In the last number of "Smad," I made some criticism of the shock-tactics employed by the S.C.M. in this University. I was completely confuted by the two replies from representatives of that movement, which were forwarded to the Editor. It was once again, it would appear, purely a matter of definition which was the cause of the controversy. It seems that I have been under a complete misapprehension as to what a Christian really is. I had always understood that a Christian was bound by a certain definite body of doctrine and dogma, which varied from sect to sect. Thus, if you were a Roman Catholic, you were bound by the teachings of your Church; if an Anglican, you believed in the clauses of the Nicene and Athanasian creeds; if a Christian Scientist, you held the Gospel according to Mrs. Eddy,—and so on. I also believed, that for a person to call himself a Christian, simply because he admired the life and teachings of Christ, without subscribing to the doctrines of the Trinity, of the Divinity of Christ, of personal immortality and so on, would be sailing under false colours. Apparently I was wrong.

Having these totally erroneous ideas about the nature of a Christian, I was extremely surprised by Mr. Howie's letter. He started by bringing forward in his opening paragraph, the irrefutable argument "We're right. Hence it follows that you must be wrong." Than which nothing could be more logical. The S.C.M. stands for spiritual truth, and I attack the S.C.M., therefore I am an enemy of spiritual truth, and in this typical of my generation! It appears that to criticise the S.C.M. is equivalent to desecrating a sanctuary.

Finally, after a cogent little comparison between the methods employed by God in creating the world and those employed by the S.C.M. in advertising itself, Mr. Howie gives us his definition of a Christian. The religion of Christ is concerned with finding a principle of unity among things that are outwardly different. Naturally such a definition disallows my criticism altogether. Also what a crowd of new and valuable Christians it allows one! Obviously Buddha and Mahomet and Plato and Lucretius were first-class Christians. Even the fetish worshipper of Africa is concerned in some measure with finding a principle of unity among things. In fact, if he's a Christian already, it seems almost a pity to baptise him. Surely some of these very early Christians could be canonised now. I suggest St. Socrates and St. Marcus Aurclius as first recipients of the honour. Mr. Howie's idea is really very charming, but I cannot help thinking that the prospect of becoming "Christians in spite of themselves." might have caused them, humanitarians though they were to join in the old cry of "Throw them to the lions." I am still—

Pro-Neronian.

: : :