ries 
 
 ie 
 niet 
 
 a a 
 
 PTE TS Re SSE 
 4 a 
 
 meeetnrnniner Sian 
 Sco. 
 
 PTE a YET tS Ve OBE TAAL ete Sm 
 
 ee 
 
 SS 
 
 SSS STR 
 
 Sola ee emenners 
 
 Ht 
 ahi: 
 “ay 
 
 iy ) 
 Att 
 He 
 itil 
 i 
 H 
 SE Pekipad othe hob td 
 
 SEE BET ee 
 
 FOB Fe OY ‘or 
 
 os OF 
 { 
 ant 
 
 a 
 
 
 

 
is hae 4 Brie 
 
 oat 
 
 1 aed 
 
 
 
Rie 
 HS ON 
 hy! Via 
 
 
 
DU BOSE MEMORIAL LECTURES 
 
ALMAE MATRI SEWANENSI 
 
/ 
 / 
 
 a 
 
 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET 
 OF UNITY 
 
 A Series of Lectures on 
 the Du Bose Foundation delivered 
 at the University of 
 the South 
 
 BY THE REY. 
 
 J. O. F. MURRAY, D.D., 
 
 Hon. D.D. Sewanee, 
 Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge, 
 and Hon. Canon of Ely 
 Cathedral 
 
 LONDON 
 SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING 
 
 CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE 
 
 NEW YORK AND TORONTO : THE MACMILLAN CO. 
 
 Printed in Great Britain 
 
First published 1924. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Tuts book represents the Lectures given to the students 
 of Theology at the University of the South, Sewanee, 
 Tennessee, November 7th—1oth, 1922, on the Du Bose 
 Memorial Foundation. 
 
 William Porcher Du Bose was a South Carolinian of 
 French Huguenot extraction. He was born April 11th, 
 1836, educated at the Military Academy of Charleston, 
 S.C., and at the University of Virginia. He served with 
 distinction in the Confederate forces 1860-65, first as 
 an adjutant and then as a chaplain. After six years’ 
 practical experience he became Chaplain and Professor 
 of Moral Philosophy and Christian Apologetics in the 
 University of the South, at Sewanee, and served the 
 University in various capacities for thirty-six years. 
 He entered into rest on August 18th, 1918. 
 
 His thought was singularly penetrating and pregnant, 
 dealing fearlessly with fundamental problems. It is 
 embodied in seven volumes published between 1892 
 and I91I, supplemented by an important series of 
 articles which appeared in the Constructive Quarterly 
 between 1913 and 1921. His pupils have felt that his 
 work has a significance which will not be exhausted 
 in a single generation, that he has dug a well that goes 
 down to eternal springs of the Well of Life. They have, 
 therefore, established this lectureship to secure the 
 continued attention of scholars and students to the 
 issues raised by his contributions to philosophy and 
 theology. 
 
 2 
 
6 PREFACE 
 
 A lecturer on this foundation has, therefore, a wide 
 field from which to select the subject of his course. 
 There was, however, no room to doubt that the Inau- 
 gural Course of Lectures ought to be devoted to a study 
 of the Master himself. This was, in spite of his manifold 
 disqualifications, a thoroughly congenial choice for the 
 lecturer. He was grateful for an opportunity of 
 expressing his personal indebtedness to one whose 
 writings had exercised a deep influence over his own 
 thought life. He felt also that there were pressing 
 reasons why the attention of theologians should at 
 this time be called to the man and his work. 
 
 Du Bose is for various reasons far from being as well 
 known outside the circle of his immediate disciples as 
 he ought to be. His writings, in spite of their sterling 
 qualities, and the high value set on them by a few well 
 qualified judges, are in danger of drifting out of the ken 
 even of serious students. His style, though it is not 
 obscure, and has, as Bishop Talbot pointed out, a 
 distinction of its own, is not easy. The exposition of his 
 argument is unsystematic. He allows his thoughts to 
 flow on freely, passing from one point to another by a 
 law of natural association, rather than forcing them to 
 advance by regulated steps to a predetermined goal. 
 His chapters are in consequence hard to analyse, and 
 his conclusions lack symmetrical completeness. 
 
 We must not, however, on the strength of this suppose 
 that so true a disciple of Aristotle could tolerate careless- 
 ness in the use of terms, or confusion of thought. The 
 fact is that his patience in holding his judgment in 
 suspense—what a friend calls “his refusal to treat a 
 point as settled until it was settled ’’—-was only equalled 
 by his eagerness in seeking for a clear-cut decision in 
 which it would be possible to rest. Indeed this resolute 
 
PREFACE 5 
 
 determination to see everything in the sharpest focus, 
 and at the same time to avoid any premature attempt 
 at harmonising apparent discords, is an intellectual 
 asset as valuable asitisrare. At the same time it does 
 not conduce to immediate popularity. No party capital 
 can be made out of it. Its appeal is limited to the 
 somewhat select circle of readers, who like to do their 
 own thinking. 
 
 Such readers, however, should find Du Bose an 
 author to their taste. But it is only fair to add that 
 he was not only a thinker, who because he thought 
 for himself naturally stimulates thought in others, he 
 was a ‘“ Prophet.’”’ His interest in truth was not 
 purely intellectual. It was, at the heart of it, moral 
 and religious. His thinking is always in touch with 
 spiritual reality. He speaks at first hand of God and 
 from God. Heis one of the few “ voices ”’ in the world, 
 not one of the many “echoes.”’ So to master his 
 message requires not only concentrated attention, 
 but an intensity of moral earnestness, a resolute 
 determination to see each thought in its context in a 
 life of loyal discipleship, which does not always accom- 
 pany highly developed intellectual independence. 
 
 This must suffice on the externals of form and style. 
 The heart of Du Bose’s message, that which gives it 
 its special significance and urgency for the time now 
 present, is, as I pointed out in the title of my course, 
 the stress that he laid on “‘ Unity ” as the key to all the 
 deepest problems of life and thought. In the course of 
 my exposition of his treatment of these problems, the 
 delicacy and importance of the enquiries on which he 
 embarked in the central department of Christology 
 claimed a disproportionate share of my allotted space. 
 And as there is a danger lest the interest which attaches 
 
8 PREFACE 
 
 to these comparatively subordinate issues may distract 
 attention from that which is truly central and funda- 
 mental it will be worth while to give here and now a 
 rapid summary of “ the Science of Christ,” as it shaped 
 itself in the course of Du Bose’s thinking, to show how 
 the thought of Unity is dominant in each department 
 of it and in the whole. 
 
 1. Du Bose approached the problem first from the | 
 consideration of the nature and conditions of human 
 salvation, from what he called “‘ Soteriology.” 
 
 His conclusions under this head were— 
 
 (a) that man was made for union with God : 
 
 (b) that he can only attain this, the true end of his 
 being, under the condition on his side of “ Holi- 
 ness ”’: 
 
 (c) that in order to satisfy this condition he must by 
 his own act bring the animal nature, which he 
 inherits, into subjection to the law of right 
 reason : | 
 
 (zd) that God supplies the power, which man unaided 
 lacks, to satisfy this condition, by Grace through 
 Faith—the Grace being revealed to man by His 
 Word in Christ, and appropriated by man through 
 the Faith which His Spirit quickens into action : 
 
 (ec) that the Grace was revealed through the incarna- 
 tion of the Word of God in human flesh by a 
 living process, in which the activity of the Human 
 Nature of the Man Christ Jesus supplied an 
 essential element ; and par1 passu through His 
 conquest over Sin and Death under human 
 conditions : 
 
 (f) that the fruits of His conquest are available for 
 all men here and now “in fact,” “ by faith,” 
 
PREFACE 9 
 
 ‘ 5] 
 
 first ‘“‘ for us”’ and then “‘in us,” until at last 
 we find Christ enthroned as King in our hearts 
 through the operation of the Spirit of God our 
 Father in the inner man. 
 
 The sum of the whole matter under this head then is 
 this. A man finds “salvation” in proportion as his 
 own being is ‘‘ subdued out of distraction into unity,” 
 by being made “ at one”’ with God and therefore “‘ at 
 one ’’ with itself in Christ. 
 
 2. Salvation, however, cannot be fully understood so 
 long as it is regarded merely as an individual concern. 
 It is impossible to limit “‘ the incarnation of the Divine 
 in Human Flesh” to the “ individual ’’ incarnation, 
 manifested in its historic process in the development 
 and perfecting of the human nature and personality 
 of Jesus from His birth at Bethlehem until He sat 
 down with His Father on His Throne after His Ascen- 
 sion. For Jesus Christ, even as ‘“‘an individual,” 
 stands in an unique and organic relation to every 
 member of the race. No one of us, as the study of 
 Salvation showed, can become his true self, or in Bible 
 language ‘‘ win his own soul,” unless he surrenders it 
 to Christ, becoming a living organ of His Will, an 
 instrument for the manifestation of His abiding 
 Presence by the execution of His purposes in the world. 
 In so doing he is taken up into the incarnation of Jesus 
 Christ. He becomes a member of His Body, and thereby 
 in finding himself he finds also his fellow-members. 
 He learns that he is no isolated independent unit, but 
 part of a living whole, “‘ the Great Church,’ membership 
 in which is the primary fact for all who are alive to 
 their relation to their Head—membership in any 
 subordinate group, whether Anglican or any other, 
 being secondary. 
 
Io PREFACE 
 
 The foundation of this Great Inclusive Church is 
 thus Jesus Christ, the Great Inclusive Truth, whom we 
 each severally and in groups are striving to apprehend 
 and express in human language to the best of our 
 ability. For the Church, as a whole and in every part, 
 lives by faith in Him, and its function is to bear witness 
 to Him in the world as the Truth, the key to all human 
 life and thought. 
 
 The Truth is one and unchangeable. But it is many- 
 sided, and too vast to be grasped in its completeness 
 by any individual or any group of individuals in isola- 
 tion. Truth in every department of knowledge can 
 only be grasped co-operatively. However much it 
 must always owe to individual effort, it is always a 
 corporate achievement. It is not surprising, therefore, 
 to be told that the whole Truth can only be apprehended 
 and expressed in communion, by the working together 
 in due measure of every part of the Whole Body. 
 
 Meanwhile the deepest fact with regard to the Church 
 is the Unity in which each several member of it is 
 bound to all the rest in his Head Jesus Christ the 
 Truth. 
 
 This brings us to what may well prove Du Bose’s 
 most important contribution to the life and thought 
 of our time, his conception of the Truth as before all 
 things the force that makes for Unity. This seems at 
 first sight in flat contradiction with universal experi- 
 ence. And for this reason. Hitherto, especially in 
 Theology, we have been terribly prone to identify our 
 Own opinions, our own individual constructions of the 
 Truth down to the minutest details, with the Truth 
 itself. And so we have made our several expressions 
 of the Truth, our Creeds and Confessions, into instru- 
 ments of exclusion. 
 
PREFACE Ir 
 
 Now, if Du Bose is right, in so doing we sin against 
 the very spirit of the Truth itself, perpetuating and 
 intensifying divisions in its sacred Name. Surely it will 
 transfigure our whole outlook, and open the door to 
 unsuspected possibilities of agreement in the Truth 
 and of growth in the apprehension of it, if we can learn 
 to regard all earnest seekers after Truth as fellow- 
 workers to a common goal, instead of as open or 
 concealed antagonists, who are the more insidious and 
 the more dangerous, and therefore to be the more 
 fiercely repudiated, the more nearly identical their 
 systems as a whole are to our own? What if R. L. 
 Stevenson is right, and the genuine touchstone of 
 Truth is revealed by its power, not to convict all rival 
 systems of error, but to help each to give clearer 
 expression to the element of Truth contained in it ? 
 
 This must suffice to indicate the place that Unity 
 occupies in Du Bose’s doctrine of the Church, and the 
 significance for the individual believer of his member- 
 ship in the One Body. 
 
 3. There remains a yet wider unity than can at 
 present be included in the Great Church, however 
 liberally we extend its borders. The Church is, no 
 doubt, in idea, as Dr. Hort said, “ nothing less than 
 mankind knowing and fulfilling its destiny.”’ But all 
 do not yet know, and are not here and now fulfilling 
 their destiny. And the function of the Church in the 
 World is, as we have seen, to bear witness to the Truth, 
 with a view to bringing all men to a knowledge of their 
 destiny and enabling them to fulfil it. The extent to 
 which this result is attained must depend first on the 
 Church’s vision of the Truth committed to her, and 
 then on her attitude towards those to whom she has 
 to bear her witness. 
 
12 PREFACE 
 
 There is, I have already emphasized the fact, a real 
 distinction at this present time between the Church 
 and the World. Regarded as rival systems for the 
 ordering of human life, the distinction between them 
 is absolute. The World as World, that is Mankind 
 consciously or unconsciously striving to live its life 
 without God, is and must remain without hope. The 
 system as a system is false and cannot last for ever. 
 God in His love for man cannot suffer it to continue. 
 The Church can only bear witness to the World, in 
 that sense of the term, of its approaching destruction. 
 
 But what are we to say of the relation between the 
 members of the human race who at present face each 
 other with these contrasted outlooks? On the side 
 of the World there has certainly been in the past, 
 and we have reason to believe that there will continue 
 to be hatred for the Church and persecution more or 
 less violent for its members. The Church, on the other 
 side, is naturally tempted to clothe itself in its own 
 virtue, to identify its persecutors with the system to 
 which they belong, and so to feel justified in scorning 
 and despising them ; and even in exulting at the pros- 
 pect of the judgment in store for them. The point we 
 have to notice is, that just in so far as the Church has 
 yielded to this temptation and forgotten the fact of its 
 fundamental unity with all mankind, it has failed and 
 failed disastrously in the fulfilment of its function. 
 It has wrought no redemption on the earth. It has 
 repelled men from, instead of attracting them to, the 
 Kingdom of God. It is not merely that it has failed 
 to live up to the full height of a Counsel of Perfection, 
 it has been false to the Truth which lies at the root 
 of its own being. The Church is built on a sacrifice 
 which expresses the Love of God for the whole World. 
 
PREFACE 13 
 
 It exists to bear witness to all men of the fact of their 
 redemption. It knows that its Master Christ is the 
 Logos of Man and of every man, and that the goal set 
 before it is to present every man perfect and complete 
 to Christ, and so to bring the whole race back and up 
 to God in Him. Nothing less than this is the charac- 
 teristic work of the dispensation in which we live. 
 And here again, at the heart of the Truth in the power 
 of which alone we can take our appointed share in this 
 work, is the fact of our Unity in Christ with the whole 
 race whose nature He shares and for whose life He 
 died. 
 
 So deep and so vital are the relations between Truth 
 and Unity as Du Bose perceived and testified. Is it 
 surprising that in the end ‘ Unity,” which, after all, 
 is only another name for the Spirit of Love, should 
 have seemed to him to be the sum and substance of the 
 glad tidings of God, with which the Church is entrusted ? 
 Both ‘“ Truth’ and ‘“ Unity ”’ are live issues amongst 
 us to-day. Will it not help us in the discussions 
 which both cannot fail to bring in their train, and 
 which so easily, as we have seen, become embittered 
 and divisive, if we can enter on them with the Vision 
 and the Wisdom of Du Bose ? 
 

 
CONTENTS 
 
 LECTURE I 
 
 THE MAN AND His MESSAGE 
 
 A. The Background of Spiritual Experience: (1) The first clear 
 call from God.—(2) His self-consecration after the ruin of his earthly 
 hopes.—(3) The final testing of an enquiring spirit. B. His Tvain- 
 ing : (1) His natural bent towards Plato and St. John complemented 
 by the study of Mathematics, Aristotle and St. Paul.—(2) The 
 stimulus of his work as a University Professor. C. Personal 
 Characteristics : (1) His sincerity—‘‘ Lieutenant Ninkum Poop.’’— 
 (2) His independence as a Thinker.—(3) The ‘ Catholicity ’”’ of his 
 intellectual sympathies. 
 
 LECTURE II . 
 
 His VISION OF UNITY AND HIS CONFIDENCE IN TRUTH 
 
 A. The Relation of Unity and Truth: (1) His vision of the Unity 
 of the Kingdom of God as the Truth, 1.e., the Key to life and thought. 
 The goal of a lifelong study of Truth at first hand by the method 
 of intuition rather than by discursive reasoning on material supplied 
 by Authority.—(z) His appreciation of ‘‘ the Polarity of Truth,” 
 “a man of both extremes’”’ and of the essential kinship between 
 human reason and the Truth.—(3) This kinship expressed in Christ 
 as the Logos of God, of the Universe, and of Man. B. Corporate 
 Thinking: (1) ‘“‘ Christ the Word” reveals the Truth objectively. 
 We apprehend the Truth subjectively for ourselves through the 
 Spirit.—(2) Freedom of search for the individual in spite of its 
 inconveniences and dangers is essential to a vital and growing 
 apprehension of the Truth, which the Church holds corporately.— 
 (3) For as advance in knowledge in every department on the part 
 of the Race comes through individual experience and then is sub- 
 mitted to verification by experts in its own department, so each 
 conclusion, whether of an individual theologian or of a Council, 
 needs corporate verification by the Church as a whole in every place 
 and in every age. C. The Right Use of Creeds: (1) The Creeds of 
 
 15 
 
16 CONTENTS 
 
 the Church have the authority which attaches to conclusions which 
 have been verified by nearly two thousand years of Christian experi- 
 ence.—(2) We must beware of interfering with this continual process 
 of verification.—(3) The individual accepts the Creed at his baptism 
 on the authority of the Church, and is all his life growing into fuller 
 appreciation of its meaning.—(4) The Truth reached in Christ is at 
 once absolute in itself, and plastic to human apprehension and 
 expression.—(5) Nothing less than the whole Church can grasp and 
 embody the Whole Truth. 
 
 LECTURE III 
 
 His METHOD—SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY 
 
 A. Methods Old and New: The importance of Method. Du Bose 
 by using the living terms of human experience avoids the dangers 
 of the traditional methods of Theological investigation. The 
 Greek metaphysics not materialistic but abstract, and therefore out 
 of touch with reality in the discussion of the Divine and Human 
 Nature of Christ. The Scholastic method deductive, working on 
 material supplied by books rather than by direct observation.— 
 B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible: For Du Bose the 
 Bible contained in the New Testament Christianity’s own first, 
 living and creative, but not mechanically infallible, expression of 
 itself. C. Holy Scripture as the Universe of Spiritual Science : The 
 Bible supplies the material for our knowledge of the Spiritual Order 
 as the Visible Universe supplies our material for the knowledge of 
 the Physical Order. D. The Method of Spiritual Psychology: 
 Du Bose’s method, formed on Aristotle’s Ethics, was essentially 
 Psychological, in close touch with modern demands. His study of 
 the Religious Consciousness is distinguished from that of other 
 Psychologists (1) by his use of the Bible as his text-book, and (2) by 
 his analysis of the Religious Consciousness, first of St. Paul and of 
 the other writers of the New Testament, and then of Jesus Himself. 
 
 LECTURE IV 
 
 HuMAN NEED AND THE ORIGIN OF SIN 
 
 A. Human Need: (1) “‘ The Soteriology of the New Testament” 
 is a study of Christianity in the light of its goal, expressed in terms 
 of human experience. As such it provides an introduction to Du 
 Bose’s Science of Spiritual Psychology.—(z) In method it is akin 
 to Aristotle’s Ethics: but it recognises a spiritual capacity in man 
 
CONTENTS 17 
 
 of which Aristotle takes no account. Man’s need, therefore, accord- 
 ing to Du Bose, is first ‘‘ Holiness,’ then “‘ Righteousness,’ and 
 third ‘“‘ Happiness.”” And, Man can only attain true self-realization 
 in God.—(3) Du Bose notes three difficulties in the way of self- 
 realization, apart from the complications introduced by sin. They 
 spring (1) from the vis inertia, (2) from our sensuous nature, (3) 
 from the instinct of self-preservation. There is nothing necessarily 
 sinful in the struggle which is inevitable before these three difficulties 
 can be overcome. B. The Origin and Nature of Sin: (1) Dr. 
 Tennant’s account of this struggle from the Biological standpoint. 
 He rules out in consequence the traditional conception of “ origina] 
 righteousness ”’ and “‘ original sin,’’ and also Kant’s doctrine of the 
 “radical badness ’’ of human nature. He regards sin as an inevit- 
 able incident in the evolution of moral character in man.—(2) 
 Du Bose agrees so far that “‘ sin ’’ cannot strictly be predicated of 
 Human Nature. Sin can only originate in a person.—(3) But has 
 Dr. Tennant really accounted for the sense of personal guilt which 
 accompanies failure in the struggle to moralize my human nature ? 
 Why does it take the shape of a sense of slavery ? Does not this 
 sense coupled with the fact of the solidarity of the evil in the world 
 require us to regard Sin as a personal spiritual power? This solu- 
 tion is not necessarily Manichean. It does not ascribe to evil a 
 power independent of and co-ordinate with the power of God.— 
 (4) In any case the fact of Sin complicates our original need of 
 Holiness, Righteousness, and the Fulness of Life, with a further 
 need of Atonement, Redemption, and Resurrection. 
 
 >? 
 
 LECTURE V 
 
 CHRISTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF SOTERIOLOGY.—I 
 
 A. A New Approach to the Study of the Incarnation: (1) This 
 analysis of the nature of human salvation throws light on the human 
 side of the problem of Christology. The true and proper deity of 
 Christ is a fundamental postulate. But the deity is only revealed 
 in and through the humanity. And it is only through His humanity 
 that He can bring us the Holiness, Righteousness and Fulness of 
 Life that are our salvation.—(2z) This thought revolutionizes our 
 conception of the Incarnation. We have to think of it not only as 
 the birth of deity into a growing humanity which was not perfected 
 till the Ascension and which is still in process of extension through 
 the whole human race. We have to realize that the personal 
 activity of His humanity has a necessary part to play in the process. — 
 (3) It is through this human activity that Christ becomes (1) the 
 
 B 
 
18 CONTENTS 
 
 revelation of humanity according to the Divine plan, (2) the way 
 by which (both on the side of the Divine Call and of Human Response) 
 we can attain to our Divine Sonship, and (3) the very substance of 
 our salvation. B. The Human Nature of Christ under the same 
 Conditions as Ours: (1) If such be the part that Christ plays in 
 human salvation, He must have fought our battle under our condi- 
 tions. We cannot therefore ascribe His victory to the fact that 
 the nature that He assumed was sinless while ours is sinful. Du 
 Bose therefore distinguishes “‘ nature’’ from ‘“‘ personality,’ and 
 regards “‘nature”’ as ethically neutral.—(z) Dr. Tennant makes 
 the same distinction, treating all our inborn faculties as capable of 
 consecration, and ascribing our failure to “‘ nurture.’’ This “ nur- 
 ture’ is deeply affected for good and for ill by “ social heredity.”’ 
 We are in peril from “‘ the world’ as well as from the “‘ flesh.” — 
 (3) Still my failure is mine. I have an “ ego”’ distinguishable from 
 my “nature”? and my “‘nurture.”” And my “ radical badness ’’ 
 consists in the fact that I am conscious of an ideal, which I cannot 
 attain in my own strength. My failure when I make the effort is 
 my Fall: but the Fall may become a step upward if it teaches me 
 my need of God.—(4) Du Bose believes with Dr. Tennant that 
 Jesus took a nature like ours in all respects. Only He never tried 
 to act in His own strength. So He used the gift of freedom, which 
 we abuse, to work our deliverance. In Du Bose’s phrase, ‘‘ He 
 took all of ‘ original sin’ except the sin.” He carefully guards 
 the sinlessness of Jesus, and the reality of His Temptations. But 
 neither he nor Dr. Tennant have any use for the Doctrine of 
 “* Original Righteousness.” 
 
 LECTURE VI 
 
 CHRISTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF SOTERIOLOGY.—II 
 
 C. The Human Personality of Christ. (a) The Moral Antinomy 
 involved in its Union with the Divine: (1) If our Lord’s triumph 
 over sin in our nature was not due to any difference between the 
 nature that He assumed and ours, it must be due to a difference in 
 personality. The difference must be compatible with fundamental 
 identity.—(z) As we have to obey away the possibility of dis- 
 obedience, so must He. This brings us face to face with a moral 
 antinomy, which we cannot resolve. As Man we have to postulate 
 in Him a possibility of disobedience. His Humanity must include 
 the responsibility for moral self-determination. As God this possi- 
 bility could never become actual. Du Bose refuses, however, either 
 to give up the fact of the Incarnation or the effort to apprehend it. 
 
CONTENTS | 19 
 
 (b) The Development of the Human Personality : (1) He concentrates 
 on the study of the human side of our Lord’s personality. His 
 ““ Ego’ was no doubt Divine. Still in becoming man He accepted 
 the limits by which our human personalities are circumscribed in 
 this life. Within these limits He took His full share in incarnating 
 the Divine Logos.—(2) Since the Ascension He is revealed as at 
 once Human and Divine, as in the Divine thought He has always 
 been. The essential kinship of the Human and the Divine is mani- 
 fested by the revelation of the Logos as Son.—(3) But the co-opera- 
 tion of His humanity was vital to the manifestation of its essential 
 Divine Sonship. Even His consciousness of the fact, so long as He 
 was on earth, depended on the exercise of His human faculties. 
 C. His Individuality in tis Distinction from Ours: (1) Consider the 
 steps in the integration of any human personality. A man can only 
 become his true self by the surrender of his will to the guidance 
 of the Spirit of God, 7.e., by the sacrifice of his individuality. We 
 attain this integration in Jesus Christ by incarnating His Divine- 
 Human personality, losing ourselves to find ourselves in Him.— 
 (2) Jesus Christ was subject to the same law as regards the integra- 
 tion of His Human Personality. He continually sacrificed His 
 Human Individuality. He refused to have any will of His own 
 independent of His Father. Continually emptying out “ self,’’ He 
 was continually full of the Spirit: and so perfectly embodied God’s 
 Word and Thought of Himself and of all mankind. This achieve- 
 ment constitutes His distinctive characteristic among men, 7.e., it 
 is His Individuality.—(3) We can see therefore that there is nothing 
 unhuman, there is the perfection of humanity in this power to 
 overcome all the temptations that are appointed for man, 7.¢., in 
 the moral impossibility of sinning which differentiates Him from all 
 other men. 
 
 LECTURE VII 
 
 CHRISTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF SOTERIOLOGY.—III 
 
 D. The Hypostatic Union as a Fact. (a) The Physical and Meta- 
 physical Antinomies : (1) Besides the Moral Antinomy, there are 
 Physical and Metaphysical Antinomies involved in the ‘‘ Hypo- 
 static Union,” 7.e., the Union of the Divine and the Human Nature 
 in Christ. The first step towards a re-solution of these Antinomies 
 is provided by recognizing in the Incarnation the third stage in a 
 progressive Divine Self-limitation.—(z) Is the recognition of a 
 distinction between “spiritual”? and ‘“‘ Physical’? elements or 
 attributes in the Godhead a second step? Does not this imply a 
 partial Incarnation of the Logos? What knowledge have we of 
 
 B2 
 
20 CONTENTS 
 
 the Divine Nature and Attributes apart from their manifestation 
 in Jesus Christ? Does He not now in His Humanity share the 
 Divine qualities of Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence ? 
 Is any fresh difficulty involved in a Divine self-limitation in the 
 manifestation of these qualities ‘‘in the days of His flesh,’ over 
 and above the Divine self-limitation in the exercise of the Divine 
 Holiness, which was implied in submitting to the discipline of 
 Temptation? (b) The Antinomies resolved by a New Line of 
 Approach: (1) Our study of Soteriology has helped us to realize 
 the union of the Divine and Human in Jesus Christ as a fact. We 
 have examined the Moral and the Metaphysical difficulties involved 
 in the conception of this union, and though we have not solved 
 them, we have seen reason to justify us in keeping the door open 
 for further investigation.—(2) It is possible that further study of 
 the subliminal, the sub-conscious and the unconscious may support 
 the hypothesis of the presence of latent faculties in His Human 
 Nature. This would not, however, affect the difficulty from the 
 Divine side.—(3) A more hopeful method for the solution of the 
 difficulty is supplied by Dr. Mackintosh. The antinomies are due 
 to the effort to solve a vital problem in the abstract and unreal 
 terms of Metaphysics.—(4) Dr. Forsyth, realizing this, approaches 
 the problem from the side of personality. He finds the divine and 
 the human interlocked in every part of the human experience of 
 the divine. This interlocking implies an inner distinction within 
 the absolute God.—(5) Du Bose in The Reason of Life reached the 
 same conclusion. Approached from this side the human is seen in 
 its essential kinship to the Divine. All our life is inter-penetrated 
 by this Hypostatic Union. 
 
 LECTURE VIII 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND OF THE CHURCH 
 
 A. God in Creation, Immanent and Transcendent: (1) According 
 to Du Bose the doctrine of the Logos marks a distinction in our 
 apprehension between God as in Himself Transcendent and God as 
 Immanent in Creation.—(z) The conception of the Logos as God 
 immanent in Creation is in striking harmony with Bergson’s con- 
 ception of the force which is attaining to an ever fuller expression 
 of itself by Creative Evolution. Compare McDowall in Evolution 
 and the Trinity.—(3) Du Bose is also in striking accord with 
 McDowall in his conception of the interaction of the Divine and the 
 human in the spiritual evolution of Man. B. God in Incarnation 
 Manifested in the Holy Trinity: (1) The relation of God to man 
 
CONTENTS aI 
 
 manifested in the Incarnation is a ‘’ Transcendent ”’ relation. This 
 relation is manifested to and through human apprehension in 
 Jesus Christ. As St. John meditated on his experience he found 
 that the Human life of Jesus had been to the Apostles a mani- 
 festation in time of the eternal Communion of the Father and the 
 Son in the Holy Spirit.—(2) The vision of God given us in the 
 Gospel is determined not by abstract metaphysical speculation, but 
 by the personal relation in which we stand to Him as working upon 
 us by His Word and within us by His Spirit. This vision is Trini- 
 tarian through and through. Love in the Father becomes Divine 
 Self-communication in the Son, and Human participation in the 
 Divine in the Holy Ghost in whom God and man are being made 
 one. C. The Church as an Extension of the Incarnation: (1) On 
 one side the Church is in process of evolution in relation to its 
 Divine Environment in response to the revelation of God as Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spirit. The Church is at the same time growing to 
 its perfection as the Body of Christ. Its evolution is therefore 
 continually determined by its relation to the humanity of Jesus 
 Christ.—(2) The Jesus of History is true man. But as revealed in 
 the experience of the Church He is more than ‘‘a man.” As we 
 have seen in our study of Soteriology we only find ourselves as we 
 yield ourselves to His identity. His personality includes and con- 
 stitutes ours. Heis MAN.—(3) As united to Him, and to one another 
 in Him, the Church as His Body is the Sacrament of His abiding 
 presence among men, and the instrument for the extension of His 
 Incarnation until the whole race is in Him brought home to God. 
 This is the goal of Du Bose’s Vision of Unity, and the secret of its 
 consecrating power. 
 

 
DU BOSE AS A PROPHET 
 OF UNITY 
 
 LECTURE I 
 THE MAN AND HIS MESSAGE 
 
 THE BACKGROUND OF SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE 
 
 WHEN “ God spake in old times to our Fathers through 
 the prophets,” the relation between the men and the 
 message with which they were charged was vital and 
 personal. It is always so. On all subjects but the 
 most abstract, if we could comprehend a man’s thought 
 we must set it in its context in the life of the man, and 
 in the life of his time. We are yet hardly far enough 
 away from Dr. Du Bose to see the relation of his thought 
 to the thought of his time. We can, however, by the 
 help of his singularly illuminating autobiography, 
 Turning Points in My Life, set it in the light of his 
 Spiritual experience. 
 
 In this experience there are three outstanding 
 moments. The first of these was the crisis of his 
 spiritual awakening, ‘‘ the vision of Glory,’”’ which, to 
 use a phrase of Dr. Westcott’s, was “ the prophet’s call.”’ 
 
 The story can be told only in his own words : 
 
 “Three cadets, returning from a long march and 
 series of encampments, and a brief stoppage at their 
 
 23 
 
24 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 common home, spent, on their way back to their 
 garrison, a night in a certain city, and returned at 
 midnight hilarious and weary from what was called a 
 ‘roaring farce’ at the little theatre, to occupy one bed 
 at the crowded hotel. In a moment the others were in 
 bed and asleep. There was no apparent reason why 
 I should not have been so, too, or why it should just 
 then have occurred to me that I had not of late been 
 saying my prayers. Perfectly unconscious and un- 
 suspicious of anything unusual, I knelt to go through 
 the form, when of a sudden there swept over me a 
 feeling of the emptiness and unmeaningness of the act 
 and of my whole life and self. I leapt to my feet 
 trembling, and then that happened which I can only 
 describe by saying that a light shone about me and a 
 Presence filled the room. At the same time an ineffable 
 joy and peace took possession of me whichitisimpossible — 
 either to express or explain. I continued, I know not 
 how long, perfectly conscious of, simply but intensely 
 feeling the Presence, and fearful, by any movement, 
 of breaking the spell. I went to sleep at last praying 
 that it was no passing illusion, but that I should awake 
 to find it an abiding reality’ (Turning Points, pp. 18 f). 
 
 This crisis came to a lad of twenty, brought up “ in 
 the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” who had 
 never been without spiritual susceptibility, but who 
 had for the time fallen asleep at his post. 
 
 The essential soundness of his inner being stands 
 revealed by the instantaneous, instinctive, whole- 
 hearted response that he made to the first whisper of> 
 his Father’s Voice, when ‘‘God and nature met in 
 Light” in him. In the deepest and truest sense he 
 found and knew that he found himself in finding God. 
 
THE MAN AND HIS MESSAGE 25 
 
 The “natural” divine Sonship in him passed by an 
 intensely real but almost passionless crisis into the 
 spiritual, which was for him in all his thinking always 
 pre-eminently the higher natural. As he grew in 
 knowledge and experience in the course of a lifelong 
 walk with God, he became more and more conscious 
 of the necessity for a continual dying to sin. But the 
 transition with him left behind it no scars of moral 
 conflict with a consciously rebellious will. The new life 
 does not stand out for him as it does in so many theo- 
 logical systems, against a background dark with the 
 terrors of the wrath of God. His vision of the content of 
 salvation is not the less piercing because in this respect 
 his spiritual kinship is with St. John rather than with 
 St. Augustine or St. Paul. The outward rapture faded, 
 as was to be expected, into the light of common day, 
 leaving the young Du Bose with no further token of 
 the experience through which he had passed than “a 
 sensitised and transfigured—not only consciousness but 
 —conscience.”’ Its presence and its power, however, 
 never left him. It gave him a conviction of spiritual 
 reality which the ruin of his outward hopes could only 
 intensify, and all the questionings of a reason resolutely 
 sceptical were unable to disturb. To use the words of 
 another great religious thinker, Horace Bushnell, 
 whose experience in this and other respects has many 
 points of contact with his own, “‘A Being so profoundly 
 felt must inevitably be.’’* 
 
 The trial, however, to which his faith was subjected 
 was fiery enough. It will be well at this stage to stay 
 awhile and take note of it. We have a record in his 
 own words of two outstanding crises in it. He is 
 speaking of the night about ten years after his conver- 
 
 * See Appendix A. 
 
26 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 sion when he first faced the possibility of final defeat 
 for the Confederate cause. 
 
 “The actual issue was all upon me that fateful 
 night in which, under the stars, alone upon the planet, 
 without home or country or any earthly interest or 
 object before me, my very world at an end, I re-devoted 
 myself wholly and only to God, and to the work and 
 life of His Kingdom, whatever and wherever that 
 might be.” 
 
 The other came when we might least have expected it, 
 just fifty years later, in his eightieth year. It is, of 
 course, no isolated experience. It is the final crisis of 
 what must have been the life-long testing of his reso- 
 lutely enquiring spirit. He wrote to his friend and 
 pupil, Silas McBee: 
 
 “In a sense this eightieth year of my life has been 
 one of worse than European war between me and old 
 age. In this I feel that I can say modestly that I have 
 conquered. It is not only old age I have had to contend 
 with, but a number of external conditions . . . and 
 hindrances, which have broken up, paralyzed, and 
 dissipated my natural energies; but all that does not 
 touch the real root of my troubles ; it has only had the 
 beneficent effect, as most certainly the gracious purpose, 
 of throwing me back upon a re-examination and a 
 deeper questioning and testing of my religion. I have 
 gone deeper into it, and reached higher than ever before, 
 and I humbly believe I can say now, ‘ I not only believe 
 but know.’ At any rate, I have discovered that the 
 more persistently and perseveringly one believes to 
 the bitterest end, the more certainly one knows, and is 
 grateful for having been spared none of the tests. I 
 have been just as much higher up this summer as I 
 
THE MAN AND HIS MESSAGE 27 
 
 have been deeper down. My costliest failure has been 
 converted into the completest success. I have nothing 
 to show, but I am firmer on the rock”’ (Constructive 
 Quarterly, VIII, 513). 
 
 Such is the background of spiritual experience, in the 
 light of which we have to read Du Bose’s contribution 
 to the thought of his time and of ours. But before we 
 come to consider that in detail, it will be well to spend 
 a little further time on his training as a thinker, and 
 on some of his characteristics as a man. 
 
 His TRAINING AND HIS CHARACTERISTICS AS A THINKER 
 
 Du Bose entered the Military Academy at Charleston, 
 S.C., at the age of sixteen, the choice of school being 
 decided, we are told, by the fact that he seemed to be 
 deficient in mathematical ability. He passed out, the 
 head of his year, in 1855. The story illustrates a con- 
 stant element in his training which, partly by what we 
 call accident, but in great measure of deliberate purpose, 
 set the stamp of balance and completeness upon his 
 development. By nature eminently lovable, simple, 
 in the true sense childlike, he had to serve a hard 
 apprenticeship in the school of war before he settled 
 down to his life’s work as a university professor. His 
 deepest spiritual and intellectual affinities were with 
 the mystics and the idealists—with Plato and with 
 St. John. The exigencies of controversy with a class- 
 mate over the five points of Calvinism gave St. Paul 
 a predominant influence in his theological thinking. 
 His work as a Professor of Ethics wedded him to 
 Aristotle. 
 
 In all this it might have seemed as if personal choice 
 had little to do with the form that his training assumed. 
 
28 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 In one of his latest essays on ‘‘ The Subjective and 
 Objective in Religion ”’ he tells us that he deliberately 
 let his natural bent towards the evangelical and subjec- 
 tive take care of itself to develop the Catholic and 
 objective, so that at least he must have accepted this 
 overruling con amore. 
 
 His chief debt, no doubt, was to the constant stimulus 
 of his work as a university professor. Superficially, 
 Sewanee would not seem a promising training ground 
 for a thinker with a world-wide horizon. He had only 
 a small class of immature students in a struggling 
 university that had to be re-created out of ruin. 
 
 Yet there is nothing pedantic, nothing provincial, 
 about the thoughts that came to him there. In fact, 
 where the man is alive, there is no post so stimulating 
 as that of a teacher in a university centre. In England, 
 at least, all of our great religious movements have 
 sprung from our ancient universities. Our leading 
 theologians of the nineteenth century, almost without 
 exception, were university professors. Constant con- 
 tact with young minds, facing the problems of life while 
 they are still fresh and insistent, is a powerful mental 
 tonic. Even amid the growing pressure of administra- 
 tive detail a man, if he will, can still, in a university 
 like Sewanee, or in a theological seminary like those 
 which it has been my privilege to visit in America, 
 find leisure to think as well as to read. 
 
 What teaching meant for Du Bose is revealed all the 
 more effectually, because unconsciously, in his auto- 
 biography. The master, seated in his accustomed 
 chair, with representatives of thirty-five generations 
 of pupils before him, asks himself this one question : 
 “What has life given me? What has life given me 
 that I have taken, and that I have, that I may give 
 
THE MAN AND HIS MESSAGE 29 
 
 you if you will take it?’ He will teach only what he 
 knows at first hand; he will testify what he has seen 
 for himself and his hands have handled, of the Word 
 of Life. 
 
 When heart thus speaks to heart, it is not surprising 
 that there should be something in the utterance for all 
 the world to hear. 
 
 In the truest sense, in Du Bose’s case, the man was 
 the message. We may pass on, then, to consider three 
 personal characteristics. Let us take first his sincerity. 
 In this connection there is a deep moral in a story 
 which he tells against himself : 
 
 “TI remember, just at that period, a singularly 
 trifling incident which, nevertheless, in its effect has 
 been present with me as an actual force for fifty years. 
 What a very little spark may kindle the most destructive 
 conflagration, or sometimes the most illuminating and 
 beneficent flame! In this case so ridiculous a suggestion 
 could not have awakened so lasting a train of thought 
 and consequence, if the occasion and material had not 
 been ripe and ready forit. In anidle moment I chanced 
 to pick up an old magazine in which were narrated 
 the military experiences and exploits of a certain 
 Lieutenant Poop. His Christian name was Ninkum— 
 Mr. Ninkum Poop. First, in most descriptive and 
 expressive terms, were elaborated and described the 
 heroically high and noble ideals and sentiments with 
 which the newly-fledged lieutenant devoted himself 
 to the sacred service of his country, the great British 
 Empire. What aspirations, what hopes and expecta- 
 tions and high-wrought purposes, what dreams and 
 visions of self-sacrifice, and then of honour and great- 
 ness and glory! Lieutenant Ninkum Poop arrives 
 
30 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 at the seat of war, where all his ideas are to be put 
 into action and all his sentiments to be converted into 
 conduct and character and achievement. He goes 
 through it all, his thoughts and expressions to the end 
 swelling with the magnanimity of the great-souled, 
 his actions, on the contrary, evincing only the pusilla- 
 nimity of the little-souled, the coward, and the poltroon. 
 
 “T would not tell this simply as the undignified 
 illustration of a principle: I give it as a historical 
 life-moment and life movement in my spiritual history. 
 That arrow went home and still rankles in my breast. 
 I cannot tell how often I have found and called myself 
 a Ninkum Poop; how often, in very other terms, I 
 have preached the fact it illustrates to myself and 
 others: that life is not life as long as it is only in the 
 mind, or even in the heart; that it is only life when it 
 has been converted into life. Christianity has only 
 begun when it begins to live what it believes and what 
 it feels: ‘If ye know these things, blessed are you 
 if ye do them.’ Have wea Christianity that does what 
 it says, that practises what it preaches ? What we want 
 is not to have a new Christianity, but to have a new 
 way of having Christianity: a new way which is the 
 old one, the way of Him who was, and still is, the Way. 
 He is not alone in Himself the truth and the life, but no 
 less the way to us of really knowing the truth and 
 living the life”’ (Turning Points, pp. 28 ff). 
 
 There 1s none who had less need, as the outsider would 
 judge, of a warning against the “ besetting sin of 
 speculative thought—empty idealism.’’ But it takes 
 a true man to appreciate the dangers of unreality. 
 Du Bose knew them, and has warned us against them 
 as St. Thomas a Kempis has done. 
 
THE MAN AND HIS MESSAGE 31 
 
 “Let not Moses, therefore, speak unto me, but 
 Thou, O Lord my God, the everlasting Truth, lest I 
 die and prove unfruitful, if I be only warned outwardly, 
 and not inflamed within. Lest it turn to my condem- 
 nation—the Word—heard and not fulfilled, known and 
 not loved, believed and not observed.” 
 
 And again : 
 
 “How much the more thou knowest and how much 
 the better thou understandest, so much the more 
 severely shalt thou on that account be judged, unless thy 
 life be also the more holy.’ 
 
 The Truth Himself has bidden us take heed that we 
 build not on the sand but on the rock. 
 
 Closely akin to this intense sincerity is the fearless 
 independence of the man, and especially of the thinker. 
 He was, as he tells us himself, a man who made great 
 use of very few books, resembling in this respect one 
 of the great formative influences in the thought of 
 Oxford in the “ Seventies,’ Professor T. H. Green. 
 He was fortunately free from the entanglements of 
 “‘ Confessions ’’ and ‘‘ Platforms.” 
 
 The thirty-nine Articles may have many defects. It 
 is fashionable just now to decry them. But at least 
 they make no pretence to be a complete and rigid 
 theological system. They leave a man free, within 
 very wide limits, to think for himself. So Du Bose 
 drew his theology without let or hindrance from its 
 fountain head in the New Testament, primarily from 
 St. Paul and not from the “ Systematizers’’; and in 
 his study of humanity he worked continuously on the 
 great pioneer text-book of moral psychology by “ the 
 Master of those that know,” the Nicomachean Ethics 
 
32 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 of Aristotle. The power of that book over him, and its 
 efficiency in his hands as an instrument of education, 
 is a remarkable testimony to the vital potency of the 
 work of a genuine thinker for all time. 
 
 I have already called attention to the fact that in 
 the Divine ordering, the text-books of this essentially 
 mystical teacher were Aristotle and St. Paul rather than 
 Plato and St. John. His appreciation of poetry—the 
 poets representing the search of the soul of man after 
 God while the prophets express the Divine condescen- 
 sion to human need—is not surprising. His favourite 
 poet was Tennyson. The influence of the In Memoriam, 
 especially of the Prologue, can be traced in his writing 
 to the end. | 
 
 His main interest, however, from first to last, lay 
 not in books but in the hearts of men, his own and his 
 pupils’. This kept him in sensitive touch with all the 
 movements of thought in his time. Look, for instance, 
 at the opening chapter of The Reason of Life. Notice 
 the range of interests included in it; national and 
 international, social and industrial; but above all, in 
 religion and philosophy, the relation of religion and 
 science, the conflict between immanence and transcend- 
 ence, idealism and pragmatism, and the modernist 
 controversy over the merely human divinity or the real 
 Deity of the Person of Jesus Christ. 
 
 He claimed with justice at the end of his life to 
 be in full sympathy with the modern mind. I have 
 noted, therefore, ‘‘ comprehensiveness’’ as the third 
 of his mental characteristics. 
 
 Comprehensiveness may be, as Coleridge teaches us, 
 of two kinds, exemplified by Shakespeare and Milton 
 respectively. ‘‘ While Shakespeare darts himself forth 
 and passes into all the forms of human character and 
 
THE MAN AND HIS MESSAGE 33 
 
 passion, the one Proteus of the fire and the flood, 
 Milton attracts all forms and things to himself into the 
 unity of his own ideal. All things and modes of action 
 shape themselves anew in the being of Milton; while 
 Shakespeare becomes all things, yet for ever remaining 
 himself.”’ 
 
 If so, there is no doubt that Du Bose’s comprehensive- 
 ness is of the Miltonic type; or rather, hé embodied 
 with singular completeness the ideal of St. Thomas 4 
 Kempis: ‘‘ To him all things were one; he traced all 
 things back to one, and saw all things in one.” 
 
 Yet he was always on the watch, as we have seen, 
 against the danger of being one-sided, taking special 
 pains to develop those elements of his nature in which 
 he felt himself least responsive to the truth. 
 
 His natural bent, indeed, as he rightly asserted, was 
 as profoundly sceptical as that of many of his most 
 distinguished Victorian contemporaries. He shared 
 their intense belief in law and even their somewhat 
 mechanical conception of uniformity, so that it was 
 only the depth and intensity of his own spiritual experi- 
 ence, and his clear grasp of the spiritual realities of the 
 Incarnation and the Resurrection, that prevented his 
 being carried away by their influence. This did not 
 imply any indifference to the sovereign claims of truth. 
 Only he felt that ‘‘ the freest mind is that which is open 
 alike to the claims of the natural and the spiritual in 
 us, not to either as against the other.”’ And again 
 he had learned to hold his mind in suspense “ upon 
 matters which we have eternity in which to know, and 
 to know which eternity will not be too long”’ (Turning 
 Points, p. 93). 
 
 We may fairly, therefore, claim comprehensiveness 
 no less than sincerity and independence, as characteristic 
 
 Cc 
 
34 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 of his thinking. Indeed, even comprehensiveness 
 seems too narrow a word. His comprehensiveness was 
 all inclusive, ‘‘ catholic’’ in the widest sense of the 
 word. He viewed life steadily, and alike as an ideal 
 and as an achievement we may fairly claim that he 
 viewed it whole 
 
LECTURE II 
 
 HIS MESSAGE AND ITS FOUNDATION— 
 CONFIDENCE IN TRUTH 
 
 A. UNITY AND TRUTH 
 
 WE have considered the spiritual background of 
 Du Bose’s thinking; his training on the battlefield and 
 in the lecture-room ; his sincerity, his independence 
 and the breadth or rather the catholicity of his intellec- 
 tual sympathies. Such being the man, what was his 
 message ? In brief, it was the sovereign claim of Unity 
 as the master-key to all the problems of spiritual life 
 and thought. This conviction was implicit in his 
 thinking from the beginning. It came into clear 
 expression in the opening chapter of The Reason of 
 Life (p. 9): 
 
 “ The Kingdom of God is nothing if it is not organized 
 and ordered unity—unity with God and unity in God, 
 unity of spirit, of law, of life. And the Church of God 
 is no living thing if it is not something more than 
 human organization—the divine organism and organ of 
 unity human and divine. Unity is absolutely the first 
 and the one thing. What is Love but oneness with 
 God and with all else in Him? The Church is first 
 ‘One,’ and then, and therefore, ‘Holy’: for what is 
 holiness but the spirit of unity and love? Thus, next, 
 it is ‘Catholic,’ for catholicity or universality is the 
 necessary corollary of unity. And finally it is “ Apos- 
 tolic,’ simply because that which is one must be so in 
 
 35 
 €2 
 
36 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 sequence or time, as well as in extension or space— 
 from beginning to end, as well as from end to end. In 
 no less truth than this is the Church the Kingdom of 
 God, the Body of Christ, or the Temple of the Holy 
 Ghost.” 
 
 There can be no doubt as to the originality and 
 freshness of this vision of the essential unity of the 
 Kingdom: nor as to its significance as a contribution 
 to the cause of Christian Re-union. It has already 
 borne rich and abiding fruit in the ten volumes of the 
 Constructive Quarterly, in which Dr. Silas McBee, the 
 most loyal and ardent of disciples, has demonstrated 
 the practical value of his master’s ideal. He has shown 
 that it is possible for the keenest members of all our 
 divided communions to meet on a common platform 
 and realize their fellowship with all their brethren in 
 the ‘‘ Great Church,” if they will be content, laying 
 aside for the time all thought of controversy, to bear 
 each his own witness to that portion of the Truth which 
 it has been given to them to apprehend. For, if 
 Du Bose is right, there can be no conflict between the 
 claims of Truth and the claims of Unity. If the truth 
 is that we are one, it is only as we “live the truth in 
 love that we can hope to attain to the measure of the 
 stature of the fulness of Christ.” 
 
 In any case, Du Bose was not sacrificing the sovereign 
 claims of Truth in the interests of a spurious charity. 
 Unity was the goal and not the starting point of his 
 thinking. He had early taken to heart the motto of 
 Bishop Butler’s Analogy. ‘‘ Things are as they are, 
 and the consequences will be what they will be.” His 
 whole life was spent in an unwearying search for 
 Truth, inspired by a serene confidence in its power to 
 
HIS MESSAGE AND ITS FOUNDATION 37 
 
 vindicate itself to the minds of men without any 
 adventitious support. 
 
 Look, for instance, at the opening paragraph of his 
 Soteriology ; 
 
 “What Salvation means and specifically what our 
 Salvation means is a matter primarily determined not 
 by creeds, not by Scripture, not by divine revelation, 
 but by the facts of our own nature and condition.” 
 
 And again in the opening article of the Constructive 
 Quarterly, March 1913, p. 5: 
 
 “ Christianity 7s and is what itis. I cannot conceive 
 it as at this late day either needing to be or capable of 
 being ‘made’ or ‘ made over.’ ”’ 
 
 The fact is, in his view, the centre and ground of 
 our agreement; our disagreements come from the 
 inevitable variety of our constructions. 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that to him, as to Henri Bergson, 
 the ultimate appeal is to intuition and to experience 
 rather than to the discursive reason. For him, as for 
 Dr. Hort, it is only the lower class of truths that can 
 in any strict sense be proved or disproved.* 
 
 “‘ Such persistent beliefs as that in God, or in freedom, 
 or immortality, are not believed because they have 
 been or can be proved: they are forever seeking to be 
 proved, because they are believed” (The Gospel in the 
 Gospels, p. 206). 
 
 “T think we should cease from trying to prove the 
 unprovable, and take to knowing the entirely knowable 
 fact that the universe in which we are is a personal 
 universe’ (The Gospel according to St. Paul, p. 238). 
 
 * See Appendix B. 
 
38 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY: 
 
 He had a strong conviction that the difficulties of 
 logic could only be solved in life. A striking headline 
 in The Ecumenical Councils (p. 21) asserts that ‘‘ Truth 
 is polar.”” As the positive and the negative currents 
 of electricity are combined in an indissoluble unity in 
 every magnet so, he would suggest, in all the antinomies 
 that result from the co-existence of the finite and the 
 infinite, of which the relation of the human and the 
 divine in the person of Jesus Christ is at once the climax 
 and the solution, the truth demands not the surrender 
 of either element, but the resolute assertion of both 
 in a perfectly real and harmonious synthesis. He was 
 therefore never afraid of asserting that there are 
 “contraries which do not contradict.”” He was 
 emphatically, like Charles Simeon, the great leader of 
 the Evangelical movement in England, a man of 
 “both extremes.’’* 
 
 At the same time he was deeply convinced of the 
 power of Truth to verify itself to human reason : 
 
 “Ultimately we know things because they are true. 
 We love things because they are good. We do things 
 because they are right. The mind for truth, the heart | 
 for love, the will for right. Each of these pairs are in 
 the world for each other, testing each other, finding 
 themselves in the other. As they come together the 
 world of the Spirit is fashioned out of our struggles and 
 failures. The spiritual things verify themselves to the 
 spiritual man’ (Constructive Quarterly, VI., 579 
 condensed). ; 
 
 It is interesting to note in passing the fundamental 
 harmony of this position with that which Professor 
 Pringle-Pattison reaches independently from a different 
 
 point of view. 
 * See Appendix C. 
 
HIS MESSAGE AND ITS FOUNDATION 39 
 
 “There is no explanation possible of the evolution 
 of sense-organs and of the sentient organism generally, 
 unless we assume the reality of the new features of the 
 world to which that evolution introduces us. The 
 organism is developed and its powers perfected as an 
 instrument of nature’s purpose of self-revelation’”’ (The 
 Idea of God, p. 127). 
 
 ““ All idealism teaches the correlativity of subject 
 and object; they develop part passu keeping step 
 together, inasmuch as the objective world seems to 
 grow in richness as we develop faculties to apprehend 
 it’ (1bid, p. 129). 
 
 Du Bose applies this thought con amore as a key both 
 to the life of Christ and to His place in the work of 
 human salvation : 
 
 “What did Christ believe in, become obedient to, 
 sacrifice Himself for? He believed in the Truth, 1.«., 
 the Good. Human Good is the natural, rational, and 
 free want and wish and will of all, and is in the true self 
 of each. Yet it is hard to believe in the good, to live 
 and die for it, to give yourself for it. But this is what 
 our Lord did. He believed in it, the underlying 
 will to good in the Universe. The reason, meaning, end 
 and purpose ofit all. Our Lord speaks of J¢ as Father, 
 not only believing in, but obeying Him. So living 
 His Faith to the uttermost” (Constructive Quarterly, 
 V. 209 ff. condensed). 
 
 And again : 
 
 “Instinct and object are correlative. The drawing 
 of God to man and of man to God is as natural as the 
 mutual attraction of the infant and the breast. Jesus 
 
40 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 Christ has part in both sides of the drawing”’ (Con- 
 structive Quarterly, Dec. 1917). 
 
 Closely connected with this, as we shall have to notice 
 more at length in the closing lecture, is Du Bose’s 
 delight in the doctrine of the Logos. Jesus Christ is 
 God’s Truth and Word to every man of himself. He 
 is primarily the Logos.of Man. Further He is the 
 Logos of Creation. The natural and the supernatural 
 world or order are not two but one in Him. There is 
 but one thought and purpose in all. The natural 
 evolution comes to itself in man, and man comes to 
 himself in Christ (cf. Ecumenical Councils, pp. 85-89). 
 
 B. CORPORATE THINKING AND CREEDS 
 
 Du Bose was conscious that his faith in the doctrine 
 of the Logos was not as yet the faith of all. The 
 modern mind is somehow more receptive of the Spirit 
 than of the Word of God. It responds more readily 
 to an appeal through the heart than through the head. 
 He felt the danger of this. For we need an objective 
 Revelation to balance a subjective Inspiration. Man- 
 kind is united through the Spirit to the Word. Yet 
 he was a whole-hearted advocate of the freedom of the 
 Spirit in the search of Truth. He pleads earnestly in 
 his paper on “ Liberty and Authority in Christian 
 Thought ” (Turning Points, c. VII) for a real tolerance 
 on the part of the Church “ of the utmost liberty and 
 diversity, the always possible and often actual mistakes 
 and contradictions of her most originally and energeti- 
 cally thinking and living members,” on the ground 
 that the attempt to restrict freedom of thought must 
 be fatal to the acquisition alike of a living faith and of 
 spiritual unity. 
 
HIS MESSAGE AND ITS FOUNDATION 41 
 
 He was always, as The Gospel in the Gospels shows, 
 more ready to welcome the element of truth in a posi- 
 tion, with which as a whole he disagreed, than to 
 denounce its deficiencies. He was sure that a generous 
 policy of inclusion would justify itself in practical 
 working : 
 
 ‘Extremes will reconcile themselves, and will work 
 themselves out, lose their sting, and leave their contn- 
 bution if recognized and recognizing their common 
 right within the Church ; while if driven out, or if each 
 claims only its own exclusive right within the Church, 
 the thing emphasized and developed will be only their 
 difference and not their unity ” (Turning Potnts, p. 127). 
 
 This did not mean, however, that he was an advocate 
 of the unrestricted right of private judgment: or that 
 he had no use for the authority of the Bible and of the 
 Church. 
 
 He believed indeed that the ultimate appeal is to a 
 spiritual faculty present, though as yet it may be latent 
 in each individual : 
 
 “Spiritual truth passes through individual experi- 
 ence into the possession of all.” 
 
 “‘ Catholic truths are simply individual apprehensions 
 of spiritual truths, which have won their way to general 
 acceptance. Just as many natural truths have found 
 their way into the universal reason of mankind ” 
 (cf. Ecumenical Councils, pp. 41-44). 
 
 “ Nothing in this world, not even the Church, is in an 
 absolute sense infallible and irreformable.... There 
 is nothing theoretically or actually impossible in an 
 Athanasius in the right, contra mundum or contra 
 ecclestam’”’ (Turning Points, pp. 137 f). 
 
42 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 This possibility of advance through individual 
 initiative is the one condition of growth in knowledge 
 for the race. Yet he believed, as wholeheartedly as 
 Professor Royce, that all advance in truth is by a 
 corporate process. No individual conclusion in any 
 branch of science has any authority until it has been 
 tested and approved by those who are competent to 
 judge in its own department. Similarly no decision of a 
 Church Council has any validity until it has been tested 
 by the common or universal experience of the whole 
 Christian Church. ‘ It can only be ascertained that the 
 verdict is true, and will stand, by a long and silent 
 process through which the decision is referred back to 
 the Church again to say whether it has correctly 
 expressed itself through its council”’ (Ecumenical 
 Councils, p. 46). f 
 
 For “‘ Spirit is essentially social. When we think in 
 the spirit we do so collectively ” (Constructive Quarterly, 
 v1. 579 f. condensed). 
 
 “The goal, and the ultimate criterion [of faith] is not 
 in the mind and will of one, but in the intelligent con- 
 sent of all” (Turning Points, p. 73). 
 
 He was convinced, therefore, that there exists to-day 
 a definite body or system of Catholic truth : 
 
 “ Nearly two thousand years of Christian experience 
 have not passed without settling, determining, and 
 establishing anything, without accumulating and con- 
 solidating a body of verified facts, of common sense and 
 general consent, in the world of the spiritual any more 
 than of the natural. I make no more and no less claim 
 for spiritual than for natural or scientific dogma, that 
 has passed into common consent, and become part of 
 
HIS MESSAGE AND ITS FOUNDATION 43 
 
 our commonsense. The Church would stultify itself if 
 down to the present it claimed nothing as essential, 
 necessary and determined in Christianity’ (Turning 
 Points, p. 134). 
 
 Du Bose never, so far as I know, discusses the ques- 
 tion where an enquirer may find this definite system of 
 Catholic truth. For him no doubt it found sufficient 
 expression in the ‘‘ Nicene ’’ and in the Apostles’ Creed. 
 
 At the same time he strove earnestly to reassure the 
 authorities of the Church who were trembling for the 
 safety of the Ark of God. He would inspire them, if 
 possible, with his own conviction that the truth, 
 which won consent in the past after the freest discussion, 
 has nothing to fear from the unrestrained criticism of 
 the present. It can safely be trusted to defend itself, if 
 the field is left open. 
 
 This is surely courageous and timely counsel. Per- 
 haps even more illuminating is the illustration that he 
 gives from his own experience of the true place and 
 purpose of the Creed of the Church in the development 
 of individual faith. 
 
 “The articles of the Creed may properly be required 
 to be repeated for entrance into the Church, but only 
 so as they are outwardly confessed and accepted as 
 being the historic, organic, and developed faith of the 
 Church, and assuredly not as all digested, assimilated, 
 and converted into the actual life of the incipient 
 member. In other words, there is a great deal which 
 we may outwardly confess as the faith, which we rightly 
 hold on the reasonable external authority of corporate 
 and historical Christianity, which nevertheless to be 
 compelled to profess, as in its totality our personal 
 subjective actual and attained faith, would simply 
 
44 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 involve us in either self-deception or hypocrisy ” 
 (Turning Points, p. 23). 
 
 And again: 
 
 ‘“‘T have all my life been coming to what of truth I 
 hold, and there is truth to which I have all my life 
 been coming, to which I have not yet come. All the 
 truth of the Church is not yet mine: there are points 
 of it that I know to be true, because I have been all 
 the time approximating to them ; but I am still waiting, 
 and shall probably die waiting for them to become 
 true to me. Truth is not an individual thing; no one ~ 
 of us has all of it—even all of it that is known. Truth 
 is a corporate possession, and the knowledge of it is a 
 corporate process. It enters slowly and painfully into 
 the common sense, the common experience, the common 
 use and life of man. There is a corporate, catholic 
 Christianity, actually extant on the earth, which no 
 one or no set of us holds all of, or perfectly even what 
 we do hold. Christianity, even so far as actualized 
 in the world, is more and greater than any one or any 
 body of us, and the full actualization of Christianity 
 will come only with the fruition of the world’s destiny, 
 in the end of the ages” (Turning Points, pp. 55 f). 
 
 These words surely ring true. And does not this 
 example prove the abiding value of our rich inheritance 
 in the Church’s Creed? There can be no suspicion of 
 unreality in such an acceptance of the time-honoured 
 “ Rule of Faith,”’ which has been submitted continually 
 to fresh verification in the living experience of each 
 succeeding generation, as the sum of Truth so far 
 attained by the society to which we belong. 
 
 Is it not our wisdom to reverence it, as Du Bose did, 
 
HIS MESSAGE AND ITS FOUNDATION 45 
 
 as an ideal, and to wait patiently as he waited, while it 
 little by little manifests itself anew to us in all its 
 fulness? The Truth, the whole Truth, this at least 
 we know, whatever may be our judgment with regard 
 to any form of human words in which it has as yet 
 found expression, is ours in Christ. This is Truth, 
 absolute, and yet in our apprehension of it it is con- 
 tinuously plastic, with an infinite capacity for growth 
 to keep pace with each step in the growth of our power 
 to apprehend it, not only individually but corporately. 
 For it is only “in company with all the saints that we 
 can hope to apprehend the length and breadth and 
 depth and height, and know the love that passeth 
 knowledge.””. Nothing short of the whole Church, 
 when it has gathered in the whole race, can grasp and 
 embody the whole Truth. 
 
LECTURE III 
 
 HIS METHOD—SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY 
 A. METHODS OLD AND NEW 
 
 WE have seen the foundation of Du Bose’s witness to 
 and striving after Unity in his vision of the Truth. 
 We have seen, further, how in all his thinking he kept 
 in the closest touch with life and reality. We have to 
 consider now the characteristics of his method of 
 apprehending and expounding it. This should bring 
 us very near to the heart of our subject. Success or 
 failure in the solution of any problem depends on 
 nothing so much as on the way in which it is approached. 
 The genius which advances knowledge in any direction 
 is shown even more in the selection of the appropriate 
 method than in any amount of skill and perseverance 
 in its application. 
 
 In Du Bose’s case the method was so simple and 
 spontaneous—with him in the deepest sense “ the 
 method was the man’’—that we may find ourselves 
 asking whether he had any method at all. His own 
 account of the matter is just this: ‘‘ I presented Christ 
 and Christianity at first hand, not in the letter but in 
 the spirit, not in traditional or conventional forms of 
 technical language, but in living terms of actual human 
 relation and experience’ (Turning Points, p. 44). 
 
 It sounds simple enough when stated so. It is just 
 the ideal which we should wish our teachers of Theology 
 always to keep before them. A man with that ideal 
 
 46 
 
HIS METHOD—SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY 47 
 
 before him will be forced in all his teaching to keep in 
 closest touch with life and reality. It will keep him 
 clear from the pitfalls that beset the path alike of the 
 Greek metaphysician and of the Latin Scholastic. 
 
 In saying this we are under no necessity to disparage 
 the contribution either of the Greek or of the Latin 
 Church to the understanding of the fact of Christ. In 
 abstract thought the Greeks have been and no doubt 
 will remain our masters to the end of time. It was not 
 for nothing that the fact of Christ was for five centuries 
 subject to critical analysis in the light of the clearest 
 thinking that the world has known. There is singu- 
 larly little justification for the complaint that the 
 Gospel was corrupted by being “ Hellenized.”’ There 
 is, of course, ‘‘ metaphysics’ in a single clause in the 
 ‘Nicene ’’ Creed, the clause in which we declare that 
 the One Lord Jesus Christ is of “‘ one substance ”’ with 
 the Father. But it would seem about as reasonable 
 to say that the Platonic doctrine of substance was 
 “materialistic ’’ as to bring that charge against the 
 whole of Greek Theology. 
 
 At the same time Greek philosophy has the defects 
 ofits qualities. The method of metaphysics is a method 
 of abstraction. When we forget that fact, in philo- 
 sophy, we need a Bergson to remind us that every step 
 that we take towards greater precision in recording 
 and communicating the impressions that we receive 
 from the growing universe to which we belong is a 
 step away from reality: and, when we forget the same 
 fact in theology, we find that, as Dr. Mackintosh puts 
 it, ‘‘ The doctrine of the two natures, if taken seriously, 
 gives us two abstractions instead of one reality, two 
 impotent halves in place of one living whole. It 
 hypostatizes falsely two aspects of a single concrete 
 
48 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 life—aspects which are so indubitably real that apart 
 from either the whole fact would be quite other than 
 it is’’ (The Person of Jesus Christ, p. 295). 
 
 It is hard to remember that we ought never to have 
 regarded the term ‘nature,’ whether “ human” or 
 ‘“‘ divine,” in such a definition as anything other than 
 an ‘“‘abstraction.’”’ It is just the ‘‘ metaphysical ” 
 way of expressing a distinct aspect of a living reality. 
 If we are to take the doctrine seriously we must make 
 allowance for that fact. Or, in other words, if we are 
 to get behind our analytical representation of the fact, 
 we must approach it by some other way than that of 
 the analytical understanding.* 
 
 Du Bose’s criticism of the failure of Greek Theology 
 takes a different form, but it amounts in the end to 
 the same thing. “Its primary lack,’’ he says, “‘ was 
 that of the as yet undeveloped capacity to apply to 
 its facts a proper scientific or inductive method ”’ 
 (Ecumenical Councils, p. 322). It was a priort or 
 deductive, 7.e., it argued from its own definitions as 
 if they were themselves the realities with which we 
 have to deal. In any case, Du Bose struggling to 
 bring his pupils into contact with spiritual realities 
 was in no danger of mistaking abstractions for sub- 
 stantialities, or of trying to combine them in unspiritual 
 modes. 
 
 He was delivered also from the besetting danger of 
 Scholasticism. The Schoolman started, as we shall see 
 that Du Bose started, from Holy Scripture, and he set 
 himself to fashion its teaching into a coherent whole 
 in the light of the philosophy of Aristotle, and of the 
 writings of accredited fathers. This is an entirely 
 worthy object, and no one can contemplate the Summa 
 
 *See Appendix D. 
 
HIS METHOD—SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY 49 
 
 of St. Thomas Aquinas without deep awe. But con- 
 centration of attention on the text of written authorities 
 may take our minds away from the observation of the 
 living fact, no less fatally than preoccupation with the 
 letter of our own definitions. Martin Luther, in one 
 way, and Francis Bacon in another were needed to 
 break the fetters of Scholasticism. We cannot now 
 dwell on the causes which led straight from Martin 
 Luther’s appeal to the Bible as the fount and test of 
 spiritual experience to the establishment of a period of 
 Protestant Scholasticism, which has issued in the 
 modern revolt against the Religions of Authority 
 in favour of the Religion of the Spirit. My immediate 
 point is that Du Bose’s pupils were in no danger of 
 supposing that reverence for the authority of the Bible 
 and of the Church absolved them from the obligation 
 of striving after a first-hand acquaintance with the 
 Truth. 
 
 B. THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF 
 THE BIBLE 
 
 I have already dealt with Du Bose’s attitude towards 
 the authority of the Church in considering the conditions 
 of corporate thinking and the use of the Creeds. It 
 will be well to say something with regard to his con- 
 ception of the inspiration and authority of the Bible 
 before attempting to find a term by which to characterize 
 more precisely his method as a whole. 
 
 There is no doubt that the New Testament was in 
 the strictest sense Du Bose’s text-book. From it he 
 learnt, and out of it he taught what Christ and 
 Christianity are. _ 
 
 In doing so, he showed no desire to shield the 
 
 D 
 
50 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 Bible from criticism or to claim for it any mechanical 
 infallibility : 
 
 “There is no question that the case has been made 
 out for the very humanness and fallibility of the 
 Scriptures as of the Church. Is their divine origin and 
 authority gone with it? I confess that the Scriptures 
 are more divine to me now than they ever were before ; 
 that I was never more a believer in their inspiration. 
 If there has ever been anything in all my life verified 
 by actual experience, it has been the divinity of the New 
 Testament, after all that criticism has done with it” 
 (Turning Points, p. 91). 
 
 In regard to its inspiration he writes: 
 
 “‘ All that is necessary is that those who were nearest 
 to Him in time and space should have so known our 
 Lord as it was essential that He should be known, 
 if He was to be any revelation at all of God and of 
 human salvation, and that they should have so recorded 
 and transmitted their knowledge of Him that it should 
 continue to be the possession of the Church after 
 them ”’ (Ecumenical Councils, p. 39). 
 
 This view of the inspiration of Holy Scripture 
 corresponds with his view of the principle that was 
 implied in the formation of the Canon : 
 
 “The action of the Church in accepting a Canon of 
 Scripture need not have been more than the instinctive 
 and practical wisdom of receiving as highest, truest 
 and best Christianity’s own first, living and creative 
 expression of itself, and making this the norm and 
 measure of all subsequent self-expressions of it. It is 
 self-evident to the mind that takes it in as a whole 
 
HIS METHOD—SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY 51 
 
 that the New Testament is a single movement of spiritual 
 and Christian thought and life and that it is complete 
 and sufficient in itself. Itis equally certain that neither 
 the succeeding nor any subsequent age had in it either 
 the plastic capacity or the creative power to take for 
 itself a living form such as Christianity easily, freely 
 and naturally assumed in its initiative stage. And, 
 therefore, it was, to say no more, an act of practical 
 wisdom to accept that first embodiment and expression 
 of itself as in principle at least and in substance final 
 and irreformable ’’ (Ecumenical Councils, p. 25). 
 
 C. Hoty SCRIPTURE AS THE UNIVERSE OF SPIRITUAL 
 SCIENCE 
 
 We have seen that the value of the New Testament 
 lay for Du Bose in the fact that it contains a complete 
 expression of Christian experience in its first “ creative ”’ 
 stage. From this fact, seen in the light of the action 
 of the Church in fixing a definite “‘ Canon ”’ or list of 
 books, which are to be regarded as authoritative in 
 determining the content of the Christian faith, he 
 deduces a remarkable conclusion, for which no doubt 
 his study of Butler’s Analogy is ultimately responsible, 
 viz., that Holy Scripture stands to the Theologian 
 in the same relation in which the natural world stands 
 to the man of Science. All the materials for the 
 construction of a complete view of the spiritual universe 
 are stored up there. 
 
 ‘““ Jesus Christ is to be known from the Old and New 
 Testaments taken together as science is to be learned 
 from nature’ (Ecumenical Councils, p. 322). 
 
 ‘There was much still, and would be always, for 
 Christian thought and science to occupy itself with in 
 
 D2 
 
52 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 the Christian faith and life, but so far as the materials 
 were concerned for all this future occupation they 
 were complete in the primitive experience as recorded 
 in the Scriptures, or if they were not, there was no means 
 or possibility of future addition to them ”’ (Ecumenical 
 Councils, pp. 27 f). 
 
 This conception is, he feels, verified in experience : 
 
 “With whatever prepossession or freedom from 
 prepossession we undertake it, the effect of an exact 
 spiritual study of the mind of the New Testament, 
 after that of any later movement of Christian thought, 
 is surprise and wondering admiration. It is as true 
 to the truth of the spirit as nature itself is to natural 
 truth and in the same way. In the first place it is a 
 unity, but a unity in diversity, and as it requires a 
 whole mind to see the absolute unity of nature in its 
 infinite diversity so also does it to see the one and 
 whole Christ, in his every trait and aspect in the New 
 Testament. And in the second place, while all the 
 materials are given, no induction is made for us from 
 them, but it is left to the spiritual science of humanity 
 ‘to construct for itself the Christ, as it is to physical 
 science to arrive for itself at the unity and wholeness 
 of natural knowledge. In this way we arrive a posteriori 
 at a sort of natural conviction, that confirms the instinct 
 of the church, of a divinity in Holy Scripture similar 
 to that in nature” (Ecumenical Councils, pp. 323 f). 
 
 And he would have us notice that this limitation 
 does not shut the door on further advance in the 
 knowledge of the Truth : 
 
 ‘“‘ Already we find there (in the New Testament) all 
 of Christianity that we know, and increasingly more of 
 
HIS METHOD—SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY 53 
 
 it that we know not yet and are more and more coming 
 to know” (Constructive Quarterly, III, 250). 
 
 D. THE SCIENCE OF SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY 
 
 We can pass on now to look more closely into 
 Du Bose’s method and see if it admits of more 
 precise characterization. 
 
 If we confined our attention to his account of the 
 place of Holy Scripture in Christian thought we might 
 describe his method as a method of induction from the 
 facts which underlie the New Testament records. 
 Such a description, however, would be at best incom- 
 plete. It would tell us nothing with regard to the 
 class of facts which he singled out for observation, 
 and the kind of evidence to which he appealed. In 
 this connection his own account of the influence that 
 determined the form that his public teaching took is 
 illuminating. 
 
 I began “‘ to read with an advanced class Aristotle’s 
 Ethics—for both the Greek and the philosophy. Un- 
 consciously Aristotle became the basis and starting 
 point of all my thinking. I seemed to find in him the 
 true root and starting point of all thought or knowledge 
 of myself: Socrates’ ‘Know Thyself’ found in him, 
 in the third generation, its scientific response, or at 
 least the beginning of it. I began to apply his prin- 
 ciples and follow his lines, and found that instruction 
 built up on that foundation was not only more satis- 
 factory to myself, but more intelligible and self-evident 
 to the classes than upon any other system” (Turning 
 Points, p. 6). 
 
 Here surely we have the key we are in search of, 
 
f 
 \ | 
 
 54 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 The centre of Du Bose’s interest lay always in per- 
 sonality. His appeal was to experience. His attention 
 is fixed on the facts of consciousness. The secret, 
 therefore, of the attraction of Aristotle’s Ethics for 
 Du Bose is self-evident. Aristotle’s treatise is based 
 throughout on a first-hand examination, on the one 
 side, of the facts of consciousness as throwing light on 
 the constitution of the soul, and on the other, of the 
 facts of common language, that ‘“‘ rich storehouse of 
 human experience ’’ as revealing the popular estimate 
 of various elements in human character. It would be 
 difficult to point to any philosophical treatise in which 
 the reader is kept so habitually in touch with life and 
 reality. It is not surprising, therefore, that Du Bose 
 found it an introduction not only to the subject-matter 
 of Ethics, but to a method which is strictly psycho- 
 logical. Once wedded to this method, for which he 
 had a strong natural affinity, he was ready when he 
 came to present Christ and Christianity to Theological 
 students to make a new application of it, and so to 
 make a contribution all his own to thescience of Spiritual 
 Psychology—or, to use more familiar phraseology, to 
 the study of the religious Consciousness. 
 
 ~ In so doing he was in complete harmony with the 
 “trend of modern thought both in philosophy and in 
 theology. On all sides there is a revolt against abstrac- 
 tions. Psychology is taking the place of Metaphysics 
 in Philosophy. We are more interested in the study 
 of the facts of consciousness than in the rules of Logic, 
 or even than in the laws of Thought. In Theology 
 voices are making themselves heard calling for someone 
 to translate ‘“‘a theology that was cast in a Scholastic 
 mould into a Theology based on psychology,’ and 
 “to express the truth of the Creed in terms which can 
 
 s 
 
4 
 
 HIS METHOD—SPIRITUAL PSYCHOLOGY 55 
 
 appeal to those who are accustomed to think in the 
 terms not of metaphysics but of personality.’ This 
 being so, those who make this demand should feel a 
 special attraction to Du Bose. It is precisely the task 
 on which he worked for forty years. 
 
 It must be the work of subsequent lectures to discuss 
 the special contributions that he made by the applica- 
 tion of this method in different departments of Theology. 
 Our present task is simply to define the distinctive 
 element in his contribution to the study of the religious 
 consciousness in itself. In brief it consists in the fact 
 that he took the New Testament as his text-book, 
 and studied it for the light that it throws on the spiritual 
 experience not only of St. Paul and of the other Apostles 
 but of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. 
 
 The field of investigation in connection with the 
 religious consciousness is no doubt wide, and evidence 
 can be drawn from many different quarters. Professor 
 W. James, among other things, demonstrated the value 
 of evidence largely pathological in his Varieties of 
 Religious Experience. Professor Pratt, in The Religious 
 Consciousness, examines the normal religious conscious- 
 ness partly by means of Questionnaires, and partly 
 through his own wide and sympathetic acquaintance 
 with various forms of organized religion both within 
 and without the limits of Christianity. Professor 
 Granger, in The Soul of a Christian, bases his results 
 on the autobiographies of St. Augustine, St. Theresa, 
 
 —, 
 
 and John Bunyan. Du Bose, as we have seen, felt the , 
 primary importance of the experience of the first \ 
 
 generation of Christians, and fixed his attention on 
 
 the record of that experience which the Church accepted 
 
 as Canonical. 
 He began, as he has told us, with St. Paul. He learnt 
 
 / 
 
56 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 Christ first of all in the mirror of St. Paul’s reaction 
 to Him. It may seem a narrow field, but at least he 
 explored it thoroughly from the psychological side, 
 testing it for himself and encouraging his pupils to test 
 it for themselves, as the Church has tested it down the 
 ages, in the light of direct spiritual experience. He 
 checked his results by the study of the other Epistles 
 and found, in spite of formal differences, a deep and 
 substantial harmony between St. Paul’s experience 
 of the salvation that was his in Christ and the experience 
 of St. Peter, St. John, and the author of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews. But he could not stop there. This 
 experience of the salvation that is ours in Christ is so 
 vitally dependent on the personal relations both ways 
 between ourselves and Christ that he had to press on 
 and explore in all reverence the religious consciousness 
 of Jesus Christ Himself, as it is revealed to us through 
 those who had knowledge of Him both before and after 
 His Ascension. A moment’s reflection is enough to 
 show that this and nothing short of this is the true 
 goal of the inquiry into the nature and content of the 
 Religious Consciousness to which we are committed. 
 I cannot doubt that as the years go by our sense of 
 gratitude will deepen towards one who in comparative 
 obscurity, with characteristic fearlessness, explored 
 the path by which it may be attained. 
 
LECTURE IV 
 HUMAN NEED AND THE ORIGIN OF SIN 
 A. HuMAN NEED 
 
 WE have seen that Du Bose’s method of handling the 
 problems of Theology was essentially psychological. 
 We pass on to study that method in operation, and to 
 consider the results to which it led him. We shall 
 concentrate attention first on The Soteriology of the 
 New Testament, the book embodying the fruit of 
 twenty years’ experience in the application of the 
 method to the needs of successive generations of 
 students, in which he first challenged the attention 
 of the theologians of his time. 
 
 The title was no doubt chosen deliberately. He 
 felt, I think, that he was approaching a familiar 
 subject in an unfamiliar way, and wished to guard his 
 readers against supposing that he was offering them 
 a formal treatise on ‘‘ the Atonement” or on “ the 
 Plan of Salvation.’’ Unfortunately none but pro- 
 fessed theologians had heard of Soteriology, and it is 
 to be feared that the uninitiated never realised that 
 the book, in spite of the rather alarming appearance 
 of Greek words here and there in the text, is singularly 
 free from technical phraseology. It is throughout an 
 appeal to the New Testament in the light of what may 
 and indeed ought to be universal Christian experience. 
 
 The book is inspired throughout by the conviction 
 that “the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation 
 unto every one that believeth.” It is a study of 
 
 57 
 
58 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 Christianity in the light of its Divinely appointed goal, 
 and thereby avoids the danger of measuring by a 
 bent rule which affects all theologies that start from 
 the Fall; and the appeal to experience keeps the 
 treatment of the problems both of the Atonement 
 and of Christology concrete and personal. It issues, 
 therefore, in what we have seen to be Du Bose’s 
 characteristic contribution to theological thought, an 
 interpretation of Christianity in the terms not of 
 metaphysics but of personality. It provides an admir- 
 able introduction to the science of Spiritual Psycho- 
 logy, to the study, that is, of the phenomena of religious 
 consciousness on the transcendental side, the side of 
 free personal activity and of God, which the student 
 of the succession of psychical states, regarded as a 
 self-contained series, is ex hypothest bound to exclude 
 from his consideration. 
 
 The form of his exposition is fundamentally, though 
 not obtrusively, moulded, as Du Bose himself gave us 
 reason to expect, on that of the Ethics of Aristotle. 
 It is an examination of the true end of man by direct 
 inspection of the facts of his constitution, and of the 
 meaning of the terms employed in the New Testament 
 to describe his characteristic spiritual qualities. Du 
 Bose had learnt from Aristotle to study the true 
 nature of anything in the light of its “end.” He 
 accepts whole-heartedly Aristotle’s conclusions with 
 regard to the nature of virtue and to the task of 
 rationalising his animal propensities with which every 
 man is confronted. But he raises the investigation 
 into a higher plane by taking into account a whole 
 department of human life, which lay beyond Aristotle’s 
 horizon. Brilliantly equipped as Aristotle was on the 
 intellectual side, he shows singularly little capacity 
 
HUMAN NEED AND THE ORIGIN OF SIN 59 
 
 for response on the side of the spirit. Gop was for 
 him, as F, D. Maurice points out in his Moral and 
 Metaphysical Philosophy, “‘ merely the crowning result, 
 or at least a necessary postulate of his philosdphy.’’ 
 He was no felt need of his heart. So for Aristotle 
 Ethics were simply a department of Politics. They 
 stand in no organic relation to Theology. 
 
 Du Bose, on the other hand, recognised in man, not 
 only (1) a physical nature with animal instincts and 
 impulses which respond automatically to stimuli 
 coming from within and from without, and (2) an 
 ethical ‘“‘ personality,’ involving a capacity for con- 
 scious and free activity in obedience to law, and 
 entrusted with the task of rationalising or moralising 
 this “‘ animal” nature, but also (3) a spiritual capacity 
 for communion with God in a relationship transcendent, 
 personal and free, which when consummated is nothing 
 short of a true Divine sonship. 
 
 This spiritual capacity Du Bose believed to exist in 
 all men. He maintained indeed, as we shall see, that 
 no man could rationalise his animal nature and become 
 his true self unless he exercised this spiritual capacity 
 and laid hold of God. In other words, he held that a 
 man, if he would be a man, must not only rationalise 
 the animal in him, but also spiritualise the natural. 
 Sonship, however, as he conceived it, is so essentially 
 on both sides a personal relationship, that he shrank 
 from using any language which might lead a man to 
 rely on it as a fact of his nature, independent of the 
 consent and co-operation of his will. We shall have 
 to return later to this distinction between “ nature ”’ 
 and “ personality,’ which is fundamental in all Du 
 Bose’s thinking, as well as to a subordinate distinction 
 between “individuality”? and ‘“ personality.”’ Our 
 
60 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 present point is that for Du Bose this spiritual capacity 
 was an essential part of man as man. It is not sur- 
 prising, therefore, that in his analysis of human need 
 “Holiness ’’ or personal union with God comes first, 
 then ‘‘ Righteousness ’’ or obedience to the moral law, 
 and then ‘‘ Happiness”’ or “‘ Well-being,” the fulness 
 of life with all its faculties perfectly developed in due 
 subordination. These three needs are indeed vitally 
 interrelated, but the deepest and most radical is 
 Holiness. For we must not forget that human nature 
 and human personality, whether in the race or in the 
 individual, are not fixed and strictly definable entities. 
 They are alive and growing, and Du Bose contends 
 /that there can be no final realisation of self by self 
 except in God. 
 
 This brings us naturally to the consideration of the 
 problem of self-realization. In his later writing 
 Du Bose calls attention to three difficulties, which, 
 apart from the complications introduced by Sin, 
 stand in the way of its solution. The first comes 
 from what he calls the wis inertie@ of an established 
 order. Use and wont inevitably and rightly form 
 chains of habit which fetter growth. For there can 
 be no progress without some breaking with the past. 
 We are all therefore bound to rouse our wills to fight 
 against sloth. Life is an energy overcoming obstacles. 
 
 The next difficulty is inherent in the attractiveness 
 of the appeals that come to us through our sensuous 
 nature. It is entirely right that we should be sensible 
 of the attraction. Life begins in a body. We have to 
 train our senses to distinguish between the different 
 objects of desire, each inherently good, that suggest 
 themselves. But desire must be servant not master, 
 and it will not submit without a struggle. So we have 
 
HUMAN NEED AND THE ORIGIN OF SIN 61 
 
 to fight to avoid sinking in the slough of sensuality. 
 The sense-plane is indeed not an evil to be cast out: 
 but it is to be transcended, and brought into sub- 
 jection, and made the instrument of righteousness. 
 
 A third difficulty comes from the instinct of self- 
 preservation. It is a strange paradox, but it is true, 
 that we must sacrifice our souls if we would save them. 
 There is no other escape from the death of selfishness. 
 Christ died to self and sin in the complete surrender 
 of His will to God. It is clear, therefore, that Du Bose 
 would go all the way with Dr. Tennant in his Ongin 
 and Propagation of Sin, not only in his repudiation 
 of the possibility of inherited guilt, but also in his 
 contention that there is nothing in itself “ sinful’’ in 
 the conflict between duty and inclination which these 
 considerations show to be inevitable. This conclusion 
 is, however, so far merely negative. It tells us what 
 is not sin. It does not tell us what sin is, or how it 
 has come to be such a terribly insistent part of our 
 religious consciousness. The question merits close 
 examination, both for its own sake and in the interest 
 of yet more vital Christological problems, which will 
 arise later. 
 
 B. THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF SIN 
 
 Dr. Tennant, approaching the problem from the 
 standpoint of empirical science, gives the following 
 account of the gradual evolution of the moral status 
 both of the race and of the individual, 
 
 “Moral sensibility emerges in the course of mental 
 education, and the content of the ethical ideal is the 
 later gift of social heredity, for which physical heredity 
 only supplies the empty and bare capacity. Conduct 
 
62 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 that before was neither good nor bad but innocent 
 now becomes necessarily and increasingly either good 
 or bad. Evil is not the result of a transition from the 
 good, but good and bad are alike voluntary develop- 
 ments from what is ethically neutral. Sin only 
 emerges when the moral sense has begun to pass upon 
 our thoughts and actions a moral condemnation. The 
 individual thus discovers himself to be sinful. He 
 does not rightly find himself to have been sinful in 
 the past in which he knew no law, or to have been 
 ‘subject from birth to an indwelling power of sin.’ 
 If his consciousness tells him that he has thus been 
 from the first the subject of sin, it is because it expresses 
 its immediate experience in terms of a theory supplied 
 by uncritical and unreflective ‘common sense,’ and 
 uses a rhetorical and faulty metaphysic. What intro- 
 spection really discovers is an internal conflict between 
 nature and nurture, natural desire and moral end; 
 and this is the inevitable condition of human life and 
 the expression of God’s purpose. We feel ourselves 
 to be constantly solicited towards conduct which 
 must be reckoned sinful when the moral faculty has 
 entered upon its infinite possibilities of development. 
 An impulse of greater intensity but lower worth con- 
 flicts with another of higher worth but lower intensity. 
 This is temptation. It divides the man against him- 
 self: his natural animal basis against his acquired 
 human conscience. Without both these elements, 
 temptation and law, he could not be a finite moral 
 being. And if man is thus the product of develop- 
 ment, and sin is thus resolvable into factors (the flesh 
 and the law of St. Paul), it is no longer possible to 
 put the old question which has so long troubled the 
 theologian: ‘How does such a discord as sin arise 
 
HUMAN NEED AND THE ORIGIN OF SIN 63 
 
 in human life wherein everything indicates unity and 
 harmony as its normal condition?’ The question 
 rests upon an entirely erroneous prepossession. Empi- 
 rical science asserts that the discord in us is not sin 
 until we make it so, and unity and harmony, in the 
 sense of freedom from effort to avoid evil, never has 
 had actual existence. Calm’s not man’s birth-gift any 
 more than it is ‘life’s crown,’ ‘though calm is well.’ 
 “A spark has disturbed our clod.’ Man was born to 
 trouble: to the arduous task of subjugating and 
 annexing his organic to his rational and moral nature ”’ 
 (The Ongin and Propagation of Sin, pp. 114 ff). 
 
 In other words Dr. Tennant warns us that in the 
 light of modern science the traditional conceptions 
 both of an “ original righteousness’ and of “ original 
 sin’’ must be entirely recast, if the truth that lies at 
 the back of them is to be preserved. Similarly, criti- 
 cizing Kant’s doctrine of ‘‘ radical badness,’’ he writes, 
 “Kant takes for his premiss that our ‘ bias’ is rightly 
 to be called evil: therefore, he argues, in accordance 
 with his fundamental principle, it is to be referred to 
 the will. Our future argument on the contrary starts 
 from the empirical fact that what is (illegitimately) 
 called our evil ‘ bias’ is not to be referred to the will, 
 and therefore it cannot be called evil’’ (zbid, p. 193). 
 
 Du Bose’s position with regard to “ Original Sin ”’ is 
 in fundamental agreement with this. The so-called 
 sin of nature is not sin at all. “It might be a natural 
 bias or inclination or proclivity to sin; it might con- 
 stitute in us a natural impossibility of not sinning ; 
 as St. Paul says that the law cannot produce righteous- 
 ness in us on account of the weakness of our flesh. 
 But whatever be the fault or corruption of the nature 
 
64 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 of every man who is born of Adam, it is not in itself 
 properly sin, but only becomes so in the will and per- 
 sonal activity of the man himself. When the man 
 does sin, aS every man sins, we may then trace it back 
 —not, as I was about to say, to its origination in the 
 nature, for sin cannot originate in the impersonal 
 nature, but only in a person, but—to the temptation 
 or the weakness in the nature which made it impossible 
 for him not to sin; and in this way we may attribute 
 the sin to a so-called sinful nature, or flesh ’’ (Soteriology, 
 Pp. 233). 
 
 The matter, however, can hardly rest there. Granted 
 that sin is resolvable into factors “ the flesh and the 
 law,’ and that the flesh, though from it come “ the 
 possibility of sin, the instruments of sin, and the 
 temptations to sin,’ yet cannot in itself be properly 
 termed sinful: granted that “the actuality of sin”’ 
 for empirical science “is derived solely from the indi- 
 vidual will influenced by its social environment,” 
 we are still left wondering what after all is this actuality 
 of sin ? 
 
 It is no use trying to escape from the verdict of my 
 own conscience, and the sense of inalienable guilt 
 after any fall into sin that it brings with it, by 
 throwing the blame on my instincts and impulses 
 or on my social environment. If JI had been whole- 
 heartedly on the side of the impulse of higher worth, 
 the lower would not have prevailed against it. I was 
 under no compulsion to follow the multitude to 
 do evil. 
 
 Or, leaving the question of guilt to Him who is 
 greater than our hearts and knoweth all things, let us 
 confine our attention to the insistent consciousness of 
 present slavery. Dr. Tennant warns us that “if a 
 
HUMAN NEED AND THE ORIGIN OF SIN 65 
 
 man’s consciousness tells him that he has thus been 
 from the first the subject of sin it is because it expresses 
 its immediate experience in terms of a theory supplied 
 by unreflective ‘common sense,’ and uses a rhetorical 
 and faulty metaphysic.’’ Let us then drop the words 
 “from the first ’’ and examine “‘ the immediate experi- 
 ence.”’ That is admittedly an experience of slavery 
 to sin. Once more we ask what is sin? My will brings 
 it into manifestation. Yet it masters my will. It is 
 in me though it isnot me. It makesmeaslave. Can 
 “accurate psychological or ethical analysis’’ ascribe 
 power over persons to a logical abstraction or to faulty 
 metaphysic or to a material object? Is it as certain, 
 as Dr. Tennant seems to think, that St. Paul was 
 mistaken in personifying it ? 
 
 This power is in the experience of each of us a real 
 power, and it is a spiritual power. If it is one and the 
 same power that affects us all, would not that explain 
 the strange solidarity of evil in the world, a solidarity 
 which is not to be confounded with the solidarity of the 
 race, though both solidarities combine to make “ sin ”’ 
 and not merely ‘‘ temptation’ a race fact. Du Bose, 
 at least, keeping close to St. Paul, leaves the door open 
 for this solution. “‘Sin,’’ he says (St#. Paul, p. 208), 
 “is in its actual operation certainly not an individual 
 but a collective thing; it is in us as one man, in our 
 solidarity as a race.’’ And again (p. 212), “sin, ina 
 word, is something not ourselves, in relation with which, 
 in reaction with or against which we ourselves become 
 sinful, or else holy.’’ And, if we are told that this 
 conception of sin, as a personal power not ourselves 
 working for unrighteousness, is “certainly Mani- 
 chean,’’ we may at least plead that, if we may accept 
 the evidence of the New Testament, St. Paul, St. John, 
 
 E 
 
66 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 and Our Lord Himself entertained it; and there does 
 not seem anything strikingly Manichean in the one 
 reference that Du Bose makes to the devil in his 
 Soteriology (p. 25). “‘ The devil himself is to God’s 
 saints a ministering spirit sent forth to minister to the 
 heirs of salvation.” 
 
 Whatever may be the ultimate verdict on this point, 
 the fact of sin introduces serious complications into 
 the problem of the supply of the three fundamental 
 needs of the whole race. Our sins separate us from God, 
 and we cannot attain to that oneness of nature with 
 Him, which is Holiness, without Atonement. Our wills 
 are, as we have seen, enslaved by sin, and we cannot 
 render that free obedience to the law of our being, 
 which is righteousness, without Redemption. Through 
 Sin, Death has entered into the world, and we are 
 spiritually, morally, and physically in the bondage of 
 corruption. We can only attain to the fulness of life 
 by Resurrection. 
 
 Here, then, is the sum of human need as it is revealed 
 by a study of the facts of human experience in the 
 light of the New Testament. We find ourselves in 
 this world engaged in a fight with temptation on the 
 road to the attainment of our true moral and spiritual 
 personality, that is, of Holiness, Righteousness and the 
 fulness of Life. Owing to the fact of Sin we need not 
 only help to overcome adverse conditions in ourselves 
 and in the world, but also Atonement, Redemption 
 and Resurrection. Such is the need which, according 
 to the word of the truth of the Gospel, has been supplied 
 for the world by the salvation that Christ wrought 
 andis. We must go on to examine Du Bose’s exposition 
 of the way in which this supply is adapted to the 
 satisfaction of our need. 
 
LECTURE V 
 
 CHRISTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF 
 SOTERIOLOGY.—I 
 
 A. A NEw APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF THE INCARNA- 
 TION 
 
 1. WE have considered Du Bose’s analysis of human 
 need: the first of the problems that meet us when 
 we seek to understand the nature of Salvation from 
 its psychological side. His most original contribution 
 to Christian thought comes from his application of 
 the key provided by this analysis to the eternal problem 
 of the nature and person of Christ. 
 
 There was, of course, nothing new in his recognition 
 of the inter-relation of the Incarnation and Human 
 Salvation. That recognition is at least as old as 
 St. Athanasius and the ‘‘ Nicene’’ Creed. Only with 
 Du Bose the centre of interest is not, as it is, for 
 instance, with St. Anselm and Dr. Forsyth, the 
 Divinity of our Lord as his qualification for the task 
 of satisfying the claims of the Divine Justice, or as 
 our Surety in the great transaction between our souls 
 and God, which is the foundation of the characteristi- 
 cally Christian experience of life and joy and peace. 
 It is his Humanity, as the means by which after recon- 
 ciling us to God, redeeming us from the slavery of 
 Sin, and raising us out of Death, He mediates to us 
 on the one hand the Grace of Holiness, Righteousness, 
 and Life, and becomes on the other the Author and 
 Perfecter of our Faith. 
 
 67 
 E2 
 
68 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 The true and proper Deity of Christ was indeed no 
 less fundamental in Du Bose’s Christology than in 
 that of any of his predecessors. Note, for instance, 
 his passionate protest (Soteriology, pp. 228 f). 
 
 “Do we sacrifice or imperil anything of what a 
 truly catholic theology has labored through all the 
 ages to protect and defend in the above analysis and 
 description of the human sinlessness of our Lord? It 
 may seem to, or may in fact, sometimes differ from 
 the traditional methods and language of defence, but 
 does it lay an unbelieving or irreverent finger upon 
 the thing defended and to be forever defended ? Then 
 let it go; for to impugn or impair by remotest corollary 
 or consequence the Christian pre-supposition of the 
 essential human sinlessness, and the very personal 
 deity of the incarnate Son of God, is to lay an impious 
 finger upon the spiritual, moral, and natural order of 
 the universe, and to err against the true nature, dignity, 
 and destination of man.” 
 
 He approaches the problem of Salvation, however, 
 not from an a priors examination of the conditions to 
 be fulfilled on the Divine side, but from the side of 
 human experience, and from this side, though the 
 impotence of human nature to attain its appointed 
 end in its own strength makes it clear that Christ, if 
 He is indeed to become our Salvation, must have come 
 from God, and be in a strict sense Himself God, yet 
 His Divinity can only be apprehended by us through 
 the mirror of His Humanity. 
 
 “T myself have no hesitation in denying any presence 
 or operation of real deity in Jesus Christ as mani- 
 fested otherwise than in the fact of His accomplished 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 69 
 
 and perfected human divinity” (The Reason of Life, 
 Pp. 245). 
 
 Let us look then, once more, at our need, this time 
 to see what conditions must be fulfilled in Jesus Christ 
 as our Salvation. Our task is to moralize the animal 
 and spiritualize the natural in us. Our goal is a union 
 of heart and will with God, which is Holiness, the 
 fulfilment of the law of our being, which is Righteous- 
 ness, and a complete development of all our faculties 
 which is the Fulness of Life. Christ as our Salvation 
 must help us to attain this goal, as alone it can be 
 attained, by our own free activity. To this end He 
 must first give us a vision of the goal, and an assurance 
 that it is within the reach of a nature such as ours. 
 He must at the same time provide the energy whereby 
 we may strive effectually to attain it. Christ, that is, 
 must be first “‘a sample or example” of what human 
 salvation is: then, the source of its supply: and 
 finally, in an even deeper sense, He must be Himselt 
 the very substance of our salvation. 
 
 2. If so, we must be prepared for what is nothing 
 less than a revolution in our apprehension of the fact 
 and method of the Incarnation. Approaching it from 
 the divine side, we have hitherto regarded it simply 
 as ‘‘a birth of Deity into Humanity ”’ to all intents 
 and purposes complete when the infant Jesus was 
 laid in His manger cradle at Bethlehem. We have to 
 regard it henceforth as a lifelong process. 
 
 We have, of course, always known that the Child 
 Jesus grew, “‘ passing through all the stages of human 
 life that He might sanctify them all,” as an Elder 
 quoted by Ireneeus says. We have no difficulty, there- 
 fore, in believing that He entered stage’ by stage into 
 
70 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 the full possession of all His characteristically human 
 faculties, and even that He did not attain to the 
 fulness of all that is implicit in human nature until 
 after He had passed out of the body of His humiliation 
 into the body of His glory. The manhood that He 
 assumed was not perfected before the Ascension. 
 The Incarnation, so regarded, is clearly an act extend- 
 ing over the whole of our Lord’s earthly life—and 
 even beyond it. For St. Paul has familiarized us 
 with the thought of the Church as the Body of 
 Christ in which He is still even now “ being fulfilled ” 
 (Eph. i, 19). We have always taught that the Sacra- 
 ments are an “extension of the Incarnation.” So 
 we can grant further that the Incarnation of our 
 Lord is “part of the universal process’’ which is still 
 in progress. 
 
 Hitherto, however, we have seen in the Incarnation 
 no activity but that of God. We have been uncon- 
 scious of the possibility, let alone the necessity of any 
 co-operation on the part of man. Or, if we find it 
 impossible to ignore this necessity, so far as it affects 
 our own relation to “the extension of the Incarna- 
 tion,” we have neglected to make any allowance for 
 it so far as it affects our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 It is this neglect which Du Bose challenges, in the 
 interest of a clearer understanding not only of the 
 nature and process of our salvation, but of the fact 
 and method of the Incarnation itself. The process of 
 “being made a man,” as we know it in our own experi- 
 ence, is the reverse of mechanical. Whatever may be 
 the case on the physical side of our manhood, the 
 whole development of the moral and spiritual side is 
 dependent on our own personal activity. The nature 
 that we inherit is only the raw material of the man that 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 71 
 
 we have to become. Clearly, therefore, if God became 
 man, and not an automaton, in Jesus Christ, the 
 Incarnation in Him cannot be the result of a merely 
 physical and necessary process. We must make 
 allowance on the side of His humanity for a definitely 
 moral and spiritual activity. We must see in Him a 
 human conscience and a human will, moralizing the 
 animal nature into which He had been born. He had 
 to develop character as we have to develop it, out 
 of a conflict always possible, and sometimes, as at 
 Gethsemane, acute, between duty and inclination ; 
 He had to grasp by faith under the most testing con- 
 ditions and so to appropriate the eternal fact of His 
 Divine Sonship by an obedience perfected through the 
 things that He suffered in the course of a lifelong 
 discipline. 
 
 3. It is a strong confirmation of the truth of this 
 conception of the fact and method of the Incarnation 
 that it, and apparently it alone, helps us to see in 
 Christ, what the Gospel bids us see, our Salvation. 
 First as ‘“‘sample or example.” If this is the way in 
 which He came and clothed Himself in our nature, He 
 became man under the same conditions under which 
 we have to become men. He fought the fight that 
 we have to fight in the flesh with sin and death, and 
 we can see how His victory over them on the Cross 
 may be ours also. He showed us, in spite of the 
 presence of sin and death in the world, “ what it were 
 to be a man,” the image of God after which we were 
 created, and after which, therefore, we must be re- 
 created if we are to attain salvation. 
 
 Then again—as the Way of Life. Our goal is 
 nothing short of the substantiation of our Divine 
 Sonship. And Sonship is essentially a relation between 
 
72 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 persons. It implies both a voice from Heaven saying 
 to a man, “‘ Thou art my son,” and the spirit of a son 
 in his heart whereby he cries, “‘ Abba, Father.”” In 
 other words it is, on the one side, constituted by divine 
 appointment. It is the result of a free outgoing of 
 the Divine Love, it is ‘‘ of Grace.’’ And on the other 
 side it has to be appropriated by a response that is 
 none the less divine that it is intensely human, the 
 response of Faith and Hope and Love. And this view 
 of the Incarnation shows us Jesus Christ, not only as 
 the voice of God, calling us to rise to the height of our 
 Divine Sonship, but also as the spring of power from 
 on high to enable us to respond to the call, as He 
 responded in the days of His flesh. He will baptize 
 us with the spirit of Sonship with which He has Him- 
 self been baptized, and for which He has in His human 
 nature provided a living temple. 
 
 But even that is not all. He is not only the Way. 
 He is Himself our salvation. We only find our true 
 selves when we lose ourselves in Him, when it is no 
 longer we that live, but He that liveth in us. For, 
 “Jesus Christ was man, and was a man. But He is 
 also all humanity, and if in simple faith and hope 
 and love, which will carry with them all the desire 
 and purpose and effort of which we are progressively 
 and increasingly capable, we will put ourselves and be 
 in Him as He is in us—if we will truly apprehend that 
 for which we are apprehended in Christ Jesus; then 
 we shall know in time, though we may never be able 
 to explain in terms, the truth and actuality of an 
 Incarnation which, beginning and ending in Jesus 
 Christ, includes and completes us all’ (The Reason 
 
 of Life, p. 259). 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 73 
 
 B. THE HuMAN NATURE OF CHRIST UNDER THE SAME 
 CONDITIONS AS OURS 
 
 I. THERE is a further consequence of this approach to the 
 doctrine of the Incarnation from the side of its relation 
 to human salvation, to which it is important to call 
 attention both on its own account and because it 
 was the chief cause of the suspicion with which Du Bose 
 was regarded by the popular organs of religious opinion. 
 It is little to the credit of the serious students of Theo- 
 logy on both sides of the water that they should have 
 paid so little attention to his singularly penetrating 
 and comprehensive analysis of a very difficult and 
 delicate problem. 
 
 It was of the essence of Du Bose’s view of our Lord’s 
 relation to human salvation that He should have 
 triumphed over sin and death in our nature, under 
 conditions precisely the same as ours, except so far as 
 ours are affected by sins for which we are individually 
 and personally responsible. 
 
 As long as we are content to regard the Incarnation 
 simply as “ the birth of deity into humanity” by an 
 act of God, in which the human element has no share, 
 whatever our theory with regard to the nature of the 
 human element may be, we are to all intents and pur- 
 _ poses treating it as impersonal, and to ascribe moral 
 qualities to it by itself is strictly meaningless. Theo- 
 logians had, however, got into the habit of speaking 
 of the ‘‘ nature ’’ which we inherit as “‘ sinful,’”’ because 
 we are all sinful in it, and consistency required us to 
 speak of the human nature into which He was born 
 as ‘‘ sinless’ because He was sinless in it. 
 
 Dangerous consequences follow from an inaccurate 
 use of language. It is only too easy to shirk personal 
 
74 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 responsibility for our sins by throwing the blame on 
 our “sinful nature.’’ It is impossible to see our 
 Lord’s triumph over sin in its true light while we 
 attribute it to the fact of His Human Nature, and not 
 to the use of His Human Will. 
 
 Du Bose, however, thanks to his psychological 
 interest in the problems of Salvation, was fully alive 
 to this danger, and avoided it by drawing a sharp 
 distinction between ‘‘nature’’ and “ personality,” 
 and as far as possible confined the use of the epithets 
 “ sinful’? and “sinless” to ‘‘ personality’’ as dis- 
 tinguished from ‘‘nature.’”’ At the same time he 
 maintained the strict identity in respect of inherited 
 nature between our Lord and us. 
 
 2. His distinction of ‘‘ nature”’ and “ personality ”’ 
 is, as we have seen, in complete harmony with the 
 conclusions of empirical science as formulated by 
 Dr. Tennant. And it is interesting to notice that 
 Dr. Tennant expressly and independently supports 
 Du Bose’s contention with regard to the identity 
 of “‘ inherited nature.” 
 
 He writes as follows: 
 
 “Tf the view of human nature and human sinfulness 
 advocated in Lecture III be correct ... it will follow 
 that there can be no difference between our Lord’s 
 ““nature’’ and ours. If ours is normal, the natural 
 product of a course of evolution whose only ultimate 
 cause is God, and our inborn faculties have not been 
 affected by a catastrophic Fall, our nurture alone 
 and not our nature being marred by human sin, then 
 there is no reason to distinguish the endowments of 
 His Body and Soul, in so far as those endowments were 
 human, from those which we inherit. His sinlessness 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 75 
 
 consists in absence of actual sin: our sinfulness is the 
 weaving of sinful acts into sinful habits and sinful 
 character. His nature was necessarily neutral and 
 non-moral, and the source of impulses, or bases of 
 desire, whose indulgence would have produced sin. 
 Without such impulses He could neither have been 
 tempted nor have lived a moral human life. But His 
 will never consented to such impulses when consent 
 would have involved departure from the ideal of 
 holiness ’’ (Tennant, l.c. pp. 167 f). 
 
 In other words, our “‘ nature,’’ as Tennant conceives 
 it, is composed of elements which come to us by inheri- 
 tance through a long chain of Divinely appointed evolu- 
 tion. None of these elements is inherently evil. Each 
 in its measure is capable of consecration. The “ ape”’ 
 and “‘ tiger’ in us are not there simply to be cast out. 
 They are there to be tamed and set each to its appro- 
 priate task. They supply “the raw material of 
 morality.’’ They only cause trouble, as Plato pointed 
 out, when they are allowed to get out of hand. So 
 the root of our trouble lies not in ‘“‘ nature” but in 
 “ nurture.”’ 
 
 This last word suggests important considerations. 
 For, while in the last resort each man’s responsibility 
 for his own sin is individual and incommunicable— 
 sin is a man’s personal reaction to the law of his own 
 being under the conditions in which he finds himself 
 —yet “social heredity’ has a large part to play in 
 his ‘‘ nurture ’’ whether for good or for evil. 
 
 While on the one hand “ the race’s most important 
 gift to the individual is the morality which itself has 
 toilsomely and gradually won” (Tennant, p. 104), on 
 the other it is the source of “‘ zwbred sinfulness derived 
 
76 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 by us from our surroundings, our mutual inter-action 
 and co-operation; it is the accumulated influences 
 stored up in the social environment ”’ (p. 72). 
 
 Difficult as it is to hold both sides of the truth 
 together, there can be little doubt that sin is not only 
 intensely individual. It is also a “‘ race fact.” The 
 salvation of each individual sinner is complicated by 
 his implication in a sinful society. We have to fight 
 the world as well as the flesh. Our nurture can be 
 marred by social pressure as well as by natural 
 inclination. 
 
 3. Still, in the last resort, my sin is my own and not 
 another's. I cannot evade my responsibility by throw- 
 ing the blame on my “ nature ”’ or on “ social heredity.” 
 It is I that have failed if my natural instincts and 
 impulses have been too strong for me. And the fact 
 would seem to be that, though I am capable of seeing 
 the right and approving it, I have not the power, 
 however much I may have the will, to do the right 
 consistently in my own strength. The “ spirit *’ may 
 be willing, but the “‘ flesh’ (meaning by that not my 
 inherited nature, the ‘‘ non-moral source of my impulses 
 and the basis of my desires,” but my “ natural ”’ Ego) 
 is weak. This “‘ Ego,’’ as St. Paul found, is in a state 
 of bondage from which it cannot break free. 
 
 This bondage of the Ego is, I take it, what Kant 
 called ‘‘ the radical badness”’ of human nature. We 
 are powerless in our own strength to realise the ideal 
 of Holiness, of which none the less we have a clear 
 intuition. Our consciences, in spite of evolutionary 
 illumination, persist in characterising our state as not 
 only wretched but sinful. Our failure comes from 
 disregarding God’s will. In God’s strength if not in 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY ig 
 
 our own we might have come out as victors from the 
 trial, whatever it was. The philosopher’s formula, 
 “T ought, therefore I can,’’ is only misleading, when I 
 forget my relation to Him who appointed the trial, 
 and Whose Will is my law, a relation which is a reality 
 all the time whether I am conscious of it or not. So 
 whatever may be our opinion of the phrase “‘ Original 
 Sin,” we can all agree with Archdeacon Wilson* that 
 “ This conflict of freedom and conscience is precisely 
 what is related as ‘ The Fall’ sub sfecie ustoria. It 
 tells of the fall of a creature from unconscious innocence 
 to conscious guilt, expressing itself in fleeing from the 
 presence of God.’’ We can agree also that “ this fall 
 from innocence was in another sense a rise to a higher 
 grade of being ’”’ (tbid). To become conscious of our 
 need of God, however that consciousness is brought 
 about, is the first step in regeneration. 
 
 4. Du Bose accepts Kant’s account of our “ radical 
 badness,” and equates it with St. Paul’s doctrine of 
 “the weakness of the flesh.’”” He was prepared to 
 retain even the terribly dangerous phrase “‘ Original 
 Sin” in maintaining the identity of the Human Nature 
 that our Lord assumed with that of all the rest of 
 mankind. In thought, however, if not in language, 
 he is in complete agreement with Dr. Tennant. 
 
 “In reply to the question whether our Lord in His 
 human birth took ‘ original sin’ my answer would be 
 that He took all of original sin except the sin, except 
 that which makes it really and properly si, viz., that 
 it should have caused Him to sin, which it did not. 
 That which destroys us in our nature He destroyed 
 in our nature: that which is sin and death in us, 
 
 * Quoted by Tennant, l.c. p. 83. 
 
78 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 because by reason of it we sin and die was not so in 
 Him, who was the destroyer in Himself of Sin and 
 Death ” (Soteriology, p. 272). 
 
 The subject is a difficult one, and craves, as Du Bose 
 reminds us again and again, exceptionally delicate 
 handling. The sinlessness of our Lord is “ not a vain 
 thing for us. It is our life.” For a man to say that 
 Jesus has for him “ the value of God,” and at the same 
 time to account some of His words and deeds as sinful, 
 argues a deep insensibility to the place of Holiness in 
 “the value of God.” To sin is not, in spite of the 
 proverb, a true part even of human nature, though 
 liability to temptation at least in this world is. It is 
 vital, therefore, to maintain that Jesus not only took 
 a true human nature but also that He endured all our 
 temptations without spot of sin. 
 
 Hitherto theologians have been accustomed to safe- 
 guard our Lord’s sinlessness by postulating a funda- 
 mental distinction between the Human Nature that 
 He assumed and ours. This was possible without 
 affecting the reality of His Human Nature, because it 
 was held that Human Nature had already in historical 
 fact existed on the earth in two contrasted conditions ; 
 in the state of “‘ Original Righteousness ’’* in which 
 Adam was created, and the state of Original Sin into 
 which all the descendants of Adam have been born 
 since the Fall. Dr. Tennant has shown that this 
 position can no longer be maintained in the light of 
 scientific anthropology. Du Bose challenged it on 
 
 soteriological grounds. 
 
 * If, as we have seen, there is a sense in which ‘ the Fall of Man’ 
 is true sub specie eternitatis, if not sub specie historia, it is at least 
 possible that the same may be true of the ‘ Original Righteousness 
 of Man.’ See the examination of Edward Irving’s position by F. D. 
 Mautice in a letter to R. H. Hutton. See Appendix E. 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 79 
 
 In order to do justice to the disputants on both sides 
 of the question we must never lose sight of the ambiguity 
 of the term ‘‘ Human Nature.”’ It sometimes connotes 
 the whole, sometimes only one side, of a complete 
 manhood. Du Bose and Dr. Tennant use it in a care- 
 fully limited sense to denote the raw material of which 
 human character is made. In itself it is ethically 
 neutral, and cannot rightly be described as either 
 righteous or sinful. They contrast it with the per- 
 sonality in a man which alone possesses moral and 
 Spiritual quality. 
 
 This enables them, as we have seen, to conceive of 
 our Lord’s Incarnation, so far as it affects ‘“‘ the raw 
 material ’’ of His human character, in a way that fits 
 in with the ground scheme of human evolution, and 
 not only safeguards His Sinlessness but gives His 
 Righteousness that genuinely human and _ personal 
 character which was seriously compromised on the 
 traditional hypothesis. This does not, of course, solve 
 the whole problem. But it clears the way for the last 
 and deepest of the issues that have still to be faced in 
 the inmost shrine of personality. 
 
LECTURE VI 
 
 CHRISTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF 
 SOTERIOLOGY.—II 
 
 C. THE HuMAN PERSONALITY OF CHRIST 
 
 (a) The Moral Antinomy involved in its Union with the 
 Divine 
 
 1. WE have seen how Du Bose strove to safeguard 
 
 alike the reality of our Lord’s conflict with the whole 
 
 range of human temptations and of His absolute 
 
 sinlessness by drawing a sharp distinction between a 
 
 man’s ‘‘ nature”’ and his “ personality.” 
 
 He was able to bring strong—in my judgment 
 conclusive—evidence in support of his position from 
 the New Testament. For instance, he was certainly 
 right when he claimed that the words “in the likeness 
 of the flesh of sin’ in Rom. viii, 3, cannot be taken 
 to imply that the likeness was merely superficial. 
 We have not time, however, to consider this side of 
 his argument in detail. We must press on to examine 
 the implications of the fact that, while all the rest of 
 mankind fail to master their inherited nature and 
 become sinful, He knew no defeat, but came through 
 the conflict unstained by sin, even though the allure- 
 ments of natural inclination were reinforced by a 
 social pressure, which was in many respects out of 
 subjection to the will of God, so that His victory was 
 not over the flesh only, but over the world. 
 
 In the light of this fact we have to admit, side by 
 
 80 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 81 
 
 side with the identity of “nature,” a real difference 
 in “ personality ’’ between our Lord and the rest of 
 mankind. Here again, however, Du Bose is very 
 jealous of any account of the difference which would 
 be inconsistent with fundamental identity. Obedience 
 with us can only be acquired by ‘“‘ obeying away the 
 possibility of disobedience.”” He feels, therefore, that 
 our Lord’s human obedience can only have been 
 acquired by direct conflict with this possibility. 
 
 2. On the other hand, we cannot admit that this 
 possibility could ever have become actual in the case 
 of our Lord. Had He sinned, the eternal purpose of 
 _God for man would have miscarried. The Divine 
 Logos incarnate in Him would have been defiled by 
 sin. 
 
 It is no doubt hard to know what to make of a 
 possibility that can never become actual. Du Bose 
 could make nothing of it. He could only say that 
 the antinomy is inherent in the fact of the Incarnation. 
 If we construe it from the Divine side we must, if we 
 construe it from the human side we cannot, exclude 
 the possibility of sin. We must pass on, therefore, to 
 examine more closely the problem of the relation of 
 the God-head and the Manhood in the “fact of the 
 Incarnation,” 1.¢., in the indissoluble unity of the 
 Person of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 The problem, we must remember, is how to conceive 
 this unity of the two elements without impairing the 
 perfection of either. We must not reduce the union 
 to a mere alliance between a human person and God. 
 We cannot surrender the conviction that the ultimately 
 dominating element in the personality is the Divine. 
 At the same time we must not destroy the reality of 
 the human nature by depriving it of personal activity. 
 
 F 
 
82 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 Human co-operation with the Divine operation is a 
 vital element both in Incarnation and in Atonement. 
 
 Du Bose was fully aware that we cannot expect 
 with our present powers to reach a final and complete 
 solution of this problem. He was, however, very far 
 from admitting that we are on that account justified 
 intellectually and morally in shutting our eyes to the 
 fact of the Incarnation. He would have us “ carefully 
 discriminate between the fact of Christ in the world and 
 the science of Christ in the world* . The fact . . . has ex- 
 isted continuously from the beginning and will continue 
 to the end, right through and despite the speculative 
 doubts and questionings and even the practical mis- 
 takes and perversions of actual Christianity’ (Ecument-. 
 cal Councils, pp. 321 f). : 
 
 Again at the close of the ‘‘ Gospel according to 
 St. Paul”’ (pp. 301 f) he writes: 
 
 “The completed work and results of the Incarnation 
 certainly justify it as a fact, but because we cannot... 
 construe it to our minds, or correlate it in thought, 
 we either reject it altogether or evade it by half or 
 seeming acceptances. It is one of the few ultimate 
 matters in which the whole truth comes to us only 
 through a childlike acceptance of actuality as matter 
 of fact—as, for example, the actuality of human 
 freedom in face of a universal cosmical necessity. 
 The fact of the personal Divine and the personally 
 human at once in the one person of Jesus Christ has 
 to be accepted, not alone as a fact behind and above 
 our comprehension or construing, but likewise as a 
 fact necessary to any comprehending or construing of 
 the higher facts of both God and ourselves. As we 
 
 *cf.P. T. Forsyth. The Place and Person of Jesus Christ, p. 294: 
 ‘<The science of it can wait, but the religion of it cannot.” 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 83 
 
 are fairly launched upon the quest, the nearer we 
 pursue it to the end the more are we persuaded that, 
 at least in His relation with us, God is fully and com- 
 pletely revealed to us as God only in Jesus Christ ; 
 and equally, that we are our realised and completed 
 selves only in Jesus Christ as God. I cannot construe 
 the Incarnation in all its necessary co-existences and 
 seeming contradictions either to myself or to others; 
 but infinitely less can I reject the Incarnation without 
 blotting out all eternal truth of the universe and all 
 higher life of ourselves. However far off this and all 
 similar attempts may be from solving, or even satis- 
 factorily stating, our difficulties, we must not only for 
 the truth’s but for our very life’s sake continue such 
 attempts. We must, if only, hold on to and insist 
 upon the opposite and complementary terms of our 
 Lord’s deity and His humanity, until we can better 
 correlate them in our minds and approve their co- 
 existent and equal truth to our reason.” 
 
 (b) The Development of the Human Personality 
 
 It is not surprising, therefore, that we find him in all 
 his books wrestling first with one side and then with 
 another of this eternal problem. Only, as our past 
 experience would lead us to expect, he consistently 
 studies the Divine not directly but as reflected in the 
 flawless mirror of its human embodiment, He has, 
 in consequence, a definite contribution to make to 
 Christian thought in regard to our Lord’s human 
 Personality. And he makes it, as he made his con- 
 tribution to the better understanding of the ‘“‘ Human 
 Nature”’ of our Lord at the expense of a deliberate 
 breaking away from “ traditional and accepted Christian 
 thought and language.” His treatment therefore calls 
 
 F232 
 
84. DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 for no less careful attention to the precise meanings 
 that he assigns to the key-words “‘ nature’ and “ per- 
 sonality ’’ in this new connexion. 
 
 In relation to ‘‘ personality,” “‘ nature ’’ has no longer 
 the special connotation that it bore in relation to “ sin.” 
 “The nature of a person is only the mode of his per- 
 sonality, or of his personal being and acting ”’ (Soteri- 
 ology, p. 138). He distinguishes also two senses in the 
 term “‘ personality.” 
 
 “Tf, then, by ‘ personality’ we mean the subject of a 
 personal mode of being or acting, our Lord had no 
 human personality; the avros or He was Divine and 
 not human. But if we mean ‘the mode of being and 
 acting’ of a personal subject, then He had a human 
 personality ”’ (Soteriology, p. 145). 
 
 “When the Church insists upon ‘One Person in 
 two natures,’ by one person it means one personal 
 subject . . . Jesus Christ was not the Logos 1m a man, 
 which would be a union of two persons; but the Logos 
 as a man, or aS Man: one person in two natures” 
 (tbid, p. 144). 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that Du Bose never lost his 
 hold on the absolute unity and the essential deity of 
 the Person of Jesus Christ. 
 
 At the same time he maintained that if we say that 
 the Logos became man, we cannot mean less than that 
 He became a human person, and accepted for the time 
 all the limitations of human personality, together with 
 the responsibility that, as we have seen, is the inalienable 
 prerogative of our common humanity, of taking a 
 direct and personal share in building up the character 
 that constitutes his true self. 
 
 2. He distinguishes therefore three stages in the 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY = 85 
 
 manifestation of the Logos: (1) Before the Incarnation 
 He was to our thinking a Divine Person in a Divine 
 Nature, +.e., He subsisted and acted after the. Divine 
 mode of being and acting. (2) While on earth He 
 subsisted and acted after the human mode of being 
 and acting: He was a human person taking His full 
 human share in the Incarnation of the Logos in Himself. 
 (3) After the.completion of the Incarnation of the Logos 
 as man by His resurrection and ascension He is a divine- 
 human person fulfilling the eternal purpose of the 
 Creation, by the Incarnation of the Logos 1m Man. 
 These are stages, we must notice, in the unfolding 
 before our eyes in time of what in the light of its end 
 we see to have been the eternal reality. 
 
 “ The Logos is the external expression of the eternal 
 thought of God: and since it expresses the whole 
 thought it must be God’s thought of Himself as well 
 as His thought of all things. The Logos is thus God’s 
 eternal thought of Himself, of the world, and of man.”’ 
 
 (Soteriology, p. 157). 
 
 When we think of Christ not as “ Logos” but as 
 “Son” our thoughts with regard to the Incarnation 
 acquire a more definite content. We understand not 
 only that it fulfilled a divine intention, but what the 
 intention is. It is nothing less than that man, and the 
 universe in him, should by a birth from above become 
 partaker of the divine nature and so Son of God 
 (cf. Sotertology, p. 159). 
 
 “As against Nestorians and Adoptionists we affirm 
 that the Logos became man, and then as man became 
 Son of God—and that neither by conversion of deity 
 into humanity, nor of humanity into deity. For it 
 was the nature and self-fulfilment of the Logos to 
 
86 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 become man and of man through him to become 
 partaker of the divine nature and life, which is to 
 become Son of God” (Ecumenical Councils, p. 328). 
 
 In other words God and Man became one in the 
 Logos, because they are eternally one in Him. 
 
 3. But this goal, we must repeat, could only be 
 attained in manifested fact through the personal co- 
 operation of our Lord’s humanity. Being the Son of 
 God He had to become the Son of God, 7.e., to manifest 
 His Divine Sonship by a perfectly human and fully 
 personal faith and obedience, and so take a real part 
 as Man in the power of the Holy Spirit under strictly 
 human conditions in His own Incarnation. Even “ If 
 He knew Himself to be the Incarnate Divine Logos 
 it was not the direct divine self-consciousness of the 
 Logos, but the human consciousness so incarnating as 
 to be conscious of being the Logos”’ (Sotertology, p. 156). 
 
 (c) Hts Individuality in Its Distinction from Ours 
 
 x. At first sight this seems a curiously complicated 
 and unsubstantial hypothesis. It merits, however, 
 and will repay careful examination. We are very far 
 as yet from having plumbed all the depths of our own 
 personality. To take but a single point. I am 
 conscious of being the centre of a conflict between two 
 opposing forces or impulses which I can somehow 
 discriminate as differing in moral value. It looks like 
 a conflict between a higher and a lower “ self,”” each 
 claiming possession of ‘‘ me.” St. Paul calls the one 
 “the flesh,’ and the other ‘the spirit.”” The one 
 stands for our natural bias or inclination to gratify 
 each passion or appetite of which we are conscious 
 without regard to its relation to any wider or deeper 
 considerations. The other stands for the voice of 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 87 
 
 conscience or duty, which witnesses in us to the para- 
 mount claim of these wider and deeper considerations. 
 The inclination is not sin, but that which appeals to 
 me through it is. To follow it is not to be my own 
 master, but to become the slave of sin. I can never 
 in the sense, which would be most gratifying to my 
 pride, be my own master. What is set before me is 
 simply the choice whom I will serve. 
 
 Further, I do not start as a finished product, a 
 completely unified personality. I am making or 
 marring ‘‘myself’’ all the time by my choice of 
 masters. As long as I choose first one and then the 
 other I show all the signs of a disintegrated personality. 
 My only hope of final integration is to give myself 
 up entirely to the Spirit: but this involves the sur- 
 render of that which is the distinctive element in my 
 individuality, “‘my will,” 7.e., the ‘ denial” or 
 “humbling ”’ or “emptying out” of self. True per- 
 sonality can only be attained, as Janet* teaches, by 
 the sacrifice, which is the exact opposite of the destruc- 
 tion, of individuality. I must lose myself, as Sir 
 Galahad saw, if I would find myself. 
 
 Now this final integration, this attainment of my 
 true personality, is the salvation which is brought 
 within my reach in Christ. In Him I see myself 
 according to God’s thought of me, my Logos. At the 
 centre of my being I find Him and myself in Him, and 
 I live just in proportion as I abide in Him and He in 
 me. In other words, I become myself as I incarnate 
 Him. For “ Jesus Christ not only assumed the 
 common nature of us all but is also the common or 
 universal personality of us all. He is the universal 
 reason or wisdom, the universal will or freedom and 
 
 * See Ecumenical Counetls, p. 316. 
 
88 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 righteousness, and so the universal personality of every 
 finite person in the world” (Ecumenical Councils, p. 326). 
 
 2. Let us now in the light of this typical human 
 experience come back to Du Bose’s account of the 
 part that the Human Personality of Jesus had to play 
 in incarnating the Divine Logos in Himself. In His 
 human Nature—that is in the conditions under which 
 He had to exercise and develop His human Personality 
 —He had a human consciousness fully alive to all the 
 impulses to self-indulgence that come to a man through 
 his various appetites and passions whether physical 
 or spiritual. He had a human will, which had to be 
 surrendered to the Will of His Father, He had a human 
 self to “empty out” (Phil. ii, 7), to “‘deny”’ and to 
 ““humble,’”’ He had to see Himself according to God’s 
 Thought and Word of Him, claiming Him as His Son. 
 And by abiding in the truth of that Word, that is, in the 
 Father from whom that Word came, and letting the Father 
 abide in Him in the power of the Holy Spirit, He had to 
 attain His true personality and to incarnate His true self, 
 the Eternal Logos and Son of God, in human flesh.* 
 
 Now in this process the only difference between Him 
 and us is that He becomes “ universal or divine humanity 
 incarnate in a particular man, while we are particular men 
 who realize or attain our universal and divine humanity 
 through Him” (cf. Ecumenical Councils, p. 327). 
 
 Or to put the same thing from another side. We 
 each find ourselves, our common universal personality, 
 and therefore our limited and eternally distinct 
 individuality, in Him, while the distinguishing feature 
 of His “individuality”’ is that He is the common 
 universal personality of us all. 
 
 3. When we come back now to the question from 
 
 *See Appendix F, 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 89 
 
 which we started, the question of the precise nature 
 at once of the identity and of the distinction in respect 
 of “human personality’ between our Lord and us, 
 which may account for the fact that He succeeded 
 while we all without exception fail in the conflict with 
 sin in the flesh, we shall see, I think, that the answer 
 must lie in this distinction between us in respect of 
 “individuality.’”’ He came as man, to share with us 
 all our natural disabilities, to be tempted with all the 
 temptations to which His “ human nature’’ exposes 
 aman. Liability to temptation is of the essence of 
 human nature. But He came as “ perfect man” to 
 show us the image in which we were created, ‘‘ what 
 it were to be a man,” and sin is no part of our true 
 human nature. It is a direct contradiction of it. It 
 is, I think, clear, therefore, that even as a man it was 
 impossible, morally impossible if you will (it is meaning- 
 less to speak of a physical impossibility in this con- 
 nection), that He should sin. Even for us St. John 
 says that sin is impossible as long as His seed, that is 
 His life-giving word, abides in us. Even with Him 
 this impossibility does not mean that His human 
 personality, if it set to work to establish a righteousness 
 of its own, out of dependence on God, could have escaped 
 sin. The very effort after such independence is of the 
 essence of sin. It simply means that His love to God 
 and Man were so true and deep that there was nothing 
 of “‘ His own”’ for the devil to get hold of in Him. 
 
 It is possible, of course, and it may be necessary in 
 order to safeguard our sense of the reality of His 
 temptations to postulate with Dr. Forsyth that the 
 fact of this ‘‘ impossibility’? was hidden from His 
 human consciousness. In any case a way seems open 
 for the resolution of the “ moral’’ antinomy. 
 
LECTURE VII 
 
 CHRISTOLOGY IN THE LIGHT OF 
 SOTERIOLOGY.—III 
 
 D. THE HyposTATIc UNION AS A FACT 
 (a) The Physical and Metaphysical Antinomies 
 
 I, THERE remain the physical and metaphysical 
 antinomies in regard to the union of the human nature 
 and the divine which in logic are no less ultimate. 
 But here also, if the Incarnation be a fact, we have 
 an assurance that life must hold the key for the solu- 
 tion of difficulties which are insuperable in logic. 
 
 If in this faith we strive to get a clearer apprehension 
 of the fact, one suggestion at least has been put for- 
 ward as to the method of it from the Divine side which 
 is illuminating. I met it first in The Teaching of Chnist, 
 by Bishop Moorhouse, published in 1891, the year 
 before the Soteriology. He pointed out that the 
 Incarnation is not an isolated phenomenon. It is the 
 third of a series of three stages in what it is natural 
 to regard as a progressive Divine self-limitation. The 
 first is seen in the creation of the finite universe, which 
 Dr. Martineau describes’ as “the stooping of the 
 infinite will to an everlasting self-sacrifice.’’ The self- 
 limitation is even more pronounced in the second stage, 
 which is marked by the creation of human wills left 
 free to direct the power with which God Himself 
 entrusts them either to the service of the selfish will 
 to live, or of the Divine will to love. 
 
 90 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY QI 
 
 In the light of these two precedents, he suggests that 
 “It cannot be out of analogy with the highest and 
 truest philosophy if we assume, in order to leave room 
 for the essential limitations of our Lord’s humanity, 
 a voluntary limitation or suppression within the bounds 
 of His human consciousness of the higher attributes 
 of His Divine Nature ”’ (p. 35). 
 
 Similarly Du Bose writes in his Sotertology (p. 150) : 
 
 “T may or may not, within the limits of this present 
 work, be able to touch upon the possible theories as 
 to how the Divine Logos could contract himself to the 
 beginning and growth of a natural human knowledge. 
 But if He became man He certainly did so, and if He 
 did not, then not only is the Incarnation emptied of all 
 meaning, purpose and value for us, but it ceases to be 
 an Incarnation.” 
 
 I cannot myself doubt that the thought of the Divine 
 self-limitation marks a distinct step forward in the 
 understanding of the method of the Incarnation. We 
 are, however, still left face to face with the question 
 “* Wherein did this self-limitation consist ? ”’ 
 
 2. Du Bose, in company with other thinkers, was 
 inclined to distinguish two classes of qualities in the 
 Divine nature, the one spiritual, moral and strictly 
 personal, e.g., love and holiness, the other “ natural ”’ 
 or physical—of course, as expressing the mode of 
 existence—e.g., ommniscience, omnipotence, and omni- 
 presence. There is a startling difference between 
 these two classes when we consider them in relation 
 to the Incarnation. Love and holiness are the very 
 essence of true humanity, omniscience, omnipotence, 
 omnipresence are a denial in terms of the characteristic 
 limitations of our human nature, at any rate in this 
 
92 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 life, and are fundamentally inconsistent with the 
 conditions of true human probation. 
 Du Bose therefore says plainly : 
 
 ‘ The Incarnation is an incarnation not of the physical 
 properties but of the spiritual, moral and strictly 
 personal qualities of God.... If Jesus Christ then is 
 what we might call the natural truth of the Incarnation 
 we see God in him spiritually and not physically. 
 His love is God, his holiness is God, his character and 
 life are God, but then they are all equally man. Just 
 those things were incarnate in Him that could become 
 man, not those that could not. The Logos was 
 incarnate in Him just in the way and to the extent to 
 which it was the nature and the purpose of the Logos 
 to be incarnate in man ” (Ecumenical Councils, p. 332 f). 
 
 Now I find great difficulty in accepting this solution 
 of the difficulty. I own I am suspicious of any attempt 
 to find a difference in kind between the various Divine 
 qualities and attributes. And also of any theory 
 that seems to postulate a partial incarnation of the 
 Logos. No doubt in a real sense Love is the Sovereign 
 quality—it is more than a quality, it is the very essence 
 -of the Divine Being. No doubt also Love and Holiness 
 are the first qualities that attract our attention in the 
 revelation of God in Jesus Christ. But St. Paul 
 would have us see in Him no less the Wisdom of God 
 and the Power of God. 
 
 But the real root of my suspicion is this. In using 
 language of this kind with regard to Divine qualities 
 and attributes, we forget that we have no direct 
 knowledge either of their nature or of their mode of 
 operation. We can only know them indirectly so far 
 as they are manifest in creation and providence, and, 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 93 
 
 of course, supremely in Jesus Christ. All statements 
 therefore with regard to the nature or mode of operation 
 of Divine qualities and attributes ‘‘in themselves ’’ 
 must be closely scrutinized. We do not know, we have 
 not any materials out of which to frame an intelligent 
 guess as to the meaning of omniscience, omnipotence, 
 and omnipresence as characteristic of God in Himself. 
 Whatever their meaning is in that connexion they 
 must have been latent or laid aside by the Logos 
 while He was incarnating Himself in human flesh on 
 the earth. But we had to postulate a similar latency 
 in regard to the specifically Divine element—its con- 
 stitutional incapacity for sin—in Holiness. And just 
 as the reward of ‘‘ obeying away the possibility of 
 disobedience ”’ is for a man to attain a strictly Divine 
 incapacity for sin, we see that Jesus by accepting the 
 humiliation of the Cross has attained in His consum- 
 mated Humanity to a share in the Divine omnipotence, 
 omniscience and omnipresence, according to the 
 spiritual meaning of those formidable words. He is 
 “omnipresent ’’ not by a physical extension through 
 space, but by the presence of all things to Him.* He 
 is omniscient, because all things are naked and laid 
 open before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. 
 He is omnipotent, because He must reign till all enemies 
 are brought into subjection under His feet, There is 
 nothing, therefore, inherently inconsistent with a 
 perfect humanity in the possession of these qualities. 
 Only they are the goal and not the starting point of 
 human development. And the Logos had to do without 
 them while He was manifesting and incarnating Himself 
 
 *cf. F.D. Maurice. The Kingdom of Christ (Part II, Chap. IV, 
 Sect. iv, 2.2), vol. II, p. 104, second edition. Coleridge: Aids to 
 Reflection, p. 338, seventh edition. 
 
94 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 in a growing and gradually maturing human conscious- 
 ness. How this could be possible at all for the Divine 
 Being, as also how it could be possible in regard to a 
 single department of His Divine activity—His incarnate 
 life in Jesus—while He was all the time quickening 
 and illuminating and governing the Universe, is a 
 secret which none but the Divine Being can fathom. 
 We can only say with Du Bose to those who regard 
 this self-emptying as inconsistent with the truest and 
 most essential divinity : 
 
 “Ts the act in which love becomes perfect a contra- 
 diction ora compromise of the Divine Nature? Is God not 
 God or least God in the moment when Heis most love? ... 
 Where in all the story of the Universe was ever love so 
 love or God so God?” (Gospel in the Gospels, p. 272). 
 
 (b) The Antinomies Resolved by a New Line of Approach 
 
 1. We have been considering the Incarnation hitherto 
 in its relation to human salvation and _ therefore 
 primarily for the light that it throws on the evolution 
 of human personality. We have seen that Jesus 
 Christ as our salvation is the key to that evolution, 
 and that in Him Godhead and Manhood are mani- 
 fested in an indissoluble unity. We have felt the 
 difficulty of forming any clear conception of unity, 
 which shall do full and equal justice to each of the 
 elements of which it is composed. The question 
 recurs again and again and will not be put aside. How 
 can manhood be raised to the height of Godhead, or 
 Godhead confine itself within the limits of manhood, 
 without in either case ceasing to be itself ? 
 
 2. It may be that, as Professor Sanday thought, 
 help may come from a deeper analysis of the sub- 
 liminal regions of human consciousness. Certainly 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 95 
 
 the recognition of unexplored depths in our own being 
 makes it easier to conceive of the existence of latent 
 faculties in human nature, and of the presence of “‘ an 
 inner man’’ in each of us where spirit with spirit can 
 meet. But this sheds no light on the other side of 
 the problem. How can a Divine Being inhibit the 
 activity or withdraw the manifestation of every one 
 of its distinctive attributes but love ? 
 
 3. It is worth while reminding ourselves again at 
 this stage of Dr. Mackintosh’s (see Lecture III) con- 
 tention that the root of the difficulty is “ logical,” not 
 teal. The person of Jesus Christ is a living whole. 
 Each side of His twofold nature taken by itself is an 
 abstraction. We only know either in its combination 
 with the other. They are ‘‘ two aspects of a single 
 concrete life which are so indubitably real that apart 
 from either the whole fact would be other than it is.” 
 
 4. Dr. Forsyth’s criticism of the traditional formula 
 ““One person in two natures’”’ is on the same lines. 
 The term “‘nature’’ is unsatisfactory. It is a term of 
 “substance rather than of subject, of metaphysic 
 rather than ethic, of things rather than persons.”” He 
 prefers therefore “‘ to describe the union of God and 
 man in Christ as the mutual inter-relation of two 
 personal movements raised to the whole scale of the 
 human and the divine. ” 
 
 As such it is only the supreme example of the mutual 
 involution of the human and the divine of which the 
 whole history of the race is the expression. Prayer 
 that ascends is moved by a spirit that comes down 
 from heaven. ‘‘ Man’s word to God is interlocked with 
 God’s word to man. ° To conceive history as the field 
 of these two movements on the upright plane of spirit— 
 the upward movement of man’s quest for God, and 
 
96 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 the downward of God’s conquest of man—is far more 
 congenial to the mystery, grandeur and tragedy of 
 the soul than the simple, evolutionary, and culminating 
 process on the level plane of Time alone”’ (The Place 
 and Person of Jesus Christ, p. 335). 
 
 “What we have in Christ, therefore, is more than 
 the co-existence of two natures, or even their inter- 
 penetration. We have within this single increate 
 person the mutual involution of the two personal acts 
 or movements supreme in spiritual being, the one 
 distinctive of man, the other distinctive of God, the 
 one actively productive from the side of Eternal God, 
 the other actively receptive from the side of growing 
 man; the one being the pointing, in a corporeal person 
 of God’s long action in entering history, the other the 
 pointing of man’s moral growth in the growing appro- 
 priation by Jesus of his divine content as he becomes a 
 fuller organ for God’s full action on man”’ (zb7d, p. 343). 
 
 God’s union with man in Christ “ was a relation that 
 had its roots in Eternity, a relation within the absolute 
 God, an immanence of the world in the Transcendent, of 
 the corporeal personality in the spiritual” (bid, p. 344). 
 
 In other words, the union of God and Man in Christ 
 is the expression in Time of the union and communion 
 of Father and Son in the unity of the Eternal Godhead. 
 
 5. I have quoted Dr. Forsyth at some length because 
 he expresses, I believe quite independently, a conception 
 of the Incarnation, which is in its main features iden- 
 tical with that of Dr. Du Bose. And though Du Bose 
 did not find it necessary or even possible altogether to 
 discard the use of the term Nature, on the main point 
 of the essential inter-relation of the human and the 
 divine, his conclusions coincide all along the line. 
 
CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY 97 
 
 “In fact the natural and spiritual in us, the human 
 and the divine, are not separate compartments, dis- 
 tinct elements in our being; each is perfect and 
 complete only in and through the others, and all are 
 one in an organic whole”’ (The Reason of Life, p. 241). 
 
 ‘““Indeed any movement on our part is already His 
 motion in us: 
 
 Every* inmost aspiration is God’s Angel undefiled, 
 And in every ‘O, my Father’ slumbers deep a ‘ Here my child,’ ”’ 
 
 (tbid, p. 172). 
 
 “Grace is never bare operation: it is effectual 
 co-operation. The subjects of grace are only those in 
 whom its working is in, and with and through their own 
 working. The perfection of the operation of divine 
 grace in human co-operation is manifest in Him who 
 could say, ‘I and my Father are one.’ ‘My will is 
 His and His is mine: my works are of course mine; 
 and yet not mine but His in me”’ (tbid, p. 146). 
 
 “The divine is present and efficient in the human, 
 while the human maintains all its integrity and acts 
 freely in the divine, so that one and the same act is both 
 human and divine; as, altogether, in our Lord one and 
 the same person is both human and divine. The 
 co-operation is not the semi-pelagian one in which 
 each side does so much, in different parts; it is rather 
 that of the hypostatic union, in which each does all, 
 in perfect union, or unity, with the other” (27d, p. 147). 
 
 The fact would seem to be that human personality, 
 as it is constituted by, so it can only be defined in the 
 terms of, its relationships, and of these relationships 
 the deepest and most fundamental is its divine sonship. 
 
 * See Appendix G, 
 
LECTURE VIII 
 THE DOCTRINE OF GOD AND OF THE CHURCH 
 
 A. GOD IN CREATION, IMMANENT AND TRANSCENDENT 
 
 1. WE have now reached the last and crowning stage of 
 any study of Christology. We have to consider the 
 light that it throws on the inner being and character 
 of God. In considering this aspect of the problem, 
 Du Bose started, as before, from the fact of Jesus 
 Christ, and the interpretation of that fact in the New 
 Testament—especially in this connection—in the Pro- 
 logue to the Gospel and in the First Epistle of St. John. 
 It is the main theme of the last and most mature of 
 his treatises, The Reason of Life. His attention is 
 concentrated from the first on the relation of the Logos 
 to God and to creation. He accepts fully St. John’s 
 subtle and profound at once distinction between and 
 identification of the Logos and God. 
 
 “The beginning of all distinction between a pan- 
 theistic and a theistic conception of the world lies in 
 recognising the world as the expression, not of God 
 Himself—or, as we say, ‘of His substance ’—but of 
 His Logos, His Thought, Will, Word. The Logos of 
 God, then, is not God (6 0eéc) ; we distinguish Him. 
 And yet certainly the Logos is God (@eé¢) ; we identify 
 Him. Moreover, when once we have conceived and 
 accepted God as eternal Father, we are in a position 
 to assume that the Logos, not merely as the principle 
 of the divine self-expression, but as God Himself 
 self-expressed, must manifest Himself universally as 
 
 98 
 
DOCTRINE OF GOD AND OF THE CHURCH 99 
 
 Son, or in sonship; since universal and everlasting 
 Sonship is the only self-expression of eternal and 
 essential Fatherhood ”’ (Gospel in the Gospels, p. 283). 
 Again : 
 “Reason in God comes from itself, and is the prin- 
 ciple, the effective beginning and constitutive cause of all 
 
 _. processes of creation or evolution. . . . Thus that which 
 
 was for God the beginning, for the world is the end: 
 reason in God is eternally complete and perfect ; reason 
 in the world is incomplete, imperfect, and progressive ; 
 it has to make and re-make itself through deaths and 
 births; to become itself through a thousand self- 
 
 contradictions, which have to be survived and overcome. 
 “There is a deity immanent in the world which is 
 God, and yet which is not God: which as God cannot 
 be thwarted or defeated, and yet which, unlike God, is 
 constantly thwarted and defeated, is resisted, grieved, 
 quenched in ourselves, blasphemed and contradicted 
 in the world without us’ (The Reason of Life, p. 19). 
 
 2. Du Bose, it will be seen, though he disclaims any 
 right or intention to trespass on the province of the 
 biologist, yet thinks habitually on evolutionist lines, 
 and indeed on the lines of ‘“ creative evolution.’ He 
 realises so intensely the fact that on the spiritual side 
 of our being we are living in what R. Browning calls 
 “The Everlasting Minute of Creation,’’ that he must 
 have welcomed heartily, if it came his way, Bergson’s 
 reminder that the physical universe is still in the 
 making. Indeed it is impossible to read his account 
 of the ‘‘ Evolution of Life’”’ (The Reason of Life, p. 25 f) 
 without being reminded at every turn of the dan wital. 
 And the distinction that he draws above between 
 the Logos as “God immanent in the world” and the 
 
 G2 
 
too DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 Father as ‘‘ God transcendent ’”’ is in striking harmony 
 with the thought expressed in his Evolution and the 
 Trinity, by J. S. MacDowall, who, like Bergson, is a 
 philosopher and a biologist. 
 
 3. Nor is this the only instance of a striking harmony 
 between the conclusions of Du Bose and McDowall in 
 regard to the spiritual truths suggested by, if not 
 directly implied in, the facts of Biology. In this respect 
 the Biologist is even bolder than the Theologian. 
 He claims on the strength of his own experience a place 
 of its own for Biology in the Preparatio Evangelica. 
 
 McDowall’s experience as outlined in Evolution and 
 the Atonement was this. The study of Biology opened 
 out before him a consistent scheme of physical evolution. 
 It showed him how in each case the creation of a new 
 organ can be traced to the action of the environment 
 on the organism, e.g., how the evolution of the eye came 
 in response to the action of the light, so that not only 
 the light that we see by, but the development of the 
 very faculty of sight itself, is the gift to us of the sun. 
 When, therefore, he found that, after the line of physical 
 evolution had culminated in man, man developed a 
 spiritual faculty, he felt that this could only be 
 explained on biological principles, as the response to a 
 spiritual environment. Nothing short of the existence 
 of God can account for the origin in man of faith in 
 God. He thus arrived on scientific grounds at the same 
 conclusion that Professor Pringle-Patteson maintains, 
 as we saw in Lecture II, as a philosopher. 
 
 Du Bose arrived independently at what is sub- 
 stantially McDowall’s position : 
 
 “Tf we so readily recognise reaction and inter- 
 action with environment in natural things, why not 
 
DOCTRINE OF GOD AND OF THE CHURCH ror 
 
 equally expect and look for it in spiritual things ? 
 ‘Word’ and ‘Spirit’ most simply and exactly express 
 media of relation and reaction between us and God, 
 out of or apart from which we can as little become 
 ourselves as the seed can apart from sun and soil’”’ 
 (The Reason of Life, p. 56). 
 
 “A function supposes an organ, as also an organ 
 assumes a function. As a matter of creative evolution 
 or evolutional creation, it makes no difference which 
 was prior or produced the other. The point is the 
 present fact or actuality of personal relationship and 
 inter-communion with God. If religion is or exists at 
 all, and is an integral factor in human life, and if it is 
 a matter between us and God—‘ God and the soul, the 
 soul and its God’—then God is no mere conjectural 
 inference from known facts, no mere conclusion of 
 speculative reason, but an object of actual experience 
 and direct knowledge. In some way the Eternal 
 Spirit bears witness with our finite spirits of the rela- 
 tionship between them, and the mind and affections, 
 the will and purpose, the actions and character, the 
 nature and life of God have entrance into and influence 
 and shape those of men”’ (The Reason of Life, pp. 219 f). 
 
 B. Gop In INCARNATION MANIFESTED AS THE HOLY 
 TRINITY 
 
 1. When we pass on from this conception of “ life 
 encosmic’”’ to “life incarnate’’ the process can no 
 doubt on one side be described as an immanent one: 
 the light comes into the world through the evolution 
 of our own faculty of vision and power of apprehension 
 (cf. The Reason of Life, p. 38); but this, Du Bose would 
 have us note, is not a complete account of the matter. 
 
102 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 “The encosmic relation of God to the world is 
 properly described as immanent, and is subject to the 
 universal and admitted laws of immanence, uniformity, 
 necessity and whatever else. But the incarnate rela- 
 tion of God to man is distinctively a transcendent one, a 
 relation of either to the other from without. The former 
 or encosmic relation underlies our natural constitution 
 and faculties, our congenital affinity or congruity with 
 God, our potentiality of the divine in ourselves. The 
 relation of incarnation is one of spirits,—based indeed 
 and conditioned upon that of natures, but in itself that 
 of persons. The bond is one of mutual knowledge, love, 
 will, action and life”’ (The Reason of Life, pp. 40 f). 
 
 And where can we see this relation in the perfection 
 in which alone we can study it without distraction but 
 in Jesus Christ our Lord ? | 
 ' As we gaze on Him we grow conscious not only of 
 the presence of the Divine, but of a manifold Divine 
 in One, Who in our flesh, looking up with eyes like ours 
 to the Heavenly Throne sees on it the Father of us all, 
 and lives in our flesh before the eyes of men in continual 
 communion with Him, what St. John tells us (z St. 
 John i, 2 ff) was ‘“‘the Life which was when time 
 began’ the life of communion between the Eternal 
 Father and the Eternal Son, because the Father had 
 poured out on Him and He had opened His heart to 
 receive in all its fulness the Eternal Spirit. And so 
 in and through Jesus Christ the whole being of God 
 has been revealed. The incarnate Son revealed the 
 Invisible Father by all that He did and all that He 
 said in His life on earth by reason of the completeness 
 of His self-surrender to do His Father’s Will. And 
 at the same time His faith and hope and love are the 
 
DOCTRINE OF GOD AND OF THE CHURCH 103 
 
 outward manifestations of the power of the Spirit 
 working from within to transform all the elements in 
 His Human Nature into an image of the Divine glory. 
 
 2. In the light of this fact Du Bose’s vision of God 
 was Trinitarian through and through, though he 
 dwells on it characteristically as a matter not of 
 abstract thought but of spiritual experience. 
 
 “It is not too much to say that it is not possible to 
 know God except in Trinity,—not a trinity of specula- 
 tion and metaphysical thought, but the actual and 
 practical Trinity in which God has made Himself 
 knowable and known to us—without us by His Word, and 
 within us through His Spirit’ (The Reason of Life, p. 59). 
 
 C, THE CHURCH AS AN EXTENSION OF THE INCARNATION 
 
 1. In the last resort the only terms in which the 
 Gospel is expressible are the terms of the Trinity 
 (Gospel in the Gospels, p. 281). 
 
 Because God is Love, and Love must always seek 
 to reproduce itself as Love, its characteristic descrip- 
 tion of God is as Father: and His characteristic 
 activity is as Love, creative and redemptive, bringing 
 many sons to glory. In humanity the inherent Divine 
 Sonship which Creation was called into being to express 
 attains self-consciousness, and therewith and thereby 
 the Divine Fatherhood comes full into play. 
 
 Side by side with this revelation of the Fatherhood 
 of God is the revelation of the grace of Jesus Christ by 
 which we are called to respond to the claims of our 
 Divine Sonship upon us, and the fellowship of the 
 Holy Spirit inspired by Whom we hear and respond 
 to this call from the Father. So “love in the Father 
 becomes grace or divine Self-communication in the Son, 
 
104 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 and finally fellowship, or human participation in the 
 Divine, in the Holy Ghost, in whom the Spirit of God and 
 the spirit of man are brought into a divine-human unity, 
 which is Christ in us” (The Reason of Life, p. 150). 
 
 And so the fact of the Trinity, as it is revealed in human 
 experience, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love 
 of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost supplies 
 the spiritual environment in response to which the living 
 organism of the Church is in process of evolution. 
 
 2. This is one side of the mystery of God in the 
 Church, as Du Bose sawit. There is another side, which 
 has come before us in other connections, but to which 
 we must return for a few moments before we conclude. 
 The Church baptizes her sons not only into the Threefold 
 Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, 
 but also into the Body of Jesus Christ as Man. 
 
 3. The fulness of His humanity is always eluding 
 us. The Gospels record the life of One, Who what- 
 ever else He was, was true man. St. Paul speaks of 
 Him as ‘‘ the man Christ Jesus.”” There is an attrac- 
 tive and transforming power in His individual per- 
 sonality. Many in our day are rightly jealous of 
 anything which may interfere with the direct impact 
 of the human personality of “the Jesus of History ” 
 upon the hearts of men. But that does not exhaust 
 the mystery. In Jesus Christ we have not merely the 
 crown and flower of the human race, we have a mani- 
 festation of the grace of God coming down to reveal 
 the Father to us, and to take a personal share in 
 ministering to our need by clothing Himself in a human 
 personality. We must be prepared, therefore, to find 
 deep beneath deep in that personality. One such 
 deep is opened out by the experience of the Church, 
 through her relation to Him as His Body. 
 
DOCTRINE OF GOD AND OF THE CHURCH 105 
 
 Du Bose returned again and again to this point, 
 especially in his Constructive Quarterly papers. Christ 
 as Head of the Church is not only a man, He is Man. 
 
 4. The evidence on which he relies is simply this. The 
 Christian experience as St. Paul knew it and interpreted 
 it is nothing less than an interpenetration of personalities 
 between the believer and his Lord. ‘I live yet no 
 longer I, but Christ liveth in me.” But ifso, who must 
 He be, and what is His relation to the whole race, if no 
 man can be his true self unless and until He is alive 
 inhim? What less can we say than that He must have 
 what we can only call an inclusive Personality ? 
 
 There are writers I know—Dr. Tennant, I am sorry 
 to say, is one of them—who have no patience with any 
 attempt to express the thought of a personality 
 transcending individual limitations, and they no doubt 
 will treat the phrase with contempt. The fact, how- 
 ever, will remain, waiting either a more appropriate 
 phrase to fit it, or an expansion of our conception of 
 the possibilities of personality. It is the fact that 
 came before us in the discussion of the relation between 
 our separate individualities and our Lord’s, when we 
 were seeking for light on our Lord’s human develop- 
 ment in the days of His flesh. We need it here to 
 explain the relation between the members of His 
 Body the Church, and their risen and ascended Head. 
 With the aid of it the fact of Christ becomes luminous 
 to thought. It becomes as it did for St. Paul, especi- 
 ally in his later Epistles, the key to “ the purpose of 
 the ages.”” The Christ of St. Paul so conceived is 
 “the Logos” of St. John. The Logos, as we have 
 seen, at once of humanity, of the Universe and of God. 
 
 For it is the purpose of God to sum up all things in 
 Christ and through Him to reconcile all things to 
 
106 DU BOSE AS A PROPHET OF UNITY 
 
 Himself. And the instrument through which this 
 reconciliation, this final and perfect consummation, is 
 being wrought out is ‘‘ His Body the Church.” 
 
 One by one He takes our separate individualities up 
 into Himself. As many as receive Him, to them gives 
 He power to become children of God. And the Church, 
 His Body, is the Sacrament of His continual presence 
 among men, and the instrument for the completing of 
 His incarnation, the fulness of Him Who is step by 
 step attaining His perfected fulfilment as men respond 
 to His call through the Church. For the Church is 
 the lever in God’s hand for the spiritual uplift of the 
 whole race. It is His witness to the world of its 
 redemption. Whenever we forget that, as God’s people 
 have always been prone to do, when we think of 
 “election” as the private and personal privilege of a few, 
 we become false witnesses of God. Weare here, and the 
 Spirit of God is with us, and the Lord is living and loving 
 in and through us, in order that the whole race, which 
 is one in Him, and which was created in Him, sage in 
 Him through us attain its consummation. 
 
 This is the vision of the function of the Church and 
 of the bond which unites every member of it to Him 
 to which Du Bose attained with growing clearness and 
 intensity of conviction as he continued his lifelong effort 
 to penetrate the Mystery of Christ. It is this that inspired 
 that passionate expression of devotion to the unity of the 
 Church, as its fundamental and all-creative characteristic, 
 the source and spring at once of its holiness, its univer- 
 sality, and its mission with which our study began and 
 in which it may now find an appropriate termination. 
 God grant us grace to attain to that vision and to fix 
 our gaze on it until we too are transformed into disciples 
 of the Lord and Prophets of His Truth. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 For light on the psychology of Conversion, if for no other 
 reason, it will be worth while to compare with Du Bose’s 
 account of his own experience the accounts given by two 
 other men, who in other respects have much in common 
 with him, of their own spiritual awakening. 
 
 The first is the experience of Horace Bushnell, at Yale, 
 in 1831. It is given in his own words in a sermon preached 
 some years later in Yale College Chapel. 
 
 ““ Suppose that one of us, clear of all the vices, having a 
 naturally active-minded, enquiring habit, occupied largely 
 with thoughts of religion ; never meaning to get away from 
 the truth, but, as he thinks, to find it, only resolved to have 
 a free mind, and not allow himself to be carried away by 
 force or fear, or anything but real conviction—suppose 
 that such a one, going on thus, year by year, reading, 
 questioning, hearing all the while the Gospel in which 
 he has been educated, sometimes impressed by it, but 
 relapsing shortly into greater doubt than before, finds 
 his religious beliefs wearing out and vanishing, he knows 
 not how, till, finally, he seems to really believe nothing. 
 He has not meant to be an atheist; but he is astonished to 
 find that he has nearly lost the conviction of God, and 
 cannot, if he would, say with any emphasis of conviction 
 that God exists. The world looks blank, and he feels that 
 existence is getting blank also to itself. This heavy charge 
 of his possibly immortal being oppresses him, and he asks 
 again and again, ‘ What shall I do with it?’ His hunger 
 is complete, and his soul turns every way for bread. His 
 friends do not satisfy him. His walks drag heavily. His 
 suns do not rise, but only climb. A kind of leaden aspect 
 overhangs the world. Till, finally, pacing his chamber 
 
 107 
 
108 APPENDIX A 
 
 some day, there comes up suddenly the question: ‘Is there, 
 then, no truth that I do believe? Yes, there is one, now 
 that I think of it: there is a distinction of right and wrong 
 that I never doubted, and I see not how I can; I am even 
 quite sure of it.’ Then forthwith starts up the question, 
 ‘ Have I, then, ever taken the principle of right for my law : 
 I have done right things as men speak ; have I ever thrown 
 my life out on the principle to become all it requires of me ? 
 No, I have not, consciously, I have not. Ah! then here is 
 something for me to do! No matter what becomes of my 
 questions—nothing ought to become of them if I cannot 
 take a first principle so inevitably true, and live in it.’ 
 The very suggestion seems to be a kind of revelation ; it 
 is even a relief to feel the conviction it brings. ‘ Here, then’ 
 he says, ‘I will begin. If there is a God, as I rather hope 
 there is, and very dimly believe, He is a right God. If I 
 have lost Him in wrong, perhaps I shall find Him in right. 
 Will He not help me, or perchance even be discovered to 
 me?’ Now the decisive moment is come. He drops on 
 his knees, and there he prays to the dim God, dimly felt, 
 confessing the dimness for honesty’s sake, and asking for 
 help that he may begin a right life. He bows himself on 
 it as he prays, choosing it to be henceforth his unalterable, 
 eternal endeavour. | | 
 
 “It is an awfully dark prayer, in the look of it ; but the 
 truest and best he can make, the better and the more true 
 that he puts no orthodox colours on it; and the prayer 
 and the vow are so profoundly meant that his soul is borné 
 up into God’s help, as it were, by some unseen chariot, 
 and permitted to see the opening of heaven even sooner 
 than he opens his eyes. He rises, and it is as if he had 
 gotten wings. The whole sky is luminous about him. 
 It is the morning, as it were, of a new eternity. After this 
 all troublesome doubt of God’s reality is gone, for he has 
 found Him! A Being so profoundly felt must inevitably be. 
 
 ‘““ Now, this conversion, calling it by that name, as we 
 properly should, may seem, in the apprehension of some, 
 
APPENDIX A 109 
 
 to be a conversion for the Gospel, and not in it or by it— 
 a conversion by the want of truth more than by the power 
 of truth. But that will be a judgment more superficial 
 than the facts permit. No, it is exactly this: it is seeking 
 first the kingdom of God and His righteousness—exactly 
 that and nothing less. And the dimly groping cry for help, 
 what is that but a feeling after God, if haply it may find 
 Him, and actually finding Him not far off? And what is 
 the help obtained but exactly the true Christ-help ? And 
 the result, what also is that but the Kingdom of God within, 
 righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost ? 
 
 “There is a story lodged in the little bedroom of one of 
 these dormitories, which I pray God His recording angel 
 may note, allowing it never to be lost.” 
 
 The second is the experience of James Moorhouse, Bishop 
 of Melbourne, and afterwards Bishop of Manchester. It is 
 recorded in a letter to his friend J. M. Wilson, Canon of 
 Worcester, written in 1909, and in a memorandum which 
 he wrote about the same time for his niece. The date of 
 the experience was 1853. 
 
 In the memorandum he writes : 
 
 “T have lately felt a most curious sensation, urging me 
 to write down an experience I had when quite a young man, 
 while I was acting as tutor at Bexhill. I had been in a very 
 despondent state of mind for several days, mentally and 
 spiritually depressed. I had lost the sense of paternity, 
 earthly and spiritual. I seemed to be alone in the darkness, 
 groping my way. 
 
 “One night I remember praying most earnestly for light 
 and guidance, for some sign of God’s presence with me to 
 encourage me and to guide me in my chosen path. I 
 used some prayers in Jeremy Taylor’s ‘ Holy Living and 
 Dying,’ for those in doubt and difficulty. 
 
 ‘“T awoke during that night filled with the most marvellous 
 happiness, in such a state of exultation that I felt as though 
 a barrier had fallen, as though a door had suddenly been 
 
110 APPENDIX A 
 
 opened, and a flood of golden light poured in upon me, 
 transfiguring me completely. I have never felt anything 
 in the least like it. 
 
 “I hid my face under the bed-clothes and gripped them 
 hard to prevent myself from shouting out loud for joy. 
 I was filled with the sense of God’s infinite love for 
 all creatures and for myself; and not only that, but 
 I felt so full of it myself I could have done anything— 
 embraced a beggar—as an expression of my feeling. The 
 joy, the happiness, cannot be described. People talk of 
 the happiness of heaven; if such happiness as I felt can 
 continue for ever, it would indeed be bliss. I was in 
 heaven. I felt so full of love to everybody that the words 
 of the Sermon upon the Mount, ‘ Love your enemies, do 
 good to them that hate you,’ not only seemed posstble, but 
 they seemed the natural outcome of my state of mind. 
 I could not help doing such things. I have never experi- 
 enced anything in the least like it; but the words of St. 
 Paul were actually true, ‘I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth 
 in me.’ I was possessed by the personality of Christ. At 
 the time I did not think of it as Christ, but as God the 
 Father ; but now I see that He manifested Himself through 
 Christ. Showing that if we are possessed by the spirit of 
 Christ, which is love, we cannot help feeling as St. Paul 
 did when he spoke those words. 
 
 “This state of mind continued about a fortnight. I 
 could hardly go about my ordinary work, I felt so changed. 
 I felt very much tempted to speak of it to somebody, but 
 I never did. I couldn't. I said to myself, ‘It is no doing 
 of mine, if I speak of it I shall lose it.’ 
 
 “ At last it faded into light of common day, and I have 
 never had the same feeling again—no, never—and that is 
 what makes me feel ashamed. I was unworthy; it was 
 light vouchsafed to me at a critical point in my hfe. I 
 went back to the ordinary everyday life. I believe if I 
 could have gone on like that I might have been a saint 
 instead of what Iam now. This is the foundation of my 
 
APPENDIX A III 
 
 firm belief which underlies everything—belief in the infinite 
 love of God to me and all creatures ; and this has given me 
 strength to stand up and fight battles for the truth. Besides 
 its being the most certain proof of answer to prayer that 
 I have ever had, another thing is the wonderful sense I had 
 of being possessed by the personality of Christ. That tome 
 now isa great proof of the truth of the Resurrection of Christ: 
 it was a living, vivid personality, nothing dead about it. 
 
 “IT am a most sceptical person, not given to imagining 
 things; but I know from my own experience that direct 
 communion of the soul with God is possible. How do I 
 know? I have felt it. I know through Jesus Christ and 
 my own consciousness. This is a fact as real to me and of 
 far greater importance and more wonderful than anything 
 that has happened to me in the whole course of my life. 
 But I have never spoken of it before, and I do not wish it 
 to be published in my lifetime.” 
 
 To his friend Canon Wilson he writes :— 
 
 “T have been reading two fine books—Soddy’s Inter- 
 pretation of Radium, and Rufus Jones’ Studies in Mystical 
 Religion, and they have brought me thoughts which, I 
 think, are good enough to communicate to you. Soddy 
 shows clearly that the problem of our materialistic future 
 is to learn how to liberate the potential energy in matter. 
 And this is a grand parable. I believe that the problem 
 of our spiritual future is to liberate the potential element of 
 Divine Love buried in our human selfishness. 
 
 “T get at it thus. We cannot think of the soul under 
 the forms of time and space. We cannot talk of five yards 
 of soul. The soul is an Energy derived from and sustained 
 by the Infinite Energy. We know it only by its qualities 
 of emotion, intelligence, will. And these can be measured, 
 not spatially, but by their intensity and direction. Funda- 
 mentally, I believe that there is only one spiritual energy 
 —the energy of Love; thought and will being only mani- 
 festations of that energy. And so we exist in the image 
 
I12 APPENDIX A 
 
 of God. The Infinite is beyond all forms of time and space 
 —an Infinite Energy—the Energy of Love—infinitely 
 intense, infinitely continuous, in its direction infinitely 
 good. Love may have two directions—towards self, or 
 towards God, and all the manifestations of God. Where 
 love is directed towards self it is evil; where towards God, 
 in Himself or in His creatures, it is good. Now the good 
 love in us is imprisoned in the dark element of the evil 
 love, just as energy is imprisoned in matter. Our redemp- 
 tion means the liberation of the higher love from its im- 
 prisonment. Infinite Love is constantly working for its 
 liberation. It was the task of the life of Christ. It is your 
 task. Itisatask which must some day have a triumphant 
 issue. For without robbing man of his free-will to love, 
 which is the basis of his moral distinction, Infinite Love 
 must win in the end, here or hereafter. Tospeak reverently, 
 God’s mighty task is to make man love divinely, without 
 robbing him of moral freedom. 
 
 ‘‘T do not think, dear Wilson, fhat I shall long continue 
 in mortal life, and so I will give you from my own experience 
 ——an experience which has always seemed to me almost too 
 sacred to speak about—confirmation in fact of this idea. 
 
 “For a year between my degree and my Ordination I 
 was a private tutor at Bexhill. When there, and in con- 
 templation of my life task, I was intensely anxious to come 
 into some real communion with God. All my prayers 
 were for some time fruitless, and I became very despondent. 
 One night I woke from a dream that I was fatherless, and I 
 cried aloud for love to my Heavenly Father. 
 
 ‘And in a moment my soul was so flooded by a mighty 
 inrush of divine love and joy that it almost burst the bounds 
 of personal restraint. To prevent myself from crying 
 aloud in my joy I was obliged to wrap myself in my bed- 
 clothes. And for days this divine rapture lasted. I could 
 hardly go about my ordinary business, and had to keep 
 reminding myself that it was service to my Heavenly 
 Father. I know that it is possible to suggest that this was 
 
APPENDIX A 113 
 
 the result of an auto-suggestion. But, if so, then in my 
 subliminal consciousness I must have a flood of love so 
 deep as to be divine. For it made me love every one 
 intensely. I could have embraced the poorest, dirtiest 
 beggar in a transport of love. At last the vision faded 
 into the light of common day. 
 
 “ But I wanted no more evidence. I knew that I had 
 been in immediate union with an Infinite Energy of Love. 
 Jesus Christ’s extravagant demands to love one’s enemies, 
 and to give and forgive without limitation, seemed the 
 natural expressions of my feelings. My will for that time 
 was His Will. And it was heaven. I had thrust open a 
 door into the region of Infinite Light and Love, and all the 
 reports of it seemed to me pale ; and all attempts at descrip- 
 tion ridiculous. I had been in heaven. 
 
 “Ts not this exactly what would happen if the Energy 
 of Infinite Love came into union with the eager will to love 
 in my own soul? The fact supports the theory. And it is 
 all contained in that thrice-blessed saying, ‘Love your 
 enemies,’ etc. ‘That ye may be the children of your 
 Father in heaven, for He maketh His sun to rise on the 
 evil, and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on 
 the unjust.’ ” 
 
APPENDIX B 
 
 F. J. A. Hort. The Way, The Truth, The Life, p. 11. 
 
 THESE four declarations of Christ [contained in St. John 
 xiv, 6] provide us with ample materials for study on four 
 successive occasions. Each has its own distinct sense, 
 while each would be barely intelligible without the aid of 
 the others. In the four together is expressed the Christian 
 view of human existence as beheld in one primary aspect. 
 The truth which they combine to set forth is not one of 
 those lesser truths which can in any sense be either proved 
 or disproved. Its evidence is to be found in the light 
 which it brings, far more than in any light which it receives. 
 
 I'4 
 
APPENDIX C 
 
 CHARLES SIMEON. Memoirs, Chapter XXVI, on “ The 
 Golden Mean.” 
 
 PERHAPS you little thought that in what you have said 
 about extremes, and against the golden mean, you would 
 carry me along with you. But I not only go along with 
 you, I even go far beyond you: for to you I can say in 
 words, what for these thirty years I have proclaimed im 
 deeds (you will not misunderstand me), that the truth is 
 not in the middle, and notin one extreme, but in both extremes. 
 I see you filled with amazement, and doubting whether 
 I am sober, 7.e., in my sober senses. | 
 
 Here were two extremes ; observing days, eating meats, 
 etc. ‘‘Paul, how do you move? In the mean way?” 
 * No.“ To one extreme?” “No.” ‘“ How’ then ?” 
 “To both extremes in their turn, as occasion requires.” 
 
 Here are two other extremes, Calvinism and Arminianism 
 (for you need not be told how long Calvin and Arminius 
 lived before St. Paul). “‘ How do you move in reference 
 to these, Paul? Ina golden mean?” “No.” ‘“ To one 
 extreme?” “No.” ‘‘ Howthen?” “ To both extremes : 
 to-day I am a strong Calvinist: to-morrow a strong 
 Arminian.” ‘‘ Well, well, Paul, I see thou art beside 
 thyself ;. go to Aristotle, and learn the golden mean.” 
 
 “But, my brother, I am unfortunate: I formerly read 
 Aristotle, and liked him much: I have since read Paul, 
 and caught somewhat of his strange notions oscillating 
 (not vacillating) from pole to pole. Sometimes I am a 
 high Calvinist, at other times a low Arminian, so that, if 
 extremes will please you, I am your man; only remember, 
 it is not one extreme that we are to go to, but both extremes. 
 
 II5 
 H 2 
 
APPENDIX D 
 
 Rev. H. MauricE Retton, D.D. Christ and Metaphysics. 
 “The Interpreter,’ July 1922. 
 
 Now just as the living organism is or should be the funda- 
 mental conception of Biology, so the Living Christ, and not 
 dead mental and intellectual abstract concepts of His 
 Person, is or should be the fundamental conception of 
 Christology. Christian experience must give us the truth 
 concerning Him. Our method of approach must not be by 
 piped mental gymnastics “‘ confounding the Natures ” 
 “ dividing the Persons,” but by living the Life. 
 
 “If we strive to live His Life in the world, reaching up to 
 the ethical and spiritual level He has revealed to us as of 
 the very essence of Eternal Life in time and space—we shall 
 at that level find Him in a lived experience of personal union 
 and communion. Living true to the deepest in us we shall 
 touch Him in whom we live and move and have our being. 
 In life and not by intellect only do we make the great 
 discovery. Where intellect bids us halt, faith makes its 
 leap, and thus by a living activity of the whole human 
 personality Godwards do we take hold of Reality Himself, | 
 and discovering thus the Divine in Human Life, living in 
 Him and He in us, all questions concerning the possibility 
 of a union between the Divine and Human are answered, 
 not theoretically, but practically. And Faith can claim a 
 closer knowledge of the Truth than was ever possible by 
 means of speculative conjecture and the conclusions of logic. 
 
 The rest may reason and welcome, 
 ‘Tis we musicians know. 
 
 116 
 
APPENDIX E 
 
 F. D. Maurice. Tracts for Priests and People, Chapter 
 XIV, pp. 62 ff. Part of a letter to R. H. Hutton. 
 
 You used, you say, to find great difficulty in admitting an 
 Incarnation, because you could not understand how an 
 Infinite Being could be manifested in a man, subject to the 
 limitations to which an individual, born in a certain place, 
 growing up in certain circumstances, must be subject. 
 You have overcome that difficulty. It does not shock 
 you to think of Christ as the Son of God, and yet as liable 
 to the ordinary feelings, even to the prejudices, of a Jew in 
 the days of Herod. 
 
 That you have felt so deeply the necessity of an Incarna- 
 tion as to be able to overlook this, or even a worse perplexity, 
 is tome most satisfactory ; I could not ask a greater evidence 
 of the power with which the conviction has taken hold 
 of you. But I cannot persuade myself that you have 
 mastered the objection. I think it will start up again 
 and again, and that.sometimes it will appear to you almost 
 overwhelming. I should have found it so if I had not 
 been brought to the conviction that the perfect image of 
 God cannot be merely a man. He must be the Man; the 
 Head of the Race ; the Person in whom the race is created ; 
 by whom it stands. Such a person, I think, the Evangelists 
 set forth to us. The powers which they say that Jesus 
 exercised, the sufferings which they say He underwent, 
 belong to such a person. You, I suspect, feel the need 
 of such a one as much asI do. But you feel, as I did, that, 
 contemplated from the human ground, a universal man is 
 merely the fiction of an antiquated realism. Here, then, 
 is an instance in which fidelity to the theological method 
 [building, that is, on the revelation of God and not on 
 human experience and faith] saves us from the most 
 serious contradictions, brings our language and thoughts 
 
 117 
 
118 APPENDIX E 
 
 into harmony with that of the Old Church, and its creeds ; 
 restores our understanding with simple and devout people ; 
 and, at the same time, enables us to complete that idea of a 
 Humanity which is floating in the minds of all at the present 
 day. The fact that Christ must have been born in some 
 time and some place—that He must have been an actual 
 child, and boy, and man—will remain. These are essential 
 to the idea of an Incarnation. There may be, there must 
 be, limitations involved in that birth, childhood, boyhood, 
 manhood; but they will not, I think, be the limitations 
 you have supposed inevitable. They will not interfere with 
 the fulness of the Godhead bodily, because they will not 
 interfere with the fulness of the manhood. And that fulness 
 of the manhood will enable not some particular man, 
 subject to particular conditions of time and country, but 
 every man, in every time and country, to claim affinity 
 with Christ, and through Him to draw nigh to the Father. 
 
 The prevalent talk about humanity, and a sense of its 
 great unreality, if there is not such a Head of Humanity 
 as this, has certainly been one influence in leading me back 
 to that old Catholic doctrine. But I can trace my conviction 
 of it more distinctly to a terrible question which was 
 brought before me when I was young by that work to which 
 [have already alluded. [Irving On the human nature of Christ} 
 
 “Tf the Son of God really became man, must He not 
 have entered into all the temptations of a man? Can the 
 words of the Epistle to the Hebrews be modified ? Does the 
 writer’s own limitation, ‘ yet without sin,’ empty the previous 
 clause of its significance ?’” These are profoundly practical 
 enquiries which cannot be evaded by those who are seeking 
 for a power to govern their own lives, for a help in their 
 own inward struggles. Mr. Irving was confronted by them. 
 He found that he could not maintain the Incarnation in its 
 reality and power if he shrank from the assertion that evil 
 in all its ghastliness, in all-its attractiveness, offered itself 
 to the mind and will of Christ. That it was rejected by 
 that Mind and Will no one could affirm more vehemently 
 than he did. But to adopt any shift for the sake of making 
 the conflict a less tremendous one than it is in the case 
 
APPENDIX E 119 
 
 of any son of Adam seemed to him to be dishonouring 
 Christ under pretence of asserting His purity, and to be 
 depriving human creatures of the blessings and victory 
 which He took flesh to give them. He therefore used 
 language which inevitably startled and staggered those 
 who knew what the suggestions of evil were to them, how 
 much they seemed to involve a participation init. I could 
 not evade the force of their appeals to the testimony of our 
 consciences as well as of Scripture. I could as little evade 
 the force of his. It seemed to me that if there was not a 
 way out of the difficulty the Gospel meant nothing. The 
 Old Theology which Mr. Irving had grafted upon his Scotch 
 Confession showed me this way. According to that con- 
 fession, the race stood in Adam, and had fallen in Adam ; 
 then a scheme of salvation, of which the Incarnation 
 formed a step, was necessary to rescue certain persons 
 from the consequences of the fall. Mr. Irving had begun 
 to regard the Incarnation not merely as a means to a certain 
 end, in which some men were interested, but as. the very 
 manifestation of God to men—as the‘ link between the 
 creature and the Creator. But what could the Incarnation 
 on his previous hypothesis be but the descent into a radically 
 evil nature? Some of Mr. Irving’s Scotch opponents 
 perceived the difficulty and resorted to the hypothesis of 
 our Lord’s taking the unfallen nature of Adam. He 
 regarded the suggestion as a miserable subterfuge, which 
 made the relation between Christ and actual men an utterly 
 unreal one. It led me to ask myself, ‘“‘ What does that 
 unfallen nature of Adam mean? Did not Adam stand by 
 God’s grace, by trust in Him? Did he not fall by trying 
 to be something in himself ? Could he have had a nature 
 which was good independent of God more than we? Is not 
 such a notion a subversion of all Christian belief ? But did 
 the race ever stand in him?’’ Old Theology taught quite 
 a different doctrine. Our own Articles set forth Christ 
 very God and very man—not Adam—as now and always 
 head of the race. They teach us of an infection of nature 
 which exists in every son of Adam. They call that departure 
 from original righteousness. This original righteousness 
 
I20 APPENDIX E 
 
 stands and has always stood, in Christ the Son of God, 
 and in Him only. Here, it seemed to me, was the true 
 practical solution of the difficulty. I could believe that 
 the Head of Man had entered fully into the condition 
 of every man; had suffered the temptations of every 
 man ; had wrestled with the enemy of every man ; and that 
 he had brought our humanity untainted and perfect through 
 that struggle. And this because He had never lost His trust 
 in His Father, His obedience to His Father, had never 
 asserted independence, as Adam did, as each one of us is 
 continually doing. His temptations become, then, real in 
 the most tremendous sense. They were more fierce than 
 any mere individual can ever undergo. He did, in truth, 
 feel the sins—bear the sins—of the whole world. And 
 every man may turn to Him as knowing his own special 
 danger, his easily besetting sins, as having felt the power 
 of them. And no man has a right to say, ‘““ My race is a 
 sinful, fallen race,” even when he most confesses the great- 
 ness of his own sin and fall; because he is bound to con- 
 template his race in the Son of God, and to claim by faith 
 in Him his share in its redemption and its glory. I can 
 therefore do justice to the Unitarian protest against the 
 language in which many who call themselves orthodox 
 describe the condition of mankind, just because I adopt 
 the belief in the perfect divinity and the perfect manhood 
 of the Son of God. I can, with the most inmost conviction, 
 assert that in me—that is, in my flesh—dwelleth no good 
 thing, just because I feel that all good which is in me, 
 or in anyone, is derived from the perfect humanity of 
 Christ, and that apart from that I am merely evil. Just 
 so far as I have been able to grasp this belief in a Head of 
 Humanity—just so far the greatest problems of ethics seem 
 to me to find a solution, just so far do I see a light in the 
 midst of the deepest darkness, a hope rising out of the 
 depths of despair, a unity which is mightier than all sects 
 and divisions. Therefore I am earnest that you should 
 consider whether you are not confusing this belief with that 
 of a merely individual Christ, such as you were content 
 with before you saw the necessity of an Incarnation. 
 
APPENDIX F 
 
 GEORGE MACDONALD. Unspoken Sermons. Third Series, 
 pp. 6-14. 
 As to what the life of God is to himself, we can only know 
 that we cannot know it—even that not being absolute 
 ignorance, for no one can see that, from its very nature, he 
 cannot understand a thing, without therein approaching 
 that thing in a most genuine manner. As to what the life 
 of God is in relation to us, we know that it is the causing 
 life of everything that we call life—of everything that is: 
 and in knowing this we know something of that life by the 
 very forms of its force. But the one interminable mystery, 
 for I presume the two make but one mystery—a mystery 
 that must be a mystery to us for ever, not because God will 
 not explain it, but because God himself could not make 
 us understand it—is first, how he can be self-existent, and 
 next, how He can make other beings exist: self-existence 
 and creation no man will ever understand. Again, regard- 
 ing the matter from the side of the creature—the cause of 
 his being is antecedent to that being; he can therefore 
 have no knowledge of his own creation; neither could 
 he understand that which he can do nothing like. If we 
 could make ourselves we should understand our creation, 
 but to do that we must be God. And of all ideas this— 
 that with the self-dissatisfied, painfully circumscribed con- 
 sciousness I possess, I could in any way have caused myself, 
 is the most dismal and hopeless. Nevertheless, if I be a 
 child of God, I must be like Him, like even in the matter 
 of this creative energy. There must be something in me 
 that corresponds in its childish way to the eternal might 
 in him. But I am forestalling. The question now is: 
 What was that life, the thing made im the Son—made by 
 21 
 
I22 APPENDIX F 
 
 him inside himself not outside him—made not through but 
 in him—the life that was his own, as God’s is his own ? 
 (cf. St. John v, 26.) 
 
 [Macdonald is commenting on St. John i, 3, punctuating 
 as in R.V. mg. and translating—‘ All things were made 
 through him; and without him was not anything made. 
 That which has been made (or come into being) 1m him was 
 life.’’] 
 
 It was, I answer, that actin him that corresponded in 
 him, as the son, to the self-existence of his father. Now 
 what is the deepest in God? His power? No, for power 
 could not make him what we mean when we say God. Evil 
 could, of course, never create one atom; but let us under- 
 stand very plainly that a being whose essence was only 
 power would be such a negation of the divine that no 
 righteous worship could be offered him: his service must be 
 fear, and fear only. Such a being, even were he righteous 
 in judgment, yet could not be God. The God himself 
 whom we love could not be righteous were he not something 
 deeper and better still than we generally mean by the 
 word—but, alas, how little can language say without seem- 
 ing to say something wrong! In one word, God is Love. 
 Love is the deepest depth, the essence of his nature, at 
 the root of all his being. It is not merely that he could 
 not be God, if he had made no creatures to whom to be 
 God; but love is the heart and hand of his creation ; 
 it is his right to create, and his power to create as well. 
 The love that foresees creation is itself the power to create. 
 Neither could he be righteous—that is, fair to his creatures 
 —but that his love created them. His perfection is his 
 love. All his divine rights rest upon his love. Ah, he is 
 not the great monarch! The simplest peasant loving his 
 cow is more divine than any monarch whose monarchy 
 is his glory. If God would not punish sin, or if he did it 
 for anything but love, he would not be the father of Jesus 
 Christ, the God who works as Jesus wrought. 
 
APPENDIX F 123 
 
 What then, I say once more, is in Christ correspondent 
 to the creative power of God? It must be something that 
 comes also of love ; and in the Son the love must be to the 
 already existent. Because of that eternal love which. has 
 no beginning the Father must have the Son. God could 
 not love, could not be love, without making things to love. 
 Jesus has God to love; the love of the Son is responsive 
 to the love of the Father. The response to self-existent 
 love is self-abnegating love. The refusal of himself is that 
 in. Jesus which corresponds to the creation of God. His 
 love takes action, creates, in self-abjuration in the death 
 of self as motive ; in the drowning of self in the life of God, 
 where it lives only as love. What is life in a child? Is it 
 not perfect response to his parents? thorough oneness with 
 them? A child at strife with his parents, one in whom 
 their will is not his, is no child; as a child he is dead, and 
 his death is manifest in rigidity and contortion. . His 
 spiritual order is on the way to chaos. Disintegration has 
 begun. Death is at work in him. See the same child 
 yielding to the will that is righteously above his own ; 
 see the life begin to flow from the heart through the members; 
 see the relaxing limbs; see the light rise like a fountain in his 
 eyes, and flash from his face. Life has again its lordship. 
 
 The life of Christ is this—negatively that he does nothing, 
 cares for nothing for his own sake ; positively that he cares 
 with his whole soul for the will, the pleasure of his father. 
 Because his father is his father, therefore he will be his 
 child. The truth in Jesus is his relation to his father ; 
 the righteousness of Jesus is his fulfilment of that relation. 
 Meeting this relation, loving his father with his whole being, 
 he is not merely alive as born of God; but, giving himself 
 with perfect will to God, choosing to die to himself and live 
 to God, he therein creates in himself a new and higher life, 
 and, standing upon himself, has gained the power to awaken 
 life, the divine shadow of his own, in the hearts of us his 
 brothers and sisters, who have come from the same birth- 
 home as himself, namely, the heart of his God and our God, 
 
124 APPENDIX F 
 
 his father and our father, but who, without our elder 
 brother to do it first, would never have chosen that self- 
 abjuration which is life, never have become alive like Him. 
 To will, not from self, but with the Eternal is to live. 
 
 This choice of his own being, in the full knowledge of 
 what he did; this active willing to be the Son of the 
 Father, perfect in obedience—is that in Jesus which 
 responds and corresponds to the self-existence of God. 
 Jesus rose at once to the height of his being, set himself 
 down on the throne of his nature, in the act of subjecting 
 himself to the will of the Father, as his only good, the only 
 reason of his existence. When he died on the cross he did 
 that in the wild weather of his outlying provinces, in the 
 torture of the body of his revelation, which he had done at 
 home in glory and gladness. 
 
 From the infinite beginning—for here I can only speak by 
 contradictions—he completed and held fast the eternal 
 circle of his existence in saying, ‘“‘ Thy will not mine be 
 done.” He made himself what he is by deathing himself 
 into the will of the eternal Father, through which will he 
 was the eternal Son—thus plunging into the fountain of 
 his own life, the everlasting Fatherhood, and taking the 
 Godhead of the Son. This is the life that was made im 
 Jesus: ‘“‘ That which was made in him was life.” This 
 life, self-willed in Jesus, is the one thing that makes such 
 life—the eternal life, the true life, possible—nay, imperative, 
 essential, to every man, woman and child, whom the Father 
 has sent into this outer, that he may go back into the inner 
 world, his heart. As the self-existent life of the Father 
 has given us being, so the willed devotion of Jesus is his 
 power to give us eternal life like his own—to enable us to do 
 the same. There is no life for any man, other than this 
 same kind that Jesus has; his disciple must live by the 
 same absolute devotion of his will to the Father’s; then is 
 his life one with the life of the Father. 
 
 Because we are come out of the divine nature, which 
 chooses to be divine, we must choose to be divine, to be of 
 
APPENDIX F 125 
 
 God, to be one with God, loving and living as he loves and 
 lives, and so be partakers of the divine nature, or we perish. 
 Man cannot originate this life; it must be shown him, 
 and he must choose it. God is the Father of Jesus and of 
 us——of every possibility of our being: but while God is 
 the Father of his children, Jesus is the father of their 
 sonship ; for in him is made the life which is sonship to the 
 Father—the recognition namely, in fact and life, that the 
 Father has his claim upon his sons and daughters. We are 
 not and cannot become true sons without our will willing 
 his will, our doing following his ruling. It was the will of 
 Jesus to be this thing God willed and meant him that made 
 him the true son of God. He was not that Son of God 
 because he could not help it, but because he willed to 
 be in himself the son that he was in the divine idea. So 
 with us: we must be the sons we are. We are not made to 
 be what we cannot help being ; sons and daughters are not 
 after such fashion! We are sons and daughters in God’s 
 claim ; we must be sons and daughters in our will. And 
 we can be sons and daughters, saved into the original 
 necessity and bliss of our being, only by choosing God for 
 the Father he is, and doing his will—yielding ourselves true 
 sons tothe absolute Father. Therein lies human bliss—only 
 and essential. The working out of this our salvation must 
 be pain, and the handing of it down to them that are below 
 must ever be in pain; but the eternal form of the will of 
 God in and for us is intensity of bliss. 
 “ And the life was the light of Man.” 
 
APPENDIX G 
 
 “ Allah, Allah,” cried the sick man, 
 Racked with pain the long night through, 
 Till with prayer his heart grew tender, 
 Till his lips like honey grew. ? 
 
 But at morning came the tempter, — 
 Said, ‘‘ Cry louder, child of pain. 
 See if Allah ever answer . 
 
 > 32 
 
 ‘Here am I again. 
 
 Like a stab the cruel cavil 
 To his brain and pulses went, 
 To his heart an icy coldness, 
 To his brain a darkness sent. 
 
 Then Elias stood before him, 
 
 - Said, ‘‘ My child, why thus dismayed ? 
 Dost repent thy former fervour ? 
 Is thy heart of prayer afraid ? ”’ 
 
 _ “ Ah,” he said, ‘‘ I’ve cried so often, 
 Never heard the ‘ Here am I ’— 
 And I said God will not answer, 
 Will not turn on me His eye.” 
 
 Then the grave Elias answered: 
 
 “ God said, ‘ Rise, Elias, go, 
 Speak to him, the sorely tempted, 
 Lift him from his gulf of woe. 
 
 Tell him that his very longing 
 
 Is itself an answering cry, 
 
 That his prayer, ‘“‘Come, Gracious Allah,” 
 Is my answer, ‘ Here am I,’”’ 
 
 Every inmost aspiration 
 Is God’s angel undefiled, 
 And in every ‘‘O my Father ”’ 
 Slumbers deep a ‘“‘ Here, my child.” 
 (Translated from the Persian by the German scholar Tholuck.) 
 126 
 
Printed in Great Britain by 
 Hazell, Watson & Viney, Limited, London & Aylesbury. 
 
; * ee 
 » nae a 
 minky? 
 
 "4 > 
 oa 
 
 
 
Fate es 
 a =z 
 
 4 
 ry 
 ¥ ay} 
 
 P< 
 
 ’ Vee! 
 tee 
 
 ». wy re} 
 me 4 y 
 
 
 
— 
 
 —~._. <a 
 
 . " = ee ee 
 > pe 
 
 wes Ty 
 
 rs = a 
 
 a eae 
 
 aby Tee 
 —— 
 se 
 
 = 
 
 — 
 Pat 
 
 <s 
 —— 
 
 13 
 
 vay 
 4 ot 
 
 oe ok 
 ee eM 
 ANA Ms Art 
 i y a . 
 
 x 
 
 og el 
 
 pattie 
 - yee Be 5 
 eye 
 
 a = 
 
 re 
 
 *, 
 ~~ «978 eee 
 
 — 
 
 a PE 
 
 
 
2 
 °o 
 p< 8) 
 <= 
 — 
 co 
 o 
 ~ 
 w 
 Oo 
 c 
 = 
 a.