Welsh Journals

not develop the point here) that both time and eternity are in this sense mere limiting concep- tions, corresponding to nothing in reality or experience. There is an element of time in what we call eternity, and an element of eternity in real time (as distinguished from what Bergson calls mere clock time). To the Doctor, speaking in the name of philosophy, there are no eternal principles discoverable in the time-process, no divine purpose revealed in history. But he has no right to say this in the name of all philosophy. He is merely giving utterance to the views of empirical or materialistic philosophy, or else of an extreme pantheism. He ignores the great group of idealistic philosophies which find in the cosmic time-process and in human life very much more than relativity, mutability, ephemerality, which see in it "one increasing purpose" which is to culminate in "one far-off divine event to which the whole creation moves." The corrolary of the doctrine of this book is, it seems to me, an ascetic and monastic type of religion which one had hoped Christendom had outgrown. "The spiritual man," says our author, "can throw aside the whole weight of his temporal life." "The good of religion becomes real by being cut away from life and all its details." What then is to become of this temporal life of ours, with its business, politics, science, etc? Is it to be consigned to the devil as his inalienable right? Is the whole of the present world-order necessarily and inevitably evil? This is Manicheism, not Christianity. Is the monk the only saint? Are the manual labourer, the tradesman, the politician necessarily living a secular, godless life, except perchance in their leisure hours when they are "off duty"? Is the "social gospel," which claims all life for the Kingdom of God and works for a Christian- ised social order, an illusion and a dream? We cannot believe it. The true victory of faith comes not by world-abandonment but by world- possession, not by exclusion but by the more difficult method of inclusion. "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." "All things are yours 4 the world, things present," as well as "things to come." The Son of Man was not an ascetic, but came eating and drinking, making bread and wine sacra- mental. But to Dr. Thomas "God and the world are diametrically opposed. I would earnestly plead for the view which Dr. Thomas definitely rejects, viz. the view that the recognition of a deep spirituality as inherent in the world is the essence of religion; that religion is based on a deeper understanding of the world, provided we give a sufficiently com- prehensive definition of the "world," as embrac- The Editor would be much obliged if Contributors, when submitting Articles or Poems, would state their full title, degrees, past and present offices, or occupations, publications, &c. ing not only the universe of our sense impressions but the world of our spiritual experience and in- sight, which is after all part of the one total universe. Materialism and irreligion arise from taking the world at its face value, religion is the insight into its deepen meaning and value leading to the discovery of God as its inmost reality. By a deeper realisation of this truth, our whole life on earth may become irradiated with divine signifi- cance and purpose, and religion becomes possible for the active and strenuous man as well as for the mystic or monk. The Doctor agrees that religion is seeing all things in God, but that is interpreted by him to mean that to the spiritual man "the nature of the circumstances is quite immaterial" (p. 91). This Stoic (and partly Christian) attitude of indifference to circum- stances is splendid, provided it does not mean acquiescence in the status quo, including war, slums, etc. We want a religion that shall be, among other things, an inspiration to the task of promoting the progressive realisation of God's Kingdom in the world. I fear I have little use for a God who) is beyond good and evil, who, as Dr. Thomas tells us, can- not be the perfection of the Good, the True, the Beautiful, and who is "beyond our comprehen- sion." Some one said to a theological opponent, "Your God is my devil." I would say to Dr. Thomas, your God is my-nothing. Unless we can interpret God in terms of the highest values known to man or experienced by him, He becomes a mere blank, an abyss, an unknown x. God must have an assignable meaning to us, or else we might as well call Him Devil,or rather, Nothing. We are constantly bidden to "sink our life" in some deep something. But I do not want to sink myself in a Being whose attributes are wholly unknown to me. Such a sinking fund is bad investment. It is not faith, but blind credulity. I would rather invest my life in the care of the God of Love and Righteousness revealed in Jesus Christ. Fortunately, it is not necessary for us to dehumanise ourselves in order to get into touch with the Eternal. "Thou hast set eternity in my heart." Man was created in the image of God, and in virtue of that affinity he can enter into fellowship with God. It would be easy to add to these criticisms. Owing to lack of space I have devoted myself more to a criticism of the conclusions and corrol- aries of the argument than to a close examination of the argument itself. I fear I may seem to have somewhat exaggerated the differences between us. I admire greatly both the fine spiritual tone and the acute thoughtfulness of this book on "The Non-Rational Character of Faith." It deserves to be read and pondered over.