Notes.

Scandalised at the "half a dozen loads of Straussian rubbish" which, in their late controversy, his opponent was allowed to shoot athwart the columns of the Herald, and laudably bent withal on clearing the path as speedily as possible "for the sake of the feeble," the Rev. John Graham has delivered two lectures, garnished with musical accompaniments, on the Talmud and the Gospel, with the object, as it seems, of showing that the latter, as the Word of God, is not only incomparably superior to the former, as the production of "uninspired" and therefore erring writers, but, moreover, without the faintest blur on its escutcheon. Such statements as the following sufficiently indicate the lecturer's position: "The Gospels," he informs us, "stand pre-eminently in contrast with the Talmud in that their great subject, Jesus Christ, claims a relation to and a oneness with God, such as prophet or rabbi never claimed before. He professed to come forth from God, and to speak only the words of God. He admitted divine worship to be paid to him, while, as having come in the flesh, he acknowledged himself to be subordinate to God. . . . . His birth, his baptism, his miracles, his prophecy, his transfiguration, his crucifixion, his resurrection and ascension, all appear to harmonise with the unique mysterious being who was emphatically the Son of Man and the Son of God. . . . Jesus alone was absolutely stainless: in him we see perfect piety without fanaticism, assurance without presumption, courage without rashness, caution without fear, zeal without intolerance, humility without weakness, firmness without severity, and absolute devotion to the interests of man while grandly robed in the claims of God. He breathed only the celestial breath of love—wide as the atmosphere, clear as the light, impartial as the dew. His love was the moral miracle of all time, the standard of all virtue, the reflection of the invisible God. It was the simplicity, the symmetry, the perfection of moral goodness—a glorious rainbow standing out as the arch of promise against the sins of the world. . . . . . The teaching of Jesus contrasts with the Talmud in that it is worthy of God. . . . . the Talmud, as contrasted with the Gospel, being largely made up of puerilities and the petty details of a multiplicity of ritualistic and ceremonial observances. . . . . The God of the Talmud was glorious compared page 258 to the gods of Greece and Rome, but far inferior to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."—and so on. Having thus allowed Mr. Graham to speak for himself (being anxious not to misrepresent him), we feel assured that our readers will readily detect the essential weakness of the theological system he so vigorously champions. He means, if he can, to establish the reputation of the New Testament by drawing comparisons between it and "uninspired," albeit, highly meritorious, writings of the same class, and, again, by advancing claims on the former's behalf which History, Science, the well-ascertained Laws of Nature, and the constitution of the human mind alike pointedly discountenance. Surely intelligent persons do not require to be preached into an acceptance of the New Testament as a collection of religious and ethical writings which, resting on its own merits, has nothing whatever to fear from confrontation with the Talmud, the Koran, or the Vedas; still less into a recognition of the Founder of Christianity as foremost among the great and noble souls the impress of whose virtues will emblazon the page of history to the end of time. To affirm, however, as Mr. Graham does, that Jesus, being himself God, was, therefore, "absolutely stainless," and that the Scriptures, being the "Word of God," are, therefore, as absolutely free from the blemish of a single contradiction, is, in our opinion, to incur the double responsibility of affirming what both Reason and Scripture pronounce untrue, and of nourishing in the minds of thousands a more or less expressed repugnance towards Christ and Christianity. Mr. Graham can be very eloquent on the "puerilities" with which the Talmud—wholly differing in this respect, as he says, from the Gospel—is so largely disfigured. Yet we constantly read in the New Testament of persons who, in suffering from certain disorders of the nervous type, were believed to be possessed of devils which the College of Physicians has long since exorcised; and again of physical and mental ailments before which the highest surgical skill of modem times stands baffled, being instantly removed by a word or a touch. We have the story of a hungry multitude of people having been fed and satisfied with a quantity of food hardly sufficient for a family, but which, nevertheless, was larger at the end of the repast than at the beginning—the story of a quantity of water having, at a wedding-feast, been miraculously turned into wine under the very eyes of the guests—the story of a tree which, for not yielding figs at a season of the year when figs were not due, was withered by a curse—the story of a poor unbefriended paralytic who for more than half a life-time had anxiously waited, and waited in vain, on the banks of a pool, which at a particular season of the year was "troubled by an angel from heaven," on the chance of being cured of his disorder by an early descent into the water? etc. Mr. Graham, in a word, as a staunch defender of the Gospel, will, we think, do well to say as little about the "puerilities" of the Talmud as he conveniently can. Firm, again, as. may be his private belief in the astounding phenomena which are said to have attended the. birth, baptism, transfiguration, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, he will do wisely, in these inquiring days, not to submit them to the decision of "a dictator before whom," as Bishop Strossmeyer remarked in the course of his brilliant speech in the Vatican Council, "we must prostrate ourselves and be silent, even his Holiness Pius IX. This dictator is History." And so it is. Surveying the alleged events which the mass of Christians reverently cherish as page 259 authenticating the divine origin of their faith, History sternly asks: Are these things so? A question, we hesitate not to say, which, frequently, can only be answered in the negative.

The Rev. Charles Voysey, as we see from a late issue of the Unitarian Herald, stands accused by that journal of having played a mean and dishonest part from the time he commenced to preach as a minister of the Church of England, and—good heavens, what next?—of "deliberately trying, under the careful cover of merely attacking verbal inspiration and the doctrine of Christ's godhead, to undermine the reverence of men for the Bible, and their discipleship to Christ." In the same issue, the Rev. A. Gordon—one of the two ministers of the Unitarian Church, Hope Street, Liverpool, where Mr. Voysey had been invited to preach—deplores "the scandal of this man's presence among us," as one upon whom he can "look with neither respect nor patience," and who had been "expelled from his post, not without well-merited ignominy, as one faithless to a solemn bond." Mr. Gordon further regrets that Mr. Voysey has not been formally denounced or, at any rate, disowned by the leaders of English Unitarianism, while the Herald is convinced that Unitarians generally would not care to have him in the list of their recognised ministers. A matter, perhaps, of very little importance, seeing that Mr. Voysey has publicly announced his intention not to identify himself with any sect, and that many English Unitarian pulpits still remain inaccessible to men holding what are termed "advanced views" on theological subjects. It does seem to us, however, that our Contemporary's article is as unworthy of the Cause the Herald, in a small way, represents, as it is unjust towards ft man who, by his fearless and persevering assaults on the strongholds of orthodoxy, has done and is doing so much for the emancipation of the human mind from the thrall of false and god-dishonouring dogmas. Shocked at Mr. Voysey's confession, that, before taking orders, he had lost all faith in the creed of his youth, what are we to think of a man, asks the Herald, who, when people were crediting him with the frank utterance of a believer's progressive doubts, was, all the time, cautiously letting off his heresy by instalments? Thus put, the case, it must be confessed, looks bad. In a teacher of religion, few things, we freely admit, can be more contemptible than ft reticent or temporising attitude, no matter under what plea, towards doctrines in which he no longer believes. Mr. Voysey's admission, therefore, that for some years he delivered only a portion of his message, "because the time was hardly ripe for more open attack," unquestionably indicates a line of conduct on his part for which no valid apology can possibly be offered. But, waxing bolder and more conscientious, he has, at any rate, at length delivered his message with a fulness and an emphasis which, while fully atoning for the false religious posture which his connection with a legalised faith forced him temporarily to assume, would, if more generally manifested, assuredly work wonders for the Unitarianism which Mr. Voysey, when preaching in Hope Street Church, ventured somewhat freely—indeed we are not at all sure that the Herald's attack was not provoked by what was said on that occasion—to criticise. His remarks, which appear to us full of truth, we reproduce for the consideration of our readers: "Nothing," said he," can be worse than the assumption that while there may be progress and improve- page 260 ment in every other department of human thought and energy, there can be none whatever in the sphere of religion, and in our convictions about God and his dealings with men. This assumption is in every church and sect throughout Christendom, and the Unitarian body is not altogether free from it, although that Church stands out in marked and honourable contrast to the rest of Christendom as containing many members who repudiate the prevailing conservatism. So long as it is understood that the New Testament is a book of final appeal for Unitarian doctrine, there is neither desire nor effort to give up one of its errors and delusions. The pre-existence of Jesus in another world, and the superhuman nature of his mission upon earth, his magical powers, his resurrection from death, and his ascension into heaven, were until lately as much part and parcel of Unitarian belief as of the rest of Christendom. It was not even contemplated to outstep the boundaries which that venerable book imposed on the human mind in its search after a higher knowledge of God and of human destiny. Hence, as a natural result of this stagnation and petrifaction, several nominal Unitarians seceded from the advanced position occupied by their forefathers, and fell back upon the Trinitarian churches. They had been brought up to lean upon external authority, to derive all their doctrines from the words recorded in a book, and, as they did not even think it needful or beneficial to correct or to add to their previous knowledge, they simply and naturally went back instead of going forward, and embraced all the old superstitions and idolatries which the founders of Unitarianism had made such awful sacrifices to renounce. If I may be permitted to speak to Unitarians about Unitarianism, I will say that some of their most splendid advantages have in some places been lost or imperilled by reason of this tacit satisfaction with the knowledge or conviction already gained. Unitarians have perfect freedom from written creeds and obligations. Why is not this rare privilege more fruitful than it is, in cultivating a spirit of inquiry? It seems to me that it is because that liberty from written tests and creeds has been supplanted by fetters forged from unwritten tests and unformulated creeds. Ministers have not availed them-selves of all the independence professedly allowed them, or else congregations have put a ban upon their freer utterances which, when translated into plain English, means—'While you preach to us, you must pay more regard to our well-known convictions and prejudices than to the convictions of your own mind.' Such a restriction on a preacher may have its uses, but wherever it is exercised it has a tendency to keep down thought, to stifle inquiry, and to generate slothful and sleepy orthodoxy. I believe that the truly philosophical view of all religious systems is that they are in a great measure good as far as they go, and they only cease to be good when they are final. Each one is but a stepping-stone to a higher stage of spiritual development. For my part, speaking as a clergyman of the Church of England, I unhesitatingly yield the palm to the Unitarian Church among all the denominational sections of Christendom. I believe its creed to be the highest and purest estimate of the divine character and dealings, and the most consistent with the best teachings of Jesus Christ among all the creeds which bear His name. But, instead of resting hero I would call on that body above all others not to stand still upon the small eminence already attained, but to press onward with renewed vigour, and to judge of religious truth by still purer standards than those page 261 which have hitherto been used. If Unitarians are to be the vanguard of Christian churches, they should be the first to pioneer the great army behind them into wider regions of spiritual truth and into richer fields of divine knowledge. This is what many of them are actually doing. They are advancing—they are ceasing to believe that divine revelation is limited to a book; or that the life of Jesus himself exhausts the moral perfection of which man is capable. They are beginning to recognise the fact that both the Old and New Testament are the work of man—of man compound as he is of the earthly and the heavenly—and that no record exists in which blemishes are not manifest. Unitarians are beginning to take a higher ground than that of external authority, and are drifting more into the spirit of Theodore Parker and others who take the human soul as the basis of religious truth and as the fountain of God's revelation. By all the varied influences brought to bear upon them they are learning more and more of the universality of God's love, and are meeting with the actual evidences of those facts which they used formerly only to believe in and to hope for. It is in their power, more than in that of any other religious body in Christendom, to win the world of science into the atmosphere of true religion, if only they will use their opportunity, and throw off the shackles which still clog their progress." In view of the "harshness and crudity" of these utterances, the Herald likens Mr. "Voysey to a blind man who, with his eyes just opened, sees "men as trees, walking." With the fact however, before us, that all human institutions are singularly liable to degeneracies which only an eye "just opened" is capable of detecting, we are inclined, from a somewhat intimate acquaintance with Unitarianism, to believe that the author of The Sling and the Stone has, on the whole, spoken truly. There can be little doubt that it has distrusted its own thought——that it has unworthily temporised with orthodox views of Christianity and the Bible—that it has lost splendid opportunities by standing still when it might have gone forward—that its congregations do demand of preachers a greater respect for certain "unformulated" creeds than for their own convictions, thus frequently steeping the preacher's soul for years or a life-time in an insincerity of the ghastliest order—and that, by its assumption of doctrinal perfection and finality, it had prepared for itself a sepulchre which the more modern forms of Unitarianism have happily closed. Unitarianism, we feel assured, must either be advised by Mr. Voysey and "Go forward," or collapse in favour of that higher and more consistent religious faith of which he himself is a so distinguished a pioneer.