Chapter VI: Part II: +Introductory Note by the Editor+ (3)

Women, as a class, are in all countries much more disposed to Christianity than men. I think the scientific explanation of this is to be found in the causes assigned in my essay on _Mental differences between Men and Women_[70]. But, if Christianity be supposed true, there would, of course, be a more ultimate explanation of a religious kind--as in all other cases where causation is concerned. And, in that case I have no doubt that the largest part of the explanation would consist in the passions of women being less ardent than those of men, and also much more kept under restraint by social conditions of life. This applies not only to purity, but likewise to most of the other psychological _differentiae_ between the sexes, such as ambition, selfishness, pride of power, and so forth. In short, the whole ideal of Christian ethics is of a feminine as distinguished from a masculine type[71]. Now nothing is so inimical to Christian belief as un-Christian conduct. This is especially the case as regards impurity; for whether the fact be explained on religious or non-religious grounds, it has more to do with unbelief than has the speculative reason. Consequently, woman is, for all these reasons, the 'fitter' type for receiving and retaining Christian belief.

Modern agnosticism is performing this great service to Christian faith; it is silencing all rational scepticism of the _a priori_ kind. And this it is bound to do more and more the purer it becomes. In every generation it must henceforth become more and more recognized by logical thinking, that all antecedent objections to Christianity founded on reason alone are _ipso facto_ nugatory. Now, all the strongest objections to Christianity have ever been those of the antecedent kind; hence the effect of modern thinking is that of more and more diminishing the purely speculative difficulties, such as that of the Incarnation, &c. In other words the force of Butler's argument about our being incompetent judges[72] is being more and more increased.

And the logical development of this lies in the view already stated about natural causation. For, just as pure agnosticism must allow that reason is incompetent to adjudicate _a priori_ for or against Christian miracles, including the Incarnation, so it must further allow that, if they ever took place, reason can have nothing to say against their being all of one piece with causation in general. Hence, so far as reason is concerned, pure agnosticism must allow that it is only the event which can ultimately prove whether Christianity is true or false. 'If it be of God we cannot overthrow it, lest haply we be found even to fight against God.' But the individual cannot wait for this empirical determination. What then is he to do? The unbiassed answer of pure agnosticism ought reasonably to be, in the words of John Hunter, 'Do not think; try.' That is, in this case, try the only experiment available--the experiment of faith. Do the doctrine, and if Christianity be true, the verification will come, not indeed mediately through any course of speculative reason, but immediately by spiritual intuition. Only if a man has faith enough to make this venture honestly, will he be in a just position for deciding the issue. Thus viewed it would seem that the experiment of faith is not a 'fool's experiment'; but, on the contrary, so that there is enough _prima facie_ evidence to arrest serious attention, such an experimental trial would seem to be the rational duty of a pure agnostic.

It is a fact that Christian belief is much more due to doing than to thinking, as prognosticated by the New Testament. 'If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God' (St. John vii. 17). And surely, even on grounds of reason itself, it should be allowed that, supposing Christianity to be 'of God,' it _ought_ to appeal to the spiritual rather than to the rational side of our nature.

Even within the region of pure reason (or the '_prima facie_ case') modern science, as directed on the New Testament criticism, has surely done more for Christianity than against it. For, after half a century of battle over the text by the best scholars, the dates of the Gospels have been fixed within the first century, and at least four of St. Paul's epistles have had their authenticity proved beyond doubt. Now this is enough to destroy all eighteenth-century criticism as to the doubtfulness of the historical existence of Christ and His apostles, 'inventions of priests,' &c., which was the most formidable kind of criticism of all. There is no longer any question as to historical facts, save the miraculous, which, however, are ruled out by negative criticism on merely _a priori_ grounds. This remaining--and, _ex hypothesi_, necessary--doubt is of very different importance from the other.

Again, the Pauline epistles of proved authenticity are enough for all that is wanted to show the belief of Christ's contemporaries.

These are facts of the first order of importance to have proved. Old Testament criticism is as yet too immature to consider.

_Plan in Revelation_.

The views which I entertained on this subject when an undergraduate [i.e. the ordinary orthodox views] were abandoned in presence of the theory of Evolution--i.e. the theory of natural causation as probably furnishing a scientific explanation [of the religious phenomena of Judaism] or, which is the same thing, an explanation in terms of ascertainable causes up to some certain point; which however in this particular case cannot be determined within wide limits, so that the history of Israel will always embody an element of 'mystery' much more than any other history.

It was not until twenty-five years later that I saw clearly the full implications of my present views on natural causation. As applied to this particular case these views show that to a theist, at all events (i.e. to any one who on independent grounds has accepted the theory of Theism), it ought not to make much difference to the evidential value of the Divine Plan of Revelation as exhibited in the Old and New Testaments, even if it be granted that the whole has been due to so-called natural causes only. I say, 'not much difference,' for that it ought to make some difference I do not deny. Take a precisely analogous case. The theory of evolution by natural causes is often said to make no logical difference in the evidence of plan or design manifested in organic nature--it being only a question of _modus operandi_ whether all pieces of organic machinery were produced suddenly or by degrees; the evidence of design is equally there in either case. Now I have shown elsewhere that this is wrong[73]. It may not make much difference to a man who is already a theist, for then it is but a question of _modus_, but it makes a great difference to the evidence of Theism.

So it is in evidence of plan in proof of a revelation. If there had been no alleged revelation up to the present time, and if Christ were now to appear suddenly in His first advent in all the power and glory which Christians expect for His second, the proof of His revelation would be demonstrative. So that, as a mere matter of evidence, a sudden revelation might be much more convincing than a gradual one. But it would be quite out of analogy with causation in nature[74]. Besides, even a gradual revelation might be given easily, which would be of demonstrative value--as by making prophecies of historical events, scientific discoveries, &c., so clear as to be unmistakeable. But, as before shown, a demonstrative revelation has not been made, and there may well be good reasons why it should not. Now, if there are such reasons (e.g. our state of probation), we can well see that the gradual unfolding of a plan of revelation, from earliest dawn of history to the end of the world ('I speak as a fool') is much preferable to a sudden manifestation sufficiently late in the world's history to be historically attested for all subsequent time. For

1st. Gradual evolution is in analogy with God's other work.

2nd. It does not leave Him without witness at any time during the
historical period.

3rd. It gives ample scope for persevering research at all
times--i.e. a moral test, and not merely an intellectual assent to
some one _(ex hypothesi)_ unequivocally attested event in history.

The _appearance_ of plan in revelation is, in fact, certainly remarkable enough to arrest serious attention.

If revelation has been of a progressive character, then it follows that it must have been so, not only historically, but likewise intellectually, morally, and spiritually. For thus only could it be always adapted to the advancing conditions of the human race. This reflection destroys all those numerous objections against Scripture on account of the absurdity or immorality of its statements or precepts, unless it can be shown that the modifications suggested by criticism as requisite to bring the statements or precepts into harmony with modern advancement would have been as well adapted to the requirements of the world at the date in question, as were the actual statements or precepts before us.

Supposing Christianity true, it is certain that the revelation which it conveys has been predetermined at least since the dawn of the historical period. This is certain because the objective evidences of Christianity as a revelation have their origin in that dawn. And these objective evidences are throughout [evidence] of a scheme, in which the end can be seen from the beginning. And the very methods whereby this scheme is itself revealed are such (still supposing that it is a scheme) as present remarkable evidences of design. These methods are, broadly speaking, miracles, prophecy and the results of the teaching, &c., upon mankind. Now one may show that no better methods could conceivably have been designed for the purpose of latter-day evidence, combined with moral and religious teaching throughout. The mere fact of it being so largely incorporated with secular history renders the Christian religion unique: so to speak, the world, throughout its entire historical period, has been constituted the canvas on which this divine revelation has been painted--and painted so gradually that not until the process had been going on for a couple of thousand years was it possible to perceive the subject thereof.

_Christian Dogmas_.

Whether or not Christ was Himself divine would make no difference so far as the consideration of Christianity as the highest phase of evolution is concerned, or from the purely secular [scientific] point of view. From the religious point of view, or that touching the relation of God to man, it would of course make a great difference; but the difference belongs to the same region of thought as that which applies to all the previous moments of evolution. Thus the passage from the non-moral to the moral appears, from the secular or scientific point of view, to be due, as far as we can see, to mechanical causes in natural selection or what not. But, just as in the case of the passage from the non-mental to the mental, &c., this passage may have been _ultimately_ due to divine volition, and _must have been so due_ on the theory of Theism. Therefore, I say, it makes no difference from a secular or scientific point of view whether or not Christ was Himself divine; since, in either case, the movement which He inaugurated was the proximate or phenomenal cause of the observable results.

Thus, even the question of the divinity of Christ ultimately resolves itself into the question of all questions--viz. is or is not mechanical causation 'the outward and visible form of an inward and spiritual grace'? Is it phenomenal or ontological; ultimate or derivative?

Similarly as regards the redemption. Whether or not Christ was really divine, in as far as a belief in His divinity has been a necessary cause of the moral and religious evolution which has resulted from His life on earth, it has equally and so far 'saved His people from their sins'; that is, of course, it has saved them from their own sense of sin as an abiding curse. Whether or not He has effected any corresponding change of an objective character in the ontological sphere, again depends on the 'question of questions' just stated.

_Reasonableness of the Doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity._

Pure agnostics and those who search for God in Christianity should have nothing to do with metaphysical theology. _That_ is a department of enquiry which, _ex hypothesi_, is transcendental, and is only to be considered after Christianity has been accepted. The doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity seemed to me most absurd in my agnostic days. But now, as a _pure_ agnostic, I see in them no rational difficulty at all. As to the Trinity, the plurality of persons is necessarily implied in the companion doctrine of the Incarnation. So that at best there is here but one difficulty, since, duality being postulated in the doctrine of the Incarnation, there is no further difficulty for pure agnosticism in the doctrine of plurality. Now at one time it seemed to me impossible that any proposition, verbally intelligible as such, could be more violently absurd than that of the doctrine [of the Incarnation]. Now I see that this standpoint is wholly irrational, due only to the blindness of reason itself promoted by [purely] scientific habits of thought. 'But it is opposed to common sense.' No doubt, utterly so; but so it _ought_ to be if true. Common sense is merely a [rough] register of common experience; but the Incarnation, if it ever took place, whatever else it may have been, at all events cannot have been a common event. 'But it is derogatory to God to become man.' How do you know? Besides, Christ was not an ordinary man. Both negative criticism and the historical effects of His life prove this; while, if we for a moment adopt the Christian point of view for the sake of argument, the whole _raison d'être_ of mankind is bound up in Him. Lastly, there are considerations _per contra_, rendering an incarnation antecedently probable[75]. On antecedent grounds there _must_ be mysteries unintelligible to reason as to the nature of God, &c., supposing a revelation to be made at all. Therefore their occurrence in Christianity _is_ no proper objection to Christianity. Why, again, stumble _a priori_ over the doctrine of the Trinity--especially as man himself is a triune being, of body, mind (i.e. reason), and spirit (i.e. moral, aesthetic, religious faculties)? The unquestionable union of these no less unquestionably distinct orders of being in man is known immediately as a fact of experience, but is as unintelligible by any process of logic or reason as is the alleged triunity of God.

_Adam, the Fall, the Origin of Evil_.

These, all taken together as Christian dogmas, are undoubtedly hard hit by the scientific proof of evolution (but are the _only_ dogmas which can fairly be said to be so), and, as constituting the logical basis of the whole plan, they certainly do appear at first sight necessarily to involve in their destruction that of the entire superstructure. But the question is whether, after all, they have been destroyed for a pure agnostic. In other words, whether my principles are not as applicable in turning the flank of infidelity here as everywhere else.

First, as regards Adam and Eve, observe, to begin with, that long before Darwin the story of man in Paradise was recognized by thoughtful theologians as allegorical. Indeed, read with unprejudiced eyes, the first chapters of Genesis ought always to have been seen to be a poem as distinguished from a history: nor could it ever have been mistaken for a history, but for preconceived ideas on the matter of inspiration. But to pure agnostics there should be no such preconceived ideas; so that nowadays no presumption should be raised against it as inspired, merely because it has been proved not to be a history--and this even though we cannot see of what it is allegorical. For, supposing it inspired, it has certainly done good service in the past and can do so likewise in the present, by giving an allegorical, though not a literal, starting-point for the Divine Plan of Redemption.

_The evidence of Natural and Revealed Religion compared_.

It is often said that evolution of organic forms gives as good evidence of design as would their special creation, inasmuch as all the facts of adaptation, in which the evidence consists, are there in either case. But here it is overlooked that the very question at issue is thus begged. The question is, Are these facts of adaptation _per se_ sufficient evidence of design as their cause? But if it be allowed, as it must be, that under hypothesis of evolution by natural causes the facts of adaptation belong to the same category as all the other facts of nature, no more special argument for design can be founded on these facts than on any others in nature. So that the facts of adaptation, like all other facts, are only available as arguments for design when it is assumed that all natural causation is of a mental character: which assumption merely begs the question of design anywhere. Or, in other words, on the supposition of their having been due to natural causes, the facts of adaptation are only then available as _per se_ good evidence of design, when it has already been assumed that, _qua_ due to natural causes, they are due to design.

Natural religion resembles Revealed religion in this. Supposing both divine, both have been arranged so that, as far as reason can lead us, there is only enough evidence of design to arouse serious attention to the question of it. In other words, as regards both, the attitude of pure reason ought to be that of pure agnosticism. (Observe that the inadequacy of teleology, or design in nature, to prove Theism has been expressly recognized by all the more intellectual Christians of all ages, although such recognition has become more general since Darwin. On this point I may refer to Pascal especially[76], and many other authors.) This is another striking analogy between Nature and Revelation, supposing both to have emanated from the same author--i.e. quite as much so as identity of developmental method in both.

_Supposing the hypothesis of design in both to be true_, it follows that in both this hypothesis can be alike verified only by the organ of immediate intuition--i.e. that other mode of human apprehension which is supplementary to the rational. Here again we note the analogy. And if a man has this supplementary mode of apprehending the highest truth (by hypothesis such), it will be his duty to exercise his spiritual eyesight in searching for God in nature as in revelation, when (still on our present hypothesis that 'God is, and is the rewarder of them who seek Him diligently') he will find that his subjective evidence of God in Nature and in Revelation will mutually corroborate one another--so yielding additional evidence to his reason.

The teleology of Revelation supplements that of Nature, and so, to the spiritually minded man, they logically and mutually corroborate one another.

Paley's writings form an excellent illustration of the identity of the teleological argument from Nature and from Revelation; though a very imperfect illustration of the latter taken by itself, inasmuch as he treats only of the New Testament, and even of that very partially--ignoring all that went before Christ, and much of what happened after the apostles. Yet Paley himself does not seem to have observed the similarity of the argument, as developed in his _Natural Theology_ and _Evidences of Christianity_ respectively. But no one has developed the argument better in both cases. His great defect was in not perceiving that this teleological argument, _per se_, is not in either case enough to convince, but only to arouse serious attention. Paley everywhere represents that such an appeal to reason alone ought to be sufficient. He fails to see that if it were, there could be no room for faith. In other words, he fails to recognize the spiritual organ in man, and its complementary object, grace in God. So far he fails to be a Christian. And, whether Theism and Christianity be true or false, it is certain that the teleological argument alone _ought_ to result, not in conviction, but in agnosticism.

The antecedent improbability against a miracle being wrought by a man without a moral object is apt to be confused with that of its being done by God with an adequate moral object. The former is immeasurably great; the latter is only equal to that of the theory of Theism--i.e. _nil_.

_Christian Demonology_[77].

It will be said, 'However you may seek to explain away _a priori_ objections to miracles on _a priori_ grounds, there remains the fact that Christ accepted the current superstition in regard to diabolic possession. Now the devils damn the doctrine. For you must choose the horn of your dilemma, either the current theory was true or it was not. If you say true, you must allow that the same theory is true for all similar stages of culture, [but not for the later stages,] and therefore that the most successful exorcist is Science, albeit Science works not by faith in the theory, but by rejection of it. Observe, the diseases are so well described by the record, that there is no possibility of mistaking them. Hence you must suppose that they were due to devils in A.D. 30, and to nervous disorders in A.D. 1894. On the other hand, if you choose the other horn, you must accept either the hypothesis of the ignorance or that of the mendacity of Christ.'

The answer is, that either hypothesis may be accepted by Christianity. For the sake of argument we may exclude the question whether the acceptance of the devil theory by Christ was really historical, or merely attributed to Him by His biographers after His death. If Christ knew that the facts were not due to devils, He may also have known it was best to fall in with current theory, rather than to puzzle the people with a lecture on pathology. If He did not know, why should He, if He had previously 'emptied Himself' of omniscience? In either case, if He had denied the current theory, He would have been giving evidence of scientific knowledge or of scientific intuition beyond the culture of His time, and this, as in countless other cases, was not in accordance with His method, which, whether we suppose it divine or human, has nowhere proved His divine mission by foreknowledge of natural science.

The particular question of Christ and demonology is but part of a much larger one.

_Darwin's Difficulty_[78].

The answer to Darwin's objection about so small a proportion of mankind having ever heard of Christ, is manifold:--

1. Supposing Christianity true, it is the highest and final revelation; i.e. the scheme of revelation has been developmental. Therefore, it follows from the very method that the larger proportion of mankind should never hear of Christ, i.e. all who live before His advent.

2. But these were not left 'without witness.' They all had their religion and their moral sense, each at its appropriate stage of development. Therefore 'the times of ignorance God winked at' (Acts xvii. 30).

3. Moreover these men were not devoid of benefit from Christ, because it is represented that He died for all men--i.e. but for Him [i.e. apart from the knowledge of what was to come] God would not have 'winked at the times of ignorance.' The efficacy of atonement is represented as transcendental, and not dependent on the accident of hearing about the Atoner.

4. It is remarkable that of all men Darwin should have been worsted by this fallacious argument. For it has received its death-blow from the theory of evolution: i.e. if it be true that evolution has been the method of natural causation, and if it be true that the method of natural causation is due to a Divinity, then it follows that the lateness of Christ's appearance on earth must have been designed. For it is certain that He could not have appeared at any earlier date without having violated the method of evolution. Therefore, on the theory of Theism, He _ought_ to have appeared when He did--i.e. at the earliest possible moment in history.

So as to the suitability of the moment of Christ's appearance in other respects. Even secular historians are agreed as to the suitability of the combinations, and deduce the success of His system of morals and religion from this fact. So with students of comparative religions.

FOOTNOTES:

[59] [I.e. a theory which comes at first as a shock to the current teaching of Christianity, but is finally seen to be in no antagonism to its necessary principles.--ED.]

[60] [I.e. the battle in regard to the Christian texts or documents.--ED.]

[61] See Gore's _Bampton Lectures_, pp. 74 ff.

[62] Matt, xxviii. 17; Acts ii. 13.

[63] _Three Essays on Theism_, p. 255.

[64] [Note unfinished.--ED.]

[65] [George Romanes began to make a collection of N.T. texts bearing on the subject.--ED.]

[66] See Pascal, _Pensées_, p. 245.

[67] [The notes on this subject were often too fragmentary for publication.--ED.]

[68] Ps. li.

[69] _Pensées_, pp. 91-93.

[70] See _Nineteenth Century_, May 1887.

[71] [The essay mentioned above should be read in explanation of this expression. George Romanes' meaning would be more accurately expressed, I think, had he said: 'The ideal of Christian character holds in prominence the elements which we regard as characteristically feminine, e.g. development of affections, readiness of trust, love of service, readiness to suffer, &c.'--ED.]

[72] See _Analogy_, part i. ch. 7; part ii. ch. 3, 4, &c.

[73] See Conclusion of _Darwin and After Darwin_, part I.

[74] I should somewhere show how much better a treatise Butler might have written had he known about evolution as the general law of nature.

[75] See Gore's _Bampton Lectures_, lect. ii.

[76] _Pensées_, pp. 205 ff.

[77] [Romanes' line of argument in this note seems to me impossible to maintain. The emphasis which Jesus Christ lays on diabolic agency is so great that, if it is not a reality, He must be regarded either as seriously misled about realities which concern the spiritual life, or else as seriously misleading others. And in neither case could He be even the perfect Prophet. I think I am justified in explaining my disagreement with Romanes' argument at this point particularly.--ED.]

[78] [There is nothing in Darwin's _writings_ which seems to me to justify Romanes in attributing this difficulty to him specially. But he knew Darwin so intimately and reverenced him so profoundly that he is not likely to have been in error on the subject.--ED.]

+Concluding Note by the Editor:--+

The intellectual attitude towards Christianity expressed in these notes may be described as--(1) 'pure agnosticism' in the region of the scientific 'reason,' coupled with (2) a vivid recognition of the spiritual necessity of faith and of the legitimacy and value of its intuitions; (3) a perception of the positive strength of the historical and spiritual evidences of Christianity.

George Romanes came to recognize, as in these written notes so also in conversation, that it was 'reasonable to be a Christian believer' before the activity or habit of faith had been recovered. His life was cut short very soon after this point was reached; but it will surprise no one to learn that the writer of these 'Thoughts' returned before his death to that full, deliberate communion with the Church of Jesus Christ which he had for so many years been conscientiously compelled to forego. In his case the 'pure in heart' was after a long period of darkness allowed, in a measure before his death, to 'see God.'

_Fecisti nos ad te, Domine; et inquietum est cor nostrum donec
requiescat in te_.

OXFORD: HORACE HART PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Oxford Library of Practical Theology

Edited by the Rev. W.C.E. NEWBOLT, M.A., Canon and
Chancellor of St. Paul's; and the Rev. DARWELL STONE,
M.A., Librarian of the Pusey House, Oxford.

* * * * *

_Price 5s. each volume_.

+RELIGION+. By the Rev. W.C.E. NEWBOLT, M.A., Canon and Chancellor of St. Paul's. [_Fifth Impression_.

'_The Oxford Library of Practical Theology_ makes a good beginning
with Canon Newbolt's volume on religion.... The publishers have
spared no pains in making the appearance of the volumes as
attractive as possible. The binding, type, and general "get up" of
the volume just issued leave nothing to be desired.'--_Guardian_.

+HOLY BAPTISM+. By the Rev. DARWELL STONE, M.A., Librarian of the Pusey House, Oxford. [_Third Edition_.

'Few books on Baptism contain more thoughtful and useful
instruction on the rite, and we give Mr. Stone's effort our highest
approval. It might well be made a text-book for candidates for the
diaconate, or at least in theological colleges. As a book for
thoughtful laymen it is also certain to find a place.'--_Church
Times_.

+CONFIRMATION+. By the Right Rev. A.C.A. HALL, D.D., Bishop of Vermont.
[_Third Impression_.

'To the parochial clergy this volume may be warmly commended. They
will find it to be a storehouse of material for their instruction,
and quite the best treatise that we have on the subject it treats.
It is thoroughly practical, and gives exactly the kind of teaching
that is wanted.'--_Guardian_.

+THE HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER+. By the Rev. LEIGHTON PULLAN, M.A., Fellow of St. John Baptist's College, Oxford, [_Third Edition_.

'Mr. Pullan's book will no doubt have, as it deserves to have, a
large number of readers, and they will gain a great deal from the
perusal of it. It may be certainly recommended to the ordinary
layman as by far the best book on the subject available.'--_Pilot_.

+HOLY MATRIMONY+. By the Rev. W.J. KNOX LITTLE, M.A., Canon of Worcester. [_Second Edition_.

'Canon Knox Little has given us a most exhaustive treatise on Holy
Matrimony written in his best and happiest style, and giving ample
proofs of wide research and deep study of the various aspects, and
the essential characteristics of Christian marriage.... We would
strongly advise the clergy to place this work upon their shelves as
a book of reference, while it forms a complete manual of
instruction to aid them in the preparation of addresses on the
subject.'--_Church Bells_.

+THE INCARNATION+. By the Rev. H.V.S. ECK, M.A., Rector of Bethnal Green. [_Second Edition_.

'The teaching is sound, and the book may be placed with confidence
in the hands of candidates for Orders or of intelligent and
educated lay people who desire fuller instruction on the central
doctrines of the Faith than can be provided in sermons.'
--_Guardian_.

+FOREIGN MISSIONS+. By the Right Rev. E.T. CHURTON, D.D., formerly Bishop of Nassau.

'We welcome Bishop Churton's book as an authoritative exposition of
the modern High Church view of Missions, It is good for us all to
understand it, thereby we shall be saved alike from uninstructed
admiration and indiscriminate denunciation.'--_Church Missionary
Intelligencer_.

+PRAYER+. By the Rev. ARTHUR JOHN WORLLEDGE, M.A., Canon and Chancellor of Truro. [_Second Edition_.

'We do not know of any book about prayer which is equally useful;
and we anticipate that it will be a standard work for, at any rate,
a considerable time.'--_Pilot_.

+SUNDAY+. By the Rev. W.B. TREVELYAN, M.A., Vicar of St. Matthew's, Westminster. [_Second Edition_.

'An extremely useful contribution to a difficult and important
subject, and we are confident it will rank high in the series to
which it belongs.'--_Guardian_.

+THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION+. By the Rev. LEIGHTON PULLAN, M.A., Fellow of St. John Baptist's College, Oxford.

'Mr. Pullan affirms that the critics of orthodox Christianity are
now destroying one another's theories much more than they are
destroying the Catholic Faith. However that may be, his book should
render some assistance in determining what is and what is not "The
Faith once delivered to the Saints." It is a worthy addition to the
series to which it belongs.'--_Westminster Gazette_.

+BOOKS OF DEVOTION+. By the Rev. CHARLES BODINGTON, Canon and Precentor of Lichfield.

'Extremely valuable for its high tone, fidelity to Catholic
standards, and powerful advocacy of reality in private devotion. To
those who have never studied the subject, it should reveal a mine
of devotional wealth, yet to be worked with profit to man and glory
to God.'--_Church Times_.

+HOLY ORDERS+. By the Rev. A.R. WHITHAM, M.A., Principal of Culham College, Abingdon.

'For the educated layman who wishes to know what the Church is
teaching about the ministry, and what the relation of the laity to
it really is, this is the best book with which we have met. Young
men who are considering whether they will seek ordination will find
in it excellent statements on the position and work and
responsibilities of the ordained.'--_Pilot_.

+THE CHURCH CATECHISM THE CHRISTIAN'S MANUAL+. By the Rev. W.C.E. NEWBOLT, M.A., Canon and Chancellor of St. Paul's.

'We think the book should be in the possession of every teacher who
can afford it, and in every Church Library for the benefit of those
who cannot.'--_The Reader and Layworker_.

+THE HOLY COMMUNION+. By the Rev. DARWELL STONE, M.A., Librarian of the Pusey House, Oxford.

+RELIGIOUS CEREMONIAL+. By the Rev. WALTER HOWARD FRERE, M.A., of the Community of the Resurrection, Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Rochester. [_In preparation_.

+THE BIBLE+. By the Rev. DARWELL STONE, M.A., Librarian of the Pusey House, Oxford. [_In preparation_.

+OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM+. By the Very Rev. HENRY WACE, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. [_In preparation_.

+NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM+. By the Rev. R.J. KNOWLING, D.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis at King's College, London. [_In preparation_.

+THE HOLY TRINITY+. By the Right Rev. L.G. MYLNE, D.D., late Bishop of Bombay. [_In preparation_.

+THE ANGLICAN CHURCH+. By the Rev. ARTHUR JOHN WORLLEDGE, M.A., Canon and Chancellor of Truro. [_In preparation_.

+THE ATONEMENT+. By the Rev. LEIGHTON PULLAN, M.A., Fellow of St. John Baptist's College, Oxford. [_In preparation_.

+CHURCH HISTORY+. By the Rev. H.N. BATE, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 2 vols. [_In preparation_.

+CHURCH WORK+. By the Rev. BERNARD REYNOLDS, M.A., Prebendary of St. Paul's. [_In preparation_.

+VISITATION OF THE SICK+. By the Rev. E.F. RUSSELL, M.A., of St. Alban's, Holborn. [_In preparation_.

+HANDBOOKS FOR THE CLERGY+

EDITED BY THE REV. ARTHUR W. ROBINSON, B.D.

VICAR OF ALLHALLOWS BARKING BY THE TOWER

_Crown 8vo, price 2s. 6d. net each volume_.

The purpose of the writers of this Series is to present in a clear
and attractive way the responsibilities and opportunities of the
Clergy of to-day, and to offer such practical guidance, in regard
both to aims and to methods, as experience may have shown to be
valuable. It is hoped that the Series, while primarily intended for
those who are already face to face with the duties and problems of
the ministerial office, may be of interest and assistance also to
others who are considering the question of entering into Holy
Orders.

THIRD IMPRESSION.

+THE PERSONAL LIFE OF THE CLERGY+. By the EDITOR.

'It is a short book, but it covers a wide, field. Every line of it
tells, and it is excellent reading. Not the least valuable part of
the book are the extremely apt and striking quotations from various
writers of eminence, which are placed in the form of notes at the
end of the chapters. It is emphatically a book for both clergy and
laity to buy and study.'--_Church Times_.

'We are grateful for a little book which will be of service to many
priests, young and old. We need more priests, and such a book may
well increase their number by explaining the nature of the life to
which a vocation to Holy Orders calls men; but we need still more
that priests should realise the life to which they are called and
pledged; and this they can hardly fail to do if they listen to Mr.
Robinson's prudent and tender counsels.'--_Church Quarterly
Review_.

SECOND EDITION.

+PATRISTIC STUDY+. By the Rev. H.B. SWETE, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge.

'The whole of the work which this little volume contains is most
admirably done. Sufficient is told about the personal history of
the Fathers to make the study of their writings profitable.'
--_Church Quarterly Review_.

'This is an admirable little guide-book to wide study by one who
well knows how to guide. It is sound and learned, and crammed full
of information, yet pleasant in style and easy to understand.'
--_Pall Mall Gazette_.

SECOND IMPRESSION.

+THE MINISTRY OF CONVERSION+. By the Rev. A.J. MASON, D.D., Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and Canon of Canterbury.

'It will be found most valuable and interesting.'--_Guardian_.

'Canon Mason has given a manual that should be carefully studied by
all, whether clergy or laity, who have in any way to share in the
"Ministry of Conversion" by preaching, by parochial organisation,
or by personal influence.'--_Scottish Guardian._

THIRD IMPRESSION.

+FOREIGN MISSIONS+. By the Right Rev. H.H. MONTGOMERY, D.D., formerly Bishop of Tasmania, Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.

'Bishop Montgomery's admirable little book.... Into a limited
compass he has compressed the very kind of information which gives
one an adequate impression of the spirit which pervades a religion,
of what is its strength and weakness, what its relation to
Christianity, what, the side upon which it must be approached.'
_Church Quarterly Review_.

THIRD IMPRESSION.

+THE STUDY OF THE GOSPELS+. By the Very Rev. J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON, D.D., Dean of Westminster.

'Nothing could be more desirable than that the Anglican clergy
should be equipped with knowledge of the kind to which this little
volume will introduce them, and should regard the questions with
which Biblical study abounds in the candid spirit, and with the
breadth of view which they see here exemplified.'--_Spectator_.

'The little book on the Gospels, which the new Dean of Westminster
has recently published, is one to be warmly commended alike to
clergy and laity. Any intelligent person who takes the trouble to
work through this little volume of 150 pages will be rewarded by
gaining from it as clear a view of the synoptic problem as is
possible without prolonged and independent study of the
sources.'--_The Pilot_.

+A CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC+. By the Very Rev. WILFORD L. ROBBINS, Dean of the General Theological Seminary, New York; Author of _An Essay toward Faith_.

'We commend this handbook with confidence as a helpful guide to
those clergy and teachers who have thoughtful doubters to deal with,
and who wish to build safely if they build at all.'--_Church of
Ireland Gazette._

+PASTORAL VISITATION+. By the Rev. H.E. SAVAGE, M.A., Vicar of South Shields, and Hon. Canon of Durham.

'This is an excellent book.'--_Spectator_.

+AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH+. By the Very Rev. T.B. STRONG, D.D., Dean of Christ Church.

'This is a valuable and timely book, small in bulk, but weighty
both in style and substance.... The Dean's essay is an admirable
one, and is well calculated to clear men's minds in regard to
questions of very far-reaching importance. Its calm tone, and its
clear and penetrating thought, are alike characteristic of the
author, and give a peculiar distinction to everything he
writes.'--_Guardian_.

+THE STUDY OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY+. By the Right Rev. W.E. COLLINS, D.D., Bishop of Gibraltar.

'A book which displays the master-mind on every page, and has what
many master-minds lack, a sober, practical, common-sense strain
about it, which is hardly ever found in those who set out to
instruct us in Church History, or Canon Law, or Catholic use.'
--_Church Bells_.

+LAY WORK AND THE OFFICE OF READER+. By the Right Rev. HUYSHE YEATMAN-BIGGS, D.D., Lord Bishop of Southwark.

+RELIGION AND SCIENCE+. By the Rev. P.N. WAGGETT, M.A., of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cowley.

+CHURCH MUSIC+. By A. MADELEY RICHARDSON, Mus. Doc., Organist of St. Saviour's Collegiate Church, Southwark.

+INTEMPERANCE+. By the Right Rev. H.H. PEREIRA, D.D., Bishop of Croydon.
[_In preparation_.

+SCHOOLS+. By the Rev. W. FOXLEY NORRIS, M.A., Rector of Barnsley, and Hon. Canon of Wakefield. [_In preparation_.

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY

End of Project Gutenberg's Thoughts on Religion, by George John Romanes