SPIRITUAL APPREHENSION.*
THE sermons and papers in this volume are in every way characteristic of their author, from whom the religions world has long been accustomed to expect characteristic utterances. They have the familiar grace of style and felicity of illustra- tion, and the no less familiar shrewdness and candour and sympathetic appreciation of opponents, not without a sub- acid flavour of irony. Mr. Llewelyn Davies has this in common with Frederick Maurice, whose most distinguished disciple he is, that we are always the better for reading what he writes, even when we cannot assent to his particular con- clusions; and indeed Mr. Davies would probably have as much dislike as Maurice to finding himself the leader of a party. Another point in which he resembles Maurice is in the balance of his mind ; so that if he is tempted by argument to take up an extreme position on one side, he is sure presently to make a complementary statement. Thus on p. 241 the many anomalies of our present Church constitution, or want of constitution, are justified as "irregular-looking conditions which the Hand of God has prepared for us out of the various elements of the past;" but even while the Erastian is preen- ing his feathers with satisfaction at this apotheosis of the Flatus quo, he is told that he is not to believe that whatever is is right, because "we are placed here to improve our inheri- tance, to confess what is wrong amongst us, and to shrink from no change, however revolutionary, which the glory of God and the cause of the Kingdom of Christ may seem to demand." To which the Erastian may fairly reply, Call you this backing of your friends ? ' But to expect Mr. Davies to back anybody is to misconceive his intellectual position.
The chief topics of the volume are that which gives it its title and a discussion of the nature of the true Church. In each case we find ourselves about evenly divided between agreement and disagreement. In regard to the first point, we are gt ateful to Mr. Davies for the insight and eloquence with wLich in a variety of ways he insists upon the truth—which, familiar as it is, can so easily be forgotten—that the organs of the spiritual life are faith, hope, and love, and that religion consists in their exercise. But he goes on to urge, if we understand him, that religion so defined is irreconcilable with reason; and that between reason and faith a man must chooze. Now to say that reason can never entirely justify an act of faith is certainly true, because the reason is only a part of the whole man, and not the most important part. But to acknowledge this is not to acknowledge that they are irreconcilable. Mr. Davies appears to hold that even when the human reason pronounces on matter which is within the
• Spiritual Apprehension : Sermons and Papers. By the Bev. Llewelyn Dairies. London : MacolSen and Co.
scope of its powers, as when it investigates natural pheno- mena, the Christian is not bound to accept the results :-
"For the intelligent part of this generation the question appears to have taken this form, Which of the two will you follow, science or the soul? Science, which looks backwards and down- wards; or the soul, which looks upwards and forwards ? Science, which investigates phenomena and takes things to pieces to see how they have grown ; or the soul, which drinks in spiritual life, and so gains power to create poetry and art and the social affections and religion ? "
Now such an antithesis as this does not seem warrantable. We can understand a Christian saying : 'Such and such a scientific hypothesis seems to conflict with what I must believe of God, and I prefer to suspend my judgment for the present. Probably continued investigation will modify it, or show it to be subordinate to some higher law.' But we can- not understand him saying : My reason is entirely convinced by the arguments adduced, but my faith compels me to with- hold assent' For man is not made in water-tight compart- ments; his nature, though it has many faculties, is one and indivisible, and he cannot rest until he has harmonised the conclusions of them all. Probably what Mr. Davies wishes us to dissent from is not any established conclusion of natural science, but the obiter dicta on theology and ethics of such writers as Huxley and Cotter Morison. It is, in fact, not their science but their philosophy that is dangerous; but this should be met by a sounder philosophy, not by the refusal to philosophise. For, after all, as Aristotle long ago pointed out, even such a refusal is itself philosophy of a sort.
About the Church, especially about Church unity, Mr. Davies says many luminous and helpful things. What could be better than this P-
" If each of the many inadequate and fragmentary and transi tory bodies which profess loyalty to the one Lord and Saviour has life and truth in proportion to its real loyalty to Christ the Head, than the royal road to unity must be through each drawing closer to Christ as a member to the Head. To be open to the light of Christ and so to drop errors, to study what the Son of Man will approve in policy and conduct, to weigh interests and values in the scales of God, to understand that the aim of all Christians and of all Christian societies must be to grow into perfect fellow- ship with Christ—these are the ways of progress for the bettering of each Church in itself and for the uniting of Church to Church."
But when from admonition Mr. Davies proceeds to pro- pounding a new theory upon the nature of the Catholic Church, we confess it seems to us somewhat late in the day. Mr. Davies will not have it that the Church is "a corporation set up on earth." He calls this a carnalising of St. Paul's view. But surely, however difficult such a belief may be to hold at the present time, when dissent is so prominent a fact, there was no difficulty at all about it in St. Paul's day, and for many centuries subsequent. The Gospels make it clear that Christ did set up a corporation on earth, and the book of the Acts shows it at work. And St. Paul's theory by appealing to " one baptism "assuredly agrees; and his practice is of a piece with it. Mr. Davies roundly asserts that St. Paul "refers to misbelievers, to immoral, to insubordinate members, without showing any desire to drive them out of the Church.' But has he forgotten such passages as 1 Corinthians v. 7, 11, 13; 2 Thessalonians iii. 14? The reason that impels Mr. Davies to construct his theory of the Church is, of course, the existence of our "unhappy divisions." We should cordially agree with him when he lays it down that the presence of "the fruits of the Spirit" in any religious person is a sufficient proof that they are not without the spirit of Christ. But it seems unreasonable because the divine pattern has been broken to devise an entirely new theory which excludes unity, and pretend that it is the only original and genuine one. But Mr. Davies's characteristic fairness extorts from himself the admission (p. 209) that stress is undoubtedly laid upon unity by the Apostles and by all the later Fathers of the Church.
There are not a few other controversial points on which we do not think Mr. Davies has given us his mature thoughts, He justifies Nonconformity by the example of St. Paul, whom he speaks of as "unmistakably a divine exception, a heavenly justification of irregularity, an authoritative intimation that God may choose to interfere with his own ordinance." Bo( St. Paul was very far from regarding himself as irregular ; was constantly pleading that he had all the legitimate mark' of apostleship. And how was the appointment of a thirteentl Apostle an "interference," when no pledge had been given tha the college was strictly limited to twelve ? Again,. on th( question of miracles Mr. Davies seems to take up mdefen
Bible ground when he unguardedly asserts that Christ did not perform miracles as his credentials, but, on the contrary, was deeply displeased by the demand for them (p. 145). At once there occur to the memory the reason given for healing the palsied man at Caperrtaum and for raising Lazarus, and the reply given to the messengers who came from John the Baptist asking, "Art thou he that should come?" as well as that place in St. John, "Believe me for the works' sake."
We have dwelt so long on our differences with Mr. Davies, because a far larger part of the book than is usual with him is taken up with controversy. But we must, in conclusion, call attention to a few papers which show him at his best and, as we venture to think, in his true strength. Such are those on "Peace and War," "The Moral Use of Money," and "The Christian Interpretation of the Commandments," which are full of insight into the needs of to-day and the application to them of Christian principles.
Previous page
