudly proclaim, and in which they openly rejoice, has made rapid headway in a very short time, and seems still to be gathering strength and speed. But the matter of chief interest to us at this point is, not what these leaders are leading their followers away from, or how numerous are the religious crowds that are following them, but to what are they leading them? As to this vital matter [164] Dr. Aked has nothing definite to tell his hearers. He can only inform them that "the old" is gone, and that for "the new," they must "wait the larger prophecy, more spiritual vision, and virile preaching of the coming days."

      This surely is a dubious and cheerless state in which to be left; for the blind followers of this blind leader are not told how long they will have to wait for this "larger prophecy," etc., or whence these misty creatures are to come, or what they will be like when they arrive.

      But to return to Dr. Newman Smythe, whose vision is decidedly clearer than that of Dr. Aked. The former, after noting the process of the decadence and disintegration of Protestantism, now far advanced, turns his attention hopefully towards Modernism, and speaks approvingly of what he calls the Modernists'--

      "appeal to the Pope for reform and liberty, and for the reconciliation of the Church with modern thought."

      Dr. Smythe is fully persuaded that the salvation of the "Church" depends upon such radical modification of its doctrines and observances as will make it entirely satisfactory to "the world." The latter long ago recorded its judgment upon Christ, and put that judgment into bloody execution. Whatever changes have since that day taken place in the world, there has been none in respect of its hatred toward Christ and toward all who are true to Him and to His teaching. Its settled determination may still find apt [165] expression in the saying, "We will not have this man to reign over us" (Luke xix. 14). But the world is quite willing and even eager to arrange a compromise with a Church which has abandoned Christ and His doctrine; and there are many who think that, upon this condition, the world would even submit to be ruled by a religious system bearing the name of "Christianity." The writer, however, is not of that opinion, for the Scriptures indicate that the "Coming Catholicism" will not be Christian even in name.

      Dr. Smythe states the case thus:--

      "A WORLD of titanic industrial forces is not to be ruled by a Christianity divided in its own house against itself" (p. 33).

      We call particular attention to these words, because they very aptly and forcibly set forth the predominating characteristics of the modern world. Its forces are "industrial," and their scale is indeed "titanic." The imperative need, then, is for a Religion which is adapted to a world given over to industrialism on a gigantic scale; and the judgment of the best religious experts, based upon the sure test of experience, is, that the ecclesiastical systems which have hitherto existed, Catholic and Protestant, are utterly unsuited to this imperative requirement. The requirement, therefore, must be met by means of constructive religious work on a scale commensurate with the titanic industrial forces which the genius of man has brought into operation. We have every reason to [166] believe that a need so pressing will be met, and that speedily.

      Touching the prospect of there being devised a religious system such as the characteristics of the age require, Dr. Smythe has much to say. And indeed, when one considers what Man has done in the industrial field, there seems no reason to doubt that the "spirit of the world" (1 Cor. ii. 12) is equal to the evolution of a religious and ecclesiastical system which shall meet satisfactorily all the requirements of the case.

      Dr. Smythe, in this connection, quotes an Oxford lecturer who describes himself as looking for--

      "the rise of a new religious order, the greatest that the world has known, drawn from all nations and all classes, and what seems stranger yet, from all Churches" (p. 36).

      This expectation is well founded. Indeed, one is struck by the language in which this seer describes his vision. His language resembles (though he, of course, was quite unconscious of it) that employed by the seer of Patmos: "I saw a beast rise up out of the sea." "And power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations; and all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the slain Lamb " (Rev. xiii. 1, 7, 8).

      Dr. Smythe defines the Modernist movement as--

      "an endeavour of loyal Catholics to adapt the Roman Church to the thought and life, of the modern world." [167]

      And he says that some Protestant observers who are in close touch with it believe it is destined to be--

      "the greatest religious movement since the time of the Reformation."

      Dr. Smythe is a judicious commentator on current events. Although greatly impressed with the vital force of Modernism, he does not expect to see the "Programme of Modernism" fully carried out. Nor is this needful to the end in view. In a situation where there are many bodies moving simultaneously along lines which are, in a general way, converging, there are likely to be, before the final goal is reached, some meetings and coalescences between those bodies that are contiguous to each other; and such occurrences would be likely to produce changes in form, mass, and name. Such a meeting and coalescence of two bodies might seemingly bring their respective movements to an end; but in reality those movements would proceed under another form, and possibly with even increased momentum.

      Dr. Smythe regards Modernism, not as a finality, but as a mediating movement; and he accordingly divides his treatment of the entire subject into three parts, which he, with pleasing alliteration, entitles respectively, "Passing Protestantism," "Mediating Modernism," and "Coming Catholicism."

      Of the origin of Modernism, Dr. Smythe says that it--

      "had its early spring in Biblical and historical criticism" (p. 55). [168]

      Springing from such a source, we should know about what to expect as to the results and ultimate destiny of the movement.

      The Modernists, says Dr. Smythe--

      "are in the stream; they are afloat on the world's present thought and life."

      Many such passages emphasize the fact that the great value of Modernism, in the eyes of this Protestant observer, is its powerful influence in breaking down completely the distinction (which has in many quarters long ceased to be a reality) between the Church and the world, and in bringing about the thorough identification of the former with the ideals and aspirations of the world and its god.

      Coming to the heart of Modernism, that which constitutes the essential doctrine of the Modernists, Dr. Smythe makes the following important statement:--

      "They are influenced by one of the profoundest and most vitalizing faiths which are now pervading and renewing the Protestant world. In its simplicity this is the belief that GOD IS IN MAN; that the Divine is present in the thoughts of men, to be known in the experience of men."

      We must perforce yield assent to the statement that this profound faith ("the depths of Satan") is indeed pervading and transforming the Protestant "world." This profound faith is, in fact, simply the essential doctrine of Humanism, i. e. the divinity of humanity, which has now so often come under our notice, and which will be encountered wherever there [169] is perceived, in apostate and corrupt Christendom, any manifestation of real religious activity.

      Again, Dr. Smythe says:--

      "In this faith in God's manifestation of Himself in and through human experience, progressive Catholics are certainly in the same stream that has vivified and renewed our whole modern theology."

      These statements are very explicit. They stand in no need of explanation. If Dr. Smythe has rightly observed current events, and has correctly reported what he has seen, modern theology as a whole has been renewed and quickened by a single article of faith, namely, the simple belief that God is in man, and that the doings of corrupt humanity ("human experience") are the manifestations of God.

      What is the source of this radical article of faith, and upon what authority does it rest? The assertion of man's divinity is made again and again, by this and other popular religious writers, and with the utmost assurance; but never yet has the present author heard of any evidence, or anything even purporting to be evidence, being offered in support of it. When the prophets of old came with instruction for men, they declared that their message was from God. "This we say unto you by the word of the Lord," was the sufficient reason why the saying should be heeded. But the messages which those men brought--and which, instead of receiving large salaries for bringing them, they themselves paid for in persecution, [170] imprisonment, and death--invariably proclaimed that man, so far from being divine, was full of corruption and violence, unrighteous, ungodly, under condemnation, had gone out of the way; and that the doings of man, so far from manifesting God, were unequivocally evil in His sight. Those messages, purporting to come directly from God Himself, so far from announcing that "the Divine is present in the thoughts of man," declared explicitly that "God is not in all his thoughts" (Ps. x. 4). On the contrary, they expressly declared of man that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Gen. vi. 5).

      No one will deny that a cardinal doctrine of Christianity has always heretofore been that man is by nature a sinner, separated by his sin an immeasurable distance from God, who is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity (Hab. i. 13). This doctrine rested for its support upon the Book which has always, until within recent times, been regarded among professing Christians as the Word of God. There thus existed at least a valid and sufficient reason for the acceptance of the doctrine of the corruption of human nature. Moreover, it is quite inconceivable that a doctrine so utterly repugnant to the natural man could have had a human origin. The natural disposition of man is to think well of himself and to find plausible excuses for his shortcomings; and man's books always present him and his doings in a favourable light. The account which the [171] Bible, in all its parts, gives of the nature of man, his character, his deeds, his works, and his doom, is one of the characteristics which distinguish that book in the clearest way from all books of human authorship. But what we wish specially to emphasize is that there was (and yet remains) a valid and sufficient reason for the doctrine, taught by holy men of old, and by the Lord Jesus Christ, that man is by his natural birth ungodly, and that he needs to be begotten again of the Spirit of God, in order even to see the Kingdom of God.

      On the other hand, the modern doctrine concerning man, which is just the reverse of the doctrine of the Bible, is promulgated, and is received in many quarters, without in any case the faintest semblance of supporting proof, without citation of any authority for it, and without any account whatever of its origin. It is easy to see that the apostles of this "profound faith" rely for its acceptance wholly upon the fact that it is well-pleasing to man to hear himself proclaimed to be divine. The era of the freedom of thought and opinion from all authority has been proclaimed; and this is a state wherein man is at liberty to believe exactly what suits him. And to think of himself "as God" suits him exactly.

      Nevertheless, this "profound faith," which has "renewed our whole modern theology," did not originate with man, much less with modern man. Its origin is directly traceable to that ancient promise, which has been the spring and inspiration of all [172] human progress and civilization, namely: "Ye shall not surely die. Ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil." And the time has now come when that old serpent, the arch-deceiver, who, by means of this promise, lured man to his destruction, finds mouthpieces in every religious denomination through which he may proclaim to mankind that the promise has at last been fulfilled, and that man has become "as God."

      Dr. Smythe very plainly teaches that the authority by which doctrine is to be judged is in man himself--"in the individual conscience"--and hence that there is no need of external authority. If a proposition commends itself to man's ideas, then he may (and indeed must) accept it as truth. He says that:--

      "Divine authority is indeed primarily the truth as witnessed by the spirit in the individual conscience" (p. 90);

      and while Dr. Smythe gives this as the doctrine of the Modernists, it plainly has his own approval.

      Again he says:--

      "It is love of truth that inspires those two factors of modern civilization--science and democracy."

      And he asks:--

      "With such allies what cause can fail?" (p. 95).

      We would direct special attention to this statement, for it is of fundamental importance. It must depend [173] for its acceptance wholly upon the extravagant commendation it bestows on human institutions. Man prides himself on his modern science and his democracy. It pleases him well to be told that these are "two factors of modern civilization," and that with such allies no cause can fail. Man will, therefore, demand no proof to support the statement that it is "love of the truth" which inspires these two factors, whereby the cause of humanity is to be triumphantly established. But there is, nevertheless, another view of the matter, and one which does not depend for its support upon its acceptability to the natural heart of man. If there is "the truth" to be loved and sought, there is also "the lie" to be hated and shunned. The doctrine of the divinity of man is either one of the greatest of all truths, or it is one of the greatest of all lies. It can occupy no middle ground. If the old doctrine of the corruption of human nature is the truth, then the modern (and ancient) doctrine that man is (or should become) "as God" is the lie. The original text of 2 Thess. ii. 11 speaks, not of a lie, but of the lie; and to what can this refer but to that first of all lies, namely, that man should eventually become, through the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge, as God? We are come at last to a time in which men are, in great masses, accepting this doctrine; and those who proclaim it declare that it is "the love of the truth" which inspires the factors of man's uplift to the Divine plane. But the Bible, while clearly predicting the time of acceptance of this doctrine, assigns [174] to its acceptance an explanation which is the reverse of that given by Dr. Smythe. The Bible says that the acceptance of the lie will be because men would not receive the love of the truth. "Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved," "for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie" (2 Thess. ii. 10, 11).

      Here again we have the teaching of the Bible and that of the popular modern theology in direct opposition one to the other. All must agree that, if one of these utterances is "the truth," the other is "the lie"; and each must for himself decide which is which.

      Dr. Smythe further says:--

      "Modernism is not a schism, breaking off at a single point: it is laying broad foundations of religion in history, science, and democracy" (p. 109).

      We deem it important to note the unanimity of the modern theologians in regarding the old "foundations" of faith as having been destroyed, and in speaking of new foundations for religion being laid in history, science, and democracy. And it is important to note further that these foundations are entirely man's work. History, science, and democracy are purely human institutions.

      All this is but affirming, under another form of words, the doctrine of the divinity of Man; for in this "religion," based on history, science, and democracy, God has no place at all, except as He is identical with Man. [175]

      But the great currency which has been given to phrases such as that last quoted, shows that modern man is not only ready to accept, without any proof whatever, the most radical statements, provided they be sufficiently flattering to himself, but that he is even ready to accept, upon the same condition, statements which are utterly void of sense or meaning. For it is palpable nonsense to say that any religious faith can be based on either history, science, or democracy. History and science give us a mixture of facts and fables, the former dealing with the doings of man in the past, and the latter dealing with the substances and forces of nature. But religious faith has to do entirely with matters beyond the sphere both of scientific investigations and of historic inquiries. And to speak of laying foundations of religion in democracy is so utterly void of sense or meaning as to be incapable even of examination. Yet such phrases as these are entirely satisfactory to the modern man; and that being so they possess the only sanction that is supposed to be required.

      Of the present Pope and his efforts to suppress Modernism, and to interfere with its programme, Dr. Smythe says:--

      "The present Pope is a parenthesis. Some parentheses of history have been long drawn out; but always God's sentence goes on to its full period. The reaction of Pius x. is an interruption. Modernism runs in the main line of the [176]

      thought and intent of Christian civilization" (p. 118).

      Dr. Smythe therefore confidently expects that the interests of Christian civilization will be promoted by that movement which the Pope calls the "Synthesis of all heresies."

      The last section of Dr. Smythe's book is prophetic in form and substance. Its title is the "Coming Catholicism." This universal religion, shortly to be established in the earth, is, as Dr. Smythe sees it, an ecclesiastical system so broad, so liberal, and so accommodating, that all phases of religious thought may find a place in it. Man is to build his own religious temple, and when completed it is to be greatly to his credit and entirely to his liking. The author says:--

      "The time, men are saying, seems ripe for something" (p. 175).

      To this statement all thoughtful observers will assent; and they who believe "the sure word of prophecy" must agree with Dr. Smythe, that there shall indeed be established on earth a religious system, of the general character described by him, and which will be so nearly universal that it may properly be called the coming "Catholicism." But, on the other hand, believers in the prophetic Scriptures will vigorously protest against Dr. Smythe's reference to this "New Catholicism" as the "further coming of Christ." They declare that, on the contrary, it will be the coming of Antichrist, the advent of that [177] potentate whose coming shall be after the working of Satan, and whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His appearing. They have authority for this belief, even the sure word of prophecy. What authority does Dr. Smythe cite for his? None whatever.

      Dr. Smythe further argues the coming of the great Unification of Mankind from consideration of--

      "the political process through which Internationalism is taking form and substance" (p. 198).

      The process to which the author here refers is one of the most significant phenomena of the day. The tendency of industrial interests to override and disregard national and geographical boundaries is distinctly a modern development, and this had to come before there could be any unification of peoples of different nationalities. This process is aptly called "Internationalism." For the purposes of certain businesses, such as the gigantic steel industry, for example, national boundaries have already been practically blotted out; and, it is evident that as business, i. e. the pursuit of wealth, becomes more and more the paramount concern of humanity, there will be developed an increasingly powerful motive for international federation. The fulfilment of prophecy requires an industrial and religious system which shall exercise a brief control throughout all lands, and over all kindreds and tongues and nations; and Dr. [178] Smythe rightly says that a political process is even now in operation which is giving form and substance to such a system. He adds:--

      "A federation of industrial interests throughout the world, and a peaceful reign of international law, are now much advocated. These ideas have entered as a social ferment into the politics of the world in this century."

      "The forerunner of a world's peaceful commerce and industry calls to the Churches to repent of their strife" (p. 198).

      Here, then, is another observer who, from his watchtower, discerns the approach of the great Consolidation, and who describes to us its main features as being just those predicted in Rev. xiii. The coming system which he sees near at hand is "a federation of industrial interests"; it is to extend "throughout the world"; it calls for a corresponding religious federation; and it is the product of ideas which have entered as a ferment (leaven) into the politics of the world in this century.

      But this coming system, the monstrous combination of religion and trade, will not be, as Dr. Smythe calls it, another Christianity--"the Christianity that is to be." There cannot be another Christianity. The only reason why that much-abused name is applied by some modern prophets to the coming ecclesiasticism, is that it is possible thereby to deceive many as to the real nature and source of this system. Such, [179] doubtless, will be the effect, upon some minds, of the following passage:--

      "The Christianity that now is must give its baptism to the Christianity that is to be."

      "From the baptism of this spirit may proceed,--perhaps sooner than men may think or dream,--the age of the one Holy Catholic Church. And if the age of Protestantism which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is with glory" (p. 208).

      It would be instructive to consider this coming religion, as described by its heralds and apostles, for the special purpose of comparing what it offers to men with the offer of that gospel which has been preached from of old "with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." One who examines the new system for this purpose will quickly discover that it contains practically nothing for the individual soul. Beyond the dubious privilege of holding whatever religious opinions he may prefer, and of participating to some undefined extent in the general prosperity which is to be attained in the dim future, the new religion offers nothing to the individual man. We hear only of vaguely defined benefits to "humanity," "mankind," "society," "the race." Mankind as an entity is to triumph, to be enriched, to enter a state of peace and safety, etc.

      On the other hand, the God of the Bible is the God of the individual--the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and [180] of Jacob. The Good Shepherd knows His sheep and calls them by name. Instead of vague benefits to the race, at some indefinite and far-off time, the believer in Christ has the offer of the immediate remission of his sins, of personal salvation, of eternal life, of an incorruptible inheritance, and of the gift of the Holy Spirit as the earnest of that inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. He has also the assurance of membership in the body of Christ, a prepared place in the Father's house, a share in the glory of the Son of God, and joint heirship with Him Whom the Father hath appointed the Heir of all things. Instead of extolling the solidarity of Man, the pardoned sinner can speak of "the Son of God Who loved me and gave himself for me"; (Gal. ii. 20); and instead of looking away to a "unified humanity," which fallible and dying men tell him is to rise out of the earth long after he himself shall have gone down into the night of death, he looks for the Son of God from heaven, Whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus Who delivered us from the wrath to come (1 Thess. i. 10).

      If, then, man be really free in matters of religion to choose what he likes, as these new theologies declare, and if truth in reality be whatever one pleases to believe, what stupendous folly it would be to exchange the unsearchable riches of Christ for the emptiness and utter destitution of the New Theology? And if the believer be assured, in the name of modern science and scholarship, that his Christ is a myth, he [181] can well afford to say that his mythical Christ, and the salvation wrought and brought by Him, are of far greater value than all the promises of the new religion, which, in fact, has no promise at all for the needy and suffering of this present generation.

      The whole system is so empty, so plainly--to all who have eyes to see--a gigantic deception, a stupendous fraud, a disordered vision of this night of superstition, credulity and folly,--that nothing short of supernatural power could give it any acceptance among men; especially in a world which God so loved as to give His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John iii. 16). How great, then, must be the power of deception exercised by "that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which DECEIVETH THE WHOLE WORLD," and who is the author of that immensely popular religious system which has for its cardinal doctrine the assurance that man should eventually be, and has now at last become, "as God!"

      The subject of Spiritism is too large for anything like a thorough consideration in this volume. But for present purposes we require only a brief reference to this movement, our object being merely to consider the part assigned to it in shaping the ultimate ecclesiasticism.

      At first glance there would appear to be no relation whatever between the new rationalistic theologies, [182] which claim to be highly "scientific," and which make a point of discrediting all the supernatural elements of Christianity, and the essentially supernatural cult of Spiritism. Indeed, there is ostensibly no relation between these several movements. Nevertheless, Spiritism is working towards the very same result as the advanced theologies, and is playing an important part in accomplishing that result.

      In the first place, let it be remembered that the new theologies and their author have no enmity towards the supernatural broadly, but only towards the supernatural elements of Christianity. In the second place, the new theologians discredit the supernatural simply because it is (or until very recently was) deemed necessary for a man to do so in order to enjoy a reputation for being "'scientific." It follows that, as soon as "Science" shall countenance the supernatural, the progressive theologians will make haste to put themselves on the new "foundation."

      Now, the most striking present-day development in Spiritism is the fact that scientific men, including some of the first rank, are giving their countenance to it, and are vouching for the genuineness of its phenomena. Further reference will be made to this.

      Again, the average man does by nature thoroughly believe in, we might even say recognize, a supernatural sphere; though many conceal their real sentiments on this subject out of deference to the attitude of "Science." Hence there must needs be provision in [183] the new religious system for this feature of human nature.

      It must also be remembered that Satan is himself a spirit (Eph. ii. 2, 1 Cor. ii. 12, 1 John iv. 6), and his religious have all a predominant supernatural element.

      Finally, the prophecies we have examined lay much stress upon the supernatural demonstrations which are to attend the establishment of the last great religious-commercial system, "The Spirit speaketh EXPRESSLY that in the LATTER TIMES some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Tim. iv. 1, Gr.). One of the end-time doctrines, to which this passage refers, and which is to be supernaturally taught is "forbidding to marry." We note this in passing, intending to deal with it later on.

      With these prophecies in mind we would naturally look about among the current human activities to discover where the predicted supernatural elements of the ultimate religion were to come from; and there would be an important factor missing if the source of these elements were not to be found. But the source of that important factor is in full view; and not only so, but is likewise supplying at the present moment its special contribution to the religio-commercial prodigy of the end-times.

      A few facts in connection with spiritism will show that the spirit of evil and his subordinate hosts are [184] at this very moment actively preparing this important part of the mystery of iniquity.

      Whereas, until within a very recent time spiritism was generally discredited, its alleged phenomena scouted and ridiculed (especially in scientific circles), and its "mediums" denounced as charlatans and impostors, all this has now changed. Not only are the phenomena of Spiritism seriously investigated by sceptical scientific men, whom it is not easy to deceive as to physical occurrences, but they are vouched for as having stood every conceivable scientific test. Men of high repute for intelligence and learning have publicly given their countenance to spiritism; but, as we maintain, these, "scientists" have been the dupes of the "deceiving spirits" to the extent that the former have been led to regard the latter as the discarnate spirits of the human dead. Among the prominent men of science who have, to this extent, enrolled themselves among the Spiritists, mention may be made of Sir William Crookes and Sir Oliver Lodge, who have in recent years devoted much time to the investigation of this class of phenomena.

      Of course, this puts Spiritism before the public in an entirely new light; and with such endorsements, the former fear of, and contempt for, this dangerous cult are being rapidly dispelled, and are indeed being replaced by deference and respect. The way is thus being prepared for new and ever widening spheres of [185] demoniacal activity, and for the supply of new and more efficient human channels, or "mediums," through which the spirits may operate.

      Sir Oliver Lodge, in a recent utterance, declared that the partition between the natural and the supernatural is "wearing thin in places." Such is indeed the case; and those who know and believe their Bibles, regard this as one of the surest indications of the near coming of Christ.

      From this recent and unexpected development of Spiritism we may learn how readily Satan is able to supply himself with a new source of authority. It is obviously in keeping with the doctrine of the divinity of man to believe that human beings who have "passed beyond" are more enlightened touching the unseen things than those who are yet in the body.

      In harmony with this, Mr. Campbell in his New Theology teaches that--

      "Physical death is not the all-important event which theologians have usually made it out to be; it is only a bend in the road. My own impression is that when we individually pass through this crisis we shall find the change to be very slight. It will mean the dropping of the scales from the eyes, and that is about all."

      This is the teaching of Spiritism; and such teaching manifestly opens the door very wide to the promulgation and acceptance by credulous humanity of the "doctrines of demons."

      We deem it highly important that the readers of [186] these pages should be fully informed concerning the strange and ominous alliance which has been recently effected between Physical Science, represented by the well-known names already mentioned, and the evil cult of Spiritism. Great publicity has been given to this alliance through a "report" recently published (January, 1909), setting forth the results of certain elaborate experiments conducted by Sir Oliver Lodge and other members of the British Society for Psychical Research. These experiments constituted an attempt "to carry on definite, unmistakable communications with the spirits of F. W. H. Myers and Dr. Richard Hodgson." The former was, in his lifetime, the secretary and active director of the above-named society, and the latter is spoken of as "a clergyman, poet, classical scholar, and scientist."

      One of the committee to which the management of the "sittings" was entrusted was Mr. G. W. Balfour, who is also the president of the society. Under such auspices the proceedings have a standing before the public which fully commends them and their "results" to all but the spiritually enlightened. An account published in the New York Times, says that "the report has excited a tremendous commotion in scientific and religious circles in England." No doubt. "Science" and "religion" find a community of interest in Spiritism.

      These experiments were conducted pursuant to an arrangement made by Messrs. Myers and Hodgson during their lifetime, and were carried on with every [187] precaution against dishonesty or self-deception on the part of the mediums.

      These mediums or "psychics," through whom the experiments were carried on, were all women. Their names, as published, were Mrs. Piper, Mrs. Verrall (the wife of the noted English scholar), her daughter Miss Verrall, Mrs. Thompson, Mrs. Forbes, and Mrs. Holland (the two latter are assumed names). The woman was the first "medium" employed by Satan in communicating with mankind; and he still manifests a strong preference for the female side of humanity. Experience shows that, for some mysterious reason, women are more susceptible than men to spiritistic influence. In view of this fact it behoves all women, especially Christian women, to be exceedingly careful in these perilous times, and to suspect every movement which is attended by abnormal subjective experiences. It will be observed as an invariable rule that in all spiritual manifestations of sinister origin (such as the most recent one, accompanied by an uncouth imitation of the gift of tongues), and which involve also the unscriptural phenomenon of substituted personality (the true personality being displaced by a spirit) the great majority of those who have this "experience" are women.

      The "psychics" through whom communications were carried on with the supposed spirits of Myers and Hodgson, were located in cities far apart (Mrs. Holland was in Calcutta, India), and messages were received through them simultaneously. Other [188] cautions were taken to eliminate collusion, and to bring the experiments under strictly scientific test conditions. For example, the spirit personating Myers was asked to give part of a message through one medium, and part simultaneously through another in a distant city, so that the two might be compared to see if they matched, and if they were, when combined, such a message as might be expected from Myers.

      One would suppose that, if the spirits were really those of departed human beings, and if they controlled mediums of communication (as in these experiments), it would be an exceedingly simple matter to establish their identity to the entire satisfaction of those who knew them in life; and particularly should this be an easy matter where secret pre-arrangements had been made (as in this case) to facilitate the establishment of such identity. If, on the other hand, the communications were from demons (well-acquainted, possibly, with those they were endeavouring to personate, but yet necessarily limited in their knowledge of them), we should expect occasional hitches and discrepancies, and other indications of imperfect acquaintance with the life-history of the impersonated individuals. It is therefore highly significant that the messages received were frequently (if not generally) of a nonsensical and bombastic character, like the following: "I stretch my hand across the vaporous space, the interlunar space-- [189] twixt moon and earth--where the gods of Lucretius quaff their nectar. Do you not understand?"

      We think one might, indeed, be excused if he failed to understand this cryptic utterance; and it requires a great stretch of credulity to suppose that the spirit of a departed human being would send such a communication as this to his friends in the attempt thereby to establish his identity. But the sapient investigators were of the opinion that Myers was, in the above message, paraphrasing some lines of Lucretius,--which, by the way, are exceedingly unlike the supposed paraphrase. But even if we indulge this rather violent assumption, it is yet not seen how the communication tends in the slightest degree to establish the identity of Myers, unless (which nowhere appears) the latter was, in his lifetime, addicted to the very eccentric habit of framing exceedingly clumsy paraphrases of the ancient poets.

      Here are some other of the reported messages:--

      "Look out for Hope, Star, and Browning"; "with laureat wreath his brow serene was crowned." "No more to-day--await the better news that brings assurance with a laurel crown," etc. etc.

      These utterances are such as might be expected from some of the preposterous characters in Alice in Wonderland; but our scientists, on due consideration of them, reached the conclusion that they constituted parts of a complicated attempt on the part of Myers [190] and Hodgson to establish their identity beyond all doubt.

      It is further stated, in the accounts which have reached us, that many poetical communications were received, "automatically suggesting or elaborating on the idea of a supernal heavenly calm." No doubt the awful Being, who has "the power of death, that is the Devil" (Heb. ii. 14), would be glad to spread the notion that all and sundry of the dead, even though out of Christ, are in a state of "supernal heavenly calm."

      But a further explanation is needed at this point. It appears that, for some unexplained reason, the spirits of Myers and Hodgson themselves were not able to communicate directly through the "psychics." The latter, it seems, can be possessed only by certain specially endowed Intelligences, technically called "Controls." When a message is to be delivered the control enters the psychic, receives the message, and causes the psychic to write it out. This is called "automatic writing," being done by the psychic while in a trance condition. Thus, Mrs. Piper has two "controls," who gave their names respectively as "Imperator" and "Rector." Hence Messrs. Myers and Hodgson had to entrust their messages to a "control," and the latter, entering one of the "psychics," turned it into words through automatic writing. The advantage of this arrangement on the part of the demons is evident. Whenever a mistake, discrepancy, or other blunder occurs, it may be conveniently [191] attributed to the stupidity of the "control." For example, one communication contained the word "Evangelical." This word being unintelligible (and to our mind grotesquely incongruous), an explanation was demanded; and Myers was reported as explaining that he had been trying to give through "Rector" the name "Evelyn Hope," and that "Rector" had carelessly put it down "Evangelical." This explanation appears to have been perfectly satisfactory to the scientists. They conclude their report by saying:--

      "To sum up: In this concordant episode of Mrs. Piper's trance and Mrs. Verrall's script, the controlling influence in both cases claims to be one and the same personality, namely, Frederic Myers."

      And the report proceeds to give reasons from which the only inference possible is that, in the opinion of its writers, the communicator was none other than the discarnate human spirit of Frederic Myers.

      It would be difficult to exaggerate the seriousness to humanity of this alliance between physical science and demonism. As the result, we have the machinery prepared, and already in full operation, for the most gigantic deception ever practiced upon the educated classes of society. By means of this new engine of deception millions upon millions may be lured into the comfortable belief that they may reject the Christ of God, and may yet be assured, upon the authority [192] of "Science," of a continued existence of blissfulness--"a supernal heavenly calm"--after death.

      Here, then, we have the source from which the coming religion of Humanism is to derive its supernatural components.

      Humanism, having sprung out of the economic or industrial conditions of our age, and being primarily concerned only with the material prosperity of human beings, has been itself utterly materialistic. Its close intellectual ally has been the evolutionary concept of the universe, so widely accepted among the wise of this world, and itself likewise utterly materialistic. Where then was the necessary supernatural element to come from? We have now the clear answer to that question, and we see also the Devil's purpose in keeping alive, until the time was ripe, that once despised and dreaded cult of Spiritism. This is evidently the source of the supernatural component of the religion of Humanity, and which furnishes the last and deadliest element to that brew of abominations.

      The spirits are likewise extending their influence in the sphere of professing Christianity, where but a short time ago Spiritism was regarded with aversion and contempt. Of course, so long as the Bible was acknowledged as having authority over professing Christians, none of these would think of consulting familiar spirits. But again, with the relaxation of [193] the authority of the Bible, a great change has taken place, so that the door is wide open for the reception by professing Christians of spirit communications.

      As an indication of this it will suffice to mention a single incident of recent occurrence as reported in the daily press.

      A meeting was lately held in London to celebrate the "union" of several Methodist societies which previously had maintained a separate existence. At this meeting the Rev. W. B. Lark asked permission to read one of a number of extraordinary communications which he had received. The letter, as read and reported in the public press, was as follows:--

"MANSION NO. 4, NEW JERUSALEM,      

"1709 to 1907.      

      "Congratulations on the union of free and progressive Methodism. We are in hearty sympathy with your best aspirations. Be sure to be true to the inner light, the larger hope, the higher criticism and universal redemption, and victory is assured.

"JOHN AND CHARLES WESLEY.      

P. S.--

Oh, that the world might taste and see       The riches of His grace! The arms of love that bind them       Would all mankind embrace.

      "Further, the Conference may be glad to know we have learned a great deal since our translation to the higher life." [194]

      This incident is very instructive. Not only does it illustrate the encroachment of Spiritism upon professing Christian organizations; but it calls attention expressly to those "doctrines of demons" which the hosts of wickedness In heavenly places are most desirous of propagating. The first of these is the doctrine of the "inner light," i e. the doctrine of God within, which New Theology emphasizes, and which is the unifying article of religious faith around which mankind is to be consolidated. Then comes the "larger hope," which is also spoken of as "universal redemption," that is to say, the doctrine of the salvation of all men. And finally, we have "the higher criticism," which Satan has so successfully used in setting aside the authority of the Bible.

      This triad of evil doctrines, in support of which the respected and beloved names of John and Charles Wesley are used, brings to mind the vision of the three unclean spirits, like frogs, which came out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, which were the spirits of demons going forth unto the kings of the earth and unto the whole world to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty (Rev. xvi. 13, 14).

      It is very evident that the founders of English Methodism must not only have "learned a great deal" since their "translation to the higher life," but must have unlearned a great deal, before they could have issued such a message as this. [195]

      It is not to be supposed that this communication was received by the assemblage to whom it was read with any degree of favour or credulity. But the astonishing thing is that it should have been received and read at all. Such an occurrence would not have been possible a few years ago.

      And finally, the incident shows us what a serviceable engine of deception has been made available to Satan through the recognition which Spiritism has recently received in certain high places. Through this means the great Deceiver may now promulgate whatever doctrines best serve his malign purposes, and may gain credence for such doctrines by forging thereto the names of men who, in their lifetime, were prominent and influential teachers of Christian truth.

      The essential characteristic of Spiritism on its experimental or subjective side, is what may be called DISPLACED or SUBSTITUTED PERSONALITY; that is to say, the personality of the man or woman (in a very large majority of cases the latter) who is the subject of the experience is temporarily dislodged, and is replaced by that of the spirit or invisible intelligence, who then exercises a more or less complete control over the mind and body of such individual. In this connection the word "control" has acquired a technical significance.

      Closely allied to this experience of substituted personality are the phenomena classed under the [196] general names of Hypnotism or Mental Suggestion. In these phenomena the personality, will, or understanding of the "subject" is set aside, and his (or her) mind is subordinated to the "suggestions" of another. The main difference between these phenomena and those of Spiritism is that while the "subject" in both cases surrenders, wholly or partially, his own volition and the control of his own thoughts and actions, the control thereof is exercised, in this case, not by a demon but by another human being. In both cases, however, we have the phenomenon of displaced and substituted personality, either partial or complete, whereby a person is constrained by the will of another to think and say and do things he would not otherwise think or say or do.

      The standing which this phenomenon of substituted personality has secured may be judged from the following language of Sir Oliver Lodge:--

      "I am going to assume, in fact, that our bodies can, under certain exceptional circumstances, be controlled directly, or temporarily possessed, by another or foreign intelligence, operating either on the whole or on some limited part of it. The question lying behind such a hypothesis, and justifying it or negativing it, is the root question of identity--the identity of the control."

      This is indeed the important question; and herein lies the danger, even to Christians, of being deceived and led into error of doctrine and into immoral practices; for the "lying spirits" do not scruple to use [197] sacred formulæ speaking even of the Blood of Christ and the Coming of the Lord, in order to gain the coveted "control." This brings us to the next point, which is highly important.

      Perhaps the most serious phase of these allied movements of Spiritism and Hypnotism is that the leading phenomena and prominent incidents of spiritistic and hypnotic seances are now repeated in certain gatherings of Christian people, and are, by those who seek such experiences, attributed to the operation of the Spirit of God. Especially is the experience of a substituted personality that which is most eagerly sought by those who frequent meetings of this kind, their main object and effort being to part with their own personality and to come under the "control" of an unseen personality. These "seekers" are apparently not to be deterred from agonizing for the desired experience by the fact that Scripture gives no instance of a man's personality being displaced by the Holy Spirit, whereas the phenomenon of substituted personality is the very essence of demonism. And as in the case of Spiritism and Hypnotism, it is found that an exceedingly large majority of those who succeed in coming "under the power" or "control" are women. It is well to recall in this connection that it was through the female side of humanity that Satan originally established his "control" over the race.

      In like manner, the practices and phenomena of [198] Hypnotism have gained admission, in the form of methods of healing nervous and kindred disorders, into gatherings which are, nominally at least, Christian. A number of reputable physicians have lent their aid and countenance to these new departures in religious practice, while others have very strongly opposed and severely criticized them.

      It is not strange that the almost universal departure of Christian people from faith in Christ as the Healer of the body, coupled with the conspicuous inadequacy of "medical science" to furnish effective curative remedies, should have prepared the way for the acceptance of methods of healing which, but a short time ago, were viewed in the same quarters with aversion and even with horror.

      The present results (bad as they are) of these new inroads of demonism are not so serious as will be the future conditions for which they are paving the way. One advantage which the great Deceiver has gained by means of them is, that people are becoming accustomed to manifestations and occurrences of a sort which, until now, would have excited suspicion and alarm. Thus, there is in progress a general breaking down of the barriers which once safeguarded the mass of the people from teachings accredited by supernatural manifestations. And by this means the way is being rapidly prepared for the acceptance, as Divine credentials, of those signs and wonders of falsehood which are to accompany Satan's great assault [199] upon humanity when he shall come down in person to the earth, having great wrath because he knows that his time is short (Rev. xii. 12).

      Finally, these supernatural demonstrations are working with other evil agencies to weaken the authority of the Bible. One group of religious leaders says plainly: "Never mind what the Bible says about this or that." Another set lauds the intelligence and progress of the age because it has delivered itself from "bondage to the Book." Another set concedes that the Bible writings were inspired, but puts other writings on the same level with them. And the deceived class we are now considering claim to have newer and more timely revelations directly from the Spirit of God. By all these means the unwary are diverted from the Word of Truth, from its warnings which are so needed at the present time, and particularly from those prophecies which clearly predict the activities of the present day and their outcome!⁸ [200]

"PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY
      "An interesting announcement regarding the progressive movement in theology is made by the Christian Commonwealth, a weekly newspaper which is closely identified with the teachings of the City Temple, but in the administration and direction of which, it is now stated, the Rev. R. J. Campbell has not hitherto taken any part. What has now been done is to form an editorial board, under the chairmanship of Mr. Campbell, with the object of giving expression as far as possible to all phases of the movement which, though many-sided, it is claimed is fundamentally one. 'Modernism in the Church of Rome, the Liberal movement in the Church of England, the "New Theology" in Nonconformity, the new spirit in Unitarianism, the Reform movement in Judaism, the spirit of modern scientific inquiry as represented by Sir Oliver Lodge, are,' says the announcement, 'all more or less akin.'
      "The new editorial board is to demonstrate the essential unity of the movement. Its other members are as follows: The Rev. K. C. Anderson, D.D., Dundee; the Rev. Professor T. K. Cheyne, D.D., Oxford; the Rev. Stopford A. Brooke, LL.D., London; the Rev. Professor Duff, D.D., Bradford; the Rev. A. W. Hutton, rector of St. Mary-le-Bow, London; Professor L. P. Jacks, Oxford; the Very Rev. G. W. Kitchin, D.D., Dean of Durham; the Rev. E. W. Lewis, Clapham; Mr. Philip Snowdon, M.P.; Sir Richard Stapley, London; the Rev. J. M. Lloyd Thomas, Nottingham; and the Rev. T. Rhondda Williams, Brighton. In addition, Sir Oliver Lodge, Canon Barnett, Father Tyrell, the Rev. A. L. Lilley, and the Rev. Isidore Harris are named as occasional contributors." [201]

[TNOM2 86-201]