The Dominion. ATURDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1911. BISHOP JULIUS'S CHRISTMAS SERMON.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1324, 30 December 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. ATURDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1911. BISHOP JULIUS'S CHRISTMAS SERMON.

Bishop Julius is always interesting. When he speaks he has something to say, and he says it in a striking and unconventional manner. A preacher who gets out of the old grooves in this way, and tells the world straight out what is in his mind without too cautiously weighing every word, is liable to be misunderstood under the best of circumstances, and this liability is increased tenfold when his remarks on a great subject are summarised into a . short telegram as was the case with Dr. Julius's sermon in the Christchurch Anglican Cathedral on Christmas Day on the Divinity of Christ. A number of Auckland clergymen- who were asked to state their views on the telegraphic report of the Bishop's address .ill Coined to bo more or less doubtful as to what he really meant. This was largely due to the fact that the more striking passages were isolated from their context, while important explanations and qualifications were omitted. But even with the fuller .report-before them many people would like a more precise definition of what the Bishop means by such an expression as "an almost idolatrous worship of the man Jesus" : though it is only fair to say that he .expressly states that "Jesus Christ is God, and to Him they ..roust pay divine reverence and worship,' A few actual specimens of the hymns which he regards as "sentimental trash" would also be particularly interesting, as giving a true indication of the religious ideas of the people, for it has been well said that "there is no greater mistake than to imagine that a complete understanding of any religion is to bo obtained from its official creed and the official Scriptures in use; the real beliefs of any community would be far more accurately ascertained from the comparatively unofficial sources, namely, the hymns sung in their worship." In the brief telegraphic report it was quite impossible for anyono tc understand exactly what Dr. Julius was referring to when he said: "If I could-only get rid of the infirmities of the body, the- infirmities of the tongue, dullness of brain and mind and wits; if I could only tell you what I mean clown in the heart of me, I would make you jump." "he context, however, makes his meaning clear. He had in mind those unfathomed depths of human personality on the sub-conscious side of our nature of which the new science of psychology gives us an occasional glimpse. We have powers within us which reason fails to comprehend and which language is unable to express. It is. as Eergson tells us, instinct and feeling alone that can touch these mysterious elements of our being, and they can do so because they are in touch with life itself. It is a wonderfully fascinating subject. Dr. Julius seems to adopt the interesting suggestion of the late Professor William James that in this sub-conscious side of the mind lies tho point of contact with the divine, and to foll6w the idea recently put forward by Professor Sanday, of Oxford, that from this quarter fresh light may be expected on the great problems concerning the relations between the human and the divine in the consciousness of Christ. In this sub-conscious region impressions, experiences, inferences, and ideas jostle one another in a marvellous way. They arc not, says Dr. Sanday, "so many passivo and disconnected items (like dried peas in a bottle), but they are endued with an active power of combining and recombining, of modifying and boing modified, so that when they come up to the surface again it is often in quite different shapes from those in I which they sank beneath it." These arc very profound, though very in-1 teresting, speculations; but it would be dangerous to build too confidently on assumptions that have not been thoroughly established, and which subsequent investigations will almost certainly modify and may disprove. It must bo remembered that the science of psychology is still in its infancy, and many of the theories which have bceu put forward in its name are being vigorously challenged by competent critics. It would be a great mistake for any Church to precipitately commit itself to theories that the growth of knowledge may render insecure if not absolutely untenable.

Dr. Julius is on Arm ground when ho declares Ihafc the blank materialism of fifty years ago is gone. Tim old idea thai, all things arts capable of a mechanical explanation has been discarded by some of the- most advanced modem thinkers in terms which sometimes approach very close, to derision. Philosophers and scientists readily admit that when wo get to the heart of things vt arc faced with riddles and mysterv on

every side. We. talk ;i great, deal jibouL matter in its various forms, but ns one eminent man of Kcicnce frankly declares: "What, matter ultimately is science docs not pretend tQ tell iik, unless it explains it away altogether in terms of electricity"'; ftnd another writes: "Let us admit, n.s scientific men, thai, of real origin, even of the simplest thing, we know nothing; not, even of a, pebble." riiep: seems to be a, growing consensus of opinion that, the universe must have, a spiritual interpretation, ihc most distinguished philosopher '■it (ho day, M. Ekrhson, has lieen Mood enough to give us back our freewill and to inform ua that the aspirations of our moral nature are not in the least contradicted by positive ■seieuce. _ This is very satisfactory as far as it goes. In explaining' the hearing of Bekcson's philosophy on MJligious belief a recent writer states:

It has given, for tho time at least, the death-blow to tho materialistic and Mechanistic conceptions of the universe tint have so long been prevalent. No longer can tho apologists of religion bo accused of setting themselves in opposition to everything that science and philosophy teach. The impatient contempt with which the spiritual theory of the universe, and tho belief in freewill. Used to 1m met is now entirely out of date. If Hurley or Clifford were to the world in which they lived iWsy would find themselves in a new and alien intellectual atmosphere in which tlieir controversial bludgeons would be as anachronistic as crossbows in a modern oattle It. Bergson. believes in spirit as something separate from matter and able to exist without il, and he supports a M«y extreme theory of free-will. Morchvr' p ° ,P rnv,llc s an apparent justification lor the mystic. The mystic is one ".jo, not by any process of the intellect, gains or professes to gain a direct' experience of God. According to 11. Bergson, this pretension cannot be dismissed with a shrug and a smile, as, on his theories, tins is the only possible way that God could be known.

Though M. Bkugson is not an infallible authority, nor is his philosophy the last word on this great subject, yet Ins views are very interesting as indicating that the best thought ot the age is turning its hack on thai. depressing materialism, which, had people really believed it and acted accordingly, would have deprived them of most of the things which make life worth living.