MR. H. G. WELLS AS THEOLOGIAN

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 52, 24 November 1917, Page 11

MR. H. G. WELLS AS THEOLOGIAN

"God tho Invisible King," by H. G. Wells (Casscll and Company, per S. and W. Mackay): This is a decidedly interesting book. In it a keen aud unconventional thinker, who has won fame both as a novelist and as a social reformer, makes a. bold dash into tho sphere. of theology, and announces his discovery of a now God and a now religion.. The war seems to have mado Mr. Wells, like many others, reconsider hia views on the fundamental problems of life. In "Mr. Britling Sees it Through," he gave a moving description of his finding of God, and in "God the Invisible King" he explains his new theology—ho gives us his ideas regarding the nature and character of tho Deity he has discovered. ' The book is easy reading. Tho author makes no endeavour to provo his theory by any formal process of logic. Ho tolls us that tho apostles of this "modern religion" advance no proof whatever of the existence of God, but their realisation of Him, and with regard to Ein qualities and dispositions they have little argument but profound conviction. What they say is this: that "if yon do not feel God then there is no pereuading you of Him; we cannot win over tho incredulous." There is much to bo said in favour of this attitude. Mod-, : ern philosophy has shaken our belief in mere logic. The heart has ita reasons as n;ell as the brais. Somo of our most euro "boliefs do not rest upon' any form of logical proof, but on immediate knowledge. We simply know they aro truo. Mr. Wolls is careful to warn people who are "accessible to storms of theological fear or passion" that he intends to say some shocking things, but the book contains nothing that need shock anyone except extremely nervous and conservative Christians. It is true that he expresses hie dislike of the doctrine of the Trinity in rather strong language. It is his pet bogey. He does not seem to have made a serious attempt to understand this doctrine as explained by leading modern theologians; Ho puts it very crudely. He does not make any allowance for tho fact that (to quote Dr. Flint) "thoughtful trinitarian divines hold that this doetrino has not merely been imposed on faith by external authority, but that it eatisfies tho reason, gives expression to the self-evidencing substance of revelation, and explains and supports religious experience." The idea of the Trinity is altogether too mysterious for Mr. Wells, and yet he finds it necessary to make distinctions in his own conception of Deity. His finite God is not the Creator or Ruler of the universe. The blank has to bo filled up somehow, and in order to do so ho brings in a Veiled Being who stands for "the ultimate myetorios of the Universe," but "which seems to knoi? nothing of life < or death or good or 111." Proceeding out of this Veiled Being "in a manner altogether inconceivable" is another toser being, tho mate of oui world-Life, the Will to 80. And then sod cornes-the God in tho hearfc-we enow not whence. He comes to ui "neither out of the stars nor out of tho pride of life, but is a still small voice within." Mr. Wells abolishes tho Trinty of the Church with a stroke of the I pen, and with another stroke of the same pen he gives us a new Trinity—tho Veiled Being, the Life Force, the finite Uod. And yet he tells us that this "modern religion appeals to no revelation, no authoritative teaching, no mystery." Conk anything bo more mysterious than thb Veiled Being and its relations to the Goo. of Religion? Tho two must havo eomt relationship, us the former is the ultirnalo of existence from which all thin"& proceed. But Mr. Wells tells us that he does not pretend that God lias any relation of control or association with, 01 knows all or much moro than wo do, about the ultimate Veiled Being. It ii easy enough to talk about a religion without mystery or revelation, but when the attempt is mado to actually construe such si religion insuperable difficulties, manifest themselves. Mr. Wells is most emphatic in stating that God is a person and capablo of entering into personal relationships with mankind. Hero is mystory again. No oiie has ,yet fathomed the mystery oi personality or of personal relationships. 1 he moro deeply these things are though i about tho more mysterious they become. Mr. Wells is- extremely anxious not to bi. regarded as a convert to the old religion Ho protests too much on this point iii some places, and endeavours to make thb differences between historical Christianity and his 'modern religion" as <r«it as possible; but when ho brings" his theology into touch with dail* life the differences tend to vanish. Tho new religion is a religion of redemption; it finds ,i place for conversion; the language it uses is largely borrowed from Christianity. Its Invisible King" jg very like SL Paul's conception of Christ. Mr. Wells irnnkly admits this likeness, and quite truly declares that many people will find the larger part of his'book acr? p !>, ,lf tbey wiH T0!l<1 "'he Christ God where he has written "God." Most of what ho has to say about the moral and intellectual shortcomings ' of protesting Christians is being 6a i<i from hundreds of Christian pulpits every buuday. There is nothing new in the claim of_ "modern religion" that "one should give oneself unreservedly to God that there is no other salvation. Tho beliovor owns all his being and every moment of his life to God, to keep'mind and body as clean, fine, wholesome, active, and completely at God's service at he can." This is familiar language. Mr. Wolls is quite surprised to find how clo«elv Hie character of his God resembles that of the Risen Christ as described In- nuch representative Churchmen ns Bishop Wcstcott and the Tiev W Temple, and he is compelled to admit thnt his own religious needs, emotions, and experiences aro after nil not very different from those .of the mass of men and women in oil ages. Tho idea of n God whose power* arn not absolutely unlimited is well known to modern theologians, but Mr. Well's God is altogether too finite— too limited. Ho might even be a defeated God. Dten Knshdall contends that the problem of otII compels us to recognise somo limitation of the power of God, but not tho possiblttv of defeat. With t'ns important qualification, Dr. Bashdall's conception of the relationship between God and man is not unlike that described by Mr. Wells. Dr. Knshdall believes in a God "who calls upon, men to become, in a quite literal sense, fellowworkers with Him. who works in and through human wills, and who, through tho co-oporation of theso wills, is conducting the nnivorse to the greatest Rood Ihnt ho knows to be possible of attainment. But Mr. Wolls's deitv sprms to navo little or no control over tho destiny of the universe.

Tho most valnablo part of Mr. 'Wells's lwok is not its Hinolojjieal and philosophical theories, but its impressive testimony to the truth of St. Augustine's fine sayinp that "God mado us for Himself, mid our hearts can find no rest until they reet in Him." As Dr. Jacks, tho brilliant editor of tho "Hibbort Journal," points out, "tho great merit of the bookis the emphasis it lays on the fact that tho author has found God. or rather that (iod has found him." Ernest Psichari, grandson of tho grout French freethinker Jfenan, woni: through a similnr erpcrience. M. Psichari, who fell at Charleroi, wrote- a book, which has just boon translated into English, in which ho describoa how he found God whilo on colonial service in tbo Sahara. "The snme experience," writes Br. Jacks, "is now happening all the world over. It is usolpw for sceptical philosophy to put ui> barriers against the flowing tide." (New Zealand prico is. Gd.)

A now novel by Mrs. Florence L. Barclay, "The White Ladies of Worcester," has boen published bjr Jteeere, .Putnam.