Literary Jottings

A. K.

In the July number of theQuarterly Reviewthere is an article reviewing the recent book of J. C. Morrison upon “The Service of Man or the Future Religion.” And although Mr. Morrison, in his book, writes to urge that the chief and primary principle of religion is “to promote the spirit of self-sacrifice, and to direct men’s energies to the service of their fellow creatures,” yet theQuarterly Reviewpours every kind of insult and obloquy on Mr. Morrison.

But herein is the gross contradiction, that theQuarterly Reviewadmits that the primary principle of Christianity has the very same objects in view, as Mr. Morrison urges the future religion should have. And yet theQuarterly Reviewridicules Mr. Morrison, and describes his book as an attack upon Christianity.

Then, surely, when two persons thus fall out with one another, whilst both advocate the same lofty and noble principles, there must be some gross misunderstanding between them!

The error thus which they both labour under, is one and the same; for theQuarterly Reviewerrs, in assuming that the teaching or doctrine of the Church is indisputably, and infallibly, the teaching or doctrine of Christ. And Mr. Morrison errs in assuming that the teaching or doctrine of Christ is the same as the doctrine of the Church.

So that if the teaching of the Church is not the teaching of Christ, then Mr. Morrison in attacking the supposed Christianity of the Church is not reallyattacking Christianity, but only attacking the spurious doctrine of the Church, which has passed current as Christianity;ex gr., Isaiah, Jeremiah and Elijah, in denouncing the religion of the priests, did not attack true religion (as the priests would assert), but only their adulterated and spurious religion.

And Christ tells us that the Priests and Pharisees made the word of God of none effect by their traditions. And St Paul tells us that, with the authority of the Chief Priest, he had, before conversion, imprisoned and put men to death, and made them blaspheme (Acts xxvi., 11) against God and the Church.

Therefore, before we accept the Church and Christianity to be synonymous terms, and not only signifying but being actually the Church of Christ, and so, verily, Christianity, we must have a clear and definite understanding as to what we mean, and wish others to understand what we mean, by “the Church.”

For the world, outside of Christianity, and often inside, is at its wits’ end to know which of the numerous churches and sects, which all claim to be the Church of Christ, is really and truly the Church of Christ; because the World witnesses that they all reject one another.

Then surely, whilst the world witnesses rival and hostile churches all claiming to be “the Church” and Christianity, Mr. Morrison is not at all necessarily attacking the Church of Christ, or true Christianity, when he attacks the doctrine, or the Christianity of the churches.

And this proposition of course, opens and raises the question as to what is Christianity, which theQuarterly Revieweither avoids or assumes to be established, as being “a sound belief in the merits of the Saviour,” which of course means belief in the Atonement as commonly taught. But how can the truth of Christianity be possibly established, whilst to this day the doctrine of Atonement taught by the Church as Christianity, cannot be reconciled as either good or true; and is moreover a mystery to the leaders of it, a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the world, making the preaching of the Church as Canon Liddon admits, utterly powerless? TheQuarterly Reviewassumes that the doctrine of the Church has been taught as Christianity for 1,800 years; and that 1,800 years’ teaching of it has proved it to be Christianity, because theQuarterly Reviewassumes that there has been liberty for 1,800 years to disprove the doctrine of the Church, and that the doctrine of the Church, not having been disproved, is a proof that it cannot be disproved. But the fact that to this very day there is no liberty allowed in the pulpits of the National Churches to discuss the doctrine of the Church (it being a law with the rulers of the Church that “the doctrine of the Church may not be touched”), utterly refutes all the assumptions of theQuarterly Review.

For whilst there is no liberty, even for fair and candid criticism in the pulpit, on the doctrine of the Church, even in this age of liberty and education, there could have been none when the Church, for centuries, had power to imprison, slay, and excommunicate or boycott; and used it against those who even questioned the doctrine of the Church.

But we are told, by the great Bishop Butler, in his “Analogy of Religion” (and whom theQuarterly Reviewadmits to be an authority of the very highest class), that the doctrine of Atonement is positively immoral, excepting for the supposed divine authority; and the Bishop himself looked forward to the day,when the progress of liberty and education should throw greater light upon this doctrine of the Church, and indisputably determine whether or no it has the divine authority, it was then supposed or asserted to have.

So great has been our progress in education and liberty thatThe Guardianof the 3rd August, in its review of this book of Mr. Morrison’s, says, if Christianity is Calvinism with its doctrine of substitution and justification, then it ismadnessany longer to attempt defending the morality of Christianity.

It is true that it is one thing to make this admission in the review of a book, and another thing to publish it from the pulpit; and it is true that the admission would be withdrawn or crucified by silence; but theQuarterly Reviewitself, in its argument by analogy of the human and divine mind, admits that this doctrine of Atonement is immoral, because it admits that no authority could be divine which called immorality morality, as it asserts thatwhatever is moral humanly speaking, is also moral divinely speaking, only in an infinitely greater degree, and the converse. So that an attack on an immoral doctrine of the Church is not an attack on Christianity, if the doctrine of the Church is not the teaching of Christ, as it can be shown that it is not, as soon as liberty is allowed in the pulpits of the National Churches, for explaining the truth of aCrucified Christ, and removing the mystery that has been created, which causes it to be a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the world.

We are told that the late Archbishop Whately said, that if the Christian Religion did not come from God, miraculously (in the sense commonly taught), yet the religion, nevertheless, exists, and therefore the phenomenon has to be explained how it could have arisen and been propagated without miracles.

But theQuarterly Reviewasserts that for 1,800 years all the attempts to explain it, without the aid of miracles, have utterly failed, and therefore it must be assumed to be miraculous.

But before there can be any justification for such a bold assumption, as that what is taught as Christianity is infallibly, and indisputably, the teaching of Jesus Christ, what is meant by the term Christianity, or Christian religion must be clearly defined: for the Roman Catholic Church denounces the Protestant, and the Protestant denounces the Roman Church, as having naught to do with Christianity; so that even if there is anything held in common between these Churches (as “the faith of the Primitive Church,” or “the faith once delivered to the Saints,” or any other faith), yet whatever it is, or is called, it would seem to be of not the slightest value whatever, in saving them from rejecting one another absolutely.

Canon Liddon, however, asserts that all the doctrine and teaching of the Church derives its authority from a miraculous resurrection of Jesus, with a material and physical body of flesh, blood, and bones, in direct defiance of the teaching of Jesus, that the flesh profiteth nothing, and that it was the words which He spoke, “They werespirit,theywere life.” (John vi., 63.)

And if we believe that the Holy Spirit of God could speak without the aid of a material body, composed of flesh, blood, and bones, in a still small voice to the conscience or soul of Moses and Elijah (1 Kings xix., 12); and if we believe that the same Holy Spirit ispresenteven now (where two or three are gathered together—Matt, xvii., 23), why should not the presence of the stillsmall voice of the Holy Spirit, speaking to the conscience or soul of the Apostles, be of itself deemed sufficient, without needing the aid of a material body?

Again, if thepresenceof the still small voice of the Holy Spirit, speaking to the soul of man, has been deemed sufficient by the world both before the crucifixion of Christ, and since the crucifixion of Christ, why should it be deemed necessary to raise up the crucified One, with a body of flesh, blood and bones, only to teach what the still small voice of the Holy Spirit was able, willing, andpresentto teach, and to doubt which would be Atheism? And, moreover, whilst such teaching was sufficient, it would be a contradiction to vouchsafe more.

Therefore, if the still small voice of the Holy Spirit is sufficient andpresentto guide us into all truth, it must have been sufficient for the Apostles also (John xvi., 13); and, therefore, Christ’s religion is not dependent upon a material resurrection of the body, with flesh, blood and bones.

Here, once more, we see the necessity of liberty being allowed in the pulpit, for fair and candid criticism on the doctrine of the Church, for the purpose of eliminating error and eliciting truth; so that it may be clearly seen and known what is Christ’s religion, as it might indeed be possible that a material resurrection would seem necessary to support the doctrine of the Church, though wholly unnecessary for the support of Christ’s religion, or gospel.

Although theQuarterly Reviewasserts that men have failed for 1,800 years to account for the existence of Christianity, unless it had a miraculous resurrection to support it, yet it by no means follows that, because a miracle is supposed to be needed to support a doctrine of the Church, therefore a miracle is needed for supporting the doctrine, gospel, or religion of Christ; which exists, and will continue to exist, without needing the aid of belief in a miraculous resurrection of the material body, to support it. And it only needs that there should be liberty allowed in the pulpits of the National Churches to show the deficiency of faith in Christ’s spiritual resurrection, to see there is no need for belief in that carnal, gross, and material resurrection of the body, with flesh, blood and bones.

Then, let there be liberty allowed in the pulpits of the National Churches; because it is not true that there has ever been liberty for 1,800 years to explain the Mystery of a Crucified Christ; for, it is refused to the present day. If any man, on behalf of the Church, contradicts this, and asserts there is liberty to explain, in the Church, the truth of a crucified Christ, let him mention one Church, or one clergyman that will allow it, and I will test its truth by asking for the same permission that the rulers of the Synagogue accorded to St Paul at Antioch, Acts xiii., 15.

TheQuarterly Reviewsays the clergy have no objection to free discussion—that it is the very air they breathe, and that it has been the life of Christian Truth. These are bold and brave words, but where is there even one clergyman that will endorse them, and act upon them? Where?

Isaiah says, “Open ye the gates that the truth may enter in” (xxvi., 2). But instead of reverencing the just and righteous “Son of Man,” the chief priests and rulers of the Ancient Church condemned “the Just One,” to be slain as a blasphemer, whose blood ought to be shed for an Atonement. And the chief priests of our Church have combined that this doctrine should not betouched, so that by their practice they make their statement of theQuarterly Reviewutterly untrue. For if there is one clergyman,A.D.1887, who will support theQuarterly Review’sstatement, and open his pulpit for explaining the truth of “Christ crucified” and proclaiming Christian truth, as taught by Christ—Where is he? and who is he?

And if there is not one, then need the Church be surprised that men attack, not the Christianity of Jesus Christ, but only an erroneous doctrine of the Church, miscalled Christianity?

(Rev.) T. G. Headley.

Manor House, Petersham, S. W.

P.S.—Although theQuarterly Reviewadmits that Mr. Morrison has established a high position in literature, and that he seeks to promote the same lofty and noble principles as true Christianity inculcates; yet it speaks of Mr. Morrison’s book as bad and incomplete; feeble and illogical; full of perversities, monstrosities, misrepresentations, and misquotations; adding, that it is bitter, unscrupulous, ignorant, inconsistent, offensive, bullying, brow-beating, overbearing, absurd, and ridiculous, as well as indecent and false; insulting and flagrant; inconsecutive and unjust; full of jugglery and a disgrace.

Is this an exhibition of how theologians, or the clergy, as the reviewer is most probably a clergyman, love free discussion, and crucify those from whom they differ by damning them in this gross manner?

To the Editors ofLucifer.

In the numerous letters that have repeatedly appeared recently in theTimesopposing the statements of the Rev. Canon Isaac Taylor, in his speech at the late Church Congress, on the very great progress of Islam, and the comparative failure of Christianity (as taught), in India and Africa, it is frequently asserted that“Islam is the only religion that has laid an immutable barrier on human progress;”and that“no“nosystem could have been devised with more consummate skill (than the Koran of Islam) for shutting out the light of truth, from the Nations over which Islam has sway.”

But surely this is equally as true of our Church, whilst it also makes it an immutable law, as it has done to this day, that “the doctrine of the Church may not be touched”? For how could any system have been devised with more consummate skill for shutting out the light of truth, than to delude the people to crucify “the Just One,” as a blasphemer whose blood ought to be shed for an atonement, and afterwards to quote Scripture in support of this doctrine (as necessary to be believed in order to escape being cursed here and damned hereafter), and stamp out and boycott all who doubted it?

And yet this is the present state of things.

And therefore, whilst the clergy have power to say that “the doctrine of the Church may not be touched,” how is the mystery of a Crucified Christ to be explained and translated, so that it may be seen to be “a light to lighten the Gentiles, and also the glory of Israel,” instead of being, as it is now, a stumbling block to the Jews, foolishness to the world, and a mystery to theteachers of it, making those who accept it, in India and Africa, worse than they were before?

Then is there not a cause for demanding that liberty should be allowed in the Church, for explaining, in the pulpit, the mystery of a Crucified Christ, so that it may no longer remain a mystery for want only of this liberty?

(Rev.) T. G. Headley.

My attention has been directed to a somewhat slighting notice of the above theory of human nature, on pages 72 and 75 of your issue for September, the contents of which are, doubtless, most suggestive of thenouvelles couches mentalesat the basis of allnouvelles couches sociales, and which Physical Science, in its vulgar realism, has altogether missed.

My main position, to which all else is but subsidiary, is that the worlds both of thought and thing, which thus become identified and unified,mustbe a product ofour ownpersonality or Egoity, which thus constitutes each Ego Protagonist and Demiurge, from whose tribunal there can be no possible appeal. This being granted, and even Max Müller, in his “Science of Thought,” considers the positionimpregnable, it matters not one jot, at least in the first line and as far as my main object is concerned, whether the Ego be a Body or a “Spirit.” Our own individuality, as sum and substance of all “things,” is the only essential point of the question. So that it may be argued either on the somatic (hylozoic) or “Spiritual” hypothesis of life and mind. I have always contended that Hylo-Idealism, or Auto-centricism, is the only thorough and legitimate outcome of the phenomenal world theory—this representativeWeltanschanunghaving been, for some generations past, the accredited creed both of physical science and philosophy. It is well summed up in Kant’s negation of “Das Ding an sich.$1“$2”$3 Vulgar Physical Science, as interpreted by its greatest hierophants, from Newton to Huxley and Darwin, from its incarnate dualism, is fatally handicapped in its search after thefinal“good, beautiful, and true.” Even Cardinal Newman is in a similar case, when he predicatestwoluminous spectra, God and Self, as the sole entities. The former Spectrum, on the Hylo-ideal, or visional, or phenomenal hypothesis,mustbe only the functionalimagoof the latter; Self being thus proved to be “Alpha and Omega, beginning and ending, first and last.” Beyond Self, it is manifest, mortal mind can never range. Whether Self be body or “spirit” is, I repeat, for my chief contention, quite immaterial—I sit on both sides of the stile, facing both ways.

Robert Lewins, M.D.

To the Editors ofLucifer.

As a hostile notice of the above philosophy has appeared in your columns, will you kindly permit me to say a few words in its defence? Not, of course, that I can hope in these few lines to really make clear to the casual reader the greatest change in human thought ever witnessed on earth (a change not merely as regards the form or matter of existence, but as regards its very nature)—yet Imay hope that a few seasonable words may be the means of inducing at least a few to enquire further into a theory, the self-evident simplicity of which is so great, that, I am convinced, it needs but to be understood to command universal acceptance.

The term Hylo-Ideaism is no self-contradiction, but undeniable verity, based on the first two facts of all existence; viz., the assumption of the material on the one hand, and the actuality of the ideal on the other. The primary, undeniable and necessary assumption of the “reality” of existence supplies us with the first half of our designation, and the recognition of the correlative truism that this existence—based on our own assumption—is, therefore, only our own idea, completes our title, and amply vindicates the self-sufficiency of Hylo-Ideaistic philosophy. For here is not a mere unended argument, leaving us at both ends stranded on mere metaphysical speculation, but a self-sustaining circle[116]where both ends meet, and materiality and ideality are blended as one, and indissoluble.

It matters not on what basis we proceed, whether we speak of existence as material or ideal, or “spiritual” or anything else—a moment’s reflection is sufficient to establish us in a position of consistent monism. For all thought or knowledge is but sensation, and sensation is and must be purely subjective, existing in, and by, the ego itself. As now we cannot outstrip our own sensations (only a madman could controvert this proposition—which includeseverything)—therefore are we absolutely, and for ever, limited to self-existence, and the same holds good of all possible or imaginary existence whatsoever. For the first essential of any conscious existence—that which indeed constitutes it—is a sentient subject, and inasmuch as all connected with this subject—thought, knowledge, feeling, fancy, sentiment—are allpurely subjective,i.e., in the subject itself, so must the subject be to itself the sum of all things, and objective existence only its own fancy by which it realises itself. This then utterly disposes of all fancied objective dualism by reducing all existence within the ring-fence of the ego itself, and this not as mere speculative theory but as positive fact, which, whether we recognise it or not, remains fact still—wearelimited to Self, whether we know it or not.

Then finally,in self, we harmonise the antithesis between the material and the ideal by recognising the two as absolutely inter-dependent, each upon the other, and therefore one consistent and indivisible whole. The ideal (thought, fancy, sentiment) is, and must be, but the property and outcome of the material (the nominal reality), which, on the other hand, is itself (and can be) but the assumption of the ideal. Destroy reality and thought is dead, blind thought and reality is a blank; and thus are the ideal and the material but the two sides of one and the self-same shield, and the line of our argument joins itself in one consistent circle, which constitutes the existence of the Ego—He who creates light and darkness, heaven and earth, pleasure and pain, God and devil—who is, in Himself, the sum of all things, (viz. “thinks”) beyond which is naught,naught, naught, for the fancy of His own which imagines a “beyond” is, itself, but fancy—self-contained in Self.

Thou Unity of force sublime,Th’ eternal mystery of thy timeRuns on unstay’d for ever;Yet, self-containing God of all,As raptur’d at thy feet I fallIn thee myself I worship.Herbert L. Courtney.

Thou Unity of force sublime,

Th’ eternal mystery of thy time

Runs on unstay’d for ever;

Yet, self-containing God of all,

As raptur’d at thy feet I fall

In thee myself I worship.

Herbert L. Courtney.

Cambridge, November, 1887.

[Editor’s Note.—In reference to the supposed “slighting remark” of which Dr. Lewins speaks, and the no less supposed “hostile notice,” as Mr. Herbert L. Courtney puts it—contained in our September number—we demur to the accusation. Both gentlemen will find it, however, fully answered in the “Literary Jottings” of this number; where, also, their respective pamphlets “Auto-Centricism,” “HumanismversusTheism,” and “The New Gospel of Hylo-Idealism”—are amply noticed by the “Adversary.”]

ACorrespondentfrom New York writes:

.... “The Editors ofLuciferwould confer a great benefit on those who are attracted to the movement which they advocate, if they would state:“(1.) Whether a would-be-theosophist-occultist is required to abandon his worldly ties and duties such as family affection, love of parents, wife, children, friends, etc.?“I ask this question because it is rumoured here that some theosophical publications have so stated, and would wish to know whether such asine quâ noncondition really exists in your Rules? The same, however, is found in the New Testament. ‘He that loveth father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me, etc., etc.,’ is said in Matthew (x. 37). Do theMastersof Theosophy demand as much?“Yours in the Search of Light,“L. M. C.”

.... “The Editors ofLuciferwould confer a great benefit on those who are attracted to the movement which they advocate, if they would state:

“(1.) Whether a would-be-theosophist-occultist is required to abandon his worldly ties and duties such as family affection, love of parents, wife, children, friends, etc.?

“I ask this question because it is rumoured here that some theosophical publications have so stated, and would wish to know whether such asine quâ noncondition really exists in your Rules? The same, however, is found in the New Testament. ‘He that loveth father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me, etc., etc.,’ is said in Matthew (x. 37). Do theMastersof Theosophy demand as much?

“Yours in the Search of Light,“L. M. C.”

“Yours in the Search of Light,

“L. M. C.”

This is an old, old question, and a still older charge against theosophy, started first by its enemies. We emphatically answer,NO; adding that notheosophicalpublication could have rendered itself guilty of such aFALSEHOODand calumny. No follower of theosophy, least of all a disciple of the “Masters of Theosophy” (thechelaof aguru), would ever be accepted on such conditions. Many were the candidates, but “few the chosen.” Dozens were refused, simply because married and having a sacred duty to perform to wife and children.[117]None have ever been asked to forsake father or mother; for he who, being necessary to his parent for his support, leaves him or her to gratify his own selfish consideration or thirst for knowledge, however great and sincere,is “unworthy”of the Science of Sciences, “or ever to approach a holyMaster.”

Our correspondent must surely have confused in his mind Theosophy with Roman Catholicism, and Occultism with the dead-letter teachings of the Bible. For it is only in the Latin Church that it has become a meritorious action, which is called serving God and Christ, to “abandon father and mother, wife and children,” and every duty of an honest man and citizen, in order to become a monk. And it is in St. Luke’s Gospel that one reads the terrible words, put in the mouth of Jesus: “If anymancome to me, andhate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea,his own lifealso,HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE.” (xiv. 26.)

Saint(?) Jerome teaches, in one of his writings, “If thy father lies downacross thy threshold, if thy mother uncovers to thine eyes the bosom which suckled thee,trample on thy father’s lifeless body,TRAMPLE ON THY MOTHER’S BOSOM, andwith eyes unmoistened and dry, fly to the Lord, who calleth thee!”

Surely then, it is not from anytheosophicalpublication that our correspondent could have learnt such an infamous charge against theosophy and itsMASTERS—but rather in someanti-Christian, ortoodogmatically “Christian” paper.

Our society has never been “more Catholic than the Pope.” It has done its best to follow out the path prescribed by the Masters; and if it has failed in more than one respect to fulfil its arduous task, the blame is certainly not to be thrown on either Theosophy, nor its Masters, but on the limitations of human nature. TheRules, however, ofchelaship, or discipleship, are there, in many a Sanskrit and Tibetan volume. In Book IV. ofKiu-ti, in the chapter on “the Laws of Upasans” (disciples), the qualifications expected in a “regularchela” are: (1.) Perfect physical health.[118](2.) Absolute mental and physical purity. (3.) Unselfishness of purpose; universal charity; pity for all animate beings. (4.) Truthfulness and unswerving faith in the laws of Karma. (5.) A courage undaunted in the support of truth, even in face of peril to life. (6.) An intuitive perception of one’s being the vehicle of the manifested divineAtman(spirit). (7.) Calm indifference for, but a just appreciation of, everything that constitutes the objective and transitory world. (8.) Blessing of both parents[119]andtheir permission to become an Upasan(chela); and (9.) Celibacy, and freedom from any obligatoryduty.duty.

The two last rules are most strictly enforced. No manconvicted of disrespect to his father or mother, orunjust abandonment of his wife, can ever be accepted even as alay chela.

This is sufficient, it is hoped. We have heard of chelas who, havingfailed, perhaps in consequence of the neglect of some such duty, for one or another reason, have invariably thrown the blame andresponsibilityresponsibilityfor it on the teaching of the Masters. This is but natural in poor and weak human beings who have not even the courage to recognise their own mistakes, or the rare nobility of publicly confessing them, but are always trying to find a scapegoat. Such we pity, and leave to the Law of Retribution, or Karma. It is not these weak creatures, who can ever be expected to have the best of the enemy described by the wise Kirátárjuniya of Bharavi:—

“The enemies which rise within the body.Hard to be overcome—the evil passions—Should manfully be fought,who conquers theseIs equal to the conqueror of worlds.” (xi. 32.)

“The enemies which rise within the body.

Hard to be overcome—the evil passions—

Should manfully be fought,who conquers these

Is equal to the conqueror of worlds.” (xi. 32.)

[Ed.]

We have received several communications for publication, bearing on the subjects discussed in the editorial of our last issue, “Let every man prove his own work.” A few brief remarks may be made, not in reply to any of the letters—which, being anonymous, and containing no card from the writers, cannot be published(nor are such noticed, as a general rule)—but to the ideas and accusations contained in one of them, a letter signed “M.” Its author takes up the cudgels on behalf of the Church. He objects to the statement that this institution lacks the enlightenment necessary to carry out a true system of philanthropy. He appears, also, to demur to the view that “the practical people either go on doing good unintentionally and often do harm,” and points to the workers amid our slums as a vindication of Christianity—which, by-the-bye, was in no sense attacked in the editorial so criticized.

To this, repeating what was said, we maintain that more mischief has been done by emotional charity than sentimentalists care to face. Any student of political economy is familiar with this fact, which passes for a truism with all those who have devoted attention to the problem. No nobler sentiment thanthat which animates the unselfish philanthropist is conceivable; but the question at issue is not summed up in the recognition of this truth. The practical results of his labours have to be examined. We have to see whether he does not sow the seeds of a greater—while relieving a lesser—evil.

The fact that “thousands are making great efforts in all the cities throughout our land” to meet want, reflects immense credit on the character of such workers. It does not affect their creed, for such natures would remain the same, whatever the prevailing dogmas chanced to be. It is certainly a very poor illustration of the fruits of centuries of dogmatic Christianity that England should be so honeycombed with misery and poverty as she is—especially on the biblical ground that a tree must be judged by its fruits! It might, also, be argued, that the past history of the Churches, stained as it is with persecutions, the suppression of knowledge, crime and brutality, necessitates the turning over of a new leaf. The difficulties in the way are insuperable. “Churchianity” has, indeed, done its best to keep up with the age by assimilating the teachings of, and making veiled truces with, science, but it is incapable of affording a true spiritual ideal to the world.

The same Church-Christianity assails with fruitlesss pertinacity, the ever-growing host of Agnostics and Materialists, but isas absolutely ignorant, as the latter, of the mysteries beyond the tomb. The great necessity for the Church, according to Professor Flint, is to keep the leaders of European thought within its fold. By such men it is, however, regarded as an anachronism. The Church is eaten up with scepticism within its own walls; free-thinking clergymen being now very common. This constant drain of vitality has reduced the true religion to a very low ebb, and it is to infuse a new current of ideas and aspirations into modern thought, in short, to supply a logical basis for an elevated morality, a science and philosophy which is suited to the knowledge of the day, that Theosophy comes before the world. Mere physical philanthropy, apart from the infusion of new influences and ennobling conceptions of life into the minds of the masses, is worthless. The gradual assimilation by mankind of great spiritual truths will alone revolutionize the face of civilization, and ultimately result in a far more effective panacea for evil, than the mere tinkering of superficial misery. Prevention is better than cure. Society creates its own outcasts, criminals, and profligates, and then condemns and punishes its own Frankensteins, sentencing its own progeny, the “bone of its bone, and the flesh of its flesh,” to a life of damnation on earth. Yet that society recognises and enforces most hypocritically Christianity—i.e.“Churchianity.” Shall we then, or shall we not, infer that the latter is unequal to the requirements of mankind? Evidently the former, and most painfully and obviously so, in its present dogmatic form, which makes of the beautiful ethics preached on the Mount, a Dead Sea fruit, a whitened sepulchre, and no better.

Furthermore, the same “M.,” alluding to Jesus as one with regard to whom there could be only two alternatives, writes that he “was either the Son of God or the vilest impostor who ever trod this earth.” We answer, not at all. Whether the Jesus of the New Testament ever lived or not, whether he existed as an historical personage, or was simply a lay figure around which the Bible allegories clustered—the Jesus of Nazareth of Matthew and John, is the ideal for every would-be sage and Western candidate Theosophist to follow. That such an one as he, wasa“Son of God,” is as undeniable as that he was neither theonly“Son of God,” nor the first one, nor even the last who closed the series of the “Sons of God,” or the children of Divine Wisdom, on this earth. Nor is that other statement that in “His life he (Jesus) has ever spoken of himself as co-existent with Jehovah, the Supreme, the Centre of the Universe,” correct, whether inin itsin itsdead letter, or hidden mystic sense. In no place does Jesus ever allude to “Jehovah”; but, on the contrary, attacking the Mosaic laws and the alleged Commandments given on Mount Sinai, he disconnects himself and his “Father” most distinctly and emphatically from the Sinaitic tribal God.The whole of Chapter V., in the Gospel of Matthew, is a passionate protest of the “man of peace, love and charity,” against the cruel, stern, and selfish commandments of “the man of war,” the “Lord” of Moses (Exod. xv., 3). “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old times,”—so and so—“But I say unto you,” quite the reverse. Christians who still hold to the Old Testament and the Jehovah of the Israelites, are at bestschismatic Jews. Let them be that, by all means, if they will so have it; but they have no right to call themselves evenChréstians, let aloneChristians.[120]

It is a gross injustice and untruth to assert, as our anonymous correspondent does, that “the freethinkers are notoriously unholy in their lives.” Some of the noblest characters, as well as deepest thinkers of the day, adorn the ranks of Agnosticism, Positivism and Materialism. The latter are the worst enemies of Theosophy and Mysticism; but this is no reason why strict justice should not be done unto them. Colonel Ingersoll, a rank materialist, and the leader of freethought in America, is recognised, even by his enemies, as an ideal husband, father, friend and citizen, one of the noblest characters that grace the United States. Count Tolstoi is a freethinker who has long parted with the orthodox Church, yet his whole life is an exemplar of Christ-like altruism and self-sacrifice. Would to goodness every “Christian” should take those two “infidels” as his models in private and public life. The munificence of many freethinking philanthropists stands out in startling contrast with the apathy of the monied dignitaries of the Church. The above fling at the “enemies of the Church,” is as absurd as it is contemptible.

“What can you offer to the dying woman who fears to tread alone theDARK UNKNOWN?” we are asked. Our Christian critic here frankly confesses (a.) that Christian dogmas have only developedfearof death, and (b.) theagnosticismof theorthodox believerin Christian theology as to the futurepost-mortemstate. It is, indeed, difficult to appreciate the peculiar type of bliss which orthodoxy offers its believers in—damnation.

The dying man—the average Christian—with adarkretrospect in life can scarcely appreciate this boon; while the Calvinist or the Predestinarian, who is brought up in the idea that God may have pre-assigned him from eternity to everlasting misery, through no fault of that man, but simply because he is God, is more than justified in regarding the latter as ten times worse than any devil or fiend that unclean human fancy could evolve.

Theosophy, on the contrary, teaches thatperfect, absolute justicereigns in nature, though short-sighted man fails to see it in its details on the material and even psychic plane, and that every man determines his own future. The true Hell is life on Earth, as an effect of Karmic punishment following the preceding life during which the evil causes were produced. The Theosophist fearsno hell, but confidently expects rest and bliss during theinterimbetween two incarnations, as a reward for all the unmerited suffering he has endured in an existence into which he was ushered by Karma, and during which he is, in most cases, as helpless as a torn-off leaf whirled about by the conflicting winds of social and private life. Enough has been given out at various times regarding the conditions of post-mortem existence, to furnish a solid block of information on this point. Christian theology has nothing to say on this burning question, except where it veils its ignorance by mystery and dogma; but Occultism, unveiling the symbology of the Bible, explains it thoroughly.—[Ed.]

Literary Jottings

HYLO-IDEALISMversus“LUCIFER,” and the “ADVERSARY.”

Under the head ofCorrespondencein the present number, two remarkable letters are published. (See Text.) Both come from fervent Hylo-Idealists—a Master and Disciple, if we mistake not—and both charge the “Adversary,” one, of a “slighting,” the other, of a “hostile notice” of Hylo-Idealism, in the September number of “Lucifer.”

* *

Such an accusation is better met and answered in all sincerity; and, therefore, the reply is, a flat denial of the charge. Noslight—norhostilityeither, could be shown to “Hylo-Idealism,” as the “little stranger” in the happy family of philosophies was hitherto as good as unknown to “Lucifer’s” household gods. It waschaff, if anything, but surely no hostility; and even that was concerned with only some dreadful words and sentences, with reference to the new teaching, and had nothing whatever to do with Hylo-Idealism proper—aterra incognitafor the writer at the time. But now that three pamphlets from the pens of our two correspondents have been received in our office, for review, and carefully read, Hylo-Idealism begins to assume a more tangible form before the reviewer’s eye. It becomes easier to separate the grain from the chaff, the theory from the (no doubt) scientific, nevertheless, most irritating, words in which it is presented to the reader.

* *

This is meant in all truth and sincerity. The remarks which our two correspondents have mistaken for expressions of hostility, were as justifiedthen, as they arenow. What ordinary mortal, we ask, before he had time (to use Dr. Lewins’ happiest expressions) to “asselforcognose”—let aloneintercranialise[121](!!)—the hylo-idealistic theories, however profound and philosophical these may be, who, having so far come into direct contact with only theimagesthereof “subjected by his ownegoity” (i.e.as words and sentences), who could avoid feeling his hair standing on end, over “his organs of mentation,” while spelling out such terrible words as “vesiculo-neurosisin conjunction withmedico-psychological symptomatology,” “auto-centricism,” and the like? Such interminable, outlandish, multisyllabled and multicipital, newly-coined compound terms and whole sentences, maybe, and no doubt are, highly learned and scientific. They may be most expressive of true, real meaning, to a specialist of Dr. Lewins’ powers of thought; nevertheless, I make bold to say, that they are far more calculated to obscure than to enlighten the ordinary reader. In our modern day, when new philosophies spring out from the spawn of human overworked intellect like mushrooms from their mycelium after a rainy morning, the human brain and its capacities ought to be taken into a certain thoughtful consideration, and spared useless labour. Notwithstanding Dr. Lewins’ praiseworthy efforts to prove that brain (as far as we understand his aspirations and teachings) is the only reality in the whole kosmos, its limitations are painfully evident, on the whole. As philanthropists and theosophists, we entreat the founder of Hylo-Idealism and his disciples to be merciful to their new god, the “Ego-Brain,” and not tax too heavily its powers, if they would see it happily reign. For otherwise, it is sure to collapse before the new theory—or, let us call it philosophy—is even half appreciated by that “Ego-Brain.”

Back to Index Next