THEOSOPHY AND CHRISTIANITY.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20101, 3 December 1930, Page 15

THEOSOPHY AND CHRISTIANITY.

TO THE EDITOR OV THE PRESS Sir, —I Always considered that "divinity" from the mere etymology of tho word, had some relation to God; in fact, that the conception of "divinity" must necessarily involve some conception of God; a conception not necessarily anthropomorphic, but none the less definite. But Mr Colonna has lost himself in abstractions—and apparently to liim divinity is merely a state of affairs which exists in varying degrees in grains of sand, savages, civilised men, and in Christ —especially in Christ. AVhich is as illuminating as to say, "Ca'sar and Pompey are very much ali!;n—especially Pompey." But Mr Colonna has said nothing of tho source of this life—still less has he mentioned any standard by which Christ may bo deemed to possess this "divinity" to a greater degree than tho average man. One would think that Mr Colonna had resolved God into the abstraction called "divinity." And who is this Christ of whom Mr Colonna speaks? Is He, Jesus Christ or merely the nebulous being of whom Mrs liesant tells us? And who inhabited the body of Jesus for three years, and then was reincarnated in Apollonius of Tyana, and later in Krishtiamurti? Mr Colonna says, "We are told (by Jesus Christ) that not a sparrow falls to the ground without the knowledge of our Father in Heaven." And the same Christ tells us, "I and My Father are one." I am afraid Mr Colonna himself incurs Voltaire's satire when he says that forgivcneHS implies resentment, and consequently imperfection, in God. Resentment is a word which describes a purely human feeling directed against, a person, and is quite inadequate and misleading as a description of God's hostility against sin (not against the sinner). And, personally, I should regard God's forgiveness as only one aspect of His great love; and I would far rather cast myself upon His love than regard myself as involved in the merciless law of "Karma" by which men expiate their deeds in successivo and inevitable reincarnations; and I would rather lean upon the hope of Heaven than upon the dismal prospect of Nirvana, which is surely an inglorious close to the "great law of repetition."

There is 110 room for sin or for sinners in that pink-and-silver paradise which is Mr Colonna's world. Even Mussolini is a man who is "learning through tho hard school of daily experience." Mr Colonna ought to have realised this instead of echoing Count Sporza's aristocratic contempt for that "second-rate journalist" and "common person." Mr Colonna has asked me to explain tho "law of love" in the case of a man who "after a life of sins, through a real honest heartfelt death-bed repentance, is sent to o place of bliss" while a "poor wretch without any visible cause, born with a diseased body, with a warped mind, and with criminal propensities, after a physical life of misery, is doomed to an eternity of damnation." Well, in tho former caso (mentioning in passing, that Mr Colonna takes no cognisance of sinners in his world) I should say that the laws of love, if the repentance were (as Mr Colonna says) real, honest, and heartfelt, and not mere "scare tactics," the laws of love would work very well there, as it did when Jesus Christ pardoned the penitent thief on the cross. All the same it is good counsel to people, to tell them not to live their lives in sin and for self, and then think to spend their last hours in repentance. And in the case of the "poor wretch, etc.," quoted by Mr Colonna, who would say that he was "doomed to an eternity of damnation"? Not I, for one. For such a man would depend for his forgiveness on Him who said of His slayers, "Father

forgive them, for they know not what they do." But it is futile to quote extreme and quite hypothetical cases like these. The fact is, that neither I nor Mr Colonna, nor anyone else knows exactly where tho line will be drawn, and it is just as well, for we are meant to love and serve God for higher motives than the mere fear of punishment or hope of reward. 1 cannot do better than quote the English translation of Sir Francis Xavier's hymn:

'"lhen why, O blessed Jeans Christ Should I not love Thee well. Not for liis sake cf winning heaven .not of escuphiy hell. Not from the hope of gaining aught Not socking a reward, But. as Thyself hast loved mo O ever-loving Lord."

—Yours, etc., TREMAYNK M. O'UKNOW. December Ist, 1930. TO YHK ElJlTOtf OF THE PRESS Sir, —The term "Christ" (from the Greek, "Christos," the Anointed) is apparently used in three different ways; or, more correctly, perhaps, in three differing degrees in the New Testament. It is in the first place applied to the Second Person of tho everblessed Trinity, the Cosmic Christ, 'Very God of Very God," co-equal with tho Father, in His Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Omnipresence. In the second place it is applied to the Teacher of some 2000 years ago, Jesus the Christ, of Whom it is stated, in the Christian Scriptures, that "Ho grew in wisdom and stature," and "was made perfect through suffering"": Who. after even imagining Himself forsaken by the Father ("Why hast Thou forsaken me"), finally achieved that wonderful Conscious At-one-ment —presumably through the Second Person of the Trinity—which enabled Hjm to affirm with an irresistible conviction : "I and the Father are one." This identity with tho One, makes Him one also with the All. He is therefore the Christ which is latent, or very partially expressed, in every human heart. He is "the Christ in you. the hope of glorv" (St. Paul); the God in "verv human tabernacle; "the Light which lighteth everv man that cometh into the world" (St. John). Now why seek to separate the part from tlie Whole? What significance has "potentiality" apart from "actuality"? Tn other words it is because man is. as Browning siiegepts: "A cod. though in (he germ " that he will nltimntolv be able to fulfil Christ's own

transcendent demand : "Be ye perfect, as vour Father in Heaven is perfect." —Yours, clc., TTTEOSOPHIST. December 2nd. 1030. TO TH7. FDITOB or TTVr, FHTSOS Sir. —According to my understanding of Christianity as expounded in tho Scriptures and taught by the Apostles, it i.s lotally opoosed to Theosophy. Theosophy recognises the Divine in every inan, and it only requires time lor him to work his way up to God. Christianity commences with man estranued from God (Rom. iii., 9-19) and unable to meet the claims of a holy God, therefore on the way to a lost Kternity. Theosophy requires reincarnation to achieve its purpose. Christianity requires regeneration or new birth (John iii , 3). a new nature in which God the Holv Spirit can dwell and lie the controlling power, and the recipient receives Eternal life, the gift of God. Regarding the two examples quoted by Mr Colonna. It matters not if it Ire a poor crrminr' wretch or a. moral cultured man : they both are seen by Cod as sinners; that is, they do not come up to His standard of righteousness and holiness and are therefore on the road to a lost eternity. Both equally need someone to meet the claims' of God against them, and this has been provided by the Man Christ Je«us the Mediator between God and man. Who died to bring about reconciliation between a holy God and His creature man, making it possible tor overv man to be brought back to God, if ho accents Christ as Saviour. God loves mankind, but cannot tolerate his Sll The other example is answered by the Lord's answer to the thief on the Cross (Luke xxiii., 39-43).—Yours, etc., E. CLARKE. December 2nd, 1930.