to push the wooden posts which supported the roof, so that they slid from their stone bases. 'This,' says Mr. Macalister, 'would not be an impossible feat for a man of superhuman strength; and, obviously, as soon as he had succeeded in pushing the posts slightly out of the perpendicular, the ruin would be completed automatically.' Dr. In the new number of the new quarterly, The Liberal Churchman (Williams & Norgate; Is. net), there is an article upon Dr. Hastings Rashdall's new volume of sermons, Christus in Ecclesia. The article is written by the President of the Churchmen's Union, Dr. W. D. Morrison. Morrison quotes the opinion of the late Edmond Scherer that 'the sermon is a false and antiquated method of human utterance,' and almost agrees with it. But there are exceptions: Some sermonwriters can still speak as a man to men; and it is a rare pleasure and refreshment to come across an oasis in the desert like Dr. Rashdall's new volume of addresses-Christus in Ecclesia. Dr. Rashdall's volume belongs to a short series which Messrs. T. & T. Clark are publishing under the general title of 'The Scholar as Preacher.' Every volume will be contributed by a recognized scholar. The first volume was Dr. Inge's Faith and Knowledge, the second is Dr. Rashdall's. The third will be by Professor Zahn of Erlangen. Dr. Zahn's volume will go by the title of Bread and Salt from the Word of God. The translation has been made by Dr. A. E. Burn, Rector of Handsworth, who has done more than any man to introduce Professor Zahn to English readers. Messrs. Williams & Norgate have published the official Report of the second great International Congress of Religion, which was held in Basel in 1904 (Verhandlungen des II. Internationalen Kongresses für Allgemeine Religionsgeschichte; 8s.). In spite of the lamentable circumstance that many of the papers are given only in outline, the Report is packed with interest. Among the rest, an outline is given of a paper read by Abdullah al-Mamoon Sohraworthy on 'Toleration in Islam.' We know, and have sadly to acknowledge it, that when Christianity and Muhammadanism start together to convert the lower tribes of the earth, Christianity falls far behind in the race. Reasons are given for it. The reason which this Muhammadan gives is that Islam is much more tolerant than the Church. He does not deny that in the Western mind Islam has become identified with aggression and selfassertion. That is due, he says, not to Islam, but to the rancorous bigotry engendered by the Crusades.' No creed, he contends, has done more than Islam 'for the unification and humanizing of all the branches of the human family.' And he quotes testimonies to that effect from 'nonMuslim and therefore unbiassed authors.' These testimonies are of course of no value. Who is David Urquhart and who is F. F. Arbuthnot? Christians could be quoted who have expressed a pathetic interest in the religion of the Thag. Here is seen the mistake of condensing such a paper as this. The author surely gave proofs. Without his proofs his paper loses most of its value. If the time is past (and it is past) for the serene appropriation of all the virtues by Christianity, all the more must Christians insist upon proof from history when the virtues and graces of life are appropriated by some other religion. Still our author has something to say for himself. To-day,' he says, 'when American Christians roast Negroes at the stake, and when the most broad-minded Christians would shrink with horror from the bare notion of inter-marriage with the darker races, Islam is making its converts by the thousand in Africa and Hindostan, the acceptance of its doctrines placing the neophyte, whatsoever be his colour, on a footing of absolute equality with all Muslims.' Perhaps acceptance of its doctrines' is not just what we mean by toleration. But this Muhammadan ventures the further assertion that 'Muhammad has, in many places, laid down the toleration of all creeds as an essential duty, and as a basic principle of religion.' And he adds, 'Interference with or the molestation of Christians and Jews is expressly forbidden; and in actual practice both enjoyed throughout the Middle Ages greater freedom and security in Muslim states than in European countries.' Printed by MORRISON & GIBB LIMITED, Tanfield Works, and Published by T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street, Edinburgh. It is requested that all literary communications be addressed to THE EDITOR, St. Cyrus, Montrose. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES. Notes of Recent Exposition. Ar the Annual Meeting of the Society of Friends, held this year in Leeds, Professor Rendel Harris delivered an address on 'Christ in Modern Life.' The address was cleverly, but very briefly, reported in the Leeds Mercury. In the Yorkshire Post only a few sentences were quoted; they were quoted out of their context and made to stand up stark and startling. More than that, the audience itself, vast and intelligent, was unresponsive if not resentful. And yet the address answered its title. If it missed its mark in delivery, that was not because it said less, but because it said more, than the audience expected from its title. The title, we say, was 'Christ in Modern Life.' Professor Rendel Harris had not chosen it. He did not seem to like it. He said it suggested, 'If Christ came to Chicago,' or 'What would Jesus do?' But his protest was not against the title, it was against the use that has been made of it. For, in a moment, as if the real appropriateness of the title had just struck him, he faced his audience and said: 'If Christ came to Chicago-why not? Is it not conceivable that He might come? If not, what are we here for? What would be gained by a meeting held on the hypothesis that He had done coming? What would it really mean if He only said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem," and never "O Chicago," or "O Leeds," or "O Society of Friends"? What would it mean if He never came VOL. XVI.-12 even closer than that, if He never came now with Our Professor Rendel Harris had lost his audience. They had come to hear him talk about Christ in modern life. But they never imagined that he would really talk about Christ in modern life. Not about Christ Himself in modern life. They gathered in their crowds to hear an address on the influence of Christ, or on Christ as an influence, in modern life. And when Professor Rendel Harris told them that the title was nothing to him if it made Christ merely an influence, if it did not make Him a person in modern life, his audience got out of sympathy with him. What should a preacher do when he finds that he has lost his audience? He should deliver his message. The prophets were preachers. They were often out of touch with their audience. What did they do? They delivered their message. And sometimes they were killed for it. Succeeding generations built tombs for them, but their own generation killed them. Professor Rendel Harris was in no risk of his life. He only suffered a resentful silence. He did not attempt to get into touch with his audience. He delivered his message. The audience was unsympathetic, but it listened to him. Is it really wise, he asked this unsympathetic but listening audience, to bring down good people out of past days into our own? We may encumber ourselves with undesirable aliens. By the accident of changing time they lie outside our life and manners. Their thoughts are not our thoughts, nor their ways our ways. Christ went about doing good, but that was in His own day. Are we sure if He came down into ours that we should feel comfortable with Him? The case is more perplexing even than that. For Christ was an undesirable alien in His own day. He did not come even in His own day as the flower of its civilization: how much less would He come in ours. Even His own generation saw no beauty in Him to desire Him; even then it was said, 'He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.' If His goodness did not gain Him glory then, how much less would it get Him honour now? Christ in modern life-if Christ is in modern life He is in it as an undesirable alien; He is come as truth denied; He is here as the champion of lost causes, as the leader of forlorn hopes, as the justifier of the poor and needy, as the reformer in Church and State. Christ is in modern life, but He is still the outside superfluous Man-outside the Inn, outside the School, outside the Synagogue, and finally outside the City gate. Did Professor Rendel Harris mean, then, that Christ is come again, simply to be despised and rejected? He did not mean that. Christ did not come at first simply to be despised and rejected. He came to make men think, and He came to make men true. He is come to make us think, and to make us true, to-day. When He came first, He came to make the Pharisees think. He quoted the 110th Psalm. The Pharisees said the Messiah was the Son of David. But in the 10th Psalm David himself calls Him Lord. If David himself calls Him Lord, how is He then his son? He asked the Pharisees to think. He is come to-day to ask us to think about the Higher Criticism. Had Professor Rendel Harris recovered his audience yet? He suddenly stopped and cried, Do you hear me?' 'Speak up,' was the sullen answer that came back. 'I want you to hear me,' he said, 'I want you all to hear me, I want the man in the street to hear me.' It seemed as if he felt that he must get past his own people, past that mighty mass of church-going people of many denominations besides his own, and appeal to the unprejudiced passer-by. 'What do you think of the Higher Criticism?' he cried. The churches are trying to keep it out, but the man in the street is rapidly assimilating it. What do you think of it? Christ is come to ask you to think.' Christ is come to make us think about the Higher Critics. The Higher Critics are white ants. The white ants in the tropics will bore through wood; you must build of iron. The white ants of criticism have been at work on the history of Christianity, and on Christ. I believe, said Professor Rendel Harris, that the general history of Christianity, and also its Founder, stand more fairly to-day than ever they did in the sight of But I believe that the white ants have got at some things in Christianity. I believe that they have got at the Creeds, and have burrowed deep into the Sacraments. men. Let us think of these things. And when we think, let us be true. If we are riding on the Creeds and the Sacraments, we are riding on a deflated tyre. But a deflated tyre is not a punctured tyre. Let us separate the precious from the vile. Let us think. There may be something worse in our house than white ants; there may be dry rot. Let us be true. When the white ants have eaten our woodwork away let us not pretend to find shelter within it. Professor Rendel Harris had lost his audience. They resented being asked to think. They resented being told to be true. 'We never were in bondage to any man, and how sayest thou that the truth shall make us free?' Are you free, said Professor Rendel Harris, are you true, in a world where people are still worshipping a wafer, and where trembling evangelicals are still trying to say that a man sang a psalm in the middle of a fish? The reporter wrote down that sentence. Professor Rendel Harris had not recovered his audience. But and feet. They have one Saviour; one Gospel message; one burning passion to make this Saviour, through this gospel message, acceptable to the men of their own time. What hinders Christ from becoming acceptable to the men of this generation? Mr. Barnard says it is the New Testament. That is to say, it is our interpretation of the New Testament. For of course the New Testament is always according to the interpretation thereof. There are those in every generation to whom is set the task of interpreting the New Testament to their generation. If they interpret it aright Christ is seen in the New Testament, and the moment that Christ is seen He is acceptable. Mr. Barnard believes that the interpreters of the New Testament in our day are not interpreting it aright. He believes that for the most part they are afraid to interpret it aright. So greatly has Mr. Barnard lost his confidence in the official interpreters of the New Testament in our day that in this essay he turns to the laity. 'More frankness,' he says, 'is required on all sides. In some ways it is hard for those who hold an official position to take the first step, because they may lose influence if they are suspected of being unorthodox; in public teaching especially they have to be careful not to wound the feelings of old-fashioned and conservative people. But for the laity it is much easier-rigid orthodoxy is not expected of them; and if they would only talk a little more freely, and discuss matters more fully, it would enable the clergy to judge better of the circumstances with which they have to deal.' The official interpreters of the New Testament, much offended, may ask if Mr. Barnard means to charge them with dishonesty. But Mr. Barnard does not charge them with dishonesty. And even if he did, they must not be offended. They must not be offended even if they themselves feel that they are not always quite straightforward in their interpretation of the New Testament. Clergy,' says Mr. Barnard, 'who intend to be quite straightforward, evade questions of difficulty, partly no doubt because they feel that they cannot themselves really face them, but partly also because they do not recognize that these questions actually are in people's minds, and require answering.' But does it greatly matter? Are these questions much in people's minds? Mr. Barnard has no doubt they are. He has no doubt that it matters momentously. He believes that much current teaching is positively shocking to the moral sense of people who have learned to think for themselves. They find themselves asked to believe things against which their moral nature revolts. Mr. Barnard mentions the doctrine of the eternal damnation of the heathen. Is that doctrine not preached now? It is sometimes preached still. And even when it is not openly advocated there is a feeling that it lies hidden in the background of orthodox Christianity. Mr. Barnard mentions also the doctrine of original sin. But we shall come to that in a moment. There is another matter first. The official interpretation of the New Testament is not in doctrine only, it is also in deed. The interpretation in deed is more persuasive than the interpretation in doctrine. Half the charges made against the clergy for not squaring their conduct with their creed are no doubt mere talk. But the other half are sincere. Do the official interpreters of the New Testament interpret the New Testament in their life? Do they make even an honest effort to interpret it in their life? Mr. Barnard takes an example. He chooses the phrase Christian Brotherhood. The phrase 'Christian Brotherhood' is a short summary of certain lines of teaching in the New Testament. The Christian clergy and ministry do, as a rule, interpret the phrase as part of the New Testament teaching quite correctly. But do they live as Christian brothers? It is not enough, says Mr. Barnard, to explain the meaning of the phrase in But what is the offence in Original Sin? Its great offence to Mr. Barnard is that it contradicts experience. dicts experience. It is not simply that it is outside experience. The doctrine of God is outside. experience. He that cometh to God must believe (moreσa de) that He is.' But as soon as faith brings the doctrine of God into contact with reason and experience it is acceptable. The doctrine of Original Sin, says Mr. Barnard, is not acceptable. It is not workable. It contradicts |