Dr. Moore here makes a strong, candid defense
of the commonly accepted orthodox religious
views. His object is to determine what basis
these have in reason and common sense. He
treats Miracles, The Incarnation, The Atone
ment, and other cardinal doctrines, and dis
cusses frankly the latest positions of scientists
and agnostics. He makes important distinc
tions between knowledge and belief, hypothesis
and demonstration. It is believed that thought
ful religious readers will be attracted by the
clearness, stimulating quality, and fine temper
of the book.
PUBLISHERS' NOTE.

THE RATIONAL BASIS
OF ORTHODOXY

BY

ALBEET WESTON MOOEE, D. D.

BOSTON AND NEW YORK
HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY
dlie Jtiuer?ioe $k#, Cambribge
1901

COPYRIGHT, I90I, BY ALBERT WESTON MOORE
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Published September, igoi

DEDICATION
To students in colleges and other educational
institutions, and to all thoughtful persons in the
pulpit and the pews who are in sympathy with the
obvious teachings of the New Testament, but have
been misled by the one-sided trend of contemporary
thought into suspecting that their religious hopes
cannot claim a rational sanction of as high a hind
as attaches to secular beliefs, this booh is affec
tionately dedicated.

PEEFACE
It is not pretended that the following chapters
contain anything like a thorough and exhaustive
treatment of the subjects to which they are re
spectively devoted. It will be sufficiently obvious
that the plan of the work permitted me only to
compress into a small space a few salient points
under each of the heads into which the book is
divided. It has been my aim simply to trace in
outline the course of reasoning by which, as I am
convinced, what is commonly known as evangelical
Christianity may be coordinated with other beliefs,
scientific or philosophical, which men of education
deem themselves justified in confidently adopting.
I have also forborne, for the sake of brevity, to
discuss some of the dogmas which would nat
urally be suggested by the title of the book, and
have limited myself to the consideration of those
which I conceive to be of the first importance.
The doctrine of immortality, however, which un
doubtedly ranks with these, seems to me to follow so
naturally from the resurrection of Christ that a
special discussion of it may be properly omitted,

vi PREFACE
although in a larger work a chapter might be de
voted to it.
The first chapter was published a number of
years ago, in substantially its present form, in a
denominational newspaper, after having been twice
read at representative gatherings of ministers or
laymen. I received at the time by mail and in
other ways so many gratifying assurances that it
met the needs of the particular class of minds for
which it was written that I have thought best to
reproduce it in its entirety, with the exception of
some unimportant changes, although it anticipates,
in a measure, some positions which are more fully
considered later on.

CONTENTS

Chaptsb I. The Rationality of Faith
U. Evolution and Theism ....
in. The Ethical Background of Nature
IV. Inductive Theism 
V. Christian Supebnatubalism
VI. A Study of Human Testimony
VLT. iNSPHtATION 
VIU. Dogmatic Chbistianity ....
IX. The Incabnation 
X. The Atonement 
XI. Jt/stdhcation by Faith (Psychological)
XLI. Justification by Faith (Practical)
XIII. Love and Service (Foreign Missions)
Index 

Page 1
28 52
79
105141
175
203230263288312336373

THE RATIONAL BASIS OF
ORTHODOXY

CHAPTER I
THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH
Two characteristic features of modern scientific
thought are worthy of special notice. One is its
idea of what constitutes proof; the other is the
peculiar attitude of mind it requires on the part
of all who would use its methods for the advance
ment of knowledge. The definition of proof which
it would seem to have adopted is, " Such a degree
of evidence as will necessitate conviction in any
intelligent mind." Thus, one of the golden rules
of Descartes is,1 " Give unqualified assent to no
propositions but those the truth of which is so
clear and distinct that they cannot be doubted."
Of the same tenor is Professor Huxley's message
to the youthful student of science : " Tell him
that it is his duty to doubt until he is compelled
by the absolute authority of nature to believe that
which is written in books." These quotations will
also serve to indicate in what attitude of mind
the scientists would have the search for truth con-
1 T. H. Huxley , Essays Selected, etc. (Macmillan & Co., 1871.)

2 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
ducted ; as will also Mr. Lecky's observation : " To
raise the requisite standard of proof, to inculcate
hardness and slowness of belief, is the first task of
the inductive reasoner. He looks with favor on the
condition of suspended judgment; he encourages
men rather to prolong than to abridge it." And
the views set forth in the above excerpts find a logi
cal resultant in an opinion expressed some years
ago by a writer in the " Contemporary Eeview,"
to the effect that they who have not the time or
the ability to investigate have no right to believe.
It is not easy to find fault with either of the
positions which science thus occupies. Mathe
matical reasoning has long been regarded as the
ideal method of establishing conclusions because
perversity itself cannot call in question its results.
The inductive reasoner also points to a body of
truth built up by his methods which is almost, if
not quite, as far beyond the reach of doubt as a
theorem in geometry. He has thus shown that
the conception of proof furnished by mathematics
is practical as well as ideal, and that it may be
realized in other sciences than that of quantity.
He knows, too, that every belief which is not
strictly necessary must be due, in some degree, to
a volition and is consequently, to that extent, an
assumption. He is not, therefore, to be censured
if he gives the name of proof only to that degree
of evidence which makes doubt impossible, if he is
inclined to regard as unscientific all convictions
which are in any measure voluntary.

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 3
But if so much is conceded, if it is admitted
that a proposition cannot be regarded as proved, in
the highest sense of the word, until assent cannot
be withheld from it even by prejudice itself, then
the inference is not to be denied that the human
mind, while engaged in the pursuit of knowledge,
should be characterized by hardness and slowness
of belief, that its attitude should be as long as
possible one of suspended judgment ; for evidence
cannot be known to be irresistible until unbelief
has given way in a determined effort to resist it.
Only when a man is convinced, as it were, in spite
of himself, can he feel any well-grounded assurance
that his conviction rests on a foundation of genuine
proof. There would be no disposition on the part of
the Christian Church to criticise unfavorably these
two scientific principj.es if they were applied only
in the pursuit of natural knowledge. But it is
impossible, even if it were desirable, to restrict the
use of them to particular fields of inquiry. Chris'
tianity has a message for students of nature as
well as for other men, and its imperative command,
" Believe," is sure to evoke from them the retort,
" Prove so that we cannot but believe." Nor can
science act here only on the defensive and be true
to itself. If it is working in the only way in
which valid beliefs are to be had, it must and
ought to be aggressive. It cannot be faithful to
its mission if it does not scrutinize the supports of
religious as well as of secular opinion, and insist

4 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
that Christianity itself shall abandon all claim to
scientific recognition, or produce in its defense
reasons which will establish its truth beyond all
question. And, in meeting such a challenge, it will not be
enough for theologians to show that there is, on
the whole, a presumption in favor of the truth of
their religion, or even that Christianity is probably
true. Presumptions and probabilities cannot be
received by the man of science as equivalent to
proof. They may be well enough in their place,
but not until they have developed into certainties
which even prejudice cannot rationally deny to be
such, will he or can he consistently deem them
worthy of unqualified assent and unhesitating con
fidence. Now here arise some important inquiries which
need to be soberly and candidly considered. Is
Christianity susceptible of that degree of proof
which is thus demanded ? Are its objective evi
dences, that is, its evidences which are universally
available, of so convincing a nature that religious
doubt must disappear from every mind by which
they are examined without prejudice ? Are the
stock arguments of our theological schools of such
a character that we must deem every man either
irrational or insincere who shall fail to be con
vinced by them ? In a word, are we justified in
adopting the view of faith set forth by President
Hopkins 1 years ago and regarding it merely as an
1 Evidences of Christianity, p. 21.

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 5
inevitable result of a candid attention to evidence
which to an impartial mind will have all the force
of a demonstration ?
For my own part I do not hesitate to answer
all of these questions in the negative. If the
scientists have the right idea of proof, Christianity
presents itself to no man at the outset as a religion
that is proved. If they have truly described the
attitude of mind in which it is to be investigated,
it is not likely to be proved.
In support of the first assertion it may be stated
that the familiar arguments for the existence of
God are incumbered with serious objections. The
a priori arguments assume without proof that cer
tain mental concepts imply the existence of corre
sponding objective realities. The argument from
causation is open to the criticism that it makes the
First Cause itself an effect. The argument from
design — the only one which Mr. Mill 1 regarded
as of any value whatever — can furnish at the
best, according to that writer, only a strong prob
ability, and is weakened, in his opinion, by the
possibility that the theory of evolution may be
established. Only a few years after he had so
expressed himself that theory had come to be re
garded as sound by a large part of the thinking
world, and there can be little doubt that Mr. Mill,
if he had lived, would have reduced accordingly
still more his estimate of the evidential value of
the argument mentioned. The proof from expe-
1 Three Essays on Religion.

6 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
rience requires time, and can be had, as a rule,
only by those who are willing to take for granted
at the start that which it is sought to prove.
The evidence for the immortality of the soul, in
the opinion of Eev. F. W. Eobertson,1 although
valuable in the way of suggestiveness, is yet, apart
from revelation, worth nothing in the way of proof ;
and the doctrine, according to Bishop Butler,2
even when the existence of God is conceded, is
proved only "to a very considerable degree of
probability." Nor do the representatives of the
Society for Psychical Eesearch who have pub
lished the results of its latest investigations profess
to have established the existence of disembodied
spirits beyond all controversy. If it becomes in
any measure a matter of doubt whether the exist
ence of God can be proved, then it becomes more
than ever doubtful whether Hume's celebrated
argument against the credibility of the Christian
miracles has been answered, inasmuch as the only
replies to it now held to be satisfactory take the
existence of God for granted. In the belief in
God and his miraculous interpositions in the affairs
of men is involved the belief in a supernatural
revelation and in the resurrection of Christ. If
confidence in these truths is shaken, the incarna
tion and the atonement become, in a proportionate
measure, objects of doubt, while the belief in re
demption and heaven becomes, to a similar degree,
1 Sermons, "The Donbt of Thomas."
2 Analogy, chap, i., last paragraph.

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 7
clouded with uncertainty. I repeat, therefore,
that if science has the only correct idea of proof,
Christianity, as commonly defined, is not proved
by the objective evidences now adduced in its
behalf. It is not enough to. allege that the objections
just suggested have been answered, for it is cer
tainly not true that they have been so completely
overthrown as to appear indubitably unsound.
Neither is it pertinent to maintain that Christian
ity in its conflicts with its antagonists has gained
an advantage over them ; for, even if this statement
could be trusted, it is not necessarily true that
victory in debate means the establishment of the
positions defended. If the scientific notion of the
proper grounds of belief is correct, then belief in
Christianity is unscientific until unbelief is impos
sible, a condition which cannot be perfectly ful
filled so long as its defenses can be regarded with
any degree of well-founded suspicion. And even
if it be contended that this condition is never really
fulfilled in the conclusions of science itself, yet
if the reasoning of the scientists approximates
so closely to their ideal of proof as to reduce the
voluntary element in their beliefs to a minimum,
the assertion just made will stand ; for there will
still be in the accepted results of science a degree
of certainty which no balance of probability alleged
to exist on the side of revealed religion is compe
tent to produce.
In defense of the statement that Christianity is

8 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
not likely to be proved if it is admitted that truth
must always be sought in the attitude of mind
already described, let me merely mention a few
corollaries which might be deduced from such
an admission: The listener in the pew ought to
cultivate a spirit of intellectual resistance to the
preacher in the desk. Conversion ought seldom,
if ever, to follow immediately the hearing of the
Word. Now is the accepted time not to believe
but to investigate. The dying skeptic needs, not
exhortations to put his trust in Christ, but copious
extracts from works on Christian evidences. Then,
too, doubt is often wholesome. It is a safeguard
against false opinions, and ought to be encouraged
as long as obstinacy itself can keep it alive. Min
isters ought not to argue in behalf of the gospel
without indicating all that has been or can be said
on the other side. The works of able infidels ought
to be placed in our Sunday-school libraries and in
the rooms of our Young Men's Christian Associa
tions. Every one who has been converted without
having learned what objections the skeptics urge
against his religion ought to familiarize himself
with them at once. He ought to assume a state of
suspended judgment, and to believe again only after
he has labored faithfully but fruitlessly to doubt.
Paine, Eenan, and Strauss should share impartially
with the Bible his attention. Some disciple of the
late Colonel Ingersoll should be invited to labor in
conjunction with every revivalist or praying-band.
If the truth of Christianity must be established by

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 9
argument, there should be fairness in the discus
sion, and both sides ought to have an impartial
hearing. If, as Professor Huxley asserts,1 there is
but one kind of knowledge and but one method
of acquiring it, then religion ought to form no
exception to his remark that skepticism is the
highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable
sin. Is it, then, too much to maintain that, if the
search for truth can be rationally conducted on no
other principles than those which are approved by
science, Christianity has not been and is not likely
to be proved ? Is it too much to assert that its
objective evidences are not strong enough to ban
ish all doubt of its truth from every intelligent
mind that is resolved to doubt as long as possible ?
But every one who contends that theology at the
outset rests on rational foundations as strong as
those of science, and that Christianity ought to be
accepted because it can be proved in advance of
experience to be true, must submit his reasoning
to the scientific tests already named ; for, in that
case, they are sound. If the intellectual evidences
of Christianity are sufficient to demonstrate the
truth of it, then they are strong enough to neces
sitate belief in the most resolutely skeptical mind.
If, as President Hopkins 2 asserted, God " asks no
one to believe except on the ground of evidence,"
then either Christianity is incredible, or else he is
1 Lay Sermons, p. 18. (D. Appleton & Co., 1870.)
a Evidences of Christianity, p. 21.

10 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
correct and self-consistent in asserting that the
evidence of its truth is as convincing as that for
the forty-seventh proposition of Euclid, and, if
candidly examined, must be believed. But if it is
less conclusive than this, then the inference cannot
be resisted that faith in Christianity must be to
some extent voluntary, and therefore, to the same
extent, an assumption.
But now arises the inquiry, if we concede that
Christianity cannot be proved — at least at the out
set — in the highest sense of the term, do we not
make a complete surrender to our enemies ? If we
admit that intelligent men may honestly fail to be
convinced by the ordinary Christian evidences, must
we not retreat in confusion from the field of dis
cussion ? By no means. If some Christian apolo
gists have made a serious mistake in overrating the
rational supports of their religion, those scientists
who have attacked their faith have made a graver
one in practically forgetting that evidence which
is too weak to be called proof may yet be strong
enough to justify action. Because the hostile
critics are preeminently men of study and reflec
tion, they seem in many cases to have lost sight of
the fact that the affairs of practical life must be
conducted on principles widely different from those
on which scientific knowledge is now pursued.
A mechanic may say, " I believe I can invent
a machine that will do a certain work." On
what does he ground that conviction? Probably
on nothing, at first, more convincing than his

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 11
knowledge of his own ingenuity and his recollec
tion of some earlier mechanical successes. It is
quite likely that he has as yet no notion whatever
of the particular way in which he will carry out
his idea. Shall we therefore say to him, " You
have no right to your belief ; it is an unjustifiable
assumption, resting on the scantiest evidence;
you ought to distrust such baseless opinions and
guard yourself resolutely against the tendency to
put confidence in what has not been proved " ?
Such advice would be equivalent to an admonition
to invent no more. He must believe that he can
do what he is seeking to do, otherwise he will lack
the courage to attempt to do it ; for twenty years
or more may elapse before he can bring his ma
chine to that degree of perfection which will justify
him in saying, "My faith in my ability to do
what I proposed is justified by evidence which is
perfectly conclusive."
A capitalist determines to employ his wealth in
building a factory in order to increase his income.
He does so because he believes that the under
taking will succeed. But is his belief founded on
irresistible evidence ? By no means. He has his
misgivings and anxieties. He has acquaintances,
perhaps, who predict that his scheme will mis
carry. Are we then to counsel him to distrust his
convictions until he knows that they are sound?
That would be virtually to advise him to give up
his project altogether, for it is only his faith in
the feasibility of it that gives him courage to carry
it out.

12 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
Professor Huxley compares the field of scientific
investigation to the great ocean which stretches
away indefinitely beyond the visible horizon. One
cannot but think that the illustration must have
suggested to him the method by which the world
learned the most important fact that has come to
its knowledge in modern times. How did Europe
discover that land existed west of the Atlantic
Ocean? Not because Columbus maintained an
attitude of doubt in reference to the inconclusive
arguments which could be cited in support of the
fact, but because he believed, on what seemed to
the world the most meagre evidence, that India
could be reached by sailing westward. Had he
cherished the skeptical habits of thought inculcated
by modern scientists, he would have viewed his
theories with such doubt as must have precluded
him from ever risking life and reputation for the
sake of testing them.
How do men learn what kind of business they
can best succeed in? How does a student ascer
tain whether he is adapted to a certain profession?
How do apprentices determine whether they can
become successful mechanics ? Not, certainly, by
distrusting their own private opinions; not, cer
tainly, by any process of reasoning maintained
against cultivated doubts until these disappear of
themselves. Otherwise they would starve before
they would have confidence enough to learn any
vocation whatever. They simply assume that their
personal preferences are indicating to them their

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 13
proper calling, and then verify their assumption or
falsify it, as the case may be, by the experience of
subsequent years.
Thus it would appear that convictions which
are sought merely to increase knowledge, to gratify
curiosity, may be wisely resisted until they are
established by indubitable proof, but that those
which are requisite as a ground of immediate action
may be laudably indulged on the slightest evi
dence, or perhaps even on none at all. There is
such a thing as enterprise, the kernel of which is a
willingness to take things for granted. To assume
that what is desirable is true, and then to test the
assumption by acting as if it were so, is often the
only way in which a man can become acquainted
with his own powers and give to his life the high
est possible success.
If, then, Christianity is to be regarded merely
as the best philosophy extant, or as a benevolent
endeavor to convey to mankind additional religious
information, there is no reason why it should not
be thrown into the crucibles of modern thought
and tested by the rigid canons of the inductive
sciences. And even if it claims to teach chiefly or
only for the purpose of influencing human conduct,
yet if it demands action simply on the ground that
it is already demonstrated by its evidences to be
true, it ought to encounter an intellectual resist
ance and a demand for proof as determmed and
exacting as are met by any new scientific theory
which seeks to be admitted into the category of

14 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
established facts. In neither of these cases, I am
convinced, can it expect to make head against its
opponents. But if it is presented to men as that which I
believe it to be, as a revelation which it is not
impossible at the outset to doubt, but which can
not be practically disbelieved without injury to
the prospects of immortal souls, then it has at least
as good a claim to human confidence as have the
convictions which stimulate men to work for a life
time in particular directions for position or wealth.
And, moreover, since it promises to those that
shall believe in it additional evidence of its truth
in this life and a complete verification of itself in
the life to come, it has vindicated its right to be
received among the practical working theories of
the human race, theories in pursuance of which
men of energy and push always deem themselves
justified in denying themselves and laboring for
an indefinite length of time in the uncertain hope
of reaping a harvest in the end.
I conclude, therefore, that the true source of
religious confidence is not primarily the objective
Christian evidences, but Christian experience ob
tained through a voluntary trust in the gospel when
doubt is possible, or, what is substantially the same
thing, by acting in a state of some uncertainty as
if the religion were known to be true. In other
words, Christianity is offered to the human race,
not as a mere contribution to religious knowledge,
but chiefly as a body of directions for a moral

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 15
crisis, and is therefore to be used like everything
else of the same class, that is, it is to be proved by
making trial of it. " To be indecisive and reluc
tant to act," says Mr. Mill,1 " because we have
not evidence of a perfectly conclusive character to
act on, is a defect sometimes incident to scientific
minds, but which, wherever it exists, renders them
unfit for practical emergencies." Nothing, to my
mind, could show more plainly than does this ad
mission of a candid thinker the true ground of
that conflict between religion and science of which
we hear so much to-day. It is a conflict between
methods which are adapted to a crisis and those
which are not. Human life, in view of its moral
conditions, is a practical emergency ; the objective
evidences of Christianity are not of a perfectly
conclusive character ; but to lay aside indecision
and reluctance and act as if they were so is the
one way to become equal to a crisis and to get that
firm religious assurance which otherwise will re
main inaccessible.
And now, in concluding this chapter, let me
observe : —
1. It is not implied in what has just been pre
sented that arguments for Christianity and works
on its evidences are useless or of little value. The
word assumption, which I have used so often, means
not belief without evidence, but only belief on evi
dence which is not demonstrative. It denotes
merely the mental act by which we decide that a
1 Logic, 8th ed., p. 417. (Harper & Brothers, 1879.)

16 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
proposition is true when there is any ground what
ever to suppose that it may not be so. The boy
who must leap across a wide stream will naturally
search for the narrowest part of it, although he
knows that even there he must risk a spring. What
are commonly called the proofs of Christianity may
serve to make faith easier even though they can
never make unbelief impossible. The transfer of
a soul from intelligent doubt. to religious confidence
will always be effected by a leap into the unknown,
by an act of voluntary trust in doctrines which can
easily be made to appear in some degree uncer
tain ; but the length of the leap, the difficulty of
the trust, may be indefinitely diminished in most
minds by the aid of the Christian evidences.
2. This method of obtaining religious certainty
is ennobling. It does for man in relation to his
spiritual concerns what the uncertainty which, over
hangs the future does for him in reference to his
secular interests, — it stimulates enterprise. No
man is likely to make much headway in life who is
not willing sometimes to incur the risk of failure
and disappointment. No one who will not hazard
a step in any direction until he knows in advance
just where it will land him has in him any of the
essential qualities of the hero. Christianity would
have men act in spiritual matters on the same
principles which must underlie their conduct if
they are to be eminently successful in their tem
poral concerns, — it would have them push out
boldly by faith into the regions of uncertainty, and,

THE/RATIONALITY OF FAITH 17
for the sake of moral profit, act as if they knew to
be true some things which they as yet only expect
to find so. And as no man deserves a fortune who
is not willing to risk failure in the pursuit of it,
so they judge themselves unworthy of eternal life
who practically doubt its reality merely because
they can see a possibility that belief in it may not
be sound, and who thus show themselves unwilling
to cultivate moral enterprise for the sake of a pro
spective enlargement of their manhood and spirit
ual destiny.
3. The view just set forth is practical.
It is so, first, in reference to the needs of the
hearers of the Word. If Christianity is to be be
lieved only because it can be proved, what right
has any man to become a Christian until he sees
that it is proved, until he is constrained to believe
after having spent in study and investigation
the years that will be needed for him to become
thoroughly acquainted with all that can be said
both for and against it ? Since theology must
sometimes make use of arguments of an exceed
ingly abstruse and profound nature, how can it be
expected that persons of limited mental capacity
can ever understand all of its proofs ? How can
any generation be justified in adhering very tena
ciously to its religious faith when theories which
threaten to undermine the intellectual supports of
that faith are matters of close and doubtful discus
sion ? Why is it not best for the man of average
understanding to remain neutral in the great con-

18 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
flict between belief and unbelief until the roar of
the great guns has ceased and victory has been
decided in favor of one side or the other ? Why
need Greek and Trojan spend blood and sweat, if
the issues over which they fight must after all be
settled by the gods who are wrangling over them
in remote Olympus ? Moreover, how can the gos
pel demonstrate its truth in the sick chamber to a
mind too weary to follow a train of reasoning?
Butler's " Analogy " and kindred works are long
tracts to read to dying men ; nevertheless, they are
likely to be too short to remove the doubts of many
a man who is well versed in the writings of the
modern skeptics. If faith in Christ must be pre
ceded by a demonstration of the truth of Christian
ity, then we may safely say that it is something
which many will be precluded, by sheer lack of time
or ability, from ever exercising.
But if the belief enjoined in the gospel is simply
a willingness, in cases of doubt, to assume for the
sake of moral gain that certain ethically improv
ing and not unreasonable doctrines are true, then
it can be exercised at any time and by anybody.
It may be as sudden as the choice which sent the
blind man to the pool of Siloam, as the determina
tion sometimes is which transfers a boy from his
New England home to Texas or Colorado. Any
one who has time enough or wit enough to ask,
" What must I do to be saved ? " is likely to have
enough of both to take for granted that the prom
ises of Christ are true in the hope of finding them

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 19
so through the test of a subsequent personal expe
rience. And, again, the view which I am advocating is
practical with reference to the needs of preachers
also. It is a good deal to expect, especially in
these days of depleted theological seminaries, that
every young man who enters the ministry will be
able to unhorse with the lance of argument every
steel-clad champion of unbelief who may appear
in the lists against him. " For ye see your call
ing, brethren, how that not many wise men after
the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are
called." David would not have slain Goliath had
he been satisfied to leave to the giant the choice of
weapons. His flesh would surely have been given
to the fowls of the air and to the beasts of the field
had he put his trust in the cumbrous armor which
Saul would have buckled upon him. The servant
of God is likely to fare little better who engages in
a purely dialectical combat with some well-read
scoffer in the belief that the coat of mail which
has been forged for him in the seminary will effec
tually resist the two-handed swords and the bat
tle-axes of modern infidelity. Every disciple of
Christ who is called to preach the gospel ought
to feel that he is superior, in some particular, to
every possible antagonist, and that he is under
no necessity of quitting the field merely because
he has not had time to study logic or to become
an expert in debate. If the ground of faith is
antecedent evidence, then every doubter has good

20 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
cause to make to many an earnest preacher of
the gospel the remark to which I have previously
referred : " You have not the time or the ability
to investigate and, therefore, have no right to be
lieve." But if the true source of religious confi
dence is in the experimental verification of reli
gious truths not antecedently proved, then every
genuine evangelist has the right to say to every un
believer, however learned and able : " A uniform
condition of all enterprising action is an assump
tion not yet demonstrated to be true, and I exhort
you to assume, for the sake of your own moral
health and growth, that Christianity is true, even
though you are not wholly satisfied with its intel
lectual supports, and to live a life of Christian
self-denial and love in the hope of verifying your
assumption by so doing."
Philosophical skepticism expresses its latest
theological results in the word agnosticism, which
implies that the fundamental doctrines of religion
have not been disproved, but have merely not been
proved. The preacher of the gospel has the right
to say to any one who holds that position : " Since
you cannot show that the words of Christ are
false, you cannot prove that anything which con
tradicts them is true. Then give the benefit of the
doubt to that which is the more ennobling. Take
for granted that the gospel is divine. Do what
every one must do who would reach the fruition of
a stimulating hope, — assume, in the absence of
proof to the contrary, that the desirable is true,
and then act as if it were so."

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 21
When Mr. Mill,1 summing up the results of
his inquiries concerning the immortality of the
soul, observes, " There is, therefore, no assurance
whatever of a life after death on grounds of natu
ral religion, but to any one who feels it conducive
either to his satisfaction or to his usefulness to
hope for a future state as a possibility there is no
hindrance to his indulging that hope," it is not
necessary that each youthful prophet, in order to
neutralize the effect of that statement in the mind
of some parishioner, should try to make bricks
without straw, should seek to demonstrate the
reality of the future state beyond all possibility of
doubt by means of the arguments of his theological
professor ; it will be a much shorter and more
practical process for him to take the great ration
alist at his word. He may confidently affirm,
what few would have the hardihood to deny, — that
it is conducive to one's happiness and eminently
so to one's usefulness to hope for a future state as
a possibility, and he may, therefore, exhort every
one who lacks that hope to indulge it, or, what is
the same thing, to conduct himself, in all respects,
as if it were sound. And so with all the other
teachings of Christianity which the agnostic can
not controvert, although he is able, on negative
grounds, to withhold from them his assent, — to
take for granted that they are true because they
have a tendency to ennoble him who believes them,
and then to live a life which is appropriate to
1 Three Essays on Religion, p. 210. (Henry Holt & Co., 1874.)

22 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
them, is practical advice which may properly be
given to the most confirmed doubter. And if so
much is admitted, then no servant of God, however
clumsy in argument and ignorant of secular lore,
need be without the sling and pebbles which will
put him on terms of equality with the most for
midable antagonist.
4. Finally, the view here defended is scriptural.
Belief is represented in the Bible as a voluntary
act. This fact was so evident to the poet Shelley 1
that he adduced it as a proof that the gospel was
not divine. As a volition had, in his opinion, no
power to create a belief, one of the fundamental
requirements of Christianity seemed to him irra
tional and absurd. President Hopkins,2 taking
apparently the same view of faith, was constrained
to regard the command, " Believe," as virtually a
direction to examine the sources of belief, to study
the proofs of Christianity.
But it seems very clear to me that " belief "
and its synonyms are employed in the Scriptures
in a popular sense and one which is in very gen
eral use at the present time. When a merchant
trusts an unknown customer, when a speculator
has faith in an uncertain enterprise, when a man
believes a doubtful story related to him by a
stranger, a volition is usually put forth, — the
trust, faith, or belief is exercised on evidence that
is scientifically insufficient, and it is, therefore, to
1 Notes to Queen Mab.
2 Evidences of Christianity, pp. 21, 22.

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 23
a certain extent, an assumption. The merchant
takes for granted that his customer is honest, the
speculator takes for granted that his venture will
succeed, the man takes for granted that the tale
told to him is true. To act, then, as if a certain
thing were true which cannot as yet be known to
be so is to believe in a popular, and also, as I am
persuaded, in the scriptural sense of the word.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews1 faith is not
defined as an involuntary assent to propositions
which have been demonstrated to be true ; it is
" the assurance of " (or " the giving substance to ")
" things hoped for," " the proving " (or " test ")
" of things not seen." Ignorance and hope, rather
than unwavering certainty, are thus declared to be
involved in it.
When Thomas refused to credit the report of
the resurrection of Christ without ocular demon
stration of its truth, he only demanded the same
degree of proof which the other disciples had had ;
and if belief is the acceptance of only such state
ments as have been proved, he ought to have been
commended as a cautious investigator who would
not frame his verdict until all the evidence was in.
Yet Christ did not commend him, but by prais
ing those who had acted differently, he virtually
censured him. When he said, " Thomas, because
thou hast seen me, thou hast believed : blessed are
they that have not seen, and yet have believed,"
he indicated clearly enough that the blessings of
i Heb. xi. 1.

24 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
Christianity were for those who would have suffi
cient spiritual ambition to put confidence in things
only hoped for and to test by a voluntary faith
desirable things not seen, rather than for those
who would withhold credence from every stimu
lating doctrine until an irresistible logic should
deprive them of the natural power to doubt, and
their faith, at the same time, of all ennobling in
fluence. There is little or nothing morally invig
orating in an act of belief which is necessitated by
overpowering evidence ; but to believe for a praise
worthy end when doubt is easy is to elevate the
soul by an act of moral heroism.
When Jesus said,1 " I thank thee, O Father,
Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide
these things from the wise and understanding, and
didst reveal them unto babes," he taught that the
avenue to religious knowledge leads not from the
reasoning powers, but from the childlike disposition
to take things for granted, to receive things on
trust. And as Abraham in hope believed against
hope, and as he went out not knowing whither he
went, so every heir of salvation is called upon to
put confidence in things not known by him to be
true and against which much that is discouraging
may be said.
If the above considerations could leave any doubt
in any mind as to the rationality of the faith
which the Scriptures enjoin, that doubt must dis
appear when it transpires that the mental process
1 Matt. xi. 25.

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 25
involved, when broadly considered, is really not
even unscientific, and that it is essentially indis
tinguishable from that which is carried on in al
most any extensive induction. The first step in the
search for scientific truth is usually an hypothesis,
a supposition made either without evidence or on
evidence avowedly meagre, in order to facilitate
the drawing of right conclusions. By suggesting
observations and experiments it puts the investi
gator on the road to satisfactory evidence. With
out assumptions of this kind science could never
have attained its present state. They are neces
sary steps in the progress to something more cer
tain. Thus, according to Mr. Mill, from whose
" Logic " 1 I have quoted substantially these last
observations, the hypothesis is an unproved as
sumption which is made in the hope of verifying
it through later mental action. Now Christianity
may be safely defined as an hypothesis to be
adopted with the expectation of establishing it
through subsequent moral action. The observa
tion and experiments by which the hypotheses
of science are tested have their parallel in the
obedience to Christ and the resulting Christian
experience through which Christian faith must be
justified. This method is identical with that described in
the fourth chapter, by which a knowledge of God
may be inductively attained. To accept provision
ally the New Testament teachings concerning
1 Chap. xiy. §§ 4, 5.

26 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
Christ for the purpose of testing by obedience
their adaptedness to the highest conceivable ends
of human existence is surely legitimate and ra
tional. Evolution itself, although accepted by so
many scientific men, is grounded still, to some ex
tent, on faith. When Haeckel x says, of course, it
" cannot be proved exactly," and adds, " Looking
forward to the twentieth century, I am convinced
that it will universally accept our theory of de
scent," it is very plain that he regards the complete
demonstration of his theory as something that is
yet below the horizon. If the Christian regards
his faith, not as a substitute for scientific know
ledge, but as a means of obtaining this along reli
gious lines, he is in harmony with the scientific spirit.
He need not even demur to Professor Huxley's
dictum already quoted, " There is but one kind of
knowledge and but one method of acquiring it,"
save in so far as that method involves an unsym
pathetic attitude towards a philanthropic move
ment. In other words, Christianity may be de
fined either as a faith or as a science. In the
former case, it makes no claim for scientific recog
nition, but is to be classed with the unproved as
sumptions that underlie all practical life. In the
latter case, as will be more fully shown hereafter,
every Christian is progressively vindicating by his
religious experience its right, so far as he is con
cerned, to be received as a scientific fact. Investi
gators in other fields may have no sympathy with
1 Last Link, pp. 77, 78. (Adam & Charles Black, 1898.)

THE RATIONALITY OF FAITH 27
his spiritual ambitions and may question the evi
dential value of his experiences; but that he is
seeking for truth and seeking for it in a rational
way, they cannot deny.
It will be my purpose in the following chapters
to show that the stream which faith must leap is
not too wide, or, in other words, that the assump
tion with which the Christian starts involves no
unnatural break with current knowledge, that the
unknown element in it does not place it outside the
sphere of probability. And while I deem it neither
possible nor desirable to demonstrate the truth of
Christianity without the aid of a personal Christian
experience, I shall hope to be able to show that
Christian faith, even when it is so enlarged as to
include the essential tenets of modern orthodoxy,
is not only rational but also deserves at least the
respect of even scientific men.

CHAPTER H
EVOLUTION AND THEISM
It would be very difficult to convey an adequate
idea of the extent to which the theory of evolution
has influenced the thought of our time. Not
much more than a generation has elapsed since
Darwin published his most celebrated book, but it
would not be easy to exaggerate the transforma
tion it has wrought in . fundamental conceptions
and methods of study in almost every branch of
human knowledge. It signalized the dawn of an
epoch which was to divide, more sharply than al
most any other that can be named has divided,
the opinions of men into the old and the new.
The emigre who returned to France after the
Eevolution had spent its force could hardly have
been more bewildered by the political and social
changes which had taken place in his absence than
a scholar would be who had lived apart from the
intellectual movement of the latter half of the
nineteenth century, and should now seek to recog
nize in the opinions with which modern thought is
saturated those that were commonly accepted in
his own day. He would speedily realize that the
changes which have occurred during this short

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 29
time in almost the whole system of human beliefs
well deserve to be called revolutionary.
That there are important and even serious dis
agreements between the author of " The Origin of
Species " and some of the acute and able men who
are called his disciples cannot be denied. Wal
lace,1 who shares with him the honor of the original
discovery, accords to sexual selection, on which
Darwin laid so much stress, a relatively low place
among evolutionary forces. It assumes, in his opin
ion, too high a development of aesthetic taste in
relatively low organisms to explain, for example,
the beauty of the peacock's train as the result of
a discrimination on the part of the female birds
which caused them to choose their mates on
account of minute differences in the forms, colors,
and patterns of their plumes. He is obliged, there
fore, to enlarge the original hypothesis by intro
ducing new agencies to account for the very impor
tant class of facts just suggested.
Nor does he2 attribute the mental and moral
development of the human race exclusively or even
primarily to the Darwinian law. The theory that
no function or quality can be evolved or even sur
vive in any organism unless it proves advantageous
to its possessor in the struggle for existence is
rudely jostled, as he conceives, by such phenomena
as the capacity to form ideal conceptions of space
and time, intense artistic feelings of pleasure in
1 Darwinism, p. 294. (Macmillan & Co., 1889.)
2 Contributions, to the Theory of Natural Selection, p. 351. (Mac
millan & Co., 1870.)

30 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
form and color and, I suppose, abnormal self-denial
or moral heroism. These have not only not tended
to aid in the battle of life those who had them, but
the qualities last named have had only too often
precisely the opposite effect.
Dr. Eomanes, who has been called " almost the
most prominent of Darwin's successors," has sup
plemented the theory of his distinguished leader
by that of physical selection, that is, of " the oc
currence, accidentally or from unknown causes, of
reproductive changes which render certain individ
uals of a species infertile with others." " This
is really an inversion of Darwinism " (Dawson).1
Both he and Wallace claim to be orthodox Dar
winians, yet each accuses the other of heresy.
But a far more serious divergence of view took
place when Weismann denied that acquired char
acteristics are inherited. It had been taken for
granted previously by Darwin and most of his fol
lowers, not only that a variation which had proved
useful to an organism would receive advantageous
increments in the struggle for existence, but that
these would also be likely to be transmitted to
some of its descendants, and, in this way, to be
perpetuated and indefinitely improved. But when
Weismann affirmed that there was not to be found
a single unquestionable case of the transmission of
acquired peculiarities to offspring, and that natural
selection must be defended without the aid of the
assumption which he had thus negatived, it is evi-
1 Johnson's Encyclopaedia, 1897, art. " Evolution."

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 31
dent that he laid down a proposition of no ordinary
importance. Herbert Spencer declared that its
acceptance must prove fatal to the theory which it
supplemented. And Haeckel 1 says : " I agree with
Spencer in the conviction that progressive heredity
is an indispensable factor in every true monistic
theory of evolution, and that it is one of the most
important elements. If one denies with Weis
mann the heredity of acquired characters, then it
becomes necessary to have recourse to purely mys
tical qualities of germ plasm. I am of the opinion
of Spencer, that, in that case, it would be better
to accept a mysterious creation of all the various
species as described in the Mosaic account." Al
though the Weismannian theory of descent is
probably to be considered as overthrown, yet accord
ing to Eomanes2 (1895), the question as to the
transmission of acquired characteristics is still open,
and must be settled by further observation and the
collation of additional facts.
It would thus appear that the theory of evolu
tion has itself been developing in harmony with
its own principles. It has branched out already
into several species, into a number of differ
ent hypotheses, each one of which is associated
with some prominent name or names. Wallace,
Darwin, Mivart,, Eomanes, Weismann, and others,
represent so many more or less divergent concep
tions of the influence to be ascribed to natural
1 Last Link, p. 276.
2 Darwin and after Darwin, p. 41. (Open Court Pub. Co., 1894.)

32 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
selection, among which a veritable struggle for ex
istence is going on with the not improbable result
that all of them will be largely modified, if some
of them do not disappear altogether.
But the theory itself, nevertheless, is doubtless
to be reckoned among the permanent acquisitions
of human thought. Although there are important
residuary phenomena which have not as yet been
brought into full harmony with it, although some
of its leading advocates hold wide differences of
opinion as to the validity of some of its postulates,
although it is constrained to fill up gaps in its de
fenses with assumptions and guesses in anticipation
of further discoveries, it seems to have been accepted
by a large majority of intelligent men as at least
probably true, even though they may not claim
that it has been scientifically established. Accord
ing to Haeckel,1 "We are justified in affirming
that the descent of man from an extinct tertiary
series of Primates is not a vague hypothesis but an
historical fact." And again,2 " Looking forward
to the twentieth century, I am convinced that it
will universally accept our theory of descent, and
that future science will regard it as the greatest
advance made in our time." And John Fiske3
writes regarding man's descent from prior animal
forms : " There is no more reason for supposing
that this conclusion will ever be gainsaid than for
supposing that the Copernican astronomy will some
1 Last Link, p. 76. 2 Ibid., p. 78.
3 Destiny of Man, p. 20. (Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1887.)

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 33
time be overthrown, and the concentric spheres
of Dante's heaven be reinstated in the minds of
men." Whether the influence or agency suggested
by the phrases " natural selection," " struggle for
existence," " survival of the fittest," etc., will
ever be unquestioningly received as accounting for
all the phenomena of organic and mental devel
opment may well be doubted. As has been
shown already, it is not so received by some of the
most prominent evolutionists at the present time.
When such a man as Haeckel admits that com
plete proof of it has not yet been obtained, and
pleads for the adoption of the theory on the
ground that there is no other that can be opposed
so effectively to the theory of special creations,
it certainly does not appear that the supports of
the original hypothesis have all the strength that
some might desire.
Still, the theory of evolution, when broadly
defined and considered in its largest outlines, has
secured a tenacious hold on the human mind.
As has been the case with most ideas that have
obtained a large following in a brief space of time,
a place seems to have been previously prepared for
it into which it was recognized as aptly fitting.
As the Eeformation spread with unexampled
rapidity because Luther expressed distinctly what
was already vaguely existent in many minds, so
Darwin and Wallace owe the quick popularity
which their theory achieved to the fact that it

34 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
explained and generalized to many a mind its
own detached observations and surmises. Chemi
cal solutions are sometimes so near to the point of
crystallization that only the introduction of a crys
tal of the right kind is needed in order to precipi
tate the process. So the human mind had doubt
less been prepared by previous questionings and
an acquaintance with many isolated phenomena for
some fact or plausible theory which would combine
at once its disconnected fragments of knowledge
into a self-consistent and intelligible whole. The
reason given by a character in a recent famous
novel for accepting Darwinism, " It accounts for
things, you know," 2 suggests a peculiar attractive
ness that inheres in the theory, and explains, no
doubt, much of the readiness with which it has
been accepted by a large part of the thinking
world. But however this may be, the theory itself has
been influencing, modifying, and training human
thought now for more than a generation. It has
been accustoming human minds to think along the
lines marked out by it. And in these facts lies
a special promise of its continuance. It may be
safely taken for granted that the philosophy, the
educational methods, the practical philanthropy
of the future will be shaped by a recognition of
development as the keynote of all progress. A
definite direction has been given to human thought
by Darwin and his compeers which has become,
1 Trilby.

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 35
as it were, a second nature. It will be not merely
customary but natural and easy for men, in time
to come, as indeed it already is in our own day,
to investigate and explain all social, political, and
other movements in the light of and in harmony
with the fundamental facts of evolution.
That the new theory would antagonize many
previous religious and theological conceptions was
to be expected. The human mind is, in a certain
general sense, consistent with itself; that is, its
customary modes of thought in one sphere of
knowledge will be likely to be followed in every
other with which it has to do. It will carry its
own individuality with it everywhere. A revolu
tion of ideas which is radical enough to establish
development as the governing principle in one
class of phenomena must extend to every other.
The new movement has made itself felt in the
province of natural religion. It has influenced
the higher criticism of the Christian Scriptures.
It has profoundly modified the interpretation of
the Biblical histories. The results are largely
such as must be produced by the investigations of
men who have come under the influence of a new
point of view. The mental character of these men
has been changed, and their opinions and conclu
sions along the lines referred to have been corre
spondingly affected.
That the theory in question is in serious conflict
with any intelligent form of Christianity is not
now generally apprehended. That it is practically

36 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
independent of the processes by which religious
convictions are gained and theological creeds are
adopted has been fully demonstrated. It did not
prevent Eomanes from returning to the faith of
his early manhood ; it did not keep Wallace from
becoming a spiritist. A modification of it was
held by Mivart without apparently weakening for
a quarter of a century his confidence in the teach
ings of the Soman Catholic Church. And there
are few, if any, greater names than these among the
adherents and defenders of the new philosophy.
Moreover, it is accepted, without any resulting loss
of religious enthusiasm, by many of the most prom
inent theologians and preachers of the Christian
Church. Nor is it inconsistent with the most obvious teach
ings of the Bible in regard to the origin of ani
mate creation and the development of the human
species. On the contrary, the Book of Genesis,
it would seem, ought to have suggested long ago
some of the principles on which Darwin lays so
much stress. Without attaching undue impor
tance to the so-called Mosaic account of the crea
tion, or citing from it anything more than the
undeniable fact that, so far as it goes, it clearly
recognizes the successive appearance of organic
types on the earth in an ascending series, it is
quite obvious that the primitive man whom it
describes belongs to a very low order of being.
Professor Huxley attacked the Biblical cosmo
gony through the Miltonic paraphrase of it in

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 37
" Paradise Lost," very much as it has been and in
some countries may still be the custom to evade
the political postulate that the king can do no
wrong by denouncing his acts as those of his chief
advisers. The learned palaeontologist, however,
was at no pains to conceal the fact that he re
garded the two accounts as substantially the same.
But that Milton's picture of Adam, with his highly
developed moral and intellectual nature, has any
thing in common with the First Man of the Bible,
whose rudimentary conscience failed to secure
from him obedience to a command which was
suited to the moral development of an infant, and
whose knowledge of art was not seemingly equal
to the task of making his own clothing, would
hardly have become a common belief but for the
influence of the great poet combined with that of
certain theological tenets which are supposed to
depend on such a belief. It is not impossible,
also, that interpretation here may have been biased
by survivals of the old Pagan tendency to date the
golden age of human existence at the beginning
of human history.
And the progress of the race, as it is depicted
in the same book, is in harmony with the Darwin
ian theory. Its efficient cause is what may be
called divine selection, which, to a people who
knew no distinction between the works of God and
those of nature, was but another name for natural
selection. Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob are successively separated from other mem-

38 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
bers of their families or from their fellow-men on
the ground, apparently, of certain advantageous
or desirable qualities which fitted them to become,
each in turn, the founders of a higher race. And
the later books abundantly recognize the same
principle. The deportation of the Jews to Baby
lon was a veritable cataclysm, which extinguished
politically and nationally all save those who re
tained seventy years afterwards so much of loyalty
to their ancestral religion as made them equal to
the sacrifice and self-denial which were needed for
its reinstatement at Jerusalem. The final disap
pearance of idolatry from among this people, which
was coincident with this event, is as pronounced an
example of the elimination of the unfit by natural
selection as can be found in history.
And there is evidently no necessary antagonism
between this theory and the gospel, which likens
the kingdom of heaven to the smallest of the seeds,
out of which is to grow the great tree which will
shelter the birds of the air in its branches.
That the theory can work no harm to the church
seems thus to be very clear ; but is this negative
commendation the best that can be accorded to it ?
It would be strange indeed if this interrogatory
must be answered affirmatively. The uniform
effect of previous discoveries of philosophical or
scientific truth has been to shed light on the teach
ings of the Bible and so to increase the credibility
of the Christian revelation ; and we are, therefore,
the better prepared to believe that the theory of

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 39
evolution can be made to yield material support to
the cause of theism and to Christian apologetics
in general.
Perhaps the most formidable obstacle which the
teacher of evolution has to encounter, if we omit
the unwillingness of most men to acknowledge re
lationship with the monkeys, is what seems, at first
glance, the obtrusive incredibility of his theory.
It demands assent to propositions which the human
mind, at the outset, cannot but regard as mon
strously improbable. It would have us believe
that a microscopic speck of vitalized matter, origi
nating we know not how, but, as is assumed by
some, from the action of forces which render it a
product of mere inert matter, devoid of organism
and mental functions, as insignificant, to all out
ward appearance, as a grain of dust, may neverthe
less contain potentially highly differentiated living
forms without number, vast intelligences which are
to solve the profoundest mysteries of nature, the
germs of future sciences, philosophies, and inven
tions. The tragedies of a Shakespeare, the campaigns of
a Napoleon, the statesmanship of a Bismarck, the
symphonies of a Beethoven, the pictures of a Ea-
phael, the philanthropy of a Clara Barton, are all
supposed to have had a rudimentary existence in
some living but helpless atom, and to have needed
for their production only time and the persistent
action of unintelligent forces. I well remember
laying down, many years ago, a copy of Spencer's

40 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
" Biology " in order to run to a fire ; and I am
not likely ever to forget the mental shock I expe
rienced when the ideas which I had imbibed from
that work came into sudden collision with the
manifestations of practical and energetic life in the
midst of which I soon found myself. As I passed
a fire-engine which was noisily belching out smoke
and sparks, while it flung, with impressive power,
tons of water into the upper stories of a burning
factory, I tried to persuade myself that the ma
chine existed in some rudimentary phase ages ago
in some almost invisible dot of bioplasm ; and if
I did not exclaim, " Credat Judseus ! " it was
because I did not express in words the emotions I
felt at the moment. The leap, when thus baldly
exhibited, is too long for the human reason to
take, and the successive steps by which it is sought
to narrow the logical chasm are so numerous, they
are so largely devoid of real proof, and so many of
them are missing, that it is safe to say that without
some cogent facts of sufficient force to remove this
obstacle, Darwin's theory would have found it hard
to sustain itself very far above the level of a phi
losophical curiosity.
But the evolutionist is not insensible to the
difficulty described, and believes that he has sur
mounted it. So far is it from being incredible,
in his estimation, that such a process of develop
ment as has just been outlined should have taken
place, he maintains that a parallel one reaches its
climax in the birth of every human being. He

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 41
contends that the transformation of a minute, em
bryonic cell, during the space of a few months,
into a living babe which has within itself latent
capacities that a few years will ripen into intellec
tual faculties of perhaps the highest order, would
be antecedently as improbable as his theory of
the descent of man. He claims, moreover, that
the history of every organism before it begins an
independent existence summarizes the previous
history of the species to which it belongs. " This
fundamental law, to which we shall recur again,
and on the recognition of which depends the
thorough understanding of the history of evolution,
is briefly expressed in the proposition that the his
tory of the germ is an epitome of the history of
the descent, or, in other words, that ontogeny is
a recapitulation of phylogeny, or, somewhat more
explicitly, that the series of forms through which
the individual organism passes during its progress
from the egg-cell to the fully developed state is
the brief, compressed reproduction of the long
series of forms through which the animal ances
tors of that organism (or the ancestral forms of
its species) have passed from the earliest periods
of so-called organic creation down to the present
time" (Haeckel).1
The evolutionist sees no explanation of the
seemingly aimless divergences of the embryo from
what would appear to be a normal course of devel
opment save in the hypothesis that it is pursuing
1 Evolution of Man, i. 6. (C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1879.)

42 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
the zigzag trail along which the parent organism
has been evolved by age-long processes. That
embryonic spiders should develop legs which dis
appear before birth, that foetal whales are pro
vided with teeth which are wanting in the adult
animal, that embryonic reptiles, birds, and mam
mals should have gills resembling those of fishes
and that the gill arches should afterwards close up,
that the human foetus should have a tail supported
by eight bones, five of which cease to exist before
it is born, besides numberless other cases in which
wholly useless organs appear before birth only to
be withdrawn before the independent life begins in
which, if at any time, they might prove of utility,
he believes to be inexplicable except on the theory
which has just been named. He deems it irrele
vant to urge sentimental objections to the theory
that the human race has sprung from lower animal
types or even rational objections which are grounded
in the alleged improbability of such a process, when
the fact is incontestable that every new-born child
has just completed a rapid ascent from the lowest
to the highest form of organic being.
This argument from embryology is essential to
the theory of evolution. It cannot be spared.
According to Eomanes,1 " The science of embry
ology affords perhaps the strongest of all the
strong arguments in favor of evolution." "The
leading facts in embryology, which are second to
1 Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, pp. 63, 64. (Mac-
millan & Co., 1882.)

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 43
none in importance," says Darwin.1 " Ontogeny,"
writes Haeckel,2 "is of the most inestimable
value for the knowledge of the earliest palaeonto-
logical conditions of development, just because no
petrified remains of the most ancient conditions of
the development of tribes and classes have been
preserved. These, indeed, could not have been
preserved, on account of the soft and tender nature
of their bodies. No petrifactions could inform us
of the fundamental and important fact which
ontogeny reveals to us, that the more ancient
common ancestors of all the different animal and
vegetable species were quite simple cells like the
egg-cell. No petrifaction could prove to us the
immensely important fact established by ontogeny
that the simple increase, the formation of cell
aggregates, and the differentiation of these cells,
produced the infinitely manifold forins of multi
cellular organisms. Thus ontogeny helps us over
many and large gaps in palaeontology. " In view
of these high estimates of its evidential value,
which are of the nature of expert testimony on the
subject, it is clear that the facts of embryology
cannot be dispensed with by those who seek to
prove the theory of evolution.
It may be admitted that the discovery of this
analogy or, rather, this parallel case, neutralizes, if
it is fairly used, the alleged incredibility of the evo
lutionary process ; but as it is commonly employed,
1 Origin of Species, p. 396. (Murray, 1872.)
2 History of Creation, ii. 3. (D. Appleton & Co., 1876.)

44 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
it is not logically competent to produce that result.
It has no value as an argument unless it is allowed
to import into the discussion an inference of the
first magnitude which is inseparable from it.
For it must be borne in mind that every germ
which has the power to develop into a living organ
ism possesses it through a vital and indispensable
connection with an individual representing as high
a type of life as that which the germ itself ulti
mately attains. The foetus of the mammal has
been maturing for months within the body of its
mother. The egg of a fowl has had a similar his
tory, and has, in consequence, reached such a stage
of cellular development that it may be hatched,
even by artificial heat, into a miniature of the
parent bird. The seed of a plant has become capa
ble of producing other plants of a certain kind
because its whole structure has been derived from
a particular plant of that kind in which it grew.
The history of every ripening germ and maturing
embryo is that of a progressive approach on the
part of a rudimentary type of life to a higher type
by which it is somehow being shaped, and which
it will ultimately resemble. Enshrined in every
parent organism there is something which the
embryologist can neither describe nor understand,
and which, for lack of a better name, may be
called an archetypal idea, or a set of correlated
vital forces, or a collocation of incomprehensible
gemmules. This communicates itself to an almost
invisible germ, which it develops through various

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 45
eccentric meanderings of growth into a likeness to
the parent animal or plant. At the outset there
may be no similarity whatever in structure or in
faculty between the embryo and the containing
organism. The formative influence may seem, in
some cases, to have lost control of the wayward
offspring. A coralline attached to a rock pro
duces a host of huge floating jelly-fish ; these emit
eggs which hatch into swimming organisms ; these
fall to the bottom, where they fasten themselves,
and develop at last into corallines. Through all
these protean changes the mysterious shaping prin
ciple retains its hold upon its material and brings
it in the end with infallible precision to its goal.
If the various organs and parts are transmitted in
the form of atomic gemmules, these cannot be so
related to one another as to constitute any likeness
whatever to the adult organism into which they
are to grow. They will proceed to form one of
an altogether different type, which in turn will be
exchanged for another of a wholly diverse char
acter. Like the magician in the Arabian tale, the
fcetus will take on, in rapid succession, forms the
most unlike. In the higher orders of the animal
kingdom it will become in turn a fish, an amphib
ian, a lower and then a higher mammal. But all
the while there is a definite form which is not lost
sight of, and towards which the maturing organ
ism is being unerringly led. No " purely mystical
qualities of germ plasm " can be more mystical or
less explicable than the property resident in the

46 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
primitive ovum by which such vast changes can
be wrought without defeating the expected result.
There is not so much resemblance between the
recondite agencies which transform the incipient
into the mature animal as there is between the
apron of a loom and the figure in the stuff woven
by it.
Now, it is obviously beside the mark to argue
that because a low organic type may be evolved
under such circumstances into the very highest, a
similar process has taken place on an infinitely
larger scale where such circumstances did not
exist. There is no parity of reasoning in contend
ing that because a vital germ has developed by
virtue of its derivation from and its union with
a relatively high organic and intellectual being
into an infant Paul or Shakespeare, therefore it is
rational to believe that a sack of bioplasm wholly
unconnected with any higher type of life, owing
no part of its growth to any preexistent organism,
receiving shape and mental traits from no being
of a higher order, has been evolved into the race
to which Shakespeare and Paul belonged. There
is no close analogy between what I may call de
pendent and independent evolution, between the
development of a life through force exerted by
another life and the development of a germ into a
race apart from any such connection.
If, as Haeckel x says, ontogeny, i. e., foetal de
velopment, " is a short and quick repetition or
1 History of Creation, ii. 53.

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 47
recapitulation of phylogeny," i. e., development
of the species, why not admit that there must be
in the phylogenetic process something that corre
sponds to that influence of the parent organism
which is indispensable to ontogenetic growth ? If
it is true, as the same high authority contends,1
that " as every animal and every plant, from the
beginning of its individual existence, passes through
a series of different forms, it indicates in rapid suc
cession and in general outlines the long and slowly
changing states of form which its progenitors have
passed through from the most ancient times," why
does not the fact that the individual made all its
progress by virtue of its connection with a preexist-
ent life — which was, until almost the end, of an
immeasurably higher type than its own — necessi
tate the inference and even demonstrate the conclu
sion that the development of the human race as a
whole is also due to the constant presence and effi
cient agency of a higher Being into whDse likeness
the race is being slowly but surely fashioned ?
Ought we to believe that a granule of bioplasm
has not only come into existence through the opera
tion of forces which belong to inanimate matter
and therefore to a lower order of being than its
own, but also, as an effect of forces of a similar
character, has obtained the power to propagate it
self and transmit to its offspring whatever struc
tural gains it has made as a result of its contact
with inert matter, to inaugurate, in this manner,
1 History of Creation, p. 33.

48 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
a succession of reproductive forms which have in
herited a similar power of transmission, and to
eventuate in a race endowed with physical, moral,
intellectual, and spiritual qualities of a relatively
infinite largeness, - — ought we to believe this when
what is held to be perhaps the strongest evidence
of the theory is an induction marred by not a single
exception which proves, if the so-called " method of
Agreement " can prove anything, that no life is ever
produced except through the agency of another life
of at first a higher order than its own, — ought we
to believe it unless we also accept the most obvious
corollary which that induction suggests, namely,
that the parallelism between the lower and the
higher process is complete, and that the human race
itself is the climax of a development which is due
to the presence and active influence of a Being of
a higher order than itself ?
It is not " logical," says Dawson, " to allege the
evolution taking place under special conditions of
parental origin, incubation, etc., to prove the possi
bility of evolution in regard to which all these pre
paratory conditions and efficient causes are ab
sent." But the allegation may be made logical by
completing the analogy. The ontogenetic parallel
may be saved by a self-consistent interpretation
of the phylogenetic process. What is needed is
not the excision of a worthless argument, but the
recognition of a conclusion to which the argument
distinctly points.
It would seem, then, from what has been ad-

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 49
duced, that the evolutionist must either relinquish
this analogy, and so leave his theory without its
most important buttress, or else assume a closer
resemblance between the growth of an embryo and
the evolution of a species than he is as yet, as a
rule, forward to admit. It will be necessary for
him to get along without the supposed parallel case
of embryonic development, or to acknowledge that
evolution is carried on through forces imparted by
a Being higher than the highest race that is being
evolved. In the one case, his theory loses much
of its credibility through the loss of its strongest
support ; in the other, it becomes the handmaid
of theism. If he claims to have the right to read
in the successive changes that take place in the
human embryo the history of the descent of man,
he must be self-consistent in his use of his illustra
tion. He must not mutilate it. He must not cut
it in halves. If it has any important bearing on
his subject, if it proves or tends to prove anything
whatever, the argument involved in it is this : the
successive stages of the development of an indi
vidual before birth epitomize those which have
occurred in the evolution of the species, and as the
former took place and were made possible by the
influence of a higher form of life, so the latter
presuppose the existence and creative activity of a
higher than the highest species which is being pro
duced. In a word, he must complete his analogy or give
it up. He must believe, if he retains it, that back

50 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
of the long process of evolution, back of the laws
which govern it, there is something, though on a
scale inconceivably vast, which corresponds to the
archetypal life that resides unseen in every organ
ism and that gradually shapes into likeness to itself
embryonic forms which, at first, have no resemblance
to it. He must believe that the various organisms
lower than man are not the product of blind and
random forces, but are the result of prior ideals
or models, which are using the forces of nature in
order to clothe themselves in visible forms, and
which may, perhaps, find some explanation in what
Tennyson called the " imagination of God." He is
constrained, in fine, if he would not sacrifice an
indispensable analogy, to concede that the mater
nal side of embryonic development has its coun
terpart also in the evolutionary process, and that
there is a Being, higher than man, through whose
influence the crowning type of terrestrial life is
being elevated into an ever-increasing resemblance
to a rational and moral archetype.
The foregoing considerations are well calculated
to remove all atheistic implications from the doc
trine of evolution. So far is it from antagonizing an
intelligent belief in a Supreme Being, it actually
furnishes a new proof of his existence. The phy
logenetic argument, as the one above given may
be called, ranges evolution distinctly on the side
of theism. If the new philosophy begins with an'
attack on the argument from design, it must ap
parently end by recognizing, in conformity to its

EVOLUTION AND THEISM 51
analogies, all that is essential in that argument.
It has strengthened, by an apparently necessary
deduction from a generally accepted theory, what
had already been regarded by some as a precarious
induction from possibly misinterpreted facts. And
this deduction it is under bonds to defend, because
it cannot omit to do so without destroying the
logical pertinence of perhaps its strongest proof.

CHAPTER III
THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE
The materialistic philosophy does not necessa
rily deny that there is a First Cause of all natural
phenomena. Herbert Spencer does not teach that
the sequence of cause and effect is a chain which
hangs by no highest link. The evolutionist who
believes that certain forces have been and are pro
ducing, by a continuous process, all the results
which collectively make up what we call nature is
not unwilling to admit that there was an initial
impetus, a starting-point, an original cause from
which all subsequent causation has been derived.
But there are those who contend that nothing
whatever can be known of this primordial source
of phenomena beyond the fact of its existence.
They contend that to make it a subject of scien
tific or philosophical inquiry is idle, that the
human reason is not competent to determine its
nature or attributes. Mr. Huxley, no doubt,
would have found a place for all speculations on
this subject, or at least for all practical rules of
conduct derived from them, in his famous category
,of "lunar politics."
Mr. Spencer 1 states that there are but three
1 First Principles, p. 30. (D. Appleton & Co., 1875.)

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 53
ways of accounting for the present system of
things, namely, that the universe is either self-
existent, self-created, or created by an external
power ; and he proceeds to show that all of these
theories are untenable, that there is no one of
them which does not involve self-contradictions.
He concludes, therefore, that " if religion and science
are to be reconciled, the basis of reconciliation
must be this deepest, widest, and most certain of
all facts, that the power which the universe mani
fests to us is utterly inscrutable." But, as Mr.
Martineau 1 has pointed out, " we are told [by Mr.
Spencer] in one breath that this being must be
in every sense ' perfect, complete, total ' — includ
ing in itself all power and transcending all law —
and, in another, that this perfect and omnipotent
one is totally incapable of revealing any one of
the infinite store of attributes." Thus, " you deny
the Absolute in the very act of affirming it, for in
debarring the First Cause from self-revelation you
impose a limit on its nature."
Moreover, the very fact that Mr. Spencer char
acterizes the Absolute as the First Cause involves
a contradiction. Cause is a relative term. It
necessarily implies an effect. A cause which pro
duces no effect is unthinkable. To affirm that the
Absolute is a cause is to suggest that intellectual
paradox, an absolute that has a relation. As the
existence of this First Cause is supposed to be
necessary in order to account for the power that is
l Essays, pp. 190, 191. (William V. Spencer, 1866.)

54 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
manifested in the world, the manifestations of that
power are effects of the so-called Absolute. We
are compelled by the natural workings of the
human reason to draw certain inferences from
these effects, certain conclusions regarding the
character of the original Cause. To tell us that
this is absolute and unknowable will not discour
age us from doing so. We are dealing with facts,
not with words. The same irresistible laws of
mental action which constrain us to admit that
there is a First Cause are equally potent in con
vincing us that we can know something about it.
If Matthew Arnold is right in affirming that
there is in the world a power that makes for right
eousness, it is logically impossible for us not to
believe that some of the relations of that power to
ethical conduct are discoverable. And so effects
which are traceable to an absolute cause oblige
us to draw conclusions with regard to its charac
ter, even if we are assured that we have no right
to hold them. It is recognized that a priori and
a posteriori reasoning are not of equal strength,
and that when their respective conclusions are in
conflict, it is the former that must give way. An
intellectual necessity must override a mere philo
sophical conceit.
It is hard to avoid the suspicion that men who
involve themselves in such hopeless contradictions
as are indicated above simply show by so doing
that they have exceeded the limits of philosophical
inquiry, — that they have waded out into the ocean

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 55
of truth beyond their depth. It is much easier
to believe that the human mind is not profound
enough to grasp transcendental facts than it is to
believe that the First Cause is an entity which can
only be described in terms which flatly contradict
one another. It must be that whoever holds such
a belief as that last named mistakes mental con
fusion for logical proof, and utter bewilderment for
rational conviction. We are reminded of Mr.
Mill's remark made in a different connection :
"The doctrine ... is so contrary to common
sense, that a person must have made some advances
in philosophy to believe it." 1
The researches of the practical religionist are
not to be barred by antinomies. It is said that a
spider's web at the entrance of a cave was proof
enough to the pursuers of Mohammed that he
was not within ; but no fine-spun theories as to
the utter inscrutability of the power which the uni
verse manifests can prevent him who is seeking
for the Being whom he should thank for the bless
ings of life from following effects up to their pri
mordial cause and so deducing character from
conduct. Alexanders do not stop to untie Gordian
knots. They know of a quicker way to universal
dominion. The logical snarls by which some think
ers who have overthought themselves would bind
the chariots of faith cannot be permitted to delay
the progress of him who is ambitious to find the
Author of his being, but they must be cleft asunder
by the sharp sword of common sense.
1 Logic, p. 188.

56 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
It is very manifest that if the extreme agnostic
position of Mr. Spencer can be maintained, religion,
in any very important sense of the word, is an im
possibility, if not an absurdity. The basis of its
reconciliation with science as described by him is
simply a radical change in its essential character
and the utter disappearance of it as it is now con
ceived. The very essence of every religious cult
which has received an extensive recognition among
men is the belief that human destiny is more or
less dependent on some being or beings higher
than man, and of whom something material to
human interests may be learned. Even Buddhism
is no exception to the rule, for though ultimately
atheistic, it " recognized gods many and lords many,
products of the cosmic process and transitory, how
ever long-enduring, manifestations of its eternal
activity " (Huxley). The rites and observances
of every religion presuppose a belief that some
thing of importance in reference to divine myster
ies has been discovered or revealed. If it is true,
therefore, that nothing whatever can be learned as
to the nature or character of the being or ultimate
fact on which human destiny depends, all worship
becomes futile and meaningless.
But that it is not true can be established to the
satisfaction of practical men in more than one
way. If there is a real parallelism between the
development of an embryo and that of a species, —
if, in other words, the theory of evolution is not to
be deprived of its strongest argument, and conse-

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 57
quently of a certain portion of its credibility, — the
highest type of terrestrial life must be maturmg
into a likeness to some parent organism or life, for
such is the case with every living form in the earlier
stages of its existence. But a containing organism
would seem to be out of the question in the present
instance. We are driven, therefore, to the conclu
sion that there is an invisible Being whom the race
is coming more and more to resemble, that at the
source of the evolutionary forces there is some
thing which we may call a parent type, which,
like the undiscoverable model in the embryo, is
fashioning a likeness to itself out of ever-chang
ing unlikenesses.
That the evolution of man has been completed
is not to be supposed. In his case, what may be
not inaptly called the process of gestation is still
going on. Organically he may have reached his
ultimate form, unless it is to be expected that
some survivals of outgrown organs will yet be
eliminated. The characteristics which he is to
acquire in the future are not physical, but men
tal and moral. "When humanity began to be
evolved," says Fiske,1 " an entirely new chapter
in the history of evolution was opened. Hence
forth, the life of the nascent soul came to be first in
importance, and the bodily life came to be subordi
nated to it. Henceforth, it appeared that in this
direction, at least, the process of zoological change
had come to an end and a process of psychological
1 Destiny of Man, p. 30.

58 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
change was to take its place. Henceforth, along
this supreme line of generation there was to be no
further evolution of new species through physical
variation, but through the accumulation of psy
chical variations one particular species was to be
indefinitely perfected and raised to a totally differ
ent plane from that on which all life had hitherto
existed. Henceforth, in short, the dominant
aspect of evolution was to be, not the genesis of
species, but the progress of civilization."
It is by following out the line of these psychical
changes and determining the goal towards which
they are tending that we are to obtain a rational
idea of that invisible First Cause by which they
have been set in motion and sustained. It is in
its final characteristics that the embryo reproduces
most nearly the parental organism ; and it is in the
traits last acquired by the human race, therefore,
that we should seek to recognize that Being into
whose likeness the analogies, or rather the inev
itable implications of evolution, constrain us to
believe that the as yet but embryonic human race
is being shaped. Not in transitory organic forms,
but in moral ideals which can never be improved,
in spiritual attainments beyond which progress is
inconceivable, in an ethical development which,
though as yet hardly more than begun, may be
regarded as foreshadowing the ultimate fundamen
tal variation of humanity, are we to search for
what evolution can disclose to us of the character
that is behind all cosmic phenomena. " He that

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 59
hath seen me hath seen the Father," 1 is peculiarly
true in the mouth of ideal righteousness.
We cannot, then, but admit that this Being
must be a mind, inasmuch as mind, however we
may define it, is one of the attributes of the high
est type of terrestrial life, and that it must be a
spirit, since that is the name we give to mind which
is not associated with a bodily organism. Nor if
we believe that self-consciousness, the sense of
individuality, is a higher endowment than the
absence of it could be, are we at liberty to doubt
that this Being who is working through the whole
system of evolutionary forces is a person in some
true sense of the word.
We need not allow ourselves to be confused at
this point by such suggestions as that there may
be a higher attribute of existence than personality.
They are like the gleams of sunlight which mis
chievous boys flash from bits of looking-glass into
the eyes of pedestrians, bringing them to a stand
still, and so delaying their progress until the cause
of the annoyance is found. We have no more to do
with the question whether there is something higher
than personality than the stevedore has to do with
the equally practical question whether there may
not be a fourth dimension of space. We ought
not to stop and amuse or distract ourselves with it.
We are justified in believing that the First Cause
is at least a Person, and with that belief we must re
main satisfied until we know that it can be enlarged.
1 John xiv. 9.

60 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
And it is easy for us to obtain a rational convic
tion as to the moral character of the same Being.
The history of the ethical progress of the human
race is that of a gradual elevation of its ideas of
moral conduct. If the virtuous man was at first
merely one who was specially serviceable to his
tribe, the advance of civilization soon rendered
that conception of virtue antiquated and narrow.
The ethical standards of each generation are higher
than those of the generation which immediately
preceded it. Institutions and customs to which
no general moral discredit attached in one century
are recognized as wrongs and abuses in the next.
The growth of public sentiment in regard to human
slavery, penal laws, the conduct of war, and many
other subjects that could be named, illustrates this
fact. The ethical development of the race is still
proceeding. There is an influence at work on the
human conscience which is steadily quickening its
appreciation of moral values and bringing the con
duct of mankind ever nearer to some absolute
ethical ideal.
Nor can we doubt as to what this is. Altruism,
unselfishness, spiritual love, is the moral goal
which is looming up with increasing distinctness,
though still in the far distance, and towards which
the human race is directing its steps. Self-sacri
fice, living for others, humanitarianism, philan
thropy, — these are expressions which are recog
nized as suggesting the highest conceivable types
of human conduct. The Sermon on the Mount is

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 61
extensively accepted as embodying in language the
ideal moral life. Darwin names as the most noble
attribute of man, " disinterested love for all living
creatures." "Eeal goodness," says Max Miiller,
" is always in some form unselfishness." Spencer's
ethics may be defined as a practical altruism. An
absolute altruism is taught by Bentham and James
Mill. The philosophy which found the ground of
moral obligation in individual self-interest has been
outgrown. Whatever may have been the origin of
the " categorical imperative," whatever may have
been the influences which developed in the most
enlightened section of the human race its present
ethical ideal, the fact is undeniable that love, or
unselfish benevolence, has come to be very widely
viewed as inseparable from a perfect moral char
acter. No one who has ever experienced the supreme
power of conscience, whether in the form of re
morse or in that of moral approbation, — especially
when its highest praise or most stinging censure
has been bestowed on moral acts which only finely
developed natures would regard as important enough
to merit a second thought, on purposes which have
been frustrated before they were able to ripen into
beneficent or injurious deeds, on thoughts which
have never found outward expression, which have
had no influence save on the soul in which they
sprang up and whose high ideals alone rendered
them noticeable, — no one who has had his con
science manifest its power in these ways will be

62 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
able to persuade himself that this awful faculty
is merely a survival of certain ancient tribal or
social instincts. Whatever influence these may
have had on its growth, there is a large residue of
effect which remains to be explained. Wallace ]
says, " Although the practice of benevolence,
honesty, or truth may have been useful to the tribe
possessing these virtues, that does not at all account
for the peculiar sanctity attached to actions which
each tribe considers right and moral as contrasted
with the different feelings with which they regard
what is merely useful." Speaking of truthfulness,
which is so seldom enforced by law and which so
often entails loss on him who practices it, he asks : 2
"How can we believe that considerations of utility
could ever invest it with the mysterious sanctity of
the highest virtue, — could ever induce men to
value truth for its own sake or practice it regard
less of consequences ? "
It is little to the purpose to cite the innumera
ble instances in which conscience has sanctioned
acts which are repugnant to a more highly culti
vated moral sense. That it needs the cooperation of
an educated judgment for its best practical effects
is doubtless true. To quote once more from the
author last named : 3 " If a moral sense is an es
sential part of our nature, it is easy to see that its
sanction may often be given to acts which are use
less or immoral, jtfst as the natural appetite for
1 Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, p. 352.
2 R>id., p. 353. 8 Ibid., p. 355.

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 63
drink is perverted by the drunkard into the means
for his destruction." Its peculiar function is to
inculcate a particular spirit, to impart a motive of
the highest moral order, and it is the province of
the reason to designate the different acts in which
this spirit and this motive shall express themselves.
A, spring of water, when it first breaks through the
ground, may be turbid enough. It may be laden
with impurities which it has washed out of the soil
through which it has forced its way. But the
time is likely to come when it will have been freed
from these and will bubble up as clear and limpid
as the underground pools from which it comes.
And so the " categorical imperative " is forced to
make its way through endless strata of human ig
norance and selfishness, from which are imported
into its practical operations much that is absurd,
much even that is immoral, much perhaps that is
cruel and abhorrent ; but it has the power to cleanse
itself from these accretions. Its single compre
hensive dictum, " Live the best life you know,"
assures to it an ever-increasing purity of current,
which is not likely to be permanently fouled again.
by any sediment absorbed from the lower stages of
moral development that it leaves behind. It will
take on ever more and more the appearance of a
special channel of communication by which the
parent character is infusing itself into the slowly
developing human soul.
But even if the moral sentiment has been gener
ated solely through the operation of namable evo-

64 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
lutionary forces, these must be referred to the
parent Being in connection with whom the race is
being evolved. They are still analogous to those
concerned in the process of gestation, and which
shape individual germs into a likeness to the parent
organism. We must still recognize in the result the
character of the supreme parent. If we are justi
fied in regarding evolution as a method by which
a superior mind is developing a race into a resem
blance to itself, we cannot escape the conclusion
that the prime moral characteristic of that mind
is disinterested love.
Life takes on a new meaning when considered
from this point of view. It may be compared to a
fountain through whose complicated jets the water
is forced into various and even fantastic shapes ^
but whether this spreads itself in every direction
near the surface of the surrounding pond or rushes
aloft in a majestic column whose white summit
towers above the trees, it is always bearing wit
ness to the existence of a reservoir which is higher
than the greatest height which the liquid column
attains. Terrestrial life may have been divided
into its countless forms by the diversities in the
channels through which it has been evolved ; but
if so, then the loftiest growth of mind and morals
which it exhibits is but the result of a spiritual law
which is bringing it nearer the level of the sublime
Life from which it derives its power of ascent.
The argument might be safely left at this point,
and whatever objections might be urged against the

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 65
conclusions reached regarding the moral character
which is behind the forces of nature could be legit
imately classed as residuary phenomena. The evo
lutionist is obliged to admit that there are difficul
ties in the way of his theory. Darwin 1 recognized
their existence, and alludes to them in the remark :
" Any one whose disposition leads him to attach
more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the
explanation of a certain number of facts, will cer
tainly reject my theory." I have an impression that
even Newton failed at first to account for some
troublesome facts by his law of gravitation. But
men permit a strong induction to override some
objections, and assume that they will be answered
later on. It certainly would not be irrational to
follow the same course in the line of reasoning
which has been thus far pursued. If there appear
to be facts in nature which can be quoted against
the inference that there is a benevolent power
above nature, it would not be impertinent to argue
that the inference is so abundantly justified by
other considerations that these facts may be prop
erly set aside, as suggesting difficulties which are
due wholly to the natural limitations of the human
understanding. But the objections referred to have really very
much less weight than is commonly ascribed to
them. There are but two that have any impor
tance, and of these the more serious is the existence
of moral evil in the world.
1 Origin of Species.

66 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
But this phenomenon creates comparatively lit
tle difficulty in the mind of a theist who has ac
cepted the evolutionary philosophy. From his
point of view, evil did not come into the world as
evil. It was originally even good, in the sense
that it was necessary for the preservation of animal
life. It was action devoid of immoral quality, be
cause suited to the nature of lower organic types.
It became evil in man only because he could con
ceive a higher standard of conduct. Moral evil
began as the result of a battle between confirmed
non-moral habits and a rudimentary conscience, in
which the latter sustained defeat. It originated
in the perception of a higher moral ideal than
man had hitherto known or was as yet willing to
emulate. It is a survival of a more primitive
grade of conduct, and is therefore coordinate with
the alleged imperfections in the human organism.
Both have become objectionable because they are
out of date, because they are the relics of some
thing which was once useful, but is so no longer.
A man is wicked primarily because he continues
to act as an animal after he has reached a stage of
moral illumination which enables him to appre
ciate, to some extent, the relative lowness of ani
mal conduct.
We may say, in a certain loose, popular way,
that shadows in the daytime are caused by the sun,
but, strictly speaking, they are merely the partial
survivals of a previous darkness. The surface
around them is illumined by a light which does not

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 67
fully reach the surface on which they rest. The
result is a contrast of which the eye takes note.
Certain areas have not kept pace with the advance
of day. They were as bright as any others until
the sun rose ; and they are now dark, not because
the sun creates darkness, but because they have
been left behind in the growing illumination. If
the obstructions are icicles, the sun perhaps will
melt them and the shadows will vanish.
And so, from the point of view of the evolution
ist, sin was not originally sin, — or, more accu
rately, acts which are now classed as sinful were
not, at the outset, morally reprehensible. They are
survivals of lines of conduct which were once per
fectly natural and wholly devoid of ethical signifi
cance. They are shadows which rest on the soul
simply because a higher conception of conduct has
dawned which has not as yet brought into harmony
with itself the whole character of the man. It has
not melted the ruling motives of an earlier and
lower state of existence. Part of his nature lags
behind his growing sense of moral obligation, and
so creates the contrast which we call sin. As John
Fiske x expresses it : " Moral evil is simply the char
acteristic of the lower state of living as looked at
from the higher."
I think it was Wallace who found the Biblical
tradition of the fall of man in close accord with
the principles of evolution, and suggested that the
Serpent might be regarded as a symbol of man's
1 Through Nature to God, p. 54.

68 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
animal nature gaining a victory over the feeble
and newly awakened moral nature. Every person
has his fall in the same sense. There is doubtless
a certain period during which the conduct of an
infant is devoid of any ethical quality, because the
power to know right from wrong has not yet been
evolved. The motives and acts of the child are
prompted by purely sensuous impulses. It neither
has, nor can as yet understand, any reason for
doing anything whatever save for the satisfaction
of a personal want. But sooner or later a sense
of moral obligation comes to it which traverses its
natural inclinations. A feeling of duty, of ought-
ness, which can only be gratified at the cost of
self-denial, finds its way into consciousness. Op
posing itself to a customary course of action which
is of the nature of an incipient habit, it is over
ridden. It fails to control the conduct, and the
result is a sin, followed by the first glimmerings of
the knowledge of good and evil. A human being
has fallen, in the theological sense of the word.
It is an experience which is repeated in the life
of every one. Adam is man, not only in the
Hebrew lexicon, but also in the moral history of
each individual. The third chapter of Genesis is
more than a myth. It is true, even if it is not
to be regarded as historical. It records an event
which, according to the new philosophy, must have
happened, even though the precision of detail found
in the narrative cannot be traced to an authentic
source. Evolution holds that there was a First

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 69
Man in the sense that there was a first free moral
agent, and will not deny that his dawning con
science must have failed to secure from his earlier-
developed lower nature perfect obedience. The
result was a fall, and a schism in human nature
which was widened afterwards by perfectly explica
ble causes that will be briefly referred to in a later
chapter. The sun will enlarge the icicle which it
does not destroy.
It is commonly assumed that there is a con
tradiction between the teachings of evolution and
those of Paul on this subject. We hear of the
ologians who are said to have given up the apos
tle's version of the fall of man, and to have sub
stituted for it the theory of development. But
there is no necessary conflict between the two.
That Darwin and Milton are at odds on this sub
ject is indubitably true. That the primordial
ancestor of the human race was a being of large
mental and moral nature, who by a sin has de
graded the whole mass of his descendants below
the same high level, is wholly irreconcilable with
the views set forth in "The Descent of Man."
But this is a Miltonic conception, and is not man
ifestly either Pauline or Biblical. As has just
been shown, the evolutionist himself can find no
thing inconsistent with his beliefs in the theory
that man has fallen. What he is unwilling to
admit is that man has fallen from Miltonic heights
of character. That the fall consisted in a first act
of disobedience to an incipient sense of moral

70 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
obligation is inconsistent neither with the language
in which Paul describes it, nor, as I am persuaded,
with any theological inferences that he derives
from it.
The second objection to the theory that there is
a benevolent power above nature is suggested by
the presence of pain in the world. Much use is
made by the materialist of the alleged cruelty of
nature, of the fact that the lower animals are con
strained by the very necessities of their organism to
prey upon one another. The ceaseless tragedies of
the jungle and the ocean are gathered together into
a single horrible picture of slaughter and suffering.
" We find that more than one half of the species
which have survived the ceaseless struggle are par
asitic in their habits, lower and insentient forms
of life feasting on higher and sentient forms ; we
find teeth and talons whetted for slaughter, hooks
and suckers moulded for torment, — everywhere a
reign of terror, hunger, sickness, with oozing blood
and quivering limbs, with gasping breath and eyes
of innocence that dimly close in deaths of cruel tor
ture " (Eomanes).1 It is thus made to seem that
there must have been something illogical or some
want of balance in the man
" Who trusted God was love indeed,
And love creation's final law —
Though Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravin, shrieked against his creed."
But there is a fallacy in this argument which
few seem to detect. It consists in the tacit as-
1 Thoughts on Religion, p. 78. (Open Court Pub. Co., 1895.)

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 71
sumption that the pain of many individuals can be
added up, and that the result will be a greater
amount of pain. The effect which is produced on
a single sympathetic mind by the contemplation of
many cases of suffering seems to have been care
lessly taken as representing on a small scale an
actual aggregation of that suffering into a vast
objective sum total.
But there is really no more pain in the world
than there is in the individual who suffers the
most pain. Those who combine in a single mental
impression the pangs and torments of all animate
creation, and are horrified by the thought of an
almost infinite misery, forget that the suffering
which seems to them so vast is divided into as
many parts as there are sentient beings in the
world, and that each of these parts is subdivided
in turn into as many portions as there have been
epochs of pain in the individual life. The old
theory of the atonement, which taught that the
vicarious sufferings of Christ were equal to the
aggregated torments from which the redeemed were
saved, was founded on this same curious fallacy.
It would have been enough for the purposes of its
framers to maintain that the agony of the Saviour
was equal to what would have been the punitive
pain of the one ransomed soul which, but for him,
would have suffered most.
The fallacy here exposed is of the same kind
as that which many a man perpetrates when he
thinks of giving up a proposed journey because it
seems too great for his strength. The trouble

72 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
with him is that he contrasts, in some vague way,
the strength which he is able to exert at the pre
sent moment with the amount he would have to
put forth in order to cover, in an instant of time,
the whole distance to be traversed. It is by the
same species of sophistry that we persuade our
selves that a certain hill is too high to be climbed,
because we allow our minds to dwell on the height
only, and neglect to consider the long, winding,
and gradually mounting path by which that height
is distributed into an indefinite number of easily
managed small ascents. One unconsciously rea
sons in the same false way who despairs in the
morning of being able to do the work of the day,
practically forgetting that it is not to be accom
plished by a single exhaustive effort, but by suc
cessive applications of a not immoderate force,
which will be continually renewed. In other words,
men are prone to ignore perspective in taking ac
count of the pain that is in the world, and to
forget that what is present in the individual mind
as a single harrowing idea is really dispersed and
atomized by the countless individuals who experi
ence it and by the sum total of the various periods
in each life, usually separated by long intervals of
peace, in which it has been endured. They who
harass themselves by such a misuse of the process
of addition are likely to suffer more through sym
pathy than most of those whom they pity suffer
directly.

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 73
When pain is thus considered it becomes, as a
rule, a relatively insignificant experience. The ex
istence of the hunted bird or quadruped is not
unhappy as a whole. The helpless beast that per
ishes in the jaws of the tiger ends thus what has
been in the main a joyous career. The heartaches
and physical pangs which, for the time being, take
all happiness out of human life, are after all only
passing clouds in the firmament of a generally
tranquil existence.
And they would seem to be as useful and even
as indispensable as clouds commonly are. If it is
true that our cognitions are the result of compari
sons, it is no less so that contrasts quicken our
appreciation of our pleasures. Besides which, the
offices of pain are for the most part disciplinary.
It goes hand in hand with natural law. It is the
best instructor and guide that one can have who
aspires to walk in the ways of pleasantness and
in the paths of peace. If it is true, as Spencer1
asserts, that an organism perfectly adapted to its
environment would live forever, pain must be con
sidered as a condition of longevity, for only by its
sharp admonitions can we be made to understand
that we are out of harmony with the laws of life.
If there is any .residue of suffering which can
not be associated with a beneficent purpose on the
part of a Supreme Being, it can at the most consti
tute an objection merely to the doctrine of divine
1 Biology, p. 88. (D. Appleton & Co., 1875.)

74 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
omnipotence. It may still leave the benevolence
of the First Cause untouched. What is meant by
Almighty power, it would not be easy to say. It is
quite possible that it should be regarded as signi
fying the ability to do, not every namable thing,
but everything that does not imply a self-contradic
tion, or, as it has also been expressed, the power to
do everything, but not every combination of things.
It may be that there are limitations to action
in the nature of things which perfect knowledge
would not regard as inconsistent with the existence
of perfect power. Few would maintain that the
mind which is back of all phenomena is not omnip
otent if it cannot cause a thing to exist and not
exist at the same time, or, to borrow an illustration
from a child, if it cannot make a horse five years
old in a minute. Even those who would not deny
such powers to the Absolute must admit that the
Absolute itself cannot be absolute and not absolute
at the same time ; otherwise, what becomes of their
supposed proof that the First Cause is unknow
able ? If it is not cognizable as the absolute, it
may be known as the not-absolute. It would seem
impossible, therefore, to escape the conclusion that
there are facts inseparable from being in its es
sence which must be taken into account when we
define omnipotence. We may understand by it
the ability to do, not everything that can be ex
pressed in language, but everything that the essen
tials of existence do not preclude from being ob
jects of power. And it may be that among these

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 75
essentials is to be reckoned the association of time
with growth and of pain with human development.
There is one fact, however, that stands out with
marked distinctness, and that is that the system of
forces and influences which we call nature is capa
ble of producing men of vast physical, mental,
ethical, and spiritual endowments, and that what
seems to us the darker side of life contributes most
powerfully to this result. Courage cannot be de
veloped without danger, nor fortitude without pain,
nor patience without suffering, nor heroism with
out the shadow of death. If it is true, as Huxley 1
asserts, that " an animal cannot make protoplasm,
but must take it ready-made from some other ani
mal or some plant, — the animal's highest feat of
constructive chemistry being to convert dead pro
toplasm into that living matter of life which is
appropriate to itself," the teleological justification
of the tragedies of the forest and the seas does not
seem far to seek. And if it be objected that the
ravenous species which have thus come into exist
ence have no utility that would render defensible
the massacres of lower organisms by which they
have been built up, let it not be forgotten that it
was by ceaseless conflicts with them that primitive
man acquired some of the most commanding traits
of his manhood. It was profoundly appropriate
that the author of the first chapter of Genesis
should include in the first command given by God
to man a direction to subdue the earth and to have
1 Physical Basis of Life.

76 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
dominion over every living thing that moveth upon
it, for he thus indicates one of the earliest factors
of human development. It was by pitting his
strength, courage, and cunning against those of
the wild animals among which he dwelt that man
was able to cultivate the qualities that at first
lifted him above them.
It would be an almost endless undertaking to
describe the various mechanical processes which
contribute to the production of that most compli
cated invention, a modern first-class battleship. If
all the machinery that has been needed in order to
give shape and quality to all the materials used
in her construction, if all the appliances by which
her plating, guns, explosives, electrical equipment,
engines, fuel, and fireproof woodwork have been
produced could be seen in operation under one
roof, there are not many minds that would not be
bewildered and helpless in the presence of such
an endless multiplicity of detail, not many mechan
ics, even, to whom some of the processes might
not seem without meaning and useless.
" What a piece of work is man ! how noble in
reason ! how infinite in faculty ! in form and mov
ing how express and admirable ! in action how like
an angel ! in apprehension how like a god ! the
beauty of the world ! the paragon of animals ! "
We may well believe that the factory in which
" this quintessence of dust " has been compounded
must be the scene of many a recondite and myste
rious operation. We need not think it strange

THE ETHICAL BACKGROUND OF NATURE 77
that a race with infinitely diversified mental and
moral traits, which has been moulded by such in
scrutable agencies as growth, heredity, environ
ment, natural selection, competition, etc., should
have required for its education the cooperation of
many processes, of which some may seem to a nar
row vision worse than useless. If the solar system,
with its wheels within wheels, is but the assem
blage of lathes and pulleys by which, beneath a
" majestical roof fretted with golden fire," the va
rious influences, physical, mental, and spiritual, are
being shaped which are to unite in forming a race
of beings of unlimited variety of endowment, of un
speakable beauty of attribute, it need not surprise
us if we must guess at the office of some of the
machinery and fail utterly to explain the necessity
of much more. We are certainly not able to urge
with any show of reason the pain that is suffered
in the sublime workshop as impugning the benevo
lence of the superintending Mind, unless we are
in a position to affirm with confidence that the ulti
mate results will not dwarf it into an insignificant
consideration, and that it was not made inevitable
by facts inherent in the nature of things.
We can now leave this branch of our subject. I
have tried to show that it is as rational to believe
that the human race is being shaped into the like
ness of a superior parent mind as it is to believe
the theory of evolution, because the former belief
is a natural result of proofs which the latter can
not spare. I have shown, also, that this fact leads

78 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
to the inference that the Being whose existence is
thus rendered an object of intellectual apprehen
sion is endued with certain beneficent moral attri
butes, which may be summed up in the one word,
Love. He possesses, therefore, qualities which
identify him with the God of the New Testament,
and we may now properly call him by that name.

CHAPTER IV
INDUCTIVE THEISM
Knowledge has been defined as " the percep
tion of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas."
We can know a thing only as we become aware of
its likeness or unlikeness to something else. Eea-
soning, which has for its object the acquisition or
the impartation of knowledge, presupposes this
fact. It is a process which consists substantially
in comparing things with things. It is a method
of discovering or communicating new truths by
tracing out their relations to other truths which
are already known.
There are two principal ways in which it can
arrive at knowledge : it may infer particular truths
from others which are more general, or it may re
verse the process. It may show that certain facts
belong to a definite class whose characteristics are
already known, or it may affirm that the charac
teristics of those facts pertain to the whole class to
which the facts belong. The former method is
called Deduction ; the latter, Induction. These,
however, are only approximate definitions, but they
will serve my purpose. " When the conclusion is
more general than the largest of the premises, the

80 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
argument is commonly called Induction ; when less
general, or equally general, it is Eatiocination "
(i. e., Deduction) (Mill).1
As the terms above used are very common, and
as it is desirable that the distinction between them
should be kept in mind, I may be pardoned if I
explain them a little more fully.
When a man, by the exercise of his reasoning
faculty, has demonstrated that a particular fact
which he is investigating may be coordinated with
a number of other facts which resemble one
another so closely that they have been erected into
a group, he performs an act of Deduction. The
mental operation which has taken place may be
expressed in what is called a syllogism. This con
sists of three separate propositions : one, which is
called the major premise, is to the effect that any
object which possesses a certain characteristic be
longs to a particular class; another, called the
minor premise, is that one or more objects which
are not at the moment conceived as belonging to
that class have that characteristic ; and the third,
called the conclusion, is that the object or objects
mentioned are, therefore, to be included in that
class. One or more of these three terms, as they are
also called, may be expressed negatively, but the
principle remains the same. This, as stated by
Mr. Mill,2 is : " Whatever has any mark has that
which it is a mark of ; " or, where both premises
are universal, " Whatever is a mark of any mark
1 Logic, p. 125. 2 Ibid., p. 138.

INDUCTIVE THEISM 81
is a mark of that which this last is a mark of."
All men are mortal ; the president is a man ;
therefore, the president is mortal, — is a syllogism.
It contains a declaration that whatever possesses
a certain characteristic belongs to a well-known
class ; another, that an individual who is designated
has that characteristic ; and a third, that he is con
sequently to be assigned to that class. To borrow
Mr. Mill's phraseology, the attributes of man are
a mark of the attribute mortality ; the president
has the attributes of man ; therefore, he has the
attribute mortality.
A very large portion of human knowledge has
been obtained by this method. The results of
arithmetical, of geometrical, and of mathematical
reasoning in general have been reached deduc
tively, by a mental process which could be ex
pressed by a chain of syllogisms. In geometry,
for example, the original major premise may be
found in a table of axioms, which is made up of
such indubitable truths as, " The sums of equals
are equal." " Things which are equal to the same
thing are equal to each other," etc. A minor pre
mise asserts that certain lines, angles, etc., sustain
to one another the relation described in the axiom ;
and the conclusion follows that the fact affirmed
in the axiom is true of them. This conclusion
itself then becomes a premise in a new syllogism.
If errors are successfully guarded against, the
results of this process are absolutely trustworthy.
If the assertions in the premises are correct, the

82 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
conclusion follows as a matter of course, and is be
yond suspicion. But on the other hand, an error
in either premise perpetuates itself and vitiates
the result. Mathematical reasoning owes its pro
verbial certainty to the fact that it begins with
premises which are beyond question, and uses no
conclusion for a subsequent premise which is not
necessitated by the premises from which it is de
rived. A notable attempt was made by Spinoza to
attain the same certainty in philosophical reason
ing. His conclusions are said to be as rigorously
established by his premises as are any of the the
orems of geometry. But it is objected that the
major premise with which he starts is so far from
being a self-evident or demonstrable truth that it is
a proposition which cannot confidently be affirmed
to be either true or false ; so that the large results
which he reaches in the end are not proved, but
have in them the same uncertainty that attaches to
the premise with which he began. But deduction,
when properly used, yields facts which are incon
trovertible, and as has been said, the world is
indebted to it for much of the knowledge which
it possesses. The inductive reasoner arrives at his conclusions
in a different way. When he finds that a particu
lar fact is associated with all the facts of a certain
group which have been noted by him, he infers
that it is also associated with the remaining facts
of the same group which have not come under his
observation. If he thrusts his hand into a barrel

INDUCTIVE THEISM 83
and draws out of it a handful of corn, he has no
doubt that he has sampled a barrel of that kind
of grain. Everything in his palm is a kernel of
corn, and he naturally infers that the same is true
of every other thing in the class represented by
the contents of the barrel. If he picks up in suc
cession a number of stones on the beach and finds
that they are all more or less rounded, he forms the
opinion that all the pebbles on the beach have the
same characteristic. In either case he performs
an induction. A certain fact can be affirmed of a
limited number of things which he has observed,
and he concludes that it can be affirmed, with
equal truth, of all other things of the same class.
It is by reasoning like this that many of the
most commonplace conclusions of every-day life are
reached. The dairyman who thrusts his steel to
the bottom of a tub and exhibits the thin cylinder
of butter which it brings out expects that his cus
tomer will perform an induction, that he will judge
of the quality of the whole from that of the small
part which he has seen. The merchant who orders
goods from the samples of a commercial traveler
has simply resorted to an act of inductive reason
ing. The fruiterer who puts his best strawberries
on top assumes that purchasers will reason induc
tively. So does the farmer who places a high
grade of wheat only in the mouth of each bag.
None of the inductions above described would
be of any very great weight. They would not be
regarded as scientific inductions. They would not

84 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
satisfy the rigorous requirements of scientific men.
It is possible that the barrel may have at the bot
tom something besides corn. It is conceivable
that the stones might have been rounded by forces
which operated only in a very limited area. The
dairyman may have accidentally or purposely
missed some inferior butter. The samples ap
proved by the merchant may have been of far
better quality than the rest of the stock from which
they were selected. The sources of error in the
remaining examples are sufficiently obvious. Ver
ifications of each of these inductions would be
needed before it would possess anything like cer
tainty. But these illustrations will afford a very
good idea of the nature of the inductive process,
of the mental operation by which attributes that
are known to belong to one or more objects are
ascribed to a much larger number which have not
been individually examined.
Four methods are employed by the inductive
reasoner, and they constitute " the only possible
modes of experimental inquiry — of direct induc
tion a posteriori, as distinguished from deduction "
(Mill).1 Apart from them there are no mental
operations by which observation and experiment
can be made to yield inferential knowledge. They
are known as the methods of Agreement, of Differ
ence, of Concomitant Variations, and of Eesidues.
There is a fifth, called the Joint Method of Agree
ment and Difference, which is merely a combina-
1 Logic, p. 271.

INDUCTIVE THEISM 85
tion of the two first named. The canons and ex
amples by which the first four are illustrated in
Mill's " Logic " are reproduced below.
The regulating principle of the Method of
Agreement may be expressed thus : —
" If two or more instances of the phenomenon
under investigation have only one circumstance in
common, the circumstance in which alone all the
instances agree is the cause (or effect) of the
given phenomenon."
For example, let the phenomenon be crystalliza
tion. " We compare instances in which bodies
are known to assume crystalline structure, but
which have no other point of agreement ; and we
find them to have one — and as far as we can ob
serve, only one — antecedent in common : the depo
sition of a solid matter from a liquid state, either
a state of fusion or of solution. We conclude,
therefore, that the solidification of a substance
from a liquid state is an invariable antecedent of
its crystallization."
The canon of the Method of Difference is as
follows : —
" If an instance in which the phenomenon under
investigation occurs and an instance in which it
does not occur have every circumstance in common
save one, that one occurring only in the former,
the circumstance in which alone the two instances
differ is the effect or the cause or an indispensa
ble part of the cause of the phenomenon."
" It is scarcely necessary to give examples of a

86 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
logical process to which we owe almost all the in
ductive conclusions we draw in daily life. When
a man is shot through the heart, it is by this method
we know that it was the gunshot which killed him :
for he was in the fullness of life immediately be
fore, all circumstances being the same, except the
wound." The following is the canon for the Method of
Concomitant Variations : —
" Whatever phenomenon varies in any manner
whenever another phenomenon varies in any par
ticular manner is either a cause or an effect of
that phenomenon, or is connected with it through
some fact of causation."
" That the oscillations of the pendulum are
caused by the earth is proved by similar evidence.
These oscillations take place between equidistant
points on two sides of a line, which, being perpen
dicular to the earth, varies with every variation in
the earth's position, either in space or relatively to
the object."
The canon for the Method of Eesidues is as
follows : —
" Subduct from any phenomenon such part as is
known by previous inductions to be the effect of cer
tain antecedents, and the residue of the phenome
non is the effect of the remaining antecedents."
" For example, the return of the comet predicted
by Professor Encke a great many times in succes
sion, and the general good agreement of its calcu
lated with its observed place during any one of its

INDUCTIVE THEISM 87
periods of visibility, would lead us to say that its
gravitation toward the sun and planets is the sole
and sufficient cause of all the phenomena of its
orbital motion ; but when the effect of this cause
is strictly calculated and subducted from the ob
served motion, there is found to remain behind a
residual phenomenon, which would never have
been otherwise ascertained to exist, which is a
small anticipation of the time of its reappearance,
or a diminution of its periodic time, which cannot
be accounted for by gravity, and whose cause is
therefore to be inquired into. Such an anticipa
tion would be caused by the resistance of a medium
disseminated through the celestial regions ; and as
there are other good reasons for believing this to
be a vera causa (an actually existing antecedent),
it has therefore been ascribed to such a resistance."
(The fact that a different explanation of the
phenomenon was afterward given does not, of
course, impair the value of the illustration.)
Every fact that science has learned inductively
has been discovered or tested by one or more of
these methods. The determination of the cause of
dew involved the use of all of them but one. And
it is through the rigorous application of them that
modern science has been created. Any one who
desires to understand the secret of the confidence
which scientific men repose in the results at which
they have arrived would do well to read the chap
ters in Mill's " Logic," or in the work of Professor
Bain, which treat of the process of reasoning now

88 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
being discussed. Induction is nothing new. It is
not a modern discovery. It has been known ever
since men began to reason. Nor, as is commonly
supposed, did Bacon teach men to search for truth
by this method. They were doing so long before
his time. His chief service to modern science con
sists in the fact that he was instrumental in doing
away with the inadequate conception of induction
which had previously prevailed, and in laying the
foundation of the accurate and exacting methods
which are now yielding such satisfactory results.
With these methods the world is becoming fa
miliarized. It is learning to appreciate the cer
tainty which inheres in the conclusions of science,
and to crave it for all of its beliefs. There is a
well-nigh universal demand on the part of think
ing men for scientific proof of the propositions
to which their assent is asked. It is a character
istic of the age that beliefs which rest on insuffi
cient foundations are mercilessly swept away and
consigned to the limbo of intellectual rubbish.
Whether this growing desire for demonstrable
knowledge is not, in some instances, being carried
to excess was considered in the first chapter. I
there incidentally discussed the question whether
the demand for incontrovertible proof is always
laudable, and always characteristic of the most
valuable minds. That it is prevalent, however,
and is determining the attitude which many per
sons assume towards various objects of belief is
undeniable.

INDUCTIVE THEISM 89
In no department of human thought is it more
conspicuous and important than in that of theology.
The traditional arguments for many, if not all, of
the doctrines held as fundamental by the Christian
Church are impatiently waved aside by men who
have become accustomed to the precision of scien
tific reasoning. The theologian who should claim
for his system a place in the category of indubita
ble facts on no other ground than that on which,
perhaps, he accepted it, would cut but a sorry fig
ure when defending it against objectors who take
nothing for granted, but oppose an unwavering
skepticism to every proposition which is at all
open to doubt. He conceives a new idea of what
is meant by proof when he leaves behind him the
seminary — in which he may have been neither in
clined nor encouraged to question the statements
of his theological instructor — and undertakes to
demonstrate his beliefs to men whose mental atti
tude is one, not of good-natured acquiescence, but
of hard-headed incredulity. It is evident that
whatever may be the grounds on which religious
confidence should properly rest, it cannot but com
mand a larger respect on the part of thinking
men if it can be shown to be justified by strictly
scientific methods.
The belief in the existence of God has rested, in
many minds, on an induction. Because the com
ponent parts of the human eye, for example, are
alike in the single fact that each cooperates with
the others in producing sight, it is inferred that

90 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
intelligence is an element of their common cause.
But even before the hypothesis of natural selec
tion had attained its present popularity, this in
duction, being an instance of the Method of Agree
ment, was not held by so candid a logician as John
Stuart Mill to create more than a strong proba
bility ; and in our own time its force is regarded by
many as having been wholly vitiated by the theory
that what we call marks of design in nature are
merely accidental adjustments which have become
noticeable only because they have preserved the
species in which they exist, that every adaptation
of means to end under natural law presupposes
countless failures to accomplish the same thing.
It is urged, for example, that if the horse's hoof
is admirably suited to the animal's habits, this is not
because it was created with reference to them, but
because innumerable horses or ancestral equine
forms whose feet were more or less differently
shaped were placed, in consequence, at a disadvan
tage which eliminated them from the list of living
species. The anatomist does not now assume that
the human body is a perfect mechanism, every part
of which was intended to serve some useful purpose.
He holds that the appendix, for example, is a use
less survival of a more primitive organ, and that a
man is better off without than with it.
If a charge of buckshot were to be fired at a
target and one should lodge in the very centre of
the bull's eye, it would be only a chance shot, an
accident. The man who had fired the gun would

INDUCTIVE THEISM 91
not be confident that he could repeat his success
in a score of trials ; and if he should at last suc
ceed in doing so, he would know that the event
was no proof of skill on his part, but merely a
stroke of good luck which, on the theory of prob
abilities, would be sure to happen if he should con
tinue his practice long enough. And yet, if all
the other shot-marks on the target should be oblit
erated, any person who was ignorant of the cir
cumstances would suppose that that shot had been
placed there by an expert rifleman. He would
argue that some one had designed to plant a bullet
in the exact centre of the target, and had done so
at his first and only attempt.
So, if the infinite number of variations which
have taken place in the forms and functions of all
the living creatures that have ever dwelt on the
earth could be set before us at once, and we should
then realize how many of them might be said to
show no marks of supreme wisdom, because they
had failed to preserve those organic forms in which
they occurred, we might see some plausibility in
the argument that those which had the opposite
effect and have consequently been perpetuated
were only so many lucky hits, that they appear to
have been the result of a definite and skillful aim
only because the infinitely more numerous swarm
of misses has been wiped away by the oblivion in
which nature is wont to hide her failures.
Whatever force there may be in these considera
tions, — and I think it has been very much exag-

92 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
gerated, — they do undoubtedly weaken, to some
minds, the old inductive argument for the existence
of God, and have led even some able theists to deny
that there are in nature any evidences of design
whatever. But we need not, on this account, de
spair of enlisting in the support of our theism that
method of reasoning which has had such signal
triumphs in so many different fields of investiga
tion. We need not fear lest our belief in a Su
preme Being shall be justly deemed unscientific
for lack of rational defenses of the kind that
scientific men approve. It is possible for any one
to obtain or to reinforce a belief in God by an
induction as genuine and as broad as that which
underlies many an undoubted scientific fact.
I am perfectly familiar with the case of a man
who, in his early manhood, became oppressed by
a sense of the barrenness of the life he was living.
He knelt down on a solitary shore where he was
spending his vacation, and earnestly prayed that
his existence might not be wasted. A few weeks
later, in the dead of night, he was startled and
terrified by a sudden conviction that it was his
duty to enter the ministry. He was in perfect
health at the time. He had practically forgotten
the vacation incident which has just been described.
He was no longer troubled by the emotions which
he had then felt. His thoughts were running on
wholly different lines. There was no connection
that he could trace between this overmastering
conviction and the ideas which it had supplanted.

INDUCTIVE THEISM 93
The course of action which obedience to it would
necessitate was opposed to his natural inclinations,
to the spirit of his early training, and to what he
knew would be the wishes of his friends. He
passed the remainder of the night in sleepless
agony. For months he lived under a cloud. But
although he resisted for a long time the inward
pressure, hoping against hope that it would at last
be removed from him, he could never free himself
from it. He yielded to it in the end, and the sac
rifice it cost him to do sp was so great that he was
even then persuaded that he would be excused
from drinking the cup which had been held so
persistently to his lips.
His subsequent career was marked by a succes
sion of disappointments, afflictions, and trials of
various kinds. There were moments in its earlier
stages when the religious faith which had enabled
him to take up his cross almost entirely failed him.
His life was overcast by troubles which were so
frequent and so peculiar as to excite comment, but
which were relieved by spiritual experiences of an
exceptional order, which could not be communicated
to others. In later years, as he looked back over
the lights and shadows which had so strangely
mottled his maturer life, as he considered the re
sults which his experiences had produced in the
shape of self-knowledge, motives, and character,
the one conviction that impressed itself on his
mind was that he had been led all the while by an
unerring hand, that he had been educated, in fact,

94 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
by a benevolent superintending mind. He was
accustomed to read the writings of able materialists
and agnostics, but was never for any great length
of time free from the conviction that they were
treating their subject from a relatively narrow and
rudimentary point of view. He was satisfied that
his theism, and to a large degree his religious con
fidence in general, rested on evidence immeasur
ably more convincing than the arguments which
these writers opposed to the most important of his
beliefs. Now, what was the mental process by which he
arrived at his ultimate religious assurance? It
was an induction pure and simple. He took with
him into practical life a certain conception of God,
and tested it by the countless facts of a subsequent
and protracted experience. The whole of his later
career was a succession of experiments which he
was forced to perform without any special sense of
their significance at the time, and which combined
in the end to corroborate all that was. essential
in his previous traditionary belief. He employed
unwittingly over and over again all the recog
nized canons of experimental inquiry. The four
methods of induction which have already been
described could all be identified in the mental
operations which had converted his original faith
into what would be termed, in any other field of
research, scientific knowledge. He was able to
eliminate, by the extent and variety of his experi
ences, errors of inference which might be due to

INDUCTIVE THEISM 95
mere coincidence or to morbid physical conditions.
There was nothing lacking in this diversified and
elaborate though unintentional process of investi
gation which would distinguish it, in any impor
tant particular, from that by which almost any
accepted scientific fact has been established.
Now, the case of this man is not an isolated one.
It belongs to a class which is very numerous, and
it is far from being exceptional in its own class.
It was Paul's1 belief that God had made men
that they might feel after him and find him.
Some such process as that which has just been de
scribed seems to be suggested by these words. It
is so often repeated on a larger or smaller scale,
and so uniformly with the same results, that we
are warranted in affirming that it will always yield
them. The secret of the influence wielded by the
prophet and the preacher lies in the fact that they
have made personal and profound investigations
along this line. The facts of science, for most
men, rest largely on testimony. Almost all who
receive them do so on the authority of certain in
dividuals, relatively few in number, who have
experimentally proved them. The only claim to
superior credibility which these facts have, when
compared with many others that are believed, is in,
the circumstance that they may be tested at will
by scores of competent persons if the discoveries
are called in question. So there are always men
who have spent a considerable portion of their
1 Acts xvii. 27.

96 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
lives in testing experimentally the teachings of
theism. They may be classed with the original
investigators in other fields of knowledge. They
have acquired an equal right to say of the results
of their researches, " We speak that we do know,
and bear witness of that we have seen," l and to
demand that their statements in regard to the
particular subject in question be not rejected ex
cept by those who have honestly and thoroughly
performed the same experiments and have fairly
drawn from them a different conclusion.
The scientific method of learning the truth of
theism is closely analogous to that by which a man
may sometimes prove inductively, contrary perhaps
to the opinion of his physician, that the influence
of a certain locality is the principal cause of his
good health. He was brought up in it, perhaps,
and although born with a feeble constitution, was
always well there, notwithstanding indefinite and
even careless changes in dress, diet, and mode of
living. This is the Method of Agreement. He
begins to deteriorate physically when he leaves the
place, even though he takes up his abode in a
locality which the experience of thousands has
shown to be perfectly salubrious, and which is
indistinguishable from the one which he has left
except in the mere matter of geographical situa
tion. Here is the principle of the Method of Dif
ference. He may extend the use of it by visiting
all manner of mineral springs and health resorts,
1 John iii. 11.

INDUCTIVE THEISM 97
regions of every description which agree in nothing,
so far as he can see, save in the fact that they are
not the place which he has temporarily abandoned.
Here we have the Joint Method of Agreement
and Difference, which has not been previously de
scribed, although allusion has been made to it. The
more nearly the climate in other places visited by
him resembles the one first mentioned, the better
he is. There we have the Method of Concomitant
Variations. The medicine that helps him when at
home is less beneficial when he is elsewhere. Here
is the Method of Eesidues. As has been already
shown in a quotation from Mill's " Logic," there
are no other ways of reasoning by induction. He
has tried these methods so many times that he is
warranted in affirming that the conclusion he has
derived from them is entitled, so far as he is con
cerned, to all the authority of a scientific fact.
It is obvious that this conclusion cannot be veri
fied by any experiments that may be performed in
the same locality by another invalid, because there
are no means of knowing that two different consti
tutions are precisely alike. Although such gen
eral propositions as that a dry climate is beneficial
to persons of consumptive tendencies may be experi
mentally tested by more than one person, the ques
tion whether a particular individual will improve
in it can be determined by himself alone, and
others can verify his conclusions only by observing
the effects wrought upon him by his repeated ex
periments. But no one would doubt that a man

98 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
whose conviction that he needed to live in a cer
tain locality is grounded in such a series of facts
as is indicated in the example above given has per
formed a valid induction and has a right to regard
his conclusion as scientifically proved. The proofs
of the existence of God which are derived from
personal experience each one must get for himself,
but any one may obtain them. The concurrent
testimony of innumerable witnesses is ample war
rant for affirming that any man who will found
his life on the hypothesis that the events of that
life will be so controlled by an objective intelli
gence as to develop indefinitely those parts of his
nature which he recognizes as best deserving to be
called divine, and who will pursue that course of
self-sacrifice and spiritual living by which those
spiritual authorities who are deemed the highest
declare that firm religious convictions are to be
gained, may count on converting his hypothesis,
in due time, into what he will find it hard to dis
tinguish, in point of credibility, from almost any
acknowledged scientific fact. If his life has been
shaped by the highest religious and ethical motives,
he enjoys a peculiar peace of mind and a sense
of communion with God which will find fitting
expression in those words of Jesus, "I am not
alone, but the Father is with me." If he forsakes
those ideals, this consciousness of a sympathetic
Presence will depart from him, or be transformed
into a sense of divine disapproval. And if he di
versifies his experience still more by abandoning

INDUCTIVE THEISM 99
his religion and substituting for it in turn all of
the philosophical or scientific makeshifts which
are offered in its place, his sense of what may be
called the divine absence will only be enlarged.
The more thorough his consecration to God be
comes, or the more earnestly he strives to live a
divine life, the richer will be his experiences con
firmatory of his belief in a superintending Provi
dence. And when he has made all proper allow
ances for the element of coincidence in the events
of his religious life, and for that of physical cau
sation in his inward experiences, there will still
be left the conviction that neither the former nor
the latter can be explained without assuming the
agency of a divine Personality. Thus, all five of
the methods employed in inductive reasoning will
unite in producing within him an assurance which
he will not, and need not, hesitate to call know
ledge, for it is as truly deserving to be so called as
many a belief to which the scientist does not ques
tion his right to give the name.
This argument, which is commonly called the
argument from religious experience, has long been
known. It is recognized in the New Testament
over and over again. It is foreshadowed in the
promise of Jesus: x " If a man love me, he will keep
my word : and my Father will love him, and we
will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
It is used by Paul 2 as a final demonstration of the
truth in his words : " This only would I learn from
1 John xiv. 23. 2 Gal. iii. 2.

100 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
you, Eeceived ye the Spirit by the works of the
law or by the hearing of faith ? " But there is a
danger that it will not command in some quarters,
under its common name, all the respect that it
really merits. It is an argument from induction,
differing in no essential particular from the method
of reasoning by which so many of the truths of
science have been established. That it deals with
phenomena different from those of matter, and
cannot appeal to the products of the crucible and
the blowpipe, constitutes no flaw in it, for as much
can be said of social science or of the science of
the higher criticism. Nor is it anything to the
purpose to object that the method of proof which
has been outlined demands too much in the way of
self-sacrifice and high moral conduct. Self-denial
and the endurance of hardship are very frequently
the inexorable conditions of scientific discovery.
Obviously, no man is privileged to dictate the terms
on which truth may be learned, and there is cer
tainly nothing antecedently incredible in the state
ment that the highest knowledge can be had only
through an induction of the facts of the highest
experience. Moreover, nothing is required in the way of
moral conduct and spiritual living on the part of
any who would obtain an experimental knowledge
of God save what is recognized by evolution as
inseparable from its own highest ethical standards.
It surely cannot be unreasonable to ask and to
urge any one who believes that disinterested love

INDUCTIVE THEISM 101
is the highest attribute of man to put in practice
that belief as a means of arriving at certainty
regarding the existence and character of a Supreme
Being. Multitudes of the best and most self-sacri
ficing men and women whom the world has seen
have founded their lives on the belief that such a
Being exists, and have had corroborative experi
ences of its truth which make permanent doubt
impossible to them. They affirm that the man
who will consecrate himself to this belief, who will
show the genuineness of his new purpose by ap
propriate ethical and spiritual conduct, who shall
have interest enough in the success of his spiritual
ambitions to pray earnestly and without ceasing
for divine help, who will strive to be true to his
lofty aim in temptation and in trial, and who will
be willing to wait patiently for his experiences to
multiply and to assume the right perspective, will
attain in the end a religious conviction which will
be indistinguishable from knowledge ; and there is
certainly nothing so unreasonable in these condi
tions that they need be regarded by any scientific
man as excluding him from the infinitely impor
tant field of research to which they pertain.
And if there are those to whom this mode of
seeking after God seems more scientific than reli
gious, who find in it a disagreeable resemblance to
the method suggested by Tyndall for testing the
utility of prayer, and to whom it seems to reduce
the loftiest objects of thought to the level of the
most selfish of human speculations and inquiries,

102 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
it may suffice to remind them that mere intellec
tual curiosity is excluded as a controlling motive
from this field of investigation by the conditions
attached to success in it. There cannot be any
thing unworthy or spiritually degrading in a life
long effort to find out God by learning to conform
to an ideal will and character.
The message, then, of Christianity to men of
science who have only a negative answer for the
Naamathite's question,1 " Canst thou by searching
find out God ? " is simple and rational. It is not
that they should abandon any of the facts which
have been scientifically established, or distrust the
methods of learning truth which have won their
confidence. It is not even that they should ac
cept propositions which are incapable of being
proved in the only ways which they recognize as
sound. It is merely that they should extend their
researches into the realm of religion, and employ
their favorite methods in testing the teachings of the
Christian faith. One of the strongest arguments
adduced in favor of evolution implies the existence
of a parental Mind which is shaping a race of
beings into likeness to itself. The ethical traits
which are unfolding in the most highly developed
natures in the form of moral ideals and resulting
conduct render it impossible not to believe that
an indispensable feature of that likeness will be
an unselfish love which transcends all other ethical
conceptions. And even if we discard altogether
the implications of evolution, the fact that many of
1 Job xi. 7.

INDUCTIVE THEISM 103
the purest and most devoted benefactors of the
human race claim to have had experimental evi
dence that there is such a Being as has just been
described affords ample ground for a religious hypo
thesis which is worthy of the attention of scientific
men. To take it into practical life, to subject it
over and over again to the test of appropriate
action, to examine it in the light of the various
canons of inductive reasoning, to dwell in the at
mosphere of personal purity and self-sacrifice which
is indispensable to successful religious experiments,
to exchange the relatively low motive of scientific
curiosity for that supreme ethical ambition which
is one of the conditions of spiritual discovery, —
is to perform the grandest induction that the
human reason can make. It is to carry the spirit
of scientific investigation into fields of research in
comparison with which all others are narrow and
insignificant. And the command to do so is the
gospel's message to an age of doubt.
And he who heeds the message will be sure to
find a teleological meaning in life which will come
to the rescue of the somewhat discredited argument
from design, and go far towards reinstating it in
all its former influence. We have discovered clear
proof of an intelligent purpose in an hitherto inex
plicable machine when we have learned that, what
ever else it produces, it is capable of turning out
one article of superior excellence and value. He
who will pursue his religious investigations in the
manner already described will not long doubt that

104 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
he has discovered the final cause of creation, the
end for which the course of nature and the environ
ment of the individual life have been established.
He will have found the only thing of adequate
value which human existence may surely be made
to yield. Proofs will never cease to multiply that
the ultimate cause of all phenomena is not a force
merely, but a character, and that the influences
and agencies of this world have been so arranged
that the only thing they can surely be made to
bring forth is a similar character. The ambitions
of most men are doomed to disappointment. It is
antecedently certain that relatively few persons will
be able to gratify their desire for wealth, or fame,
or long life. There are obstacles to supreme suc
cess along all of the ordinary lines of human effort
which most men will fail to surmount. But a spir
itual nature, a character founded on disinterested
love, all can acquire. No matter what the vicis
situdes of an individual career may be, adversity,
prosperity, pain, happiness, the crosses, difficulties,
and afflictions which thwart the hopes of men in
other directions can all be used in rendering the
life gentle and kindly, beneficent and unselfish.
How, then, can we fail to see a designing Hand in
that system of natural laws and forces which, after
evolving its human masterpiece and developing in
it an infinite variety of intellectual and emotional
life, becomes transformed into a mighty workshop
whose intricate machinery cooperates to fashion
every man who so desires into the likeness of God?

CHAPTER V
CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM
Ever since Hume formulated his celebrated ar
gument against miracles, it has been increasingly
difficult to secure from intelligent men a patient
consideration of the possibility that such events
may have happened. Our experience of the uni
formity of the course of nature combined with our
experience of the imperfect reliability of human
testimony, or, in other words, the alleged fact that
supernatural occurrences are less likely to have
taken place than the report of them is to be false,
is eliminating them more and more from the cate
gory of causes by which various historical and
religious phenomena are explained. " History ends
where miracles begin," says Strauss. The higher
criticism, or, at least, some of its ablest advocates,
exclude them from the influences by which the de
velopment of the Hebrew people has been shaped
and to which Christianity owes its existence. Nor
is it hard to see that if they are to be uniformly
set aside henceforward as mere products of excited
imaginations or as the childish exaggerations of
uncritical observers, the prevalent view of the ori
gin and authority of the Christian religion must
be profoundly modified.

106 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
But John Stuart Mill,1 himself no believer in
the supernatural, but an author of marked candor,
who has written for modern science its logic, con
cedes that Hume has made out no more than that
a miracle cannot be proved to one who does not
believe in the existence of a being or beings with
supernatural powers, and with characters that are
not inconsistent with their having performed mira
cles. And it was pointed out by an acute philoso
pher 2 a quarter of a century earlier that the credi
bility of the miracles related in the Gospels was not
to be settled by simply weighing against each other
the testimony by which they are supported and the
presumption in favor of the uniformity of nature,
but that there might be a priori considerations
which would relieve the evangelical narratives from
any disadvantage which might, in that case, accrue
to them. It was his opinion that if there is reason
to believe in the existence of a Creator who has
regard for the happiness of his creatures, and that
a miracle would aid him in promoting their wel
fare, the evidence that he has employed this in
strumentality "is to be examined precisely like
the evidence for any other extraordinary event."
At that stage of the discussion which has now been
reached we are entitled to assume that there is a
Being of sufficient power and benevolence to work
a miracle, and we may, therefore, rationally believe
on evidence that such a work has been wrought,
1 Logic, p. 440.
2 Brown, Cause and Effect, notes A and F.

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 107
especially if it can be credibly shown that there
was a real and imperative need of it.
What do we mean by a miracle? The word
is sometimes defined in such a way as to prejudice
a scientific mind against it at the outset. It is
not a violation of the laws of nature. It is not
necessarily even independent of them. As one of
the discriminating writers1 last quoted has sug
gested, "There is a general presumption against
any supposition of divine agency not operating
through general laws," and if a miracle is con
ceived merely as a special divine interposition, there
is an antecedent improbability against it which can
be outweighed only by " an extraordinary strength
of antecedent probability derived from the special
circumstances of the case." Whether there is an
antecedent probability in favor of the Christian
miracles which is extraordinary enough to over
come any improbability which may inhere in the
conception of a special divine interposition need
not now be considered ; for a supernatural event
need not be so defined as to exclude it from the
sphere of natural law.
Some years ago an article on the nebular hypo
thesis appeared in the " Popular Science Monthly."
The writer endeavored to convey some idea of the
intense heat generated in the process of planetary
evolution, a heat which for ages kept the earth in
a state of liquefaction, and in comparison with
which the white heat of the blast furnace would be
1 Mill, Logic, p. 441.

108 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
relatively cool. The editor of the periodical seems
to have been so impressed by the description that
he appended a note to the article, in which he ex
pressed grave doubts as to the likelihood that life
would have appeared spontaneously on our globe
after such a fire-bath. Bearing in mind, probably,
that Tyndall had been able to free permanently
from living germs more than a hundred and fifty
different preparations by simply keeping them a
few minutes at the boiling point, he found it well-
nigh impossible to believe that, after a region of
space upwards of six billions of miles in diameter
had been subjected for ages to a temperature more
than twice that of the sun, life could have appeared
in almost the very centre of this vast sterilized
sphere unless it had been imparted from without.
I have only given the general drift of the editor's
thought as I remember it, and have nothing to
say in regard to the probability of the closing sug
gestion; but in making it he recognized what I
conceive to be the essence of the miracle, and of
supernaturalism in general. I do not imply that
he thought it possible that life might have been
brought into the earth by anything like angelic
agency, or through the medium of a special crea
tion. No doubt he would have contended that it
must have made its appearance by the action of
laws which deserved as truly to be called the laws
of nature as do any of those to which the term is
commonly applied ; but he would probably have
said that they were laws of which he knew nothing,

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 109
which were outside of nature so far as it had come
within the scope of his experience, and which, to
the best of his belief, had in no other case mani
fested themselves in the system of forces and ener
gies with which science has to do. Now effects
produced by agencies which can be so described
may properly be called miraculous in the generic
sense of the term.
A miracle, then, may be broadly defined as an
event conforming to general laws which operate
almost exclusively outside the field of one's normal
experience. Its isolation from what are called nat
ural occurrences is due to the relativity of human
knowledge. It could be classified with them if the
causes involved in its production were better under
stood. The group of effects to which it belongs is
constantly diminished as education advances. The
resident of the tropics who could not believe that
there was a- country in which the inhabitants could
walk on the surface of a lake as easily as on dry
ground was only refusing to credit what would have
been a miracle had it happened in his own land ;
for such a state of affairs could not have been
brought about without the introduction of a cli
mate of which neither he nor his ancestors had had
any experience, and which would have been wholly
foreign to the geographical locality in which he
lived. A savage dwelling on the banks of a river which
has always flowed towards the east, if he finds some
day its current running in the opposite direction,

110 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
has witnessed what is, from his point of view, of
the nature of a miracle. To be sure, the phenome
non could be explained by a better educated man
as resulting from an exceptionally high tide or
from a subsidence of the land ; but the savage, we
will suppose, knows nothing about the movements
of the sea or about geological disturbances. The
laws governing both are wholly outside the realm
of his experience. A force of which neither he nor
any one whom he knows has any comprehension
whatever has directly reversed what he had supposed
to be an unvarying natural phenomenon, and he
may logically give to the event the name which cor
responds, in his native tongue, to that which we
apply, in our language, to a supernatural occurrence.
I do not mean, of course, that the miracle is
commonly defined in such a way as to include in
cidents like those just mentioned. My contention
merely is that it may and ought to be so defined.
Such incidents are generically miraculous. They
are invasions of one sphere of knowledge by facts
belonging to a higher, and, for the time being,
an inaccessible one. They are capable, it is true,
of being classified with other natural phenomena,
but not by those who were startled by them. An
event may be essentially miraculous to a person of
limited intelligence and experience which is wholly
normal to one of wider observation and knowledge.
The supernatural is only that which is above nature
as we understand it, and a miracle in the common
acceptation of the term is that which is above

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 111
nature as any mortal being yet understands it. It
is an event which has found its way into human
history out of higher regions of causation than the
human intellect has as yet been able to explore and
comprehend. That there are such regions we are already
warranted in believing. They are presupposed
by the theory of evolution. They are the source
of the intelligence and the energy by which the
human race is being moulded into a constantly
improving type of being. They are the realm of
mysterious origins whose secrets baffle the prying
gaze of human curiosity. They are the reservoir
from which flows the inscrutable current of causes
which is shaping the material and moral universe.
They are the undiscovered country on the other
side of that " brazen wall " beyond which human
investigations cannot be pushed. Presumably this
unknown realm has its laws, and a resulting class
of phenomena which a mind sufficiently enlight
ened would properly term natural. There can be
no objection to supposing that these laws are not
inconsistent with those pertaining to our own nar
row sphere of observation, and that there can be
no collision between the two classes other than of
the kind that occurs over and over again between
forces with which we are familiar and others by
which they are sometimes counteracted. That
one of these higher laws should, under special cir
cumstances, produce effects in the lower sphere to
which our knowledge is, for the present, confined, —

112 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
that a being should arise on the earth so exception
ally endowed as to be able to wield, for a sublime
purpose, some of the powers pertaining to this
higher realm of fact, — is not essentially incredible.
It would conform to the analogy of the examples
already given. The resulting effect would differ
from them only in the fact that instead of tran
scending the experience merely of a tribe, an indi
vidual, or a body of trained scientific observers, it
would be beyond all save the rarest experience of
the whole human race. Such an event is a miracle
in the usual sense of the term.
The uniformity of the course of nature, as that
phrase is commonly understood in discussions of
this subject, has not been established so firmly as
to rule out the possibility that such occurrences
may have taken place. It does not rest on a per
fectly conclusive induction. The strongest form,
perhaps, in which the argument for it can be
stated is that every effect which has been investi
gated by competent observers in modern times can
be explained as resulting from what are commonly
known as natural causes ; therefore natural causa
tion, in the ordinary meaning of the term, must be
presumed to account for all phenomena whatever.
But it is certainly conceivable that although the
facts bearing on this question may for a long time
all point to a single conclusion, there may be others
lurking in the background, as it were, which when
discovered will necessitate a different inference.
A machine was once invented for registering num-

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 113
bers. It would produce them in regular succession
without a break from 1 to 10,000,000. Only an
exceptional mind would doubt that if the notation
should continue beyond that limit the next number
registered would be 10,000,001. The previous
induction would have seemed to most persons to
render such an inference practically certain. There
would be no more ground for withholding it than
an Indian on the sea-coast, whose knowledge of the
movements of the ocean conjoined with that of his
tribe covers a space of more than 13,500 years,
would have for not being absolutely sure that the
tide would rise the following day. And yet the
next number exhibited would be 10,000,002.
The machine would then register several millions
of numbers without a single interruption of the
series, until the conclusion would seem to be estab
lished that no other would occur, and then there
would be a second break. The inventor was aware
of this peculiarity of his machine. It was insep
arable from the mechanism. He furnished a list of
the numbers that would be omitted in a series run
ning as high, I think, as 50,000,000. In other
words, the exceptions were as truly the result of
law as was the rule, but they were due to a law
that very seldom manifested itself. To all save
the man who understood the mechanical cause that
was behind them they were essentially miracles on
a small scale.
Now there is nothing in the sequence of phe
nomena on which the belief in the uniformity of

114 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
nature rests that renders irrational the suggestion
that unique and exceptional events have taken
place as the result of causes which operate but
rarely. It would be idle to contend that we are
in possession of so many facts pertaining to nature
at every epoch of time and at every stage of its
development as to have the right to deny that
there may have been " psychological moments "
in which higher than the ordinary laws of nature
came into operation. The evolutionist cannot re
late the story of organic and mental development
without virtually asking his hearers to suspend
judgment at various points where miraculous in
terpositions might be suspected. As previously
intimated, he leaves the origin of life unexplained.
He does not pretend to account for the dawn of
human consciousness. The passage from inorganic
to organic, from merely organic or vegetable to the
fully developed animal condition, from sentiency
to rationality, are cited by Mivart1 as unexplained
breaks in the chain of evolutionary sequences.
The Darwinian theory is not yet able to make it
seem utterly improbable that a new force must
have been exerted to bridge over these gaps in the
line of human descent. How far, then, is any one
from being in a position to deny with any show of
reason that nature's mechanism has been so ar
ranged as to skip a regular number now and then
and make a longer stride forward ! How little is
any one prepared to affirm that when the human
1 Essays and Criticisms.

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 115
race was to enter upon a new phase of spiritual
growth it did not receive, by some unusual process,
a fresh impartation of power ! It is evident from
what has been already said in regard to the miss
ing links in the chain of natural causation that the
machine is not yet fully understood. The grasp
which science has thus far obtained upon the de
tails of its construction is too little comprehensive
to warrant any dogmatic assertion of the essential
incredibility of miracles as already defined.
It need not be supposed, however, that the ex
ceptional events which have thus been suggested
must be as mechanical in their origin as the illus
tration just employed might seem to imply. The
laws of nature may be nothing more than regular
and self-consistent modes of divine action. The
uniformity ascribed to them may be due merely to
an adherence, on the part of God, to a chosen plan
of evolution. But no difficulty will be created if
natural law be conceived as analogous to a system
of machinery through which God carries on his
operations. To quote again from the author a to
whom I have already referred so often on account
of his general fairness, if by a miracle " it be only
meant that the divine being, in the exercise of his
power of interfering with and suspending his own
laws, guides himself by some general principle or
rule of action, this of course cannot be disproved,
and is in itself a most probable supposition." In
other words, it is not necessary to refer supposed
1 Mill, Three Essays on Religion.

116 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
divine interpositions in the course of nature to
higher laws of so rigid and mechanical a character
as is often ascribed to natural law, but only to a
superior Will which always acts in harmony with
itself, and which has at its command powers that
are not regularly exhibited in action on the rela
tively low plane of our present environment.
But even when supernatural occurrences are
thus conceived, — even if miracles be regarded as
coordinate, in all essential particulars, with events
that are called natural, — it must be conceded that
there is a very strong presumption against them
which must be neutralized by equally powerful
considerations if the evidence in their behalf, how
ever cogent it may be, is not to be overborne.
" Nee deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus
Incident,"
says the Eoman poet ; and the rule which he
applies to the drama holds true, no doubt, in our
interpretation of the development of nature. Ad
ditional divine agency must not be assumed unless
a knot occurs which can be loosened only by a new
display of divine power. A much stronger degree
of evidence would be needed to justify belief in
miracles if they appeared to be superfluous than
would be required if it were shown that they could
not have been omitted without prejudice to the
interests of humanity. In the latter event there
would be a veritable knot in the process of human
development which would prepare us for a glimpse
of the divine fingers.

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 117
Several such knots might be mentioned, some
of which will be described in other connections ;
but from one point of view, three of them might
be regarded as component parts of the one first to
be named, which is the need that there was of a
new moral force in the world at the beginning of
the Christian era.
One has only to put to himself the question
whether Christianity could have been spared at
that time and subsequently as a factor in human
development if he would obtain some idea of the
deadlock which existed in the affairs of mankind.
The old civilization was on the verge of ruin.
Already the northern barbarians were giving om
inous intimations of the doom that was slowly but
surely moving down upon the Eoman empire.
The old religions had lost their hold on the most
cultivated human minds. The pagan cults were
scoffed at openly or in private by most intelligent
men. Even Judaism had almost disappeared
under the drifts of rabbinical perversion. The
morals of the world were hideous. The gladiato
rial games with which it amused itself suggested a
widespread moral insanity. Tacitus despaired of
the future, and thought that the Eoman empire
was under a curse. What hope was there that the
normal moral forces then existing in the earth
would be able to bring the human race in safety
through the gathering storm ? What prospect was
there that when the northern deluge should bury
the civilization of the age under its oft-recurring

118 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
waves there would be buoyancy enough in the
straining bark to right it in the end?
It is hard to write hypothetical history, to ex
plain what would have been the course of human
affairs if some important event had not happened,
but is there any one who would seriously main
tain that if the gospel had not been preached the
human race would have reached its present moral
altitude? We know that when Eome fell, the
rude invaders found a religion awaiting them which
they were fam to embrace. We can trace the
influence of the Christian faith during the follow
ing centuries as it broadens out like a band of
moonlight on troubled seas. We can see it assum
ing such outward forms and expression as render
it always the dominant moral force of its time.
We behold it steadily founding its numberless
charitable and humanitarian institutions, compel
ling lawless minds to associate the idea of divine
protection with human poverty and weakness, en
forcing the moral law by its tremendous punitive
sanctions ; and the question what the world could
have done without it must appear incapable of a
hopeful answer.
That such a religion must have produced a vast
ethical and altruistic influence on the human race
could be safely deduced from certain antecedent
considerations. It will not be doubted that a
man's beliefs react upon his conduct, and that his
convictions are likely to shape in some measure his
life. It will probably be easily admitted that the

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 119
larger his conception of his essential dignity and
of his spiritual outlook becomes, the more amena
ble he is likely to be to motives that tend to
weaken the hold of his lower nature upon him.
That a man who has a concrete proof of immortal
ity which illustrates at the same time the ultimate
triumph of an unselfish life, who is convinced that
a sacrifice has been wrought by which his sins have
been taken out of his way to happiness and that
he has received an assurance of eventual moral
success, is immeasurably more likely to respond to
appeals for self-denial and resistance to his lower
instincts than one who is without such incentives
to high ethical conduct, would hardly seem to be
debatable. Kidd 1 is undoubtedly right in teaching
that there is no rational sanction for the conditions
of human progress ; that without the promises of
religion there is no encouragement to unselfish liv
ing that would have any weight with the great bulk
of humanity. The highest ideals of conduct are
superhuman if man is only the head of the brute
creation. They become intelligible and practical,
they become sources of an intense moral stimulus,
if they represent the possible final attainments of
an immortal being. Those beliefs which have done
so much to free the highest ethical ideals from
the suspicion of being visionary and unreal, and
to make them seem to many within range of a ra
tional moral ambition, were furnished to mankind
by the religion of Christ. And these beliefs,
1 Social Evolution, chap. iii.

120 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
which have given so strong an impetus to unself
ish living, have been built on the foundation of a
supposed miracle.
It was the story of the resurrection of Christ
that saved ethical Christianity to the world. Paul,1
in an epistle whose genuineness has never been
seriously disputed, emphatically declares that with
out it his preaching would be of no value. What
ever may be our opinion at this stage of the discus
sion as to the credibility of that event, it would seem
impossible to deny that had Paul not believed it
he would not have preached, and that his influence
would have to be left out of any calculations we
might make as to what Christianity would have
effected in the world in the way of ethical improve
ment. And that such a subtraction would be a
serious one we shall easily believe when we remem
ber that it was the great apostle to the Gentiles
who was chiefly instrumental in bursting the shell
of Jewish exclusiveness and broadening the new
faith, as it was held by its first adherents, to the
dimensions of a universal religion.
The earliest sermon of which we have any re
cord subsequently to the death of Jesus virtually
grounds the gospel on the affirmation that he rose
from the dead. In nearly every book which has
come down to us from the age of the apostles the
resurrection is mentioned. In the only work extant
which professes to be a contemporary history of the
infant church, the same event is made prominent in
1 1 Cor. xv. 13.

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 121
almost every public address ascribed to the first
evangelists. Indeed, it may well be questioned
whether the movement started by Christ was pri
marily an ethical one. It seems rather to have
been of the nature of a philosophical or eschato-
logical reform, a vast and beneficent change in
man's conception of death and of his outlook be
yond the grave. The matchless character of Jesus,
even after it had been emphasized and illumined by
his crucifixion, would not of itself have been suffi
cient to win to the new faith that immense num
ber of adherents which rendered it a cosmopolitan
cult in two centuries and a half. Strauss 1 con
cedes that the resurrection of Jesus was " the un
conditional antecedent without which Christianity
could have had no existence."
If we feel constrained to admit to-day that
had it not been for a general belief that Christ
had risen from the dead, his religion would have
secured but a feeble foothold in the earth or
none at all, we recognize the existence of the knot
in human development of which I have already
spoken. We acknowledge it to have been ante
cedently necessary that something should occur to
convince large portions of the human race that a
certain man had died and risen again, which is
equivalent to saying that such a miracle, if it should
take place, would be of indispensable moral utility
to mankind. We are thus reduced to the neces
sity of inferring that God could best promote the
1 Orthodoxy : its Truths and Errors, p. 80.

122 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
ethical evolution of man only by a resurrection, or
by so ordering events that one would be generally
believed to have taken place. Which of these al
ternatives is the more consistent with the character
we have learned to ascribe to the Most High need
not be asked. The reply which is made by the
evolutionist to some of the objections of the theist,
namely, that it is incredible that God would set
such a trap for the human reason as the proofs
of evolution would constitute if that theory is not
true, would seem to be applicable here also. If
Christ did not rise from the dead, then the evidence
that he did so has been a veritable snare to the
Christian Church for more than eighteen hundred
years, a snare from which only a very few of its
members have escaped. That a Being who needs
for an ethical purpose a general belief that such a
miracle has taken place would create such a belief
by misleading the human reason rather than by
performing the miracle, is a proposition which no
theist will readily entertain.
If, then, the ethical needs of the human race
which have just been considered, and which will
appear even more urgent in later chapters, suggest
the existence of something like a deadlock in the
moral development of the human race which could
be broken by no normal act of Providence that
can be imagined, it would seem that there was a
probability which might well be called extraor
dinary that an abnormal divine act would be per
formed. And if, as Mill implies, the antecedent

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 123
improbability against a miracle, even when con
ceived as a special divine interposition, would be
outweighed by " an extraordinary strength of prob
ability derived from the special circumstances of
the case," it would seem that the improbability
would be even more signally outweighed when the
miracle is not so conceived, but is regarded only
as a result of natural laws which transcend the
bounds of all save the most exceptional human
experience. I have thus endeavored to show that a miracle
is not necessarily an event which is outside the
realm of natural law, that it may be due to causes
which are normal to spheres beyond our present
experience, that there is not only, at the point
which we have reached, no presumption against it,
but even some degree of probability the other way
arising out of the ethical necessities of the case.
It would seem, then, according to the opinions of
the authors already quoted, that it is something
which evidence is competent to establish ; and we
have only now to inquire how much evidence there
is in favor of the resurrection of Christ, the cru
cial miracle, which I have selected because with it
every other must stand or fall.
One of the strongest proofs that it actually oc
curred is found in the fact that it cannot be denied
without creating a permanent gap in the chain of
historic cause and effect. It is like a stone in a
solid wall, and is held in place by the firm masonry
of later events. Every attempt to explain it on

124 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
naturalistic grounds has failed. The theory of
fraud is not now entertained. Competent crit
ics no longer believe that the alleged death of
Jesus was only a swoon. The hypothesis that
the disciples were deluded by visions was born of
desperation, and it very strongly corroborates the
gospel narratives by showing to what unnatural
devices those who dispute them must resort. It
has assumed no form on which the rationalists
could unite with anything approaching unanimity,
no form which is not clearly irreconcilable with
the accounts which they seek to explain. The
original belief in the resurrection is a phenomenon
without an adequate explanation apart from that
of the New Testament. They who reject this ex
planation cannot account for the most important
movement in the annals of the human race. Be
tween the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost
next ensuing, as is generally admitted, something
happened which changed the disciples from timid,
cowering fugitives into men of aggressive force,
whom no danger could daunt and no civil or eccle
siastical authority overawe. Out of that change
has grown the mighty Christian Church of to-day
and all the measureless influence it is exerting;
yet rationalism has practically given up the solu
tion of the question, " What occurred ? "
Baur says,1 " For the disciples the resurrection
had all the reality of an historical fact," and that
is all we need to know. It is "not so much the
1 Boston Lectures, 1871, p. 376.

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 125
fact of the resurrection as the belief in it " which
explains the history ; " the real character of the
resurrection lies outside the sphere of historical
inquiry." But the issue cannot be thus evaded.
The question may properly be asked, What right
has any man to dislocate history, to mutilate our
records, without repairing the damage ? The best
evidence we have that any remote event took place
is in the fact that it renders later events explicable.
We must not wantonly discredit it if, by so doing,
we destroy the historical explanation of subsequent
undoubted occurrences. A self-consistent account
of the beginning of the Christian movement has
come down to us. It declares that Jesus rose
from the dead, and by so doing wrought the vast
transformation in the character of the disciples
which all concede must have taken place. The
fact thus asserted explains perfectly the events
which followed. It is a cause psychologically ade
quate to account for them. No break appears in
the development of Christianity from the days of
John the Baptist to the present time. The history
of the greatest reformation the world has ever seen
can be followed step by step from the very begin
ning, and is always intelligible and self -consistent.
But suddenly the bridge which connects ancient
and modern history is broken down. We are as
sured that the event which had rendered them a
continuous whole did not take place. A cause is
removed from an hitherto unbroken series of his
torical sequences, and all attempts to close up the

126 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
gap fail. When Aladdin's palace was built, one
jeweled window was left unfinished until it was
demonstrated that there were not gems enough in
the empire to complete it. The narrative of the
beginnings of Christianity, however, is a structure
which has been handed down to us causally perfect,
and the rationalist, after dashing the jewels out of
its largest casement, neither permits them to be
restored nor finds anything to take their place.
The true historian is interested not only in
the political or social events of the past, but also
in the causal relation which subsists among them.
He is not a mere annalist; he is a philosopher.
It is his mission not only to chronicle palpable
facts, but also to give an intelligent explanation of
the movements of thought which create such facts.
The student of ecclesiastical history has a right to
demand an answer to the question how the earliest
Christians came to believe that Jesus rose from the
dead. If he is not to be permitted to credit the caus
ally sufficient statement that the event believed had
actually taken place, he is entitled to claim a sub
stitute for that statement in the shape of some
thing that is psychologically reasonable, something
that can be properly classified with recognized his
torical forces. He cannot be expected to pay such
deference to mere theories or whims as to admit
that a great gulf has become fixed in human history
beyond which the most momentous and beneficent
effects which have ever accrued to the human race
cannot be traced upward to their cause.

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 127
We are now prepared to consider the direct
historical evidence by which the belief in the re
surrection of Christ is supported. Of course, it
would be impracticable for me to give any satis
factory review of it in the limited space which I can
allot to this branch of my subject ; but it may be
safely affirmed that the evidence is stronger to-day
than it has been at any time since the Christian
records have been subjected to critical examination.
Lessing, the celebrated German author, who died
in 1781, although he did not accept Christianity
as a religion, declared, nevertheless, that the resur
rection of Christ was an event against which he
would raise historically no objections.1 This will
serve to show what impression was made by the
evidence in its favor upon the unbiased judgment
of a capable scholar before the theories of Strauss
and Baur had started the discussions which have
made the last sixty or seventy years among the
most remarkable in the history of Christian apol
ogetics. During that time the Tubingen school
and the advocates of the mythical theory have
been hurling heavy shot against the genuineness
and authenticity of the gospel narratives. It was
affirmed with much plausibility and force by men
of ingenious minds and broad scholarship that
the Gospels were written much too late to reflect
the prevalent opinions of Christ's time, and that
they had gathered in the interim large accretions
of unhistorical matter. But the dates assigned
1 Boston Lectures, 1870, p. 292.

128 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
by these critics to the evangelical narratives have
since been abandoned. It is now pretty generally
agreed that the Synoptic Gospels were written in
the first century, and that the Fourth appeared
not later than the first decade of the second cen
tury is the view of the most competent living
authority. The magnitude of the victory which
conservative scholarship has won along this line
may be best understood by comparing the dates
assigned to the Gospels by Baur and those now
adopted by Harnack,1 the eminent ecclesiastical
historian. Baur. Harnack.
Matthew, A. d. 130. Soon after A. d. 70.
Mark, A. d. 160. a. d. 65 to A. d. 70.
Luke, A. d. 150. Not later than A. d. 90,
probably earlier.
John, A. d. 165. Between A. d. 80 and A. D.
110.
In other words, all four were in existence at a
time when multitudes of persons were living who
must have known whether the events related in
them were true or not. Whatever weight of evi
dence was tacitly recognized as inhering in a con
temporary document by the laborious efforts which
the critics made to assign to the Gospels a late
date must be accorded to them now that these
efforts have miscarried ; so that the sacred narra
tives occupy a stronger position than ever in conse-
1 "Harnack's Chronology of the New Testament,'' The New
World, September, 1897.

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 129
quence of the fiery ordeal through which they have
so triumphantly passed.
The genuineness of the first four Epistles has
never been seriously questioned, and is not denied
at the present time. In one of these, written about
twenty-four years after the crucifixion, — as near
to that event as we are (a. d. 1900) to the dis
puted presidential election of 1876, — Paul men
tions witnesses of the resurrection to the number
of over five hundred, most of whom, he claimed,
were still living. Among them were Peter and
the other disciples; and as it appears from one
of these same letters a that he had previously asso
ciated for a considerable interval of time with
John, Peter, and James, the Lord's brother, he
must have known whether the reported appear
ances of the risen Christ to them were, in their
estimation, real. That he would question them
with the deepest interest in regard to an occur
rence which he made the central fact of his preach
ing it would be superfluous to affirm. Not only,
therefore, does he declare that Jesus appeared
after the crucifixion to himself personally, he gives
us also, in a document written as near to the event
as we are to the closing year of President Grant's
administration, what we cannot doubt has all the
force of direct testimony to the truth of the resur
rection from the lips of the chief disciples.
It is not, indeed, established as yet by criticism
beyond question that all of the Gospels were writ-
i Gal.i. 18, 19; ii. 1.

130 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
ten by the persons whose names they bear. Har
nack, for example, does not ascribe the Fourth
Gospel to John. But even if it should be admitted
that there might still be some doubt as to author
ship, any diminution in the value of the four docu
ments as testimony which might result would not
be serious. It is not, as a rule, the author who
renders an historical work credible ; it is rather
the work which first establishes his reputation for
credibility. The histories of Tacitus carry with
them great weight, and to cite him as an author
ity for an historical statement is to render it at
least worthy of attention. Suppose it to be dis
covered, however, that these histories have been
erroneously ascribed to him, and that they were
actually written by an obscure individual whose
name, let us say, was Sonorus. What would be
the consequence? The books would part with
no atom of their trustworthiness. Citations from
them would not be expunged from the work of a
single living historian. It was the histories that
won human confidence, not the name under which
they were given to the world ; and if such a dis
covery as I have suggested should be made, all the
authority which had previously attached to the
name of Tacitus would be transferred to that of
Sonorus, and the former would be buried in obliv
ion. We have the same reason for believing that the
four Gospels were written by the persons whose
names they bear that we have for holding a sim-

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 131
ilar belief in regard to most ancient documents ;
but it is very evident that the Second and Third
derive no special weight from the names attached
to them. On the contrary, they have rescued
these names from obscurity, and have made them
as famous as any that are known in literature. If
we credit these two narratives, it is not because
they were composed by Mark and Luke. The
value of the latter of the two consists largely in
the fact that it bears internal evidence of being
the work of a competent historical investigator.
The other may derive some slight importance
from the ancient tradition that it represents the
teaching of Peter; but its strongest credentials —
and the same may be said of each of the other
accounts — are found in the twofold fact that it
describes a character which the author was not
competent to invent, and that it was received as
authentic by the church from the earliest times.
Nor if the First and Fourth Gospels could be
proved not to have been written by disciples of
Jesus, would the credibility of what they assert as
to the resurrection of Christ be destroyed. For
it is now settled that the First was compiled when
most of the disciples were still living, and it cer
tainly could not have won from the churches the
general and early acceptance which we know it
found, if it had not been in harmony with the facts
that were known to the earliest Christians. And
the Fourth Gospel was in circulation when hundreds
of the disciples of John must have been living,

132 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
who would not only have eagerly read a book which
had appeared under their master's name, but would
have promptly branded it as an imposture had it
not been consistent with what he had been wont
to teach. One can readily feel the force of this
consideration by asking himself what chance there
would be of foisting upon the Congregational
churches in our own time a volume which falsely
pretended to contain the theological system of the
late Professor Park, when there are so many of
his former pupils scattered all over the world who
could readily expose the fraud.
Moreover, there is an important consideration
which justifies the practical religionist in discount
ing, to some extent, the future, and anticipating a
yet firmer establishment of the general trustworthi
ness of the New Testament records. The base-line
of every system of triangulation must be measured
off as accurately as can be done with the aid of the
most exact and delicate instruments, for an error
in it will be repeated in every subsequent calcula
tion, and may be enlarged, a thousand miles away,
from inches into rods. Impressed by this fact, the
United States government, a number of years ago,
had the line from which are derived the distances on
our coast-survey charts remeasured; but the en
gineers, after going over a mile or two, and find
ing that their measurement differed from the pre
vious one, as I have heard stated, by less than the
diameter of a puncture made by a cambric needle
in a copper plate, deemed it needless to proceed,

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 133
although the line, as I remember, was five miles in
length. And no one would doubt that they were
justified in so doing by the induction they had just
performed. Now, the primitive church has handed down to
us a collection of books which may be called the
base-line of modern Christianity. It is upon cer
tain traditional views as to the date, authorship,
and general trustworthiness of these books that
current orthodoxy largely rests. For more than
a thousand years the conclusions of the ancient
church on these points were practically unques
tioned; but during the greater part of the century
that has just closed, the correctness of the old
measurements has been strenuously denied. The
traditional view regarding perhaps every book in
the New Testament, except the first four Epistles,
has been powerfully and persistently assailed, and
even these have not always escaped attack. It is
safe to say that about all that learning, scholarship,
and mental acuteness could do to undermine con
fidence in the accepted theory as to the origin of
these books has already been done. The contro
versy is still going on, and it is virtually a new
survey of the original line.
Now what is the result thus far ? The four
Epistles just mentioned stand unimpeached; the
traditional dates of the four Gospels have been
practically reestablished; what had come to be
called " the critical heresy " of ascribing the Johan-
nine writings to a single author has an advocate

134 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
in the greatest living ecclesiastical historian;1 the
Book of Acts is recognized by him as a genuine
history, written considerably before the close of the
first century by the author of the Third Gospel ;
while Eenan conceded the genuineness of all the
letters ascribed to Paul save the pastoral Epistles,
and these he excepted only because he believed,
what is by no means certain, that the apostle to
the Gentiles died A. D. 64.
Now we have here an induction sufficiently ex
tensive to warrant us in believing that the early
measurement may.be trusted, that the critical sense
of the ancient church is entitled to more respect
than it has been wont of late to receive. It is the
very purpose and essence of inductive reasoning to
draw from known facts inferences regarding others
which cannot as yet be tested. In the present
case we shall be acting quite within our logical
rights if we conclude from the many points in
which the judgment of the early critics has now
been verified, that their opinions will in the end be
found equally accurate in all other essential par
ticulars which are still a subject of dispute. We
certainly cannot be reasonably expected to suspend
judgment in so important a matter as the origin of
our sacred books, and so to deprive ourselves of the
influence of their most inspiring teachings, until
slow criticism shall have made its final report,
when the trend of its results is manifestly towards
the traditional views, and when we can already urge
1 The New World, September, 1897.

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 135
in support of these an induction the same in kind,
if not in degree, as that on which the whole elabo
rate system of measurements rests which gives us
our distances along thousands of miles of sea-coast.
That the evangelists have faithfully reported the
words of Christ there can be no serious doubt.
" Who among his disciples, or among their prose
lytes," asks John Stuart Mill,1 " was capable of
inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of
imagining the life and character revealed in the
Gospels ? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee.
As certainly not Paul, whose character and idio
syncrasies were of a totally different sort. Still
less the early Christian writers, in whom nothing
is more evident than that the good which was in
them was all derived, as they professed that it was
derived, from a higher source." And Professor
Eomanes 2 says : " One of the strongest pieces of
objective evidence in favor of Christianity ... is
the absence from the biographies of Christ of any
doctrines which the subsequent growth of human
knowledge, whether in natural science, ethics, polit
ical economy, or elsewhere, has had to discount.
. . . Even Plato's Dialogues have absurdities in
reason and shock the moral sense, yet it is con
fessedly the highest level of human reason on the
lines of spirituality when unaided by alleged reve
lation." These and all other considerations which
make it impossible for us to believe that the evan-
1 Essays on Religion, p. 253.
2 Thoughts on Religion, p. 157. (Longmans, Green & Co.)

136 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
gelical writers could have originated the sayings of
Christ prove in the most convincing manner that
they were describing an actual character. By as
much as we concede that the man whom they por
tray surpassed the power of human imagination
and invention, by so much do we oblige ourselves
to admit that they have been faithful in recording
his life and teachings.
Now, that they were so scrupulously careful to
report his words and portray his character correctly
but were not equally so in relating the incidents of
his life is psychologically incredible. They must
have felt tempted to smooth down some of his
harsher sayings. That they did not do so to any
considerable extent is shown by the substantial
harmony of their reports ; and it evinces an histor
ical fidelity and conscientiousness on their part
which it would be unreasonable to deny to them
when they are narrating the works of Jesus. Even
Luke, who is credited with more freedom in han
dling his material than is either of the other Synop-
tists, only clarifies the meaning of the text by his
editorial changes. That he would abandon this
accurate conservative spirit in recording the events
with which the public career of Jesus was so
thickly studded is beyond belief.
The force of this consideration is immeasura
bly enhanced by the fact that the miracles as a
whole bear the stamp of the same original mind
which has expressed itself in the parables. They
are essentially parables, differing from them only

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 137
in the immaterial fact that they teach by signs
rather than by words. In both cases the meaning
lies beneath the surface, and the shell must be
broken before the kernel can be found. This
feature of the miracles, the pictorial and dramatic
illustration which they so graphically afford of the
profoundest religious truths, the striking harmony
there is between them and the oral teachings of
Jesus, precludes the idea that they were later ac
cretions to the record of Christ's fife. Their very
depth and spirituality negative such a theory.
There is a peculiar appropriateness in them, a par
allelism with the moral teachings of Jesus, which
stamps them as an integral part of the original
message. Nor is it of any avail to urge against the credi
bility of the resurrection the uncritical character
of the earliest observers. There is a bit of sophis
try in this hackneyed objection which cannot be
too often exposed. There are facts which can be
established just as well by the testimony of uncrit
ical observers as by that of an equal number of
trained experts. No man is so ignorant and super
stitious that his testimony in the witness-box as to
whether he had seen an intimate friend at a given
place and time would not equal in value, if he were
believed to be honest, that of a college professor to
the same fact. If a school-teacher is reported to
have sailed for Europe and a dozen of her pupils
declare a week afterwards that they have just met
and talked with her on the street, they may not be

138 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
over ten years of age and yet their testimony will
outweigh that of a dozen able lawyers who may
try to prove that she could not have been in the
country. The evidence of critical observers has
no superior value save in cases where critical ob
servation is needed. That the disciples were not
competent to say whether or not they had met and
conversed with their Master after his crucifixion,
and that the early historians, when they were not
themselves disciples, were not capable of relating
accurately what the disciples had reported in this
connection, is not only incredible in itself, but, as
already remarked, is inconsistent with the ability
they have displayed in communicating or recording
other matters demanding precision of statement
and clearness of recollection.
Let us now briefly reconsider what is required
of us by those who would forbid us to hold as true
the story of Christ's resurrection. We are to throw
away the only link which connects the history of
the last eighteen hundred years with that of the
preceding age, and so create an inexplicable and
permanent gap in the annals of the human race ;
we are to concede that the great ethical progress of
mankind during those years was made possible
only because in the providence of God an unac
countable delusion arose and was perpetuated for
centuries ; we are to suppose that, contrary to all
historical precedent and all psychological probabil
ity, a dozen hard-headed, unimaginative working-
men wrongly believed that they had beheld and

CHRISTIAN SUPERNATURALISM 139
talked with a most intimate friend on many occa
sions after his death, himself the most unique and
inimitable personality the world has ever seen;
we are to hold, contrary again to what we know
of the natural working of the human mind, that
men who were scrupulously careful in recording
the words of Christ parted with all historical vera
city when relating his deeds, and not only allowed
themselves to describe minutely his resurrection
from the dead, although it had not occurred, but
even attributed to him various utterances made
beforehand in reference to that imaginary event
and at different times after it had taken place.
And why are we to do all this ? Merely to evade
the otherwise irresistible inference that God has
pieced out the laws of a lower by those of a higher
world in order to impart to the human race a
moral light and stimulus which it would not other
wise have obtained, and without which no high ethi
cal development was to be looked for. Would it
not be more rational for us, if we believe in God,
to believe that he is godlike ? that he has set a
higher value on the moral welfare of the human
race than on alleged precedents in natural law ?
It was not an error, then, that Paul founded
his whole mission on the resurrection of Christ, for
the supernaturalism inseparable from traditional
Christianity rests upon it. " Beyond controversy,"
says Strauss,1 " the truth of Christianity stands or
falls with the resurrection of Jesus." If it cannot
1 Boston Lectures, 1871, p. 375.

140 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
be credited, no other miracle can. If it may be
legitimately believed, the wall of rationalism is
breached and must crumble rapidly. If one mira
cle is admitted, relatively little evidence is needed
to prove a second. The ascension is a natural
and consistent sequel to the resurrection, for in no
other way is the ultimate disappearance of Christ
from the earth accounted for. The incarnation is
almost presupposed, for one who left the world in
so exceptional a manner may easily be believed to
have entered it in some extraordinary way. That
marvels should mark the intervening career of one
who came and went so impressively could hardly
excite surprise, especially when they exhibit the
same individuality and originality which inhere in
the oral teachings of him who wrought them and
illustrate spiritual truths that are above the aver
age human comprehension.
The diminished need of evidence extends, also,
even to the wonders recorded in the Old Testa
ment. If we find gold at the mouth of a stream,
we shall not be surprised to learn that some grains
have been discovered miles away among the hills
from which the water flows. If Christianity has
had its miracles, it was to have been expected that
the religion out of which it sprang was not wholly
without them. And it cannot but be a dubious
and rash proceeding at the best to assume that
every supernatural tale in the older books is false,
and to rewrite Jewish history in the light of that
assumption.

CHAPTER VI
A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY
I have indicated in the foregoing chapter that
if a miracle is not in itseK incapable of being
proved, or, in other words, if any conceivable vol
ume of testimony could demonstrate that a strictly
supernatural event ever took place, the evidence
for the resurrection of Christ is sufficient both
in quality and quantity to entitle that occurrence
to a place among the practical working beliefs of
religious men. In doing so, however, I have as
sumed that the evidence is in harmony with itself,
that there is no doubt as to what it really teaches.
Lest it may be thought, however, that I have
ignored an important objection to the credibility of
the resurrection by failing to notice the alleged
disagreements and contradictions among the wit
nesses who have reported it, I may be pardoned if
I treat this subject at considerable length. I am
all the more disposed to do so because I think it
is one which, as a rule, is imperfectly understood.
How close a correspondence have we a right
to expect in independent narratives of the same
event? Or, to state the same question in a dif
ferent way, to what extent is the general credi-

142 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
bility of history impaired by discrepancies in the
accounts of those who relate it ? It is important
to be able to give at least approximately correct
answers to these questions, for otherwise we can
form no proper estimate of the value of the Chris
tian evidences.
That peculiarly unreasonable and impracticable
views are held in this connection appears from the
character of the discrepancies which are frequently
cited as affecting the trustworthiness of the gospel
narratives. For example, Matthew states that
Jesus was met on one occasion by two demoniacs,
but Mark and Luke in their accounts of the same
incident mention but one. Again, Matthew and
Mark describe the healing of a blind man as Jesus
was approaching Jericho, but the Third Gospel
says it took place after he had left that city. In
this same account, also, Matthew relates that two
men were cured, but Mark and Luke agree in
mentioning but one. Once more, the tradition or
the documentary source from which the Synoptists
are supposed to have derived their material gave
apparently the fifteenth of Nisan as the date of the
crucifixion, but the Fourth Gospel is commonly
understood to assign it to the fourteenth. These
may serve as a sample of the discrepancies which
have often been urged as making against the gen
eral credibility of the sacred narratives.
It may be freely granted that to one who holds
the old theory of verbal inspiration such disagree
ments might present insoluble difficulties. That

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 143
the Holy Spirit would dictate two irreconcilable
versions of the same event is not to be supposed,
and the shifts that must sometimes be resorted to
by advocates of that theory in order to avoid such
a conclusion are little calculated to enhance respect
for the historic value of the Christian records.
But assuming that the inspiration of the New
Testament affords an illustration of what might
be called an economy of the supernatural, that it
connotes no more of special divine assistance than
is necessary to bring certain religious truths within
reach of normal human faculties, that it means, in
the present, case, not such an influence brought to
bear on witnesses as would change the inherent
character of human testimony, but only such a
providential use of such testimony, with all its
natural defects and inaccuracies, as would render
it a competent medium for the communication of
vital historical facts, are the alleged discrepancies
in the sacred writings inconsistent either with a
rational view of the inspiration of these writings
or with their obvious aim to serve as reliable
sources of religious information ?
We can determine the true answer to this question
only by acquainting ourselves accurately with the
character of human testimony in general, and espe
cially by ascertaining how nearly witnesses usually
agree when reporting important events which are
well calculated to make a deep impression on the
memory, and when they evidently mean to report
them correctly. I am able to furnish a striking

144 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
illustration which tends to show how unreasonable
it is to look for entire harmony among competent
witnesses even to an event of superlative signifi
cance, and, on the other hand, how needless it is,
so far as the general credibility of an account is
concerned, that there should be a perfect agree
ment in the reports of those who relate it.
My example is rendered peculiarly pertinent
and impressive by the high character of the wit
nesses who are quoted. It is very seldom that a
case is tried in court in which the evidence is fur
nished by persons of so high standing. They are
General Philip H. Sheridan, of the United States
Army, Archibald Forbes, the distinguished Eng
lish newspaper correspondent, Count von Bis
marck, Dr. Busch, his secretary and biographer,
Dr. Eussell, the famous representative of the
"London Times," besides a weaver named Four-
naise and his wife, who, although of a lower social
and mental grade than the others, were apparently
none the less competent to observe intelligently
and report correctly the facts which they relate.
The matter to which they all testify is the surren
der of Napoleon the Third at Sedan, one of the
most striking, if not startling, events of the nine
teenth century. It would seem that an occurrence
of such magnitude described by persons so emi
nent as, with two exceptions, these were, most of
whom were eyewitnesses of the incidents they nar
rate, while the others derived their information
directly from participants in what took place,

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 145
would be sure to be reported in such a manner as
to leave no reasonable doubt as to anything that
actually occurred. How far short of a complete
fulfillment this anticipation would fall may be
seen in what follows, which I have taken from an
article by Archibald Forbes in the " Nineteenth
Century " for March, 1892. I will give first in a
condensed form the testimony of each witness in
succession, and then point out the discrepancies in
their several narratives.
1. The facts according to General Sheridan.
" About that hour (6 a. m.) there came through
the gate an open carriage containing two men, one
of whom Sheridan recognized as the Emperor Na
poleon." (Note by Archibald Forbes : " Sheridan
always persisted vehemently that the carriage con
tained but two men, all evidence to the contrary
notwithstanding. ' Must I not believe my own
eyes ! ' he exclaimed to me not three months be
fore his death.") " Sheridan followed the carriage
towards Donchery. Not quite a mile short of that
place it halted to await the arrival of Bismarck.
After Bismarck came, the party moved on about
one hundred yards and stopped opposite a weaver's
cottage. The Emperor and Bismarck entered the
cottage. Eeappearing in a quarter of an hour, they
seated themselves in the open air on chairs brought
by the weaver. They talked there for fully an
hour." 2. Bismarck's account, as given to Busch a few
days later : —

146 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
About 6 A. M. General Eeille appeared at Bis
marck's quarters at Donchery and asked him to
come to the Emperor. He met the Emperor at
Frenois, a mile and three fourths from Donchery.
Napoleon was seated in a carriage with three offi
cers, and there were three others on horseback.
Napoleon stopped his carriage opposite a weaver's
cottage two hundred paces from the village (Fre
nois) and desired to remain there. Bismarck ac
companied him to a small room on the first floor,
with one window. The conversation here lasted
nearly three quarters of an hour. Bismarck rode
away to Donchery to dress, and, on his return
in full uniform, conducted Napoleon to Chateau
Bellevue with a guard of honor of cuirassiers.
3. Bismarck, in his official report, " specifically
states that his long interview with the Emperor,
' which lasted nearly an hour,' was held inside the
weaver's cottage " (Forbes).
4. Archibald Forbes's account : —
" The following is what I personally saw, con
densed from very copious notes taken at the time,
watch in hand.
" Looking out from my bedroom window into the
Place of Donchery at one quarter to six in the
morning (September 2), I observed a sad-faced
French officer turning his horse away from Bis
marck's quarters. (Knew him afterwards to be
General Eeille.) He had scarcely disappeared when
Bismarck emerged and followed his track on a bay
horse. We followed him promptly on foot. Fell

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 147
behind but pushed on, and at about two kilometres
from Donchery met an open carriage in which sat
four officers in French uniform. In one of them
we simultaneously recognized the Emperor. Be
hind, close to the carriage, rode Bismarck, followed
by Eeille and two other French officers. The
carriage halted in front of a weaver's cottage at
Napoleon's instance. I saw him turn round, and
heard the request he made to Bismarck. The
Emperor hurried behind the house (7.10), while
Bismarck and Eeille went in but almost immedi
ately came out. Soon the Emperor returned, and
he and Bismarck then entered, going up to the
first floor. At twenty minutes past seven they
came out, Bismarck a few moments in advance,
sat down in front of the cottage, and had an out
door conversation which lasted nearly an hour.
Bismarck used the gesture of bringing a finger of
the left hand down on the palm of the right. The
weaver was all the time overlooking the pair from
the window. (I asked him if he overheard any
thing. He said, ' No, because they spoke in Ger
man.' Bismarck, he said, — i. e., '¦ Monsieur in the
white cap,' — addressed him in French, but the
Emperor said, ' Let us talk in German.') At eight
Moltke came, but twenty minutes later left. Bis
marck departed at twenty minutes to nine."
5. Bismarck again : —
He happened to see Forbes's letter and instructed
Busch to contradict certain of his statements. He
persevered in the statement that he had spent

148 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
three fourths of an hour at least inside the cottage
in an upstairs room, and was only a short time
outside with the Emperor. He did not strike his
finger into his palm, which was no trick of his.
Did not speak German with the Emperor, but did
with the people of the house.
6. Dr. Eussell (narrative of an account given to
him by Bismarck) : —
" I proposed that we should go into a little cot
tage close at hand, but the house was not clean,
and so chairs were brought outside and we sat
together talking."
7. Eecollections of Madame Fournaise, the weav
er's wife, while the events were fresh in her memory:
"The Emperor, disliking to pass through the
crowds of German soldiers on the road to Don
chery," came into her room. For a quarter of an
hour he and Bismarck conversed in low tones in
German, of which she, remaining in the outer
room, occasionally caught a word. Then Bismarck
rose and came clattering out. " II avait une tres
mauvaise mine." She warned him of the break
neck stairs, but he sprang down them like a man
of twenty, mounted his horse, and rode away
towards Donchery. When she entered the room
in which the Emperor was left, she found him with
his face buried in his hands. " Can I do anything
for you ? " she asked. " Only pull down the blinds,"
was his answer. He would not speak to General
Lebrun, who came to him. In about half an hour
Bismarck returned in full dress and preceded the

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 149
Emperor downstairs. The Emperor quitted the
house and entered the carriage which was to con
vey him to Chateau Bellevue. On the threshold
he gave her four twenty-franc pieces. " He put
them into my own hand, and said plaintively, ' This
is perhaps the last hospitality I shall receive in
France.' "
8. Forbes again : —
" Madame Fournaise's memory has failed her.
After Bismarck's departure Napoleon, who was
then out-of-doors, sauntered up and down the path,
limping slightly and smoking hard. Later he sat
down among the officers. At quarter past nine
came cuirassiers and formed a cordon round the
rear of the block of cottages. A lieutenant, with
out a sign of salute, stationed two troopers behind
the Emperor and commanded, ' Draw swords ! ' At
quarter to ten Bismarck returned."
Let us now consider the discrepancies in the
above accounts.
Sheridan said there were only two men in the
carriage, and persisted in the statement as long
as he lived. Bismarck, according to Busch, said
there were four, and is corroborated by Forbes.
Sheridan makes no mention of mounted officers
accompanying the carriage. Bismarck says there
were three, and so does Forbes, who states that
one of them was General Eeille.
Sheridan says Bismarck met the Emperor not
quite a mile from Donchery. Bismarck says a

150 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
mile and three fourths. Forbes says he himself
met the carriage about a mile and one quarter
(two kilometers) from Donchery. (Bismarck had
already met it and was returning with it.)
Sheridan says Bismarck and Napoleon remained
in the cottage a quarter of an hour and then
talked outside for fully an hour ; Bismarck (per
Busch) that he conversed in the room for nearly
three quarters of an hour. (No mention of any
conversation outside.) In his official report he
states that the interview was in the cottage and
lasted nearly an hour. (Still no reference to any
talk outside.) Forbes declares that the Emperor
alighted at 7.10, came out of the house at 7.20,
and that the conversation out-of-doors lasted nearly
an hour. Bismarck corrects this statement and
reiterates that he spent at least three quarters of
an hour in the house, but only a short time with
the Emperor outside. Eussell reports that Bis
marck told him that the house was not clean, that
" chairs were brought outside and we sat together
talking." Madame Fournaise says they talked in
the room for a quarter of an hour but, by necessary
implication, not outside at all.
Bismarck (per Busch) says that Napoleon pro
posed to enter the cottage. Forbes agrees, hav
ing heard Napoleon make the request. Dr. Eus
sell says Bismarck told him that he (Bismarck)
proposed it. Madame Fournaise incidentally cor
roborates the majority by her explanation that
Napoleon was unwilling to pass through the Ger
man troops.

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 151
Forbes testifies that the weaver said they spoke
German outside. Madame Fournaise affirms that
they did inside, and that she caught a word now
and then. Bismarck denies that they did so at all.
Forbes says Bismarck made a particular gesture
with his finger ; Bismarck says he did not, and that
he has no such trick.
Now most of these discrepancies may be con-
jecturally explained in harmony with well-known
principles of mental action. Assuming provision
ally that the narrative of Forbes is the most likely
to be correct, for the reason that it was a part of
his business to make his statements accurate, that
it was necessary for him to put them in writing
immediately in order that his paper might receive
them promptly, and that he was so alive to the
importance of precision that he made his observa
tions " watch in hand," we have a standard into
conformity with which we can bring most of the
discordant utterances without transcending the
bounds of reasonable supposition.
The disagreements as to distance can be plausi
bly explained by the familiar fact that people vary
very much in their capacity to estimate it, but
more especially by the consideration that there is
likely to be a great difference between an estimate
made on the spot and one made afterwards from
only a recollection of the spot. General Sheridan's
rooted conviction that there were but two officers
in the carriage is easily accounted for when it is

152 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
considered that men are much more likely to be
mistaken when they maintain that what they do
not remember did not happen than when they
contend that what they do remember did occur.
His possible ignorance of the fact that there were
mounted officers present may only show that the
circumstance made no lasting impression on his
memory. His testimony could, from the very na
ture of the case, only be negative, viz. : that he did
not recollect seeing four men in the carriage and,
perhaps, three horsemen behind it. His testimony
when thus expressed does not contradict that of
the others. His question, " Must I not believe my
own eyes ? " does not convey a right view of the
case. It is much less convincing when put in the
proper form : Must I not believe that that did not
exist which I may have forgotten that I saw ?
The disagreement as to who proposed to enter
the cottage, in which Bismarck is quoted against
himself, cannot be easily explained except by as
suming some carelessness on his part in expressing
himself or some misunderstanding of his remarks
on the part of Dr. Eussell.
The testimony as to the time spent in the cot
tage and outside is hard to reconcile. That the
exact time spent within was not quite ten minutes
seems settled by Forbes's accurate specifications.
The Emperor alighted at 7.10 by the watch and
came out of the house at 7.20. Sheridan practi
cally agrees with Forbes. They remained in the
cottage a quarter of an hour, he says. As this was

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 153
probably only an estimate made from memory,
after the event, it may be regarded as tallying well
enough with Forbes's statement. The same, of
course, may be said of Madame Foumaise's testi
mony that they talked in the room for a quarter
of an hour. This point, then, would be regarded
as determined beyond all doubt, were it not for
Bismarck's persistent declarations. " We con
versed in the room for nearly three quarters of an
hour," he told Busch, while in his official report he
lengthens the time and says the interview in the
cottage lasted nearly an hour. And again, after
seeing Forbes's account, he took pains to have
Busch reaffirm that at least three quarters of an
hour were spent within the house.
But these statements, while they leave no doubt
in our minds as to the length of time Bismarck
firmly believed he had remained in the house,
would not of themselves give us much trouble.
In nothing do men disagree oftener than in their
estimates of time. The minutes pass very rapidly
with one person while they seem to another to
drag. A pleasant interview might seem short,
while one of a disagreeable nature would seem
long. That Bismarck's interview was of the latter
kind would not appear doubtful if we can trust
Madame Foumaise's statement that he emerged
from it with a scowling countenance. As it is not
at all likely that he consulted his watch in order to
determine the time precisely, it might be plausibly
conjectured that the interview was so painful that

154 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
it seemed long to him, and that when he came
afterwards to translate into figures the impression
made on his memory, he could not believe that the
conversation had lasted less than three quarters of
an hour. And this view is incidentally favored
by his remark to Dr. Eussell that the house was
not clean, and that chairs were brought outside.
If the room was so untidy that they would not
remain in it, it is in the highest degree improb
able that they waited three quarters of an hour
before leaving it.
But the truth of the matter seems to be that
Bismarck has added together the time spent in the
house and that passed outside. With the excep
tion of the remark made to Dr. Eussell which has
just been quoted, he makes no allusion to any out-
of-door conversation, or to any opportunity for one
which could have lasted more than a very short time.
Leaving out that remark, we get the impression
from his words that his business with Napoleon
was transacted in one uninterrupted interview,
which was held within the cottage and lasted from
forty-five minutes to nearly an hour. This agrees
well, so far as the length of the whole interview is
concerned, with Forbes, whose figures are : nearly
ten minutes within and nearly an hour without.
Nor does it differ materially from Sheridan's esti
mate : a quarter of an hour within and fully an
hour without. It may well be that so unimportant
an incident as a slight change in the scene of the
interview soon passed from Bismarck's memory.

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 155
The discrepancy in regard to Bismarck's ges
tures we may promptly dismiss, and may confi
dently assume that Forbes is right ; for a man is
generally ignorant of his own mannerisms, and
Bismarck's declaration that " he has no such trick "
cannot weigh against what Forbes states that he
actually saw. And for a somewhat similar reason
we may disregard the Count's denial that he used
the German language. A man who is accustomed
to converse in two tongues might easily forget
which one he used on a given occasion. Madame
Foumaise's testimony is unequivocal : he used
German inside and she caught a word now and
then. The weaver is no less clear : they spoke
German outside by an agreement which he over
heard, and consequently he could not understand
the conversation. Bismarck admits that he did
use that tongue, but says it was when he addressed
the inmates of the cottage. The remark which
the weaver heard the Emperor make outside, " Let
us talk in German," would favor either view. It
might imply that they had been using the French
tongue inside and that the Emperor wished to
change it, or that they had been speaking German
and he wished to continue it. Bismarck seems to
believe that the whole negotiation was conducted
in French ; but unless we are ready to adopt the
improbable view that both the weaver and his wife
made independently the same mistake, we must be
lieve that either the business that was transacted
in the house or that which was arranged outside

156 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
was done in German ; and as Bismarck seems to
have forgotten that the interview was divided, it
is decidedly the more probable that the same
language was used throughout.
Thus far we have had, comparatively speaking,
plain sailing, and by using only reasonable suppo
sitions have woven the narratives of the different
witnesses into a sufficiently consistent account;
but now we have to deal with statements of the
weaver's wife which throw everything into con
fusion. She virtually declares that there was no
interview outside of the house ; for after a conver
sation of fifteen minutes in the room, Bismarck
came clattering out with an ill-humored visage
and, mounting his horse, rode off. She could have
no doubt as to this incident, for she warned him
that the stairs were dangerous ; but he hurried
down, nevertheless, so precipitately as to attract
her attention — " like a man of twenty," she said.
Moreover, there would seem to be no ground for
the suspicion that she had forgotten that the
Emperor was with him at the time, or that, re
membering it, she had neglected to mention the
circumstance, for she found the former afterwards
in the room with his face buried in his hands. Her
recollection of this fact was so definite that she
even recalled a conversation she had had with him
and an act of kindly service that she had rendered
him. She supposed, too, that he had remained
there some thirty minutes, for she says that in
about half an hour Bismarck returned in full dress
and preceded the Emperor downstairs.

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 157
One almost despairs of fitting these incidents
anywhere into the account. If we were at liberty
to assume that the Emperor did not follow Bis
marck out-of-doors until after some little interval
of time, we might plausibly surmise that the brief
conversation between Napoleon and the woman
occurred during that interval, that the interview
outside she had not observed, that the Count's de
parture took place consequently in her memory as
a continuation of his descent after the fifteen-min
ute interview, and that the detail of his preceding
the Emperor downstairs afterwards belongs also
to that interview, and is a reminiscence of the sug
gested fact that there had been some little space
between the descent of the Chancellor and that
of the Emperor. Indeed, Forbes says the former
was a few moments in advance. So, too, in one of
the accounts it is stated that chairs were brought
out. Had the Emperor remained behind while
this was being done? If it was but for half a
minute, there would have been time enough for the
conversation with Madame Fournaise. But what
is to be done with her obvious implication that he
remained there above half an hour, and with the
fact that his direction to her regarding the blinds
shows that he expected to stay some time? Her
story is stated to have been told "while the events
were fresh in her memory." Still, she had forgot
ten the interview out-of-doors ; or, if she knew no
thing about it, she had failed to remember that the
time it lasted had intervened between Bismarck's

158 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
descent from the first floor and his departure. Did
she unwittingly add that time to the minute or less
which the Emperor might conceivably have spent
in the room after Bismarck left it? And was her
association of the Chancellor in full dress with the
descent of the Emperor a confusion of two chrono
logically separate incidents? We should suppose,
though we cannot be sure, that Napoleon's pathetic
remark to her and the incident of the coins would
have aided her recollection in this matter.
Or is there a hiatus in Forbes's narrative ? Did
Napoleon enter that room twice ? There are at
least twenty minutes during which he disappears
from the account. He came out of the house at
7.20, says Forbes, and had an outdoor conversation
which lasted nearly an hour. That is, it was fin
ished before 8.20. Bismarck took his departure at
8.40, and Napoleon was then outside. He paced
to and fro, smoking, or sat with the officers, till
9.15, when he was formally put under guard. But
where was he from 8.20 or a little earlier till 8.40 ?
The witnesses do not say. Did he return unob
served to the room and remain there during that
time ? Did the weaver's wife then find him there
and take for granted that he had not been out of
the chamber ? In her narrative she does not say
or even necessarily imply that she went into the
apartment as soon as Bismarck left it. Forbes says :
" When she entered the room in which the Emperor
was left, she found him," etc. If, then, it is sup-
posable that the Emperor eluded the observation

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 159
of Forbes long enough to enter the house a second
time and spend twenty minutes there, that Madame
Fournaise, finding him there and knowing nothing
of the interview outside, thought he had been there
ever since he first came in, there is nothing in her
testimony inconsistent with what is affirmed by
the other witnesses except that she believed that
Bismarck had ridden away immediately after leav
ing the chamber, and that he was in full dress
when he preceded the Emperor downstairs.
I have been at so much pains to analyze and
reconcile this mass of testimony in order to call
attention the more forcibly to the difficulties sure
to be encountered in sifting the evidence for any
complex event. It probably will be conceded that
a larger measure of agreement among witnesses
than appears in the above accounts is not to be
expected in the narratives of an occurrence which
involves the movements of an equal number of
persons. We may even go further and confidently
affirm, in view of the eminent character of those
whose statements have just been examined, that
the discrepancies in these are abnormally few in
number and unusually slight in importance. A
larger, or even so large, a degree of correspondence
cannot as a rule reasonably be looked for in the
accounts of an equally complicated incident given
by the same number of persons. If the proof of
the surrender of Louis Napoleon should eventu
ally consist solely of the testimony given above,
the difficulty with which the various narratives are

160 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
harmonized would constitute no valid reason for
doubting the occurrence. And, therefore, seeming
contradictions among the witnesses to any other
event of a like intricacy, if they are of no greater
proportionate number and difficulty, cannot ra
tionally be urged against the credibility of the
event. This, of course, may be assailed on other
grounds; but discrepancies in the accounts, if
they are no more serious or striking than those
enumerated above, have no weight whatever, for
they reflect only the normal character of human
testimony, and are inseparable from it.
Now, applying this principle — which I believe
to be incontestable — to the evidence for the re
surrection of Christ, it becomes manifest that the
alleged disagreements among the reporters of that
occurrence are less serious and important than
those examined above. And even if we accept
the latter as representing with sufficient accuracy
only the normal amount of variation which is to
be expected in human testimony in a parallel case,
the discrepancies in the accounts of the resurrec
tion are fewer in number than was to have been
anticipated ; nor would the credibility of the
event have been impaired even if they had been
somewhat more numerous and difficult. Such as
they are, they furnish no more reason to doubt that
it occurred than those above cited would afford
twenty centuries from now for questioning the tra
ditional account of Louis Napoleon's surrender.
It may be worth while for us to examine them
in detail with the above-mentioned fact in mind.

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 161
The persons whose movements or words are
chronicled are the risen Saviour, Mary Magdalene,
" the other Mary " (Matthew), Salome (Mark),
Joanna and other women unnamed (Luke), the
guard at the tomb, Peter, John, and two men in
dazzling apparel. The witnesses are Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the author of the
Appendix to Mark. We have thus an event of
startling magnitude, involving the movements of
more persons than are concerned in the narrative
of Napoleon's surrender, and related, like that, by
four principal reporters and by others whose tes
timony is briefer. Is it as easy to reconcile the
discrepancies in this account as in the other ? If
so, they cannot of themselves be said to cast any
shadow of suspicion on the general veracity of the
narrative. They may be best brought out by following each
detail of the story through the parallel accounts.
1. The Women who came to the Tomb. —
Matthew says there were two, whom he names ;
Mark that there were those two and another;
Luke, those two, another who was not the third
one mentioned by Mark, and still others whose
names he does not give. John mentions only
Mary Magdalene, agreeing, in this regard, with the
Appendix. Now, in no case is it expressly affirmed in any
of the accounts that no women were present ex
cept those mentioned by the writer ; nor, indeed, is
it even necessarily implied that such was the fact,

162 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
except in John's account of the interview of Jesus
with Mary Magdalene. There is, in one case, a
distinct intimation to the contrary. For example,
the Fourth Gospel says that Mary Magdalene came
to the tomb (the first time), but mentions no com
panion ; yet when she makes her report to Peter
and John immediately after she says,1 " They have
taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know
not (ouk o?8a/iev) where they have laid him," — a
hint that the evangelist was aware that there had
been at least one other with her. It is to be noted
that we have no such difficulties in this connection
as are created by General Sheridan's persistent de
nial that there were any officers in the carriage but
the two whom he mentioned. The discrepancies,
if they can be so called, are rather to be classed
with his failure to mention the three mounted offi
cers who "undoubtedly followedthe Emperor.
2. The Time of their Arrival. — Matthew
says they came " as it began to dawn." Mark :
" very early," " when the sun was risen." Luke :
" at early dawn." John : " early, while it was yet
dark" (i. e., Mary Magdalene). Now the expres
sions used by three of the evangelists are substan
tially harmonious, and the Appendix is not incon
sistent with them. Mark's specification, however,
" when the sun was risen," is a discrepancy ; but
it no more disagrees with the others than it does
with his own designation of the time as "very
early." The real difficulty, therefore, is not to
1 John xx. 2.

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 163
harmonize Mark with the others, but to determine
just what he means. The fact that the two dis
crepant notes of time occur in the same sentence
precludes all suspicion that they were not both in
tentionally used. A plausible explanation would
be that some of the women reached the tomb later
than others, and that Mark has preserved a remi
niscence of that fact. His ambiguity, however, re
moves his statement from the list of discrepancies
which can be confidently pronounced to be such.
3. The Earthquake and the Guard. — Mat
thew seems to imply that the earthquake took
place while the women were at the tomb, that they
saw the angel roll away the stone, that the guard
were present during their conversation with him,
and that it took place outside the tomb (" Gome, see
the place where the Lord lay," xxviii. 6), while he
was sitting on the stone. Mark says the women
found the stone rolled away, and that they had a
conversation with a young man in a white robe in
the sepulchre. Luke also says that they found
the stone removed, and that while they stood per
plexed, apparently within the tomb, two men stood
by them in dazzling apparel and spoke to them.
John records that Mary Magdalene found the
stone taken away, but mentions no angels until
her second visit, when she saw two. In none of
the accounts except that of Matthew is the earth
quake mentioned, or the impression given that the
soldiers were at the grave when the women arrived.
If the First Gospel really necessitates the con-

164 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
elusion that the moving of the stone was conceived
by Matthew to have occurred after the women had
reached the tomb, and that their interview with the
angel was held in the presence of the cowering
guard, this account is evidently not in agreement
with any of the others. And that such was Mat
thew's understanding of the facts finds counte
nance in the emphasis placed by the angel on the
personal pronoun, " Fear not ye " (/") <f>o/2eio-6e
fyieis), which suggests a tacit reference to others
present who were in fear. In that case the evan
gelist may have welded together two sets of inci
dents by ignoring the interval of time which sepa
rated them, — an error which would be comparable
with the omission by Madame Fournaise of the
outdoor interview, and by Bismarck, in one of his
accounts, of the change in the scene of the conver
sation from the inside to the outside of the cottage,
with the result, in both cases, that disconnected
events were run together. The failure of the other
evangelists to mention the earthquake and the
terror of the soldiers would constitute no disagree
ment, but would simply indicate that the First
Gospel begins with a detail which belongs to a little
earlier point of time than that at which the others
commence. 4. The Angels. — Matthew, as has been said,
seems to have supposed that the women talked with
a single angel outside the tomb, Mark differing
only by assigning the conversation to the interior.
The words used by the apparition in the two ac-

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 165
counts show the incident to be one and the same.
Luke, however, says two men stood by them,
though evidently a little later, *. e., " while they
stood perplexed." John mentions none in connec
tion with Mary Magdalene's first visit, but speci
fies two when she came the second time, — a differ
ent event altogether.
There is really no contradiction here ; for not
only does the smaller number not necessarily ex
clude the larger, as shown in the example above,
but it is quite conceivable that one of the mysteri
ous visitors may have been seen by some of the party
who were not present when the other appeared.
A more serious difficulty is created by the fact
that while Matthew, Mark, and Luke convey the im
pression that Mary Magdalene was one of those to
whom the angel or angels first appeared, John con
strains us to believe that she was not. According
to his account, when she saw that the stone had
been taken away, she came running to Peter and
John with the words, " They have taken away the
Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they
have laid him." No hint here of a resurrection
reported by angel visitors. So, too, when she re
turned to the grave and saw the two figures in white
sitting within, she seems not to have surmised their
true nature. At any rate, if she had seen them
and heard their message on a previous occasion, she
must have known what explanation they had given
of the disappearance of the body, and would hardly
have answered their question, as she did, by ex-

166 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
pressmg ignorance of what they had already told
her. The discrepancy, however, may be plausibly
explained by supposing John's narrative to con
tain an accurate version of an incident which the
other evangelists relate more loosely. It is quite
credible that they, knowing that Mary Magdalene
had been among the first at the tomb, took for
granted that she was present at the first interview
with the angels, when, in point of fact, she left her
companions as soon as she saw that the stone had
been moved, and was not present when that inter
view took place, probably within the tomb. Her
separation from the party would have been an in
cident of so little importance that it might well
have escaped the notice of authors who may have
cared only to give a general outline of events with
out troubling themselves about such minute details.
It was an occurrence that might well have been
overlooked in an account involving the movements
of an ever-changing group of persons, and has its
counterpart in the possible fact suggested above, —
that the Emperor Napoleon had entered the cot
tage a second time and was within doors during a
part of the time that Archibald Forbes supposed
he was outside.
5. The Words of the Angels. — Matthew and
Mark are here in substantial agreement. Luke's
report also is of the same general tenor. His most
important divergence is his expansion of Mat
thew's, " He is risen, as he said " into, he " is

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 167
risen : remember how he spake unto you when he
was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man
must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men,
and be crucified, and the third day rise again."
In other words, he quotes the saying referred to by
Matthew. This may be, as some suppose, of the
nature of an editorial amplification. Or does Luke
report a speech which was addressed to a second
party of the women ? The true reading of Luke
xxiv. 8-10 (" And they remembered his words,
and returned from the tomb, and told all these
things to the eleven; and to all the rest. Now they
were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the
mother of James : and the other women with them
told these things unto the apostles ") would lend
some color to the suspicion that the angels spoke
to two different groups of auditors, who reported
to the disciples in quick succession. The fact that
Luke alone preserves the impressive interrogatory,
" Why seek ye among the dead him that liveth? "
would harmonize with that idea ; though it could
not, in any event, be regarded as a disagreement.
It might be merely an additional detail which the
other writers had forgotten, and woidd be compar
able with the fact, preserved by Madame Fournaise
alone, that the Emperor entered the cottage be
cause he was unwilling to pass through the Ger
man soldiers. The allusion to Galilee has a differ
ent setting in all three accounts. So the words,
" I have told you," in Matthew, and " as he said
unto you," in Mark, seem to be — especially in

168 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
the Greek — different reminiscences of the same
remark ; but such discrepancies affect no important
fact and are of no account.
6. The Women and the Disciples. — Matthew
says that they, the two Marys, ran to bring the
disciples word, but leaves us nothing more than a
presumption that they carried out their purpose.
Mark reports that they and another were directed
by the angel to make known to the disciples what
had occurred, but that they said nothing to any
one, being afraid. What modifying statements, if
any, followed, of course we do not know ; but, as it
stands, the Second Gospel gives us to understand
that they made no report. If, therefore, Matthew
and Mark contained all the information we have on
this point, we coidd not be certain that there was
any disagreement between them. Luke, however,
makes it clear that of the five or more women intro
duced into his account some at least delivered their
message. John and the Appendix omit the episode.
We cannot state very positively that there is
any actual discrepancy here, because the only re
cord which suggests one is mutilated at a critical
place. It does not seem quite probable that Mark's
account, if we had the whole of it, would favor the
idea that all the women disobeyed the command of
the angel for any great length of time. We can
only be sure, under the circumstances, that Mark
would have us believe that they or those of them
whom he had in mind at first told nobody.
7. The First Appearance of the Eisen Saviour.

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 169
— Matthew, the Appendix, and John agree that it
was to Mary Magdalene. Paul mentions no ap
pearances to any women, harmonizing in this par
ticular with Luke, who records first the appearance
to Cleopas and his companion, though leaving it
doubtful whether there had not been an earlier one
to Peter (xxiv. 34). Paul also mentions Cephas
(Peter) first in his list of those who had beheld the
risen Christ ; but neither he nor Luke expressly
states that Mary Magdalene had not seen him first.
Now whether we should be justified in suspecting
that the two writers last named had reason to be
lieve that an appearance of the risen Saviour to a
woman would not be likely to impress favorably
their Gentile readers, may be doubtful; but it is
very evident that their failure to mention it can
not be cited as proof that they were ignorant of it.
It cannot confidently be classed, therefore, as a
disagreement with other accounts.
The only real discrepancies, then, in this connec
tion, would seem to be Matthew's supposition that
Jesus met Mary Magdalene as she was returning
from her first visit to the sepulchre, and that the
other Mary was with her at the time. That she was
alone and was making a second visit to the tomb
when she first saw the risen Lord, John makes suffi
ciently probable. She speaks in the singular num
ber, not in the plural, as on the previous occasion,
when we may suppose that she had the other Mary
in mind. This error of Matthew, then, would be of
the same order as the one already attributed to him,

170 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
and would be simply another illustration of a tend
ency to ignore dividing-lines between events.
But admitting that the interviews of Jesus with
the two Marys in the First Gospel and with Mary
Magdalene in the Fourth are the same incident,
it might be thought that there is a contradiction
between the two accounts in another particular.
Matthew says, " They [the two] came and took hold
of his feet, and worshipped him;" but Christ's
remark to Mary Magdalene in the Fourth Gospel,
" Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended unto
the Father," is commonly supposed to intimate
that she was not permitted to lay hands on him
at all. But it is doubtful if the Greek favors,
or at any rate necessitates, this view. We should
expect in that case an aorist, — pr) /jlov ctyrj, per
haps (Colossians ii. 21). But the direction is in
the present tense (jx-q pov a7nW), and might be ren
dered, " Do not be handling me." The grammat
ical construction is such as would be likely to be
used if Jesus would deter Mary from continuing
to do what she had begun to do, as may be gath
ered from such examples as " Fear not " (Luke i.
13), " Trouble not yourselves " (Acts xx. 10), and
others. Christ's command, when thus conceived,
is not inconsistent with the parallel passage in
Matthew, but presupposes some such action on the
part of Mary Magdalene as is there attributed to
the two Marys. Aside from the number of the
women supposed to be concerned, there is, then, no
disagreement between the accounts except that in

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 171
one Jesus says, " All hail ! " (xatpeTe) and in the
other simply " Mary," which is of no importance.
8. Peter and John. — The only important vari
ation in the narratives of the conduct of these
two disciples is in the fact that Luke states that
Peter went to the tomb and mentions no compan
ion, while John says that he and Peter went to
gether. But it seems evident enough that Luke
knew that Peter was not alone, for he represents
Cleopas and his companion as saying, "And cer
tain (tives, plural) of them that were with us went
to the tomb," etc. (xxiv. 24). Even if the omis
sion had been made by the evangelist from igno
rance, it would have been of no consequence.
It will not be necessary to compare the accounts
of all the other appearances. They create no diffi
culty, except that in Matthew's account of an
appearance to the eleven the remark, " but some
doubted," might seem inconsistent with the fact
that earlier appearances to the eleven are men
tioned by other evangelists which might be sup
posed to have removed the possibility of doubt.
But this clause may be a reminiscence of Thomas's
doubts, or of Mark xvi. 14, in which case the
error of the evangelist was in supposing that Gal
ilee rather than Jerusalem was the scene of the
incident. Such a mistake would have an impor
tant bearing on the question of authorship, but
would be insignificant in other respects. Or, is it
possible that the interview Matthew had in mind
was the one with the five hundred brethren which

172 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
is mentioned by Paul? Alford shows that in the
Greek the phrase "but some doubted" does not
necessarily mean some of the eleven.
Now it will have been observed that all of these
discrepancies relate to subordinate details of the
narrative and affect no important fact. Moreover,
it is possible to disentangle the seemingly conflict
ing statements and, without resorting to any im
probable hypotheses, to weave them into a rea
sonable and self-consistent whole. The order of
events, then, might be supposed to have been about
as follows : —
The angel rolls away the stone in sight of the
guard, who fall to the earth in terror and then,
after he enters the tomb, perhaps, desert their
posts in a panic.
At that time the women, in two or three bands,
were on their way to the sepulchre, Matthew erro
neously supposing that one of the groups had
arrived early enough to witness the above incident.
The first who reached the ground were Mary
Magdalene and at least one companion. She goes
near enough to see that the grave has been opened
and that the body is not there, and then hastens
back to inform the disciples, without having seen
the mysterious visitor within the tomb.
Another party arrive and enter the grave, see
the angel and hear his words, and also hurry away
to notify the disciples. They are hardly gone
when perhaps a third party reach the ground, find
two angels now in the sepulchre, receive a com-

A STUDY OF HUMAN TESTIMONY 173
munication substantially the same as had been
made to their predecessors, and, in their turn, flee
to the city.
Mary Magdalene meanwhile reports to the dis
ciples that the body is gone. Peter and John start
at once for the grave, Mary following them. The
other women had not yet arrived with their story
of the apparitions, as I infer from the remark made
in reference to the two disciples after they had
found the tomb empty: "For as yet they knew
not the scripture, that he must rise again from
the dead." (John xx. 9.) This statement would
hardly have been made if they had received the
message of the angels. Having found that the
body was really gone, they return home.
Meanwhile the other women have made their re
port to the rest of the disciples, — though some may
have fled to their homes too frightened to tell what
they had seen; but their hearers are incredulous.
Mary Magdalene reaches the grave after the
two disciples are gone, having been unable to keep
up with them. She sees two white figures within,
but having heard of no apparitions, she does not
seem to have divined their true character. She
turns, recognizes Jesus, seizes him by the feet in
worship, is checked by him, and is sent with a
message to the disciples, which Cleopas and his
companion do not hear, having left the city imme
diately after the return of the other women.
It would thus appear that throughout this whole
involved narrative there are no discrepancies which

174 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
cannot be removed by suppositions which a famil
iarity with the normal character of human testi
mony will show to be both natural and reasonable.
A tendency to concatenate separate events, fail
ures to keep track of the units of an ever-changing
company, and, as a result, erroneous groupings of
its members on various occasions, a concentration
of the attention on the movements of one or two
individuals to the exclusion of all others present,
ascriptions of acts to a whole class of persons which
were done by only a portion of them, specifications
of time in connection with one stage of a some
what protracted event which belong to a different
one, — these are common characteristics of human
testimony. They are to be expected in reports of
every intricate event, and afford in themselves no
reason for doubting that it took place. It is easier
to reconcile the conflicting testimony for the resur
rection of Christ than it is to perform a similar
operation on the evidence collated by Archibald
Forbes in regard to the surrender of the Em
peror Napoleon. There is no step in the whole
process that is attended with so much difficulty as
is inseparable from any attempt to intercalate
Madame Foumaise's precise recollection of her first
conversation with him into the narratives of the
other witnesses. And the report of that surrender
which will go down to posterity will rest upon a
somewhat artificial and suspicious adjustment of di
vergent accounts, which can hardly be affirmed with
truth of the story of the resurrection of Christ.

CHAPTER VII
INSPIRATION
If we are justified in regarding the resurrection
of Christ as an historical event, we are compelled
to adopt one conclusion of no little importance.
It will be impossible for us to escape the convic
tion that God has provided some way of acquaint
ing the world with all it needs to know in order to
derive from that event all the benefit it was de
signed to impart. It cannot be supposed that God
would do things by halves. We cannot persuade
ourselves that he would make so vast a departure
from his normal course of action as the resurrec
tion would involve, and then allow the purpose he
had in view to be foiled through a lack of those
who would have the ability to interpret it. It
cannot be doubted that such a career as is ascribed
to Jesus in the Gospels means, if the account is
trustworthy, something of immeasurable value to
the human race. We must feel that the infinite
Eeason which is behind all phenomena has mani
fested itself in that history as in nothing else which
has happened on the earth. The inference will be
irresistible that such a work of divine providence
would not have been wrought unless there was in

176 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
it a lesson that was indispensable to the welfare
of mankind, and unless God intended to provide a
means by which it would be made sure that the
lesson would not be lost. In other words, by as
much as we are inclined to admit that Jesus rose
from the dead, by so much are we constrained to
believe that the original records of that event are
free from important errors, and that those to whom
was committed the duty of proclaiming it did not
seriously obscure its meaning.
What is true in this regard of the resurrection
of Christ is equally so in respect to the other
miracles recorded in the Bible. If they are viewed
as supernatural occurrences brought about by the
Almighty for a special object, they imply the exist
ence of competent interpreters ; for without these
they are useless. They must be supplemented
by such human utterances as will bring them into
practical relation with the human understanding,
or they will represent merely a fruitless expendi
ture of divine force. A miracle which conveys no
adequate truth is wasted. Coincidently with every
exceptional display of divine power for a religious
end, we must believe that an influence has been
providentially exerted upon some human minds
which will render them competent to unfold the
meaning of what has taken place.
Nor is it only the believers in Christian super-
naturalism who are compelled to adopt such an
inference. The deist, the disciple of natural reli
gion, must do the same. If God is manifesting

INSPIRATION 177
himself in the normal course of events, it cannot
be doubted that he has included among the edu
cational influences which he has brought to bear
on humanity some method of imparting to it the
knowledge of himself which it needs for its com
plete spiritual development. As it seems to be his
will that the human race shall be instructed, in
the main, through the agency of its own superior
minds, it must be taken for granted that there will
be some among these which will be able to grasp
the profound facts of .the natural revelation. There
is presupposed an ability on the part of at least
some men to understand what he is trying to teach
and to communicate it with sufficient accuracy to
others. Now, if we ask how it has come about that there
have been human minds which were equal to so
great a responsibility, how it happens that there
are always those in the world who are competent
to initiate their fellow men into some, at least, of
the mysteries of God, we have caught a glimpse
of the problem which the theory of inspiration was
framed to solve.
The human mind is a mystery. Psychology
can, at the best, only describe its workings with
out being able to explain them. The philoso
phers who refer all mental action to successive
modifications of brain tissue and the physician who
includes sin and crime in the pathology of the ner
vous system have, if they are right, only pushed
the mystery one step further back. What the

178 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
brain tissue or the nervous system is, how mere
cellular changes can produce the phenomena of
thought or emotion, they do not pretend to know.
These are questions to which the oracles of science
are dumb.
Every one who notes with any care the opera
tions of his own mind is likely to become con
vinced that it is, to a very large extent, automatic
in its action. It is not a servant to whom he can
say, " Go," or " Come," with any assurance that
he will always be obeyed. Thought and feeling,
although they may be in a measure controlled by
the volitions, are essentially independent of them,
and often decline to be ruled by them. Memory
sometimes refuses obstinately to open its records,
no matter how much it may be coaxed. Emotions
that are appropriate to certain experiences will
sometimes fail to manifest themselves in spite of
every exertion of the will. The reasoning faculty
is frequently baffled by problems which it is con
vinced it ought to be able to solve. The poet,
the inventor, the philosopher, when he sits down
to think, can never know in advance that ideas
which will be of any value to him will suggest
themselves. Thoughts frame themselves within
him spontaneously. They rise to the surface of
consciousness like bubbles in an effervescing liquid.
He can only watch them and select from them
what he can use ; or, at the best, he can stir up
and stimulate the mind so that they may rise
faster. No small part of his labor will consist in

INSPIRATION 179
keeping down or discarding those which are for
eign to his purpose, and which make their way into
consciousness unbidden.
There are circumstances, however, which can
not always be accurately defined beforehand in
which mental action while thus operating yields
highly satisfactory and even abnormal results. A
train of thought enters the mind which is of such
a character as to astonish and delight him to whom
it comes. It seems to have entirely mastered him.
He cannot, without difficulty, control or check it
if he will. It will not suffer him to sleep, perhaps.
And when it has run its course he reviews it with
something like amazement. It is so far above
the familiar level of his mental operations that it
does not seem to have emanated from himself.
He accords to it the admiration which he is wont
to bestow on the intellectual achievements of an
other person. As he recalls it in after years, he is
puzzled to understand how he could ever have
been equal to it.
Or take the case of a public speaker. When he
faces his audience for the first time it is with mis
givings which, for a few moments, seem to have
been abundantly justified. He expresses himself
awkwardly ; he is oppressed by the presence of so
many people ; he is sure that his speech will prove
a failure. But gradually a new power comes upon
him. His stammering utterance gives place to an
easy fluency. Language seems to have placed it
self at his command. He is conscious that he is

180 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
holding the attention and swaying the minds of all
present. He wonders at himself. He cannot ac
count for the eloquence and the facility of diction
which are so impressing the listeners. The ease
and confidence with which he is speaking are new
and strange to him. He is sure that he has never
before thought so clearly or expressed himself so
well. He is aware that in a private conversation
he would be incapable of saying so forcibly or at
all what he is now uttering with so little effort in
public. A situation which he would have sup
posed would embarrass him extremely has had
precisely the opposite effect, and has proved an
unwonted stimulus and a source of strength. Too
feeble, as he had deemed himself, to express him
self effectively in the parlor, he has become an
orator on the platform.
Such experiences as these are very common,
and afford a key or clue to the meaning of inspira
tion. The man who thus outdoes himself, as the
expression is, will probably say that he must have
been inspired. If the intellectual or emotional
effect produced by him on others is recognized by
them as unusual or abnormal, they will account for
it in the same way. In doing so they may find it
hard or impossible to define their terms. They
may use the word " inspiration " very loosely and
vaguely. But the fact that they use it at all be
trays a consciousness that it expresses something
which can be indicated in no other way. When
the quality or effect of a literary, musical, or

INSPIRATION 181
oratorical performance surpasses noticeably what
experience has taught men to expect under like
circumstances, the result is ascribed by them to
inspiration. There are phenomena in the operations of the
physical nature of a man which are analogous to
those just described, and suggest an explanation of
them. For example, he starts to run a race, and,
in a few minutes perhaps, becomes exhausted. He
presses on, however, panting and weary, hardly
able to drag one foot after the other, falling far
behind his rivals, almost ready to give up the con
test in despair, when suddenly a new power comes
to his rescue. His fatigue is gone, he breathes
easily, he feels almost as fresh and vigorous as
when he left the starting-line. He swiftly over
takes his competitors. The exertions he is making
have become pleasant instead of painful. And
when he has reached the goal he is almost in con
dition to begin another race. What has happened
to him ? He will probably say that he has " got
his second wind." A physiologist would explain
that he had at first been using only a portion of
his lungs, and that his sudden accession of vigor
was due to the fact that he had at length begun
to inflate them fully. He unconsciously brought
into action his reserves. He unwittingly tapped
the sources of an hitherto unused power. His ex
citement and unwonted exertions aroused a dor
mant energy within him which seemed to him
abnormal because it had been so seldom exercised.

182 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
Now it would not be much amiss etymologically
as well as physiologically to call this experience
a physical inspiration ; and it suggests an expla
nation of what is known as inspiration in popular
speech. When the latent powers of the human
mind are brought into operation, when the full
vigor of its creative faculties has been aroused,
when, as a result of some extraordinary stimulus,
the whole of the mental resources of the man show
themselves, he is said, in common parlance, to be
inspired. Colloquially speaking, his soul has " got
its second wind."
Inspiration, as thus conceived, may be said to
be of different kinds when considered in reference
to the various spheres in which it shows itseK,
but essentially it is always the same. The inspira
tion of Shakespeare manifests itself in an almost
superhuman insight into human nature, and a mar
velous aptitude for literary expression ; that of
Eaphael and every preeminent artist is exhibited
in a striking realism of pictorial effect or in a
matchless skill in using dead marble so as to pro
duce the impression of actual life ; that of Demos
thenes and all great orators is evinced in a pecul
iar success in employing argument and persuasion
so as to control the reason and the feelings of an
audience and to sway the wills of men in predeter
mined directions. Science has its inspirations,
as when a Newton leaps to the height of a grand
generalization. So has mechanics, as when a sud
den intuition reveals to an inventor a possible sew-

INSPIRATION 183
ing-machine or telephone. So has statesmanship,
as appeared when the Constitution of the United
States was framed, and an instrument came into
existence which was able to reconcile the jarring
opinions of the time and to endure the strain of a
century of political antagonisms and conflict. In
each of these cases the human mind seemed to
exceed its normal powers because its unused re
sources were called into action ; and viewing the
process in the light of its results and its circum
stances, men call it an inspiration.
Many of those who admit the inspiration of the
Bible, or of some parts of it, have in mind only a
literary inspiration. They are impressed by the
noble poetry of the psalmist, the eloquent diction
of the prophet, or the faithful delineation of char
acter by the evangelist. The prayer of Habakkuk,
the drama of Job, the wisdom of Proverbs, the
Sermon on the Mount, Paul's panegyric on Love,
they concede to be inspired, while regarding them
from merely an aesthetic or a literary point of view.
There is in these and many other passages of
Scripture an intellectual power or a literary music
which they recognize as of an exceptionally high
order, and the inspiration which they acknowledge
does not differ in any respect from that which they
attribute to Goethe or Virgil.
And beyond all controversy there is much in
spiration of this sort in the Bible. There is no
grander or more beautiful literature than is to be
found in that wonderful book. The human mind

184 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
has never winged a loftier flight than has been
achieved by some of the sacred authors. For
wealth of imagery, for eloquence of utterance, for
majestic simplicity, for condensed energy of ex
pression, for beauty of thought, there are large
portions of the Scriptures which are unsurpassed
and, indeed, unequaled. But we are accustomed
to distinguish the inspiration of the sacred volume
from that of every other in at least one respect : it
represents to our minds the profoundest and truest
insight into the mystery of human life and destiny,
into the philosophy of existence and the ultimate
reason of things, that the human intellect has ever
obtained. Inspiration, therefore, as a theological
term, may be defined as human genius applied with
exceptional success to religious discovery and in
struction, the profoundest entrance of human fac
ulties into the realm of spiritual truth. The same
mental elevation which has given the world many
of its best ideas and facts in various departments
of human research is called inspiration, in the re
ligious sense of the word, when it has penetrated
the unseen world and solved, to any important ex
tent, the problems relating to it.
It is not, therefore, necessarily in itself an abnor
mal endowment. Many a man who never thinks of
himself as inspired has experiences which make it
possible for him to understand what inspiration in
the theological sense is, and some, perhaps, to which
the term itself, at least in some relative sense, can
properly be applied. As many a musician has

INSPIRATION 185
moments of exceptional creative power in which he
is able to form some idea of the influences that
wrought upon the mind of some great composer
while producing his masterpiece, and as many a
public speaker has epochs of intellectual and emo
tional elevation in which he can appreciate, in some
measure, the mental forces which gave birth to
some immortal oration, so there is no lack of those
whose religious experiences have been at times so
peculiar and so luminous as to suggest, though
perhaps faintly, the processes by which the men
who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost
obtained their marvelous spiritual light and con
fidence. In other words, inspiration is only a
phenomenal, or at least a special, development of
a power which resides potentially in every human
mind. If we would inquire how the Hebrew people
happened to produce the manifestations of this
power which have rendered the inspiration of its
sacred teachers so unique and so permanently in
fluential, we shall need to bear in mind that other
nations have developed exceptional creative apti
tudes in other directions. It is to Greece that the
world owes its conception of artistic beauty and its
philosophical trends ; to Eome it is indebted for
the essentials of its jurisprudence and the spirit
of organization. It is commonly said that the
Hebrews had a genius for religion. If what is
meant is that as a race they were specially fitted
to grapple with religious problems, to trace politi-

186 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
cal effects back to their original moral causes, and
to shed light on the seeming contradictions that
mysteriously occur in human life, the statement is
doubtless true. No other race has so profoundly
influenced human thought along these lines. The
utterances of a few men in an obscure corner of
the world are the source from which three promi
nent religions are still deriving much of their life.
They are the origin of and even the authority for
moral conceptions and beliefs on which modern
civilization is largely founded.
It is not so easy to explain how this remarkable
people came to be so endowed. But even if we set
aside those portions of its written records to the
historicity of which the higher criticism demurs,
the fact still stands out with sufficient clearness
that the history of the Hebrew race is, for the most
part, that of a long struggle between a monothe
istic conception of religion and various polytheistic
tendencies. Starting out with a lofty, though per
haps somewhat crude and anthropomorphic idea
of Jehovah, they were able to verify and enlarge
it by national experiences which covered many
centuries. As an individual who would know God
by inductive experience must begin with the hypo
thesis that the Christian conception of the Deity is
correct in order that he may have something by
which to explain his religious experiences, so the
Jews as a nation began with a conception of the
Supreme Being which they could test by their
national experiences, and by which they could in-

INSPIRATION 187
terpret these. They seem to have been seldom, if
ever, during the formative years of their national
life, without teachers who made it their mission to
point out the religious meaning of events, to asso
ciate national reverses and successes with corre
sponding changes in the popular attitude towards
Jehovah. In this way the race was able to per
form on a large scale the induction described in an
earlier chapter, by which any one in our own day
may arrive at an indestructible belief in the God
of the Christian Scriptures and in an overruling
Providence. The logic of events was ever confirming the
prophetic view of the conditions of national success,
as the type of character which was most in har
mony with it was uniformly justified in the national
struggle for existence. Natural selection went
hand in hand with prophecy. As has been indi
cated elsewhere, it eliminated from the national
life ideas and practices which were not in accord
with the highest monotheistic conceptions. The
survival of the fittest, the persistence of the purest
religious type, is recognized in what the critics call
the unhistorical legends of the Old Testament, and
is taught no less clearly in the later annals. Abra
ham, Isaac, and Jacob, not to mention personages
assigned to a still earlier date, represent so many
providential preferences of the more to the less re
ligiously susceptible mind. The glory of David's
reign was that of a monarch who, more than any
other in the line of Jewish kings, was imbued with

188 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
the spirit of the national religion. The heresy of
the ten tribes disappeared as a Hebrew cult with
that section of the nation which had adopted it.
The repopulation of Jerusalem by the returning
exiles more than four centuries before the Chris
tian era marked a most thorough excision of dis
cordant religious beliefs from the national life, for
the personal sacrifice which it involved must have
excluded from the movement all save those who
were intensely loyal to the old religion. As a re
sult of all these influences polytheism and idolatry
were finally weeded out of the faith and religious
practice of the whole people.
The concentration of national thought on the
one subject of religion which was brought about by
the varied experiences of the nation could not fail
to produce an unique literature, and it was to be
expected that those portions of it which should be
preserved by the discrimination and taste of a whole
people who had been educated in the manner de
scribed would prove to be the most important con
tribution to religious science that the human race
is capable of making. Their experiences had made
the Jews not only a race fertile in religious authors,
but also a race of capable critics of religious liter
ature, a fact which would have an important bear
ing on the selection and preservation of their sacred
writings. These would represent, therefore, a
competent generalization from an almost infinitely
diversified national experience, the results of the
most protracted, intelligent, and thorough induction

INSPIRATION 189
that has ever been employed for the discovery of
religious truth.
These experiences and the resulting religious
philosophy which had been forced, as it were, upon
a whole people by the countless facts of many cen
turies, found expression in prose and poetry, in
history, fiction, and perhaps in myths, in sermons,
hymns, and popular maxims. Even the primitive
legends and the simple, artless chronicles of this
exceptional people show the influence of the domi
nant, inbred religious idea, for they refer, with an
unwavering self-consistency, all events to a single
divine Cause, and see in all the vicissitudes of life
a confirmation of the same religious philosophy.
It is useless to deny on account of the alleged
unhistorical character of certain early traditions
and the supposed inaccuracies of later records that
such an inspiration is divine. It might be freely
admitted that the sacred historians were dependent
for their facts on the ordinary sources of historical
information ; that they simply wrote the best ac
counts of their national origin and growth that
they could compile from the material within reach ;
that their narratives disagree with one another when
written from different points of view even as the
interpretation of events in American history by a
Democratic author might not harmonize with that
of a writer with Eepublican sympathies, — all this
might be conceded, and yet the question of in
spiration would remain untouched. We get from
Prescott a somewhat different idea of the civili-

190 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
zation of the Aztecs at the time of the Spanish
conquest from that which we obtain from John
Fiske. We miss in the latter some of that out
ward magnificence and material splendor which
impart to the history of the author first named so
much of the coloring and fascination of a romance ;
yet, I presume, both writers made use of the same
original sources of information. The discrepancy
between them which has just been suggested would
be due, no doubt, in that case, to a difference in '
mental tendency, to an unlikeness in their capacity
for drawing historical inferences.
So, too, large diversities of statement are to be
expected between American and English authors
who treat the subject of our Eevolutionary War,
or between Northern and Southern writers who
undertake to explain the political movements which
culminated in the war of secession. There is
always a personal equation which affects the lit
erary results of such attempts. The inevitable
fact that every historian's own mental make-up in
fluences him more or less in his judgment of his
authorities, and communicates to the facts which
they record a color which will not be of precisely
the same shade as that which tinges the conclusions
of any other writer, is certain to produce more or
less of disagreement even between obviously im
partial narratives of the same occurrences. If the
writer last named has the correct conception of the
Aztec civilization, Prescott might be said to illus
trate somewhat that tendency to " idealize " which

INSPIRATION 191
is ascribed so often to some of the Old Testament
historians. This is not necessarily a tendency to
pervert known facts in order to favor a precon
ceived theory ; it may be only an unconscious
partiality for such traditionary material as affords
the most flattering view of the origin and essential
dignity of a kingdom or an organization. The
differences between Chronicles and other prophetic
books in regard to the original importance of the
Levitical order may be a case in point. They
might conceivably be due to a diversity of opinion
in the interpretation of the same original material,
or to a difference in the principles which have gov
erned the selections made from it. In that event
they would constitute no objection to the doctrine
of inspiration unless this is understood to imply
such a divine superintendence of an author's work
as insures its accuracy even in unimportant details,
instead of such a providential guidance as enables
him to use imperfect resources and the best infor
mation attainable so as to arrive at correct religious
results. We must not lose sight of the undeniable truth
that the Bible recognizes what I have elsewhere
called the economy of the supernatural. If effects
are wrought by divine power, only so much of this
is used as will render natural agencies sufficient.
Jesus himself illustrated this fact and indorsed the
principle involved in it when he directed that the
fragments of the miraculous feasts should be saved,
and thus showed that only so much supernatural

192 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
energy had been exercised as would serve the pre
sent needs of the multitudes and the disciples.
The dividing of the Eed Sea, according to the
Biblical account, was due wholly to natural causes,
and was miraculous only in the sense that these
carried out an oral command. Special divine aid
is not to be excessive in amount. The same law,
when applied to inspiration, would lead us to ex
pect only so much of special divine agency as would
secure the end in view. If this is conceived to be,
in the case now in hand, only the proper religious
interpretation of events, such a wasteful imparta-
tion of divine knowledge as would encroach upon
the province of the secular historian and insure a
needless accuracy in unessential details ought not
to be looked for.
The so-called prophetic books are not to be
viewed as containing a history so much as a philo
sophy of history. Their inspiration may not im
ply, and certainly does not consist in, an absolute
freedom from errors of every sort, from mistakes
in transcribing or selecting the facts derived from
earlier documents, but in an inerrant judgment of
the deepest meaning of events, in a clear discern
ment of the law of divine providence, in an ability
to point out with courage and precision the pro
found causes of national or individual success and
failure. It is this clear insight into the heart of
things which justifies us in ascribing the quality
of inspiration to narratives which, when viewed
merely with reference to their literary form, might
seem monotonous and dry.

INSPIRATION 193
This same deep knowledge of cause and effect
underlies the prophecies. These may be called as
a whole sermons on the conditions of political suc
cess, on the laws of national growth and prosperity.
There have not been wanting in modern times
seers who could forecast with marvelous exactness
coming events in the political world. Burke's pre
diction of the French Eevolution is often cited in
proof of this fact. Montcalm's x description of the
effect that the anticipated fall of Quebec would
produce on the relations of the American colonies
to the mother country will illustrate, whether it
be genuine or not, the mental process by which
history is written in advance. But the Hebrew
prophets commanded a longer perspective than is
exhibited in these examples. That inbred racial
inspiration which revealed to them the primordial
cause of their own national vicissitudes, that pene
trating vision which could trace the long succes
sion of political events back to its very source,
enabled them to pronounce, generations before the
final catastrophe, the fall of cities and empires
which were at discord with the eternal facts that
are back of governments and of organizations of
all kinds. As a builder foretells with certainty the
eventual collapse of a warehouse whose walls are
out of plumb or whose foundations are not firm,
so the seers of the Bible, rooted and grounded as
they were in the philosophy of their own history,
in the principles on which all permanent society
1 Carlyle, Frederick the Great and his Times.

194 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
must rest, felt that there was more of the element
of endurance in their own little nation than there
was in the great pagan states which overshadowed
it in turn. They launched their words of doom
against Babylon and Nineveh, against Tyre and
Egypt, because they could already see the cracks
in the foundation walls of all heathen prosperity,
the flaw in the corner-stone of every social edifice
which was not built in harmony with what they
knew to be the laws of the moral universe.
But did all of their revelations come to them in
this way ? Was every prediction made by them
only an accurate deduction from known facts and
laws ? Did their trances, their dreams, their seem
ingly objective visions, only indicate certain men
tal states in which the logical faculty, their nat
ural skill in reasoning from cause to effect, was
abnormally stimulated ? Few who have had a deep
and varied religious experience would answer these
questions affirmatively. Some — perhaps many
— would say that spiritual influences had been
exerted at times upon themselves, that communi
cations of a religious import had been made to
them which could not be referred to the operation
of known psychological laws, and they would argue
that similar phenomena must have characterized
the inspiration of the prophet and the evangelist
through whose teachings they have acquired their
own spiritual sensitiveness. They would contend
that mental suggestions have been made to them
at certain critical or important epochs in their

INSPIRATION 195
lives which must have emanated from some higher
source than could be discovered within themselves,
and which bear a marked resemblance, in that re
spect, to various communications which are said,
in the Scriptures, to have been imparted to the
men of God.
The answer given to these questions will in the
end depend largely on the mental attitude that
is assumed towards the miracle. If it is deemed
probable that laws pertaining to a higher sphere
of influence than falls within the scope of ordinary
human experience have produced within the lim
ited range of terrestrial vision effects which may
be called, in that sense, supernatural, there will
be no objection to believing that knowledge which
transcends the normal reach of the intellectual
faculties may have found its way into the human
mind from the same supernal source. As ex
plained earlier in this chapter, the origin of all
thought is a mystery. There is frequently an in
dependence in our ideas which renders them inex
plicable by the laws of mental association. The
researches of certain psychical investigators are
making it more and more evident that there is a
mysterious border-land in the human soul where
mind unconsciously influences mind, and where
suggestions from without are registered. It is
certainly conceivable — there are those who would
say it is certain — that man is not always so far
from God that the voice of the Infinite cannot
make itself audible, in some real sense, to his

196 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
understanding, that the omniscience of the Most
High does not overflow at times into the dry chan
nels of our spiritual ignorance.
But in whatever way inspiration may manifest
itself, whether in a phenomenal stimulation of the
natural powers or in a direct revelation from God
himself, its bearing on human development would
seem to be clear. If we feel constrained to be
lieve that the human race is undergoing what I
have already referred to as a period of spiritual
gestation, in which it is being shaped more and
more into the likeness of a parental Character, in
spiration is simply one of the forces or influences
by which the Various features of that Character are
being communicated. The history of the human
reason is but a record of the different steps by
which man has been enabled to understand better
and better and to imitate more and more closely
the living Ideal which we call God. The final
cause of evolution is the production of an organic
type which can be educated into a knowledge of
its Maker. The changes which have been wrought
during the centuries in man's moral standards, the
growth of his religious conceptions through the
successive stages of fetichism, polytheism, anthro
pomorphic and spiritual monotheism, only mark
an increasing ability on his part to appropriate an
objective truth. These repeated modifications and
improvements of the ethical and theistic concep
tions of mankind are analogous to the changes
which take place in a casting while the molten

INSPIRATION 197
metal is being poured into the mould. Whatever
is absurd in the successive forms which result is
due only to the fact that the process is not yet
finished. The mould in which man's religious ideas are
being formed is itself not yet done. It is being
slowly wrought out by the education of the under
standing through various natural agencies, by the
gradual preparation of the mind for the reception
of spiritual truths. The evolution of religion is
the twofold operation of making the mould and
filling it as far as made. It is the providential
development of mental capacities in reference to
transcendent religious facts, and the simultaneous
recognition of those facts according to the measure
of the capacities already produced. Man, there
fore, does not create his religion, but appropriates
it through the medium of a growing receptivity
for it. God is not merely a concept which has
been developed by numberless ages of human ex
perience ; he is an external reality who has been
shaping that experience so that it will eventuate
in a mind which can entertain the concept. The
countless splashes of light which waver and glim
mer on the troubled surface of a pond, becoming
fewer and fewer in number as the ripples die down,
and aggregating themselves into larger and larger
patches of brightness, till at last they coalesce into
a single reflected image of the moon, do not create
that luminary. It was its own previous existence
that made them possible and called them into

'198 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
being. So the fluctuating opinions of the human
race, which have given birth to the multitudinous
forms of polytheism, out of which has arisen at last
the belief in one God of surpassing moral splendor,
did not originate the character ascribed to him. It
was this, rather, that caused the confused sparkles
of religious illumination in the minds of men who
were not yet able to reflect a spiritual, self -consis
tent monotheistic idea.
That the crowning utterances of Hebrew inspira
tion are in harmony with the immediately foregoing
statements cannot be doubted. The highest prize
within the range of human achievement, according
to the teachings of Jesus, is eternal lif e ; and this,
he says, is in part, " to know thee, the only true
God." Paul sums up his own philosophy of uni
versal history in the thought that the final cause,
the providential meaning, of the creation and dis
tribution of the human race is " that they should
seek God, if haply they might feel after him and
find him." And Joel, according to the obvious
meaning of one of his prophecies, a meaning which
Peter also adopts, foresaw a time when inspiration
was to be a general human accomplishment, when
the seer, the teacher of divine mysteries, would not
be, as under the imperfect light of the old dispen
sation, an exceptional man, a prophet of a type
that might be wanting in the world for hundreds
of years, but only an example of what any man
might become in his own sphere when the human
mind should be universally so developed that God

INSPIRATION 199
could pour out his spirit on all flesh, when sons
and daughters, old men and young men, would
alike catch the light of divine truth which at first
had rested only on the widely scattered summits of
a few exceptionally developed minds. And every
deep religious conviction which overcomes a de
moralizing doubt, outstrips slow proof, and begins
to shape a fife into likeness to the Christian ideal,
may be but an illustration, though perhaps on a
relatively small scale, of that which is most impor
tant in inspiration as already described; while
revivals of religion which bring hundreds of people
of every grade of mental culture into the Christian
Church, and the widespread religious confidence
which the learned skeptic contemns because it per
sistently refuses to see in his arguments a proof
of its own unreasonableness, may be but so much
evidence that the human race has at last been
developed far enough to receive indispensable reli
gious intuitions from the Divine Spirit himself.
Eevelation is a correlative term. It necessarily
implies an ability on the part of mankind to un
derstand what is revealed. A revelation which
cannot be comprehended is a self-contradiction. If
we believe, therefore, that God has revealed him
self in Jesus Christ, we cannot if we would deny
that the human race has been furnished with
inspiration enough, whether natural or supernat
ural, to get possession of the truths which have thus
been disclosed. Consequently, it will be irrational
for us not to believe that the original records

200 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
through which his teachings have been handed
down to later generations, and apart from which
no knowledge of these teachings could be had, are
that revelation, or at least contain it in such a form
that it may be ascertained. Now since there is no
test by which it can be determined what the rec
ords teach except the consensus of human opinion,
it will be rational for us to assume that the beliefs
which have been held by the vast majority of
Christians, or rather the element in them which
has remained constant from the beginning down
to the present time, represents, at least approxi
mately, the truth which Christ has brought into
the world. The same logical necessity which leaves
the believer in Christian supernaturalism no escape
from the conclusion that men have been raised
up to interpret correctly the miracles of the gospel
constrains him to believe that the historic and
general understanding of the interpretation is es
sentially correct, since otherwise there has been
practically a failure to interpret, and the object of
the miracle has been defeated. The widespread
inspiration which Peter claims has come upon the
church is nowhere more likely to exist than in
those views of the nature and substantial teaching
of Christianity to which the church as a whole
have clung from the beginning ; for that they are
intrinsically sound is a necessary corollary, as has
just been shown, from the theory of inspiration,
and the truth of that theory is involved in the
acceptance of the miracles.

INSPIRATION 201
It should be borne in mind, however, that the
word " inspiration," in its theological sense, de
notes something of relatively small practical value,
something of philosophical or theoretic rather than
of vital interest. It is of vastly more importance
that a theological belief should be true than that
it should be derived from inspiration. In other
words, a truth is no truer because it is inspired.
The theory of inspiration merely explains how cer
tain facts were discovered, or renders more credible
certain teachings which the average understanding
cannot verify. Truth, in whatever way it is found,
is greater than inspiration. If, for example, the
writings of the Jewish historians, the four Gospels,
and the Book of Acts are believed, on general
grounds, to be reliable, if we are convinced, on the
same grounds, that they relate with substantial
accuracy the facts of which they profess to treat,
little, if anything, is to be gained by ascribing to
the respective authors any supernatural divine
guidance. In the last analysis we shall believe
them, if at all, not because they are commonly held
to be inspired, but because we are satisfied that
they are true. In other words, attacks on any
particular theory of inspiration, or denials of the
inspiration of particular scriptural books, have no
necessary tendency, even if they are not refuted, to
undermine the foundations of Christian belief. The
alternative yet remains that, even if the books are
not in the technical sense inspired, they may never
theless be true. That certain men were so devoted

202 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
to the service of God, so dominated by their sense
of the greatness of his character and of the duty
they owed to him, that they were impelled to use
the greatest care and observe the utmost fidelity
in recording facts pertaining to his dealings with
mankind is, perhaps, all that need be said in sup
port of the historic credibility of some of the books
of the Bible ; but whether this mental and moral
attitude was due to inspiration or not is almost
immaterial. If we believe that these men were
inspired by God, we shall, of course, not doubt that
they maintained such an attitude ; but if we are
convinced on other grounds that they were honest
and truthful persons, who had abundant oppor
tunities to know what they affirmed, and a sincere
desire to relate facts as they were, we shall accept
their testimony with equal readiness, whether we
believe that their ability and integrity came to
them in the ordinary way, or were the fruits of a
special divine inspiration.

CHAPTER VHI
DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY
It is very common nowadays to hear Christian
dogmas spoken of disparagingly, if not with con
tempt. It is very frequently assumed that they
constitute no essential part of the Christian reli
gion, but can be separated from it without injury
to it and even to its advantage. The ethical teach
ings of Jesus, illustrated and emphasized as they
are by his example, are supposed by many to be
all that is important in the gospel. Persistent
efforts are made to bring Christianity back to the
words of Jesus alone, and to eliminate from it even
the influence of Paul's doctrinal discussions. It
is averred that even within the covers of the New
Testament we have documents which gave a trend
to the development of Christianity that its founder
did not contemplate, and which transformed what
was originally only a pure and spiritual moral
code into a difficult and misleading religious phi
losophy. But we have learned in quite recent times to see
in the continued existence of anything a proof of
its utility. Darwin and his followers have taught
us to believe that the various organs and traits of

204 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
living beings fail to disappear only because they
are valuable to their possessors in the struggle for
existence. Evolutionists hold this law to be uni
versal in its scope, and would not hesitate to quote
it in explaining the origin and persistence of an
idea or a belief. We can count with safety on
their support when we affirm that if the ethics of
Jesus have become associated with certain doctri
nal creeds, with philosophical statements of belief
in which a constant element finds expression in
ever-changing outward forms, it is because these
creeds and articles of faith have in them something
which has proved advantageous to the Christian
religion. Christianity on its ethical side is more likely to
intimidate and discourage than to stimulate. The
standard of virtue which it upholds might be called,
without much exaggeration, superhuman. The
single commandment in which it sums up the law
and the prophets is so purely ideal from our pre
sent point of view as to seem impracticable and
visionary. To love God with heart and soul and
mind and strength, and one's neighbor as one's self,
though well calculated to win admiration as an
ethical conception, is not likely to be regarded as
one that can be attained in practice. It is not so
very long ago that the American people heard the
Golden Eule boldly stigmatized as "an iridescent
dream " in the sphere of politics. The Sermon on
the Mount arouses a kind of enthusiasm in persons
of all grades of moral culture, but viewed as a set

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 205
of precepts for actual daily conduct it can hardly
be said, as a general rule, to be taken seriously.
Let it be inexorably prescribed by social reformers
as the one law of universal and every-day duty, and
it is more likely to be greeted with a dubious shrug
of the shoulders than to enlist men in an earnest
effort to obey it. To exercise such a rigid control
over the thoughts as it enjoins, to assume such a
dominion over the natural inclinations as will man
ifest itself in acts of kindness done even to those
that hate us, to be perfect even as our heavenly
Father is perfect, are large obligations to impose
on men who, according to the current philosophy,
are but the paragons of the brute creation, and who,
by unanimous consent, have in them vastly more
that is animal than that is divine. So much are
men impressed by this fact that attempts are very
commonly made, in a somewhat rabbinical spirit, to
dull the sharp edge of some of the sayings in this
wonderful collection, and to make this fundamen
tal law of Christian morals of none effect. There
have not been wanting some who have seriously
maintained that it constitutes no part of Chris
tianity proper. Those who profess to derive from
it their standard of moral obligation are seldom, if
ever, prepared to accept without qualification as
binding upon them every precept in it. So far
is it above even the highest level of human conduct
which has come under our personal observation that
any one who should claim, in our time, to observe
it perfectly would be likely to be regarded as an

206 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
empty boaster, or as lacking in self-knowledge and
ethical appreciation.
It would seem, therefore, to be beyond contro
versy that if the moral teachings of the gospel are
to exert any continuous influence on the conduct
of the human race, if the most spiritual of them
are not to be ignored as having no relation to the
ethical resources of human nature, they must be
made in some way to appear practical ; men must
be enabled to regard them as coming within the
range of human achievement. Ideals which are
obviously visionary and beyond reach will not long
influence human conduct. Men will try to visit
the north pole, but not the north star. The law
of the survival of the fittest operates here as every
where. Only what is useful will be preserved.
Moral standards which seem unattainable will not
long be regarded as obligatory, and lower ones will
be substituted for them. A rule of duty that is
too high will be deemed lacking in the right to
command obedience. It may still evoke an aesthetic
admiration, but it will have no power to stimulate
the conscience or improve the conduct. It will be
found easier to impugn the authority of Jesus as a
moral teacher than to retain a moral standard which
is too spiritual for human imitation. His utter
ances will be deemed indefinitely figurative or even
erroneous, if they bind burdens on the human soul
which transcend its greatest powers. The Christian
code will fare no better than did that of Moses if,
like that, it shall come to seem impracticable.

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 207
It is the province of Christian dogma to avert
this danger, to meet these difficulties. So far is
it from being true that the so-called " doctrines "
are merely a parasitical growth which has almost
sucked the life-blood out of the religion of Jesus,
it • is they that have saved the Sermon on the
Mount. They have kept alive in the earth its
highest conception of human duty by making this
seem practical and within ultimate reach of human
effort. The Bible would surely never have been
called a revelation if it had limited itself to de
scribing and inculcating a superhuman righteous
ness. The human race has always had examples
of a higher virtue than most of its members were
willing to emulate. The New Testament justifies
the high esteem in which it is held as a source of
religious fight, not merely by furnishing a faultless
ethical ideal, but also, and even chiefly, by unveil
ing facts which bring that ideal within reach of
normal human powers. It does not merely define
and illumine the character of God, it points out the
gradually ascending path by which men may climb
to the height of that character. It draws attention
not merely to moral ends that must be gained, but
also to the ways and means by which these may
be compassed. And it is by its dogmas that it
thus brings its ethical requirements into practical
relation to human ability.
I give to the word, however, a wider meaning
than it generally suggests. All the teachings of
the gospel which are not strictly ethical I class as

208 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
dogmatic. The fatherhood of God, divine forgive
ness, the promise of ultimate spiritual success, be
long to the same category as the incarnation and
the atonement. They pertain to the philosophy of
Christianity as distinct from its ethics, and may,
therefore, properly be termed dogmas.
Some of them serve to enlarge a man's idea of
his own nature; all of them, as has been said
already, tend to diminish his sense of the dispro
portion existing between his present powers and
the duties which the gospel enjoins upon him. The
doctrine of immortality, or at least a belief in an
indefinite prolongation of life beyond the grave,
is indispensable to the success of Christ's moral
teachings, for it conveys the assurance that human
existence will be long enough for the completion
of the work which they outline. No man will
build an expensive house on the surface of a frozen
pond, nor will he labor to rear a perfect character
in a soul which is doomed to melt away in the nar
row space of time which separates the cradle from
the grave. The feeling of despondency which is
apt to influence even the best men when they dis
cover how slowly their moral ideals are being over
taken, which found expression in Paul's 1 despairing
words, " The good which I would I do not : but the
evil which I would not, that I practice," is likely
to be largely offset and to be brought within
manageable limits by the assurance that, hard as
is the task of reshaping the human soul into the
l Romans vii. 19.

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 209
likeness of Christ, there is all eternity to accom
plish it in.
So, too, with the doctrine of divine adoption, the
dogma by faith in which we cry, " Abba, Father."
It expands a man, and tends to remove all ap
pearance of preternaturalism from the command
ments of Jesus. If these inculcate a conduct that
is divine, are they not appropriate to him who has
already been received into the family of God?
Though it doth not yet appear what he shall be,
ought there not to be enough of promise in his
new relation to his Maker to render him persistent
and enthusiastic in the pursuit of a righteousness
which will harmonize with his new dignity ? These
dogmas, and others that might be classed with
them, — some of which will be examined more
particularly in later chapters, — have a tendency
to make the highest ethical conduct seem natural to
a man because they elevate him, in some measure,
into that 'spiritual atmosphere in which the purest
ethical ideals will seem at home.
The doctrines which have just been named, and
more of the same order, are likely to undergo very
little alteration in their outward form ; but there
are others which suffer many a metamorphosis as
time rolls on, many a change both in philosophical
interpretation and in literary statement. They
are like the long sandy islands which skirt so much
of our Atlantic coast, and which mark the old
battle-ground between the rivers and the sea. Be
cause they have been built up in the conflict, a

210 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
shield has been created behind which the inland
waters are at rest. It has been the fortune of
Christianity to come in collision with the philoso
phies and religions of more than eighteen centu
ries. To defend the beliefs which were inseparable
from its life it has been forced to enter the arena
of apologetics. It has fought for its vital doctrines
with whatever intellectual weapons the times af
forded. As a result many a creed was banked up,
many a theological system was framed, with no
more of permanence in it than there is in many a
bank of sand which the currents and the gales are
likely soon to reshape or to carry elsewhere. But
they achieved their purpose. They saved invalu
able religious dogmas from ruinous reverses. Be
hind them were eternal truths which were menaced
by shifting phases of human opinion, and which
were kept alive only by theological statements
that were at times as transitory as the views which
they served to combat.
There are then three elements in the Christian
religion : first, its ethical teachings ; second, the
theological facts which make these practical ; and
third, the philosophical interpretations of these
facts by which it is sought to harmonize them
with various phases of secular thought. It is only
the element last named that can undergo material
alterations, and these will be as frequent and
diverse as are the changes in current opinion which
occasion them. As the fortifications of a city may
be made in turn of earth, stone, and iron, as their

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 211
location and structure will be different at different
times to keep pace with improvements in ordnance,
as the history of the military experiences of the
place may be read, to some extent, in its abandoned
redoubts and antiquated battlements, so the creeds
and dogmatic theories of the Christian Church
have swiftly succeeded one another, and doubtless
have been crude enough at times. They have
been modified and transformed so often as to have
become a target for much shallow sarcasm. But
they are only the outworks that were thrown up to
defend essential features of the faith against ever-
varying forms of rationalistic or heretical attack.
The kernel of the religion, whether on its ethical
or its doctrinal side, has not changed. It cannot
change. The world will never be satisfied with
a lower conception of righteousness than that of
the New Testament, and a higher is inconceivable.
But this is so high that it will be abandoned as a
practical ideal unless such stimulating doctrines as
immortality, the atonement, the incarnation, and
others shall be retained, at least in their essen
tials, as objects of a confident faith. Christian
apologetics may still be expected to vary its methods
of defending these. To the wornout creeds of the
past it will add others which will be outworn in
turn. The history of doctrine will continue to be,
in the main, a history of military antiquities in the
long warfare of the church militant. And as long
as the human intellect shall continue its march
the defenders of the faith will find it true that

212 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
" Our little systems have their day ;
They have their day and cease to be :
They are but broken lights of thee,
And thou, O Lord, art more than they."
It is not a little strange that there are so many
who fail to appreciate the magnitude of the debt
which Christianity owes to its doctrines. It argues
some lack of psychological insight, some inability
to understand the springs and motives of human
conduct, when it is seriously proposed to confine
the preaching of the gospel to its moral teachings,
to bring men face to face with the perfect ethics
of Jesus without revealing to them any way of
crossing the vast gulf which yawns between what
they are and what they are thus made to see that
they ought to be. The Jewish religion had its sac
rifices and its rites ; but even with the aid of such
auxiliaries, it was so far from securing a general
obedience to its elevated moral commandments that
these were lowered, in the end, to the moral level
of the people and almost disappeared in the quick
sands of rabbinical theology. To expect that Chris
tianity will encounter any better fate if it shall
offer to the world, in time to come, nothing save
its sublime but discouraging moral precepts is to
ignore alike historical precedent and the rooted
tendencies of human nature.
Christianity owes its past success and most of
its present power to the fact that it appeals with
supreme force to two universal principles of human
action. One of these is the natural reverence of

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 213
the soul for a high ethical example ; the other is
the innate desire of men for an easy way to com
pass their ends. It is, at the same time, the hard
est and the easiest of religions. On its ethical
side, it enjoins a perfect holiness, which it has
exemplified by a faultless human character and
has expressed in written laws or. principles from
which no jot or tittle can be removed ; on its doc
trinal side, it accords the full privileges of the
kingdom of God to him who has only made a
beginning in the Christian life.
Who would have expected to find in one and
the same religion two such contrasted and seem
ingly irreconcilable views of moral obligation as
are suggested in that onerous command to the rich
young ruler, — " Go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven : and come, follow me ; " and in that almost
prodigal promise to a crucified robber, who had
merely begun to emit a gleam of a better purpose,
— " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise " ?
Who would have imagined that there would ever
have been joined together in the utterances of a
single religious teacher such almost superhuman
commands as, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy mind, and with all thy strength," " Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," "Ye there
fore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect," and such indulgent declarations as, " My
yoke is easy, and my burden is light," " Every

214 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
one therefore who shall confess me before men,
him will I also confess before my Father which
is in heaven," " Whosoever shall give to drink
unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water
only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto
you, he shall in no wise lose his reward " ? What
could appear more self-contradictory, at the first
glance, than the uncompromising moral law of the
gospel and the minute act of obedience which con
stitutes a man a Christian, and, therefore, an heir
of salvation? What could seem more inconsis
tent with itself than a religion which proffers the
Sermon on the Mount as the unalterable law of
human duty, and then declares, " He that believ-
eth on me hath (already) everlasting life ? " What
theological expressions can be coined which would
seem to be mutually more exclusive than salvation
by perfect works and salvation by imperfect faith,
both of which, as shown in the foregoing quotations
and elsewhere in the New Testament, represent
contrasted sides of the gospel message ?
But it is to this combination of seemingly irre
concilable features, to this union of almost self-
contradictory requirements, that the gospel owes
its power. The secret of its age-long influence
does not consist, as some have persuaded them
selves, in the faultless purity of its ethics, nor, as
others of antinomian tendencies tacitly assume, in
a substitution of belief for works of righteousness,
but in a fusion of both. The unapproachable
holiness of its Founder, the ideal standard of yir-

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 215
tue which he inculcated, the superhuman beauty
of character which he would have men win, united
to inspire them with a wholesome sense of their
own meagre moral attainments, with an enlarged
conception of the ethical possibilities of human
nature, and with indefinite longings for the divine
life which was thus brought within their compre
hension. But, on the other hand, to forestall any
seriously depressing or discouraging influence that
might be exerted upon them by the contemplation
of the perfect moral law, there was furnished, at
the same time, a revelation of the means by which
so distant a moral goal can be reached, of the rela
tive minuteness of the acts by which a divine char
acter may be built up, of the comparatively easy
though long pathway by which the heights of a
perfect life can be scaled. It was thus that the
ideal was made practical. The ethics of Christ
alone would have failed to secure a widespread
imitation. The easy conditions on which admit
tance to his kingdom was granted would of them
selves have tended to consign virtue to the remote
background of effort. But the two united keep in
the same field of view ideal righteousness and a
practical route to it. They impose moral obliga
tions that are large enough for children of God,
and at the same time smooth the path of obedi
ence by promises which are suited to children of
men, and which assure those who are climbmg it
that they are already the heirs of the salvation.
Jesus in his conversation with Nathanael seems

216 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
to have identified himself with that ladder which
the patriarch saw in his dreams reaching from
earth to heaven. We ourselves can recognize it in
the twofold aspect of Christianity which has just
been presented. Its top rests against the Sermon
on the Mount illustrated and vivified by the per
fect life of Jesus. This is the heaven to which
men are invited. It marks the ethical condition
which makes heaven possible, the standard of
righteousness below which there can be no perma
nent satisfaction for the human conscience. The
rungs which make the ladder worthy of the name,
the successive steps in the sublime staircase, are
endless acts of obedience and self-denial which few,
if any, would have the courage and patience to
persist in were it not for the promises and dec
larations of a doctrinal nature which Christ has
interwoven with his ethical instructions. These
promises and declarations — to carry out the figure
— may be compared to the sides of a ladder.
Without them there can be no upward gradation of
steps. They are the source of the faith which gives
men the patience to climb. They bring an other
wise inaccessible elevation of character within reach
by making it possible to divide the long ascent
into innumerable easy stages which are adapted
to the rudimentary nature of man's present moral
development, and at the same time they furnish
in various ways, which will be mentioned more
explicitly hereafter, the courage and persistence
which are needed for so great an undertaking.

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 217
Indeed, there is in the gospel something analogous
to the mechanical powers, and the large success it
has had in the world is due to its use of a force
which is comparable to that which is exerted along
industrial lines by the wedge, the screw, or the
inclined plane. I find, perhaps, in the path I am
wont to pursue, a boulder which I wish were out
of the way, but it is too heavy for me to move by
any muscular energy that I have at my command.
I ask myself if there is not some other way in
which I can work upon it, if there is not some
method by which I may increase my strength while
dealing with it. It occurs to me at once that I
can use a lever. Accordingly, I insert a crowbar
under it, and am able at last to roll it to one
side. I realize that what I have gained in power
I have lost in time, that I have accomplished by a
somewhat long and slow operation what I would
have effected in an instant if I had only had six
times my present strength; but I have attained
my end.
Now Christian dogma is the lever by which
high ethical results are accomplished. The life of
Christ, the moral standard of the gospel, is some
thing that is set before man for his imitation. He
can never be satisfied with himself or truthfully
say that he has fulfilled his whole duty until he
has lifted his conduct up to the level thus revealed
to him. But he needs to make only a few at
tempts to do so in order to become convinced that
he has undertaken something beyond his strength.

218 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
What the theologians call his " moral inability " is
an impassable boulder which blocks his way to
the goal of his highest spiritual aspirations. The
despairing cry of Paul, " O wretched man that I
am ! who shall deliver me out of the body of this
death?" expresses the feeling of every one who
has tried to lift himself by his own native powers
to the height of his purest moral ideals. It is an
unconscious appeal for something in the realm of
spiritual dynamics corresponding to the devices by
which force is multiplied in the sphere of physical
action. Now doctrinal Christianity answers this appeal.
It furnishes the lever by which human strength is
made equal to the exactions of a cultivated con
science. To be sure, the law of the mechanical
powers holds good here also. What is gained in
force is lost in time. The process thus inaugurated
will be a slow one. But this fact suggests the fun
damental distinction between law and grace, which
are so often contrasted in the New Testament. The
practical value of the doctrine of immortality re
sides, as has been said, partly in the assurance it
gives that there will be time enough. Law by its
very nature requires immediate obedience to all of
its commandments, and illustrates the quickest way
of lifting the soul to God ; but grace is willing to
wait until slower processes have brought about the
same result ; while every cheering view which the
gospel affords of God's attitude towards the human
race, every stimulating promise from the same

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 219
source of divine assistance to the weak, of divine
patience with the slow, every scriptural declaration
that all barriers which may have been conceived
to exist in the way to the Father have been re
moved, serves to augment the moral force of men
and so to bring them gradually to that perfect char
acter which they are too weak to attain at once.
Whatever, therefore, is divine in the moral
teachings of Jesus implies the existence of as much
that is divine in the doctrinal teachings which
make these practicable. If we are justified in be
lieving, on the strength of considerations already
adduced or others, that our high moral aspirations,
our growing conceptions of duty, are infused into
the human mind by a Divine Being into whose
likeness man is being gradually developed, it would
seem inevitable that we should refer to the same
source the ideas of religious truth without which
our ethical ideals must remain inoperative and
barren. If we are willing to concede that the
Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Good
Samaritan, and Paul's chapter on Love deserve
to be regarded as having originated with God,
it would scarcely be rational for us to deny that
those dogmas of the Christian Church which have
influenced men to adopt these wonderful utter
ances as a reasonable revelation of human duty
are worthy of the same origin. As previously re
marked, we cannot suppose that God will do things
by halves. It is not consistent with our idea of a
Being who is wise- enough to create a world for us

220 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
to believe that he would make known to his crea
tures their supreme moral obligations and with
hold from them the helpful facts without which
such ethical knowledge would bring forth no satis
factory fruit. If the ends proposed are divine, so
must be the means to those ends. If the moral
standard is of heaven, so must the doctrines be
which encourage men to emulate it. There can
be no more of authority in the human conscience
than there is in the theological tenets which ren
der obedience to conscience possible. No greater
weight can attach to the example of Jesus than to
the doctrines without which that example is prac
tically useless.
Plato wrote for a small intellectual aristocracy
who could read and understand him, but mankind
as a whole he deemed too ignorant to be helped by
him. The Jewish teachers at the time of Christ
had likewise narrowed their conception of the
proper field of their religious influence until it
embraced only those who were familiar with the
rabbinical writings; "but this multitude which
knoweth not the law are accursed." There seems
to be an almost irresistible tendency on the part of
religious teachers in general to adapt their instruc
tions to the educated few rather than to the illit
erate many, to present the truth in such a way as
will meet the intellectual doubts of a small num
ber of thinking men rather than in a manner that
will commend it to the conscious spiritual needs of
the great bulk of humanity. But a religion which

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 221
is so propagated must prove a failure if by reli
gious success we mean the spiritual elevation of the
whole human race. If we believe that Christian
ity is in any sense divine, we must feel that any
interpretation of it is wrong which will necessarily
confine its benefits to a favored few, to the rela
tively small number whom exceptional mental or
moral gifts have lifted above the general level of
their fellow men. Man can be redeemed only by
influences which appeal to human nature as it is
exhibited in men as a whole, and not as it has been
modified and improved in a few individuals.
There are two ways in which the average man
may be excluded from the benefits of the gospel.
One of these Jesus had in mind when he admin
istered that stern rebuke to the religious author
ities of his time : " Woe unto you lawyers ! for ye
took away the key of knowledge : ye entered not
in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye
hindered." We need only to read "theologians"
for " lawyers " — which would not be a very inac
curate translation — in order to have our atten
tion forcibly directed to a common abuse of our
own day, which, however, at least in some quar
ters, is rapidly becoming less and less common. I
refer to the custom of making assent to an elab
orate creed an indispensable condition of enroll
ment as a follower of Christ. It is a custom akin
to the practice which Christ denounced in the text
just given, — the practice of putting the commen
tator on a level with the sacred author and inter-

222 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
posing the refracting atmosphere of mere human
opinion between essential truth and those who
desire to know it. Creeds are only the spectacles
which the church wears to improve its eyesight,
and they must be changed from time to time to
suit alterations in its vision. They render in
tellectual .assistance to the mind for a while and
impart a temporary distinctness to important doc
trines, but as education is sure to change the
mental focus, they will obscure the truth after
wards if new lenses are not used. The " warlike "
theory of the atonement might have been a useful
article of faith as long as human minds were dom
inated by the belief that the souls of men were in
the power of an almost omnipotent evil person
ality; but when that belief had waned, to insist
upon it as an essential part of the doctrine of the
atonement could have had no other effect than to
bring the latter into doubt.
And so with philosophical explanations of the
Trinity and other Christian dogmas : they may be
helpful for the time being ; but if they are made
an integral part of a creed, the day is probably not
far distant when they will have become antiquated,
and when the distrust with which they will then be
viewed will extend itself to the truths which they
once helped to illuminate. A recognition of the
obligation to acquire the character of Christ is the
only article of faith to which the church should
demand unqualified assent. It should not fail in
addition to recommend the practical features of

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 223
the various Christian doctrines as indispensable
aids to the attainment of the ideal thus chosen ;
and it can then safely trust its earnest members to
adopt as many of them as shall aid in promoting
their spiritual growth. To give to these doctrines,
however, what is intended for a final statement
of their deepest meaning, and to insist that this
shall be accepted as an essential part of Christian
faith, is not only to put intellectual barriers in the
way of many who would make better Christians
than theologians, but it is also to prepare the way
for future breaks between the church and human
scholarship. Creeds and commentaries may wisely
be welcomed as aids to a broader understanding of
revealed truth, but only when it is purposed that
they shall not outlive their usefulness.
There is another way also in which the average
man may be excluded from the benefits of the
gospel, and that is by being confronted with his
full ethical obligations without receiving any intel
lectual help whatever, or any save what is of the
feeblest description. This method is the direct
opposite of that which has just been described, and
has already been considered in an earlier part of
this chapter. There is something touching in the
picture of a Eobert Elsmere working in the slums
with ethical aspirations but no beliefs, trying to
remedy the failures of Christianity by stripping it
of its most stimulating features, striving to elevate
the morals of outcasts by diminishing the motives
to morality. It was a correct instinct that led the

224 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
gifted author to describe the mission as unsuccess
ful. The gates of heaven may be barred against
men as hopelessly by moral commandments which
excel their moral powers as by philosophical creeds
which transcend their intellectual capacity. If we
expect to find in humanity as a whole that sym
pathy with the purest ethical ideals, that sensitive
ness to the beauty of a self-sacrificing character,
which is not uncommon, perhaps, in the circles in
which we move, we have an exaggerated conception
of the moral development of the human race.
Such traits are rudimentary in mankind as a whole.
They are capable of being indefinitely expanded by
wise training ; but to urge upon men as a rule of
conduct the example and precepts of Jesus apart
from all other considerations is to elicit, in nine
teen cases out of twenty, an incredulous laugh or
a bewildered stare. Those who would redeem
mankind by profound philosophy and those who
would save it by bare ethics are equally unprac
tical. They are laboring for individuals and not
for the race.
Before the bolt which fastens the door of a safe
can be shot back several levers must be moved.
Each of them is represented by a letter in the
combination, and each of them must produce its
effect before the safe can be opened. No doubt
the portal of heaven must be unlocked by ideal
moral conduct. To put in practice the perfect
ethics of the Sermon on the Mount is to force back
the bolt which is all that blocks the entrance of a

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 225
soul into a divine peace. But before this can be
done, what difficulties must be overcome, what hin
drances must be taken out of the way ! What
hopes must be excited and what fears allayed,
what views of God must be embraced and what
new ideas of life must be conceived, before a selfish
nature will aspire to become divine ! These hopes,
views, ideas, represent the levers which dogmatic
Christianity seeks to move. The doctrines are the
combination which opens the safe, the correlated
truths which must be brought to bear upon the soul
before the highest ethical motive can be set to work.
When Christ said to Peter, " I will give unto
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," he was
not promising the disciple a primacy among his
fellows ; for that is something which Peter evi
dently never possessed. Nor is it likely that he
was merely indicating that Peter would be the first
to preach the gospel to the Gentiles ; for the fact
that the latter was only to begin a work which was
really to fall to the province of a much abler man
would hardly seem important enough to match the
impressive language of the promise. It is more
probable that the profoundly figurative style of
teaching which Jesus so often adopted, and which
finds its most conspicuous illustrations in the para
bles and the miracles, is to be recognized here also.
We shall be in harmony with the spirit of his
method as it is exhibited in many of his deepest
utterances and works, if we see in the words we
are now considering a reference to the inspiring

226 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
truths with which the disciple was to be equipped
for his mission, and by which he would be able to
open human hearts to ethical influences as they
had never been opened before by any agency that
had been used for the reformation of man. If such
was the significance of the keys, they were a gift
to the whole church. As the power to bind and
to loose, which was also bestowed on Peter at this
time, was, on another occasion, granted to the dis
ciples as a whole,1 so we may believe that in the
religious doctrines which have become inseparable
from the moral teachings of the gospel, in the in
spiring facts which associate the ethics of Christian
ity with all that human nature needs in the way of
encouragement and hope, we have the golden keys
of which Peter, indeed, was to be the first to learn
the use, but which, in the hands of countless Chris
tian preachers and teachers, were to unlock the
kingdom of heaven for millions of men and women,
in every age, in every clime, who would need to
know that the portal could really be opened before
they would have the courage to spend a life, and
perhaps more than a life, in the pursuit of a per
fect moral ideal.
Nor should the fact be overlooked in this con
nection that virtue is increased not only by ap
proximating to our ideals of conduct but also by
enlarging our own nature. A man with grand
beliefs is likely to be a grander man than one who
is without them. The perfect righteousness of a
1 Matthew xviii. 18.

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 227
great man is, in a certain sense, greater than the
perfect righteousness of one less able : it involves
the consecration of vaster powers to the noblest
ends. The higher one's conception of his essen
tial dignity becomes, the loftier and broader his
ambitions are apt to be ; and it is the ambitions
of a soul that measure its intrinsic value. So
Paul seems to teach when he declares that God
will render eternal life unto them that seek for
glory and honor and incorruption. The very large
ness of the ends they are pursuing makes them fit
recipients of prizes of the same order.
That one who deems himself a son of God, an
heir of immortality, a future companion of the just
made perfect and of an innumerable company of
angels, should be capable of higher aspirations and
a more sublime character than one who deems him
self but the king of beasts and the quintessence of
dust would seem beyond dispute. The unexampled
achievements of Christian civilization are those of
men who were made equal to vast exploits by a
deep sense of their immortality and of their kin
ship with God. Jesus alludes to the fact I am
considering when he says : " Verily I say unto you,
Among them that are born of women there hath
not arisen a greater than John the Baptist : yet he
that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater
than he." The forerunner of the Messiah was the
product of a relatively narrow religion, and even
the humblest Christian who had caught a glimpse
of his own intrinsic majesty, and of his privileges

228 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
as a member of the heavenly kingdom and as a joint
heir with Christ of an incorruptible inheritance,
had expanded his soul far beyond the dimensions
attained by any one with less inspiring beliefs. As
the most obscure American who appreciates his
birthright will feel that he is superior to the most
powerful barbarian king, so the sublime beliefs
which Christianity has made the common property
of a large portion of the human race impart to
even the obscurest disciple a greatness which sur
passes, in some respects, that of the greatest heir
of a lesser faith. It is because the doctrines of
the Christian religion enlarge human nature while
they purify it, because they broaden the virtue
of men while they perfect it, that they have earned
an additional and special right to be reckoned
among the most powerful ethical influences ever
brought to bear on human character, and to be
associated, in practice, with the moral teachings of
Jesus as an inseparable part of a divine revelation.
The Christian dogmas, therefore, are an integral
part of the religion of Christ. They cannot be
separated from it without destroying much of the
value of what remains. The successive modifi
cations which have occurred in the explanations
that have been given of them are not inconsistent
with their fundamental truth, but rather emphasize
it by illustrating its adaptedness to the shifting
phases of developing religious thought. When,
therefore, we consider, in addition to what has
already been said, that the essence of these doc-

DOGMATIC CHRISTIANITY 229
trines is derived from the utterances of men who
represent the culmination of Hebrew inspiration,
of men who may be justly regarded as expressing
the final results of the most extensive and most
truly scientific theological and religious induction
that has ever been made by a single race, we can
not but accord to them a peculiar respect, and in
dulge the confident expectation of finding in them
some of the most stimulating and helpful revela
tions that God has given to men.

CHAPTER IX
THE INCARNATION
The influence of good example has been a very
potent agency in the ethical development of the
human race. Individuals are ever lifting them
selves above the moral level of their fellow men,
and the higher standards of conduct which are
thus exemplified beget in others a desire to equal
them. And this is especially true when the ex
ample is one of philanthropic self-sacrifice. It
would be impossible to overestimate the effect
which the unselfish patriotism of Washington has
had on the character of the American people.
Doubtless the disinterested conduct of Moses, as
portrayed by the Jewish historian and psalmist,
did much to elevate the moral ideals of his coun
trymen. The early legends of various peoples re
count the self-sacrificing labors of certain mythical
or half-historical benefactors whose lives were spent
in the service of others, and whose names, conse
quently, keep before the popular mind a more or
less high conception of moral obligation and of the
possibilities of altruistic conduct. It is as true in
ethics as it is in any other field of human action that
men, as a rule, can be led to the summit of any

THE INCARNATION 231
difficult achievement only by those who are leaders
in the true sense of the word, by those, that is, who
first heroically climb the slopes themselves. Self-
sacrifice is the decisive test and the most winning
expression of love ; and a religion which exempli
fies the highest self-sacrifice is the one which will
exert, in the long run, the most powerful leverage
on the human mind and, other things being equal,
reap the largest success in the end.
Any one who reads Edwin Arnold's poem, " The
Light of Asia," must feel very powerfully drawn
towards the character of Gautama as there por
trayed. The self-denying philanthropy of a young
prince who was in possession of all things which
men generally regard as most desirable, and who
could confidently look forward to a life filled with
delights which are far beyond the reach of all save
a favored few, but who gave up wealth, power,
position, and domestic happiness in order to solve
the problem of human pain and misery, who ex
changed the robes of royalty for the beggar's garb
that he might mitigate the suffering of his fellow
men, — such an act of self-sacrifice, if it is be
lieved by the Buddhist to have been performed by
the founder of his religion, must inspire him with
a peculiar interest and confidence in that religion.
The cult will be glorified by the transcendent love
which is ascribed to him who originated it. It will
be clothed in the eyes of its adherents with all the
prestige that naturally attaches itself to philan
thropic movements which embody the results of

232 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
much disinterested study and many self-denying
experiences. It would seem, therefore, that the character of
God must be associated with something of the
same nature, if he is to be worshiped with en
thusiasm and affectionate devotion, if it is not to
be said with truth that in the hold which has been
secured on men by many of their human benefac
tors there is something more tenacious and effec
tive than can ever enter into the attachment of a
man to his Maker. It would seem to be indispen
sable that the quality of self-sacrifice should appear
conspicuously among the moral traits of the Al
mighty, if the Creator is ever to become the object
of a more intense devotion than is accorded to some
of the best of his creatures.
Now it is precisely this quality of the Infinite
that natural religion does not adequately reveal.
The theist can discover the power and wisdom of
God in his works. He can deduce most of the
moral attributes of the Most High, with more or
less of confidence, from natural phenomena. The
love and the benevolence of the Deity have been
apprehended, in some measure, even by pagan
minds. These qualities are well calculated to in
spire awe, reverence, and even some degree of af
fection. But there is one kind of affection which
they will not beget. There is nothing in them to
call forth the love which goes out to one who has
himself loved with a self-forgetful devotion that
shrank not from the most terrible ordeal, that was

THE INCARNATION 233
proof against all danger and all suffering. The
conclusion would seem to be irresistible that if God
is ever to win from the human race an expression
of its highest gratitude, a worship which will lack
no element of the highest conceivable personal con
secration, his wisdom must devise some means by
which he can withdraw from that state of being in
which he is beyond the reach of pain and trial and
enter into a condition of finite limitations in which
it will be possible for him to exhibit self-sacrifice
because it will be possible for him to undergo suf
fering. And is it not true that the affection, the
intense loyalty, which the Christian feels towards
his Maker is very largely due to the fact that he
has been taught to believe that the greatest sacri
fice of which love is capable has been made by
God himself ? Is it not equally true that the dis
ciple of Jesus would feel spmewhat abashed by the
self-abnegation of a Gautama were he not able to
set over against it, not merely the self-sacrifice of
a humble Galilean carpenter, whose labor of love
might be said to have involved no abandonment
of previous ease and comfort, to have received even
a substantial reward in the shape of an enhanced
personal and social dignity, but also such a sub
lime allegation as is set forth in the text : " Who,
being in the form of God, counted it not a prize
to be on an equality with God, but emptied him
self, taking the form of a servant, being made in
the likeness of men ; and being found in fashion
as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient
even unto death, yea, the death of the cross."

234 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
That the spirit of self-sacrifice is an element of
the divine character may indeed be inferred from
the fact that it has shown itself from time immemo
rial in human nature, and is therefore presumably
one of the ethical quaUties that man is deriving
from the parent Mind. There is a vast difference,
however, in respect to stimulating power and win
ning influence between a potential and an actual
beneficence. The world loves, not those who would
sacrifice themselves for others if they could find
an opportunity, but those who have found one and
used it. Between a character which is said to be
capable of self-denial for others and one which
has exhibited it there is all the difference in re
spect to impressiveness and the power to excite
imitation that there is between precept and exam
ple. It would seem to be certain, therefore, that
God must manifest a love which can be believed
to have cost him supreme self-forgetfulness and
privation if he is to receive from men the highest
quality of devotion which human nature is able to
evince. As the complexion of love is largely de
termined by the personal traits of those who elicit
it, the command to love God with heart and soul
and mind and strength, to render to him, that
is, an affection which is lacking in no element
of completeness, would appear incapable of being
obeyed unless self-sacrifice can be shown to have
entered into God's dealings with men. In this
fact we have one of the " knots " to which refer
ence has already been made 1 and in the exist-
1 Chap. v.

THE INCARNATION 235
ence of which we find a foreshadowing of the mir
acle. For the presence of such a need in a world
governed by such a Being as we hold God to be is
itself a prophecy. It justifies the expectation that
divine knowledge and goodness combined will dis
cover a fitting way to meet it.
The Gentile world had its seers and its inspira
tion as well as the Jewish race. The consciousness
of an inability to solve moral problems which finds
expression in the prediction ascribed to Moses that
another teacher would supplement his work, which
moved John the Baptist to direct his disciples to
a greater than himself who was close behind him,
is paralleled in the expectations of Confucius and
Zoroaster that a larger revelation of the truth than
they could give was yet to be furnished to the
world. The despair of Tacitus when he declared
that human life was one great farce and expressed
the conviction that the Eoman world lay under
some terrible curse, the feelings of Cicero when
he pictured the enthusiasm which would greet the
embodiment of true virtue should it ever appear
on earth, the longing of Seneca for some hand
from without to lift humanity out of the ruin of
despair, are echoes from the very century in the
midst of which Christ died, and ought to have pre
pared any mind with an adequate conception of
God for some remarkable providence. The mys
tery of human iniquity, the failure of all known
forces and influences to effect the reformation of
men, that sense of superhuman difficulty which

236 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
found expression in the text,1 " Which things angels
desire to look into," were prophetic of great events.
Man's extremity is God's opportunity. In other
words, when the problem of human life becomes
too hard for the human race collectively or through
the medium of its wisest minds to solve, in that
very fact is to be recognized a prediction of and
a preparation for a new gift of divine light to the
world. And another need, associated with if not involved
in the one just described, is that of divine com
panionship. There is something discouraging to
the average mind in the thought of the gulf which
separates the finite from the infinite. The enjoy
ment felt by the child in the society of its father,
the encouragement which the private soldier derives
from any friendliness shown him by his commander-
in-chief, the loyal devotion with which a peasant
is inspired when he becomes an object of kindly
interest to his sovereign, are repeated and enlarged
in the experiences of those who believe that God
has entered into personal relations with them and
has not felt too far above them to make himself
one of them. The theophanies, the manifestations
of divine beings in human form, which are described
in pagan literature as well as in the Old Testa
ment, are to him who has an exalted idea of God's
benevolence only so many prophetic intimations of
coming events. In whatever way these stories
may have originated, they bear witness to the exist-
1 1 Peter i. 12.

THE INCARNATION 237
ence of a desire, a craving, on the part of men
for divine society. The myths, the legends, the
religious theories of mankind, have a psychological
bearing which entitles them to much respect. It
is no objection to the doctrine of the Incarnation
to say that it can be classed with them. They
represent the strivings of the collective human
mind after religious truth. They reflect a world
wide mental condition, and therefore shed an indis
pensable light on the problems which a religion
must solve, on the facts of human nature with
which it must harmonize, if it is to be successful
and universal. In a word, they show the way in
which God must come to men in order to win them.
It is important for us to understand in just
what fight Jesus was regarded by those who first
preached his gospel, how the mystery of his per
son and fife was solved by that inspiration which
has given us the New Testament. We cannot but
attach great value to the utterances made on this
subject by a people like the Hebrews, who are
acknowledged to speak with peculiar authority on
religious questions, and whose prophetic deliver
ances, if we are to judge them by their effects,
never reached a higher spiritual level than is repre
sented by the literature of the New Testament.
If it is possible to determine the meaning of an
author from his writings, it can hardly be denied
that the New Testament teaches as plainly that
Christ is God as that there is a God.
It would evidently be beyond the scope of the

238 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
present volume to give even a brief resume of the
controversy which has been waged in reference to
the person of Christ between different sections of
the Christian Church. Nor could I hope to inter
est the general reader in the exegetical hair-split
ting of which much of this controversy consists.
It is possible, however, to summarize the utter
ances of the Scriptures on this point in such a
way as to show that the conclusion with which the
last paragraph ends is abundantly warranted. If
we interpret the language of the sacred writers in
reference to the needs of those for whom they
wrote, and read in it the meaning it must obvi
ously have had for men and women who were not
metaphysicians but plain people in want of plain
instruction, there can scarcely be two opinions as
to its teachings on this point.
What is the Biblical idea of God ? It is that
of a Being of whom certain acts, attributes, quali
ties, etc., are distinctively characteristic ; that is,
they belong to him and to no other being. We
know no one save through certain peculiarities
which individually or collectively pertain to him
alone. We recognize a friend by his looks, his
bearing, the tone of his voice, his customary ex
pressions. If these are not observable, we know
him no longer. If an intimate acquaintance should
appear before us with his face hidden by a mask,
his familiar garments covered by a domino, and
with his voice disguised, we should take him for a
stranger. We should be able to see in him none

THE INCARNATION 239
of the distinguishing marks by which we have been
wont to recognize him, and therefore we must fail
to identify him.
So when a well-known historical personage is
introduced into a work of fiction under an assumed
name, if we are able to penetrate his disguise it is
by detecting in him some of the qualities which
we associate with that personage. We easily rec
ognize in the nameless " Black Knight " of " Ivan-
hoe " King Eichard the First of England, for
his immense strength, the device upon his shield,
when combined with various other circumstances,
can be referred only to that monarch. So our
idea of any person whom we have never seen is
derived • entirely from description, from certain
acts, qualities, characteristics which we have been
taught to connect with him alone, and apart from
which it would be impossible for us to form any
idea of him whatever.
Now we get our conception of God in the same
way. We could not form one intelligently save
by putting together certain characteristics which
we have leamed from nature or the Bible to refer
to him alone. We fix our thoughts on these, and
they unite in producing a certain mental image
or concept which is our idea of God. Without
them it would be no more possible to think of God
than it would be for a person who had been born
blind to form a correct notion of color.
What, then, are the characteristics which the
Bible ascribes to God by means of which we are

240 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
able to identify him, to distinguish him from the
gods of the pagan cults ? I will enumerate some
of the most important of them, and at the same
time cite the texts in which they are mentioned.
1. Creation is declared to be an act peculiar to
God. " Thus saith the Lord, ... I am the Lord,
that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the
heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth;
who is with me ? " (margin : by myself). (Isaiah
xliv. 24.)
2. He is the preserver of all things. " Thou
art the Lord, even thou alone; thou hast made
heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host,
the earth and all things that are thereon, the seas
and all that is in them, and thou preservest them
all." (Nehemiah ix. 6.)
3. He is omnipotent. " The Lord appeared to
Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty."
(Genesis xvii. 1.)
So in nine different books of the Old Testament
the same title is given to Jehovah. The Hebrew
word translated Almighty (shaddai) occurs in no
other connection.
4. He is omnipresent.
" Whither shall I go from thy spirit ?
Or whither shall I flee from thy presence ?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ;
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold thou art there.
If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea ;
Even there shall thy hand lead me,
And thy right hand shall hold me."
(Psalms cxxxix. 7-10.)

THE INCARNATION 241
5. He is immutable. "Every good gift and
every perfect boon is from above, coming down
from the Father of lights, with whom can be no
variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning."
(James i. 17.) "For I the Lord change not."
(Malachi iii. 6.)
6. He is eternal.
" Before the mountains were brought forth,
Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."
(Psalms xc. 2.)
7. He is an infallible judge of human thoughts
and motives. " The heart is deceitful above all
things, and it is desperately sick : who can know
it ? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins,
even to give every man according to his ways, ac
cording to the fruit of his doings." (Jeremiah
xvii. 9, 10.)
8. He is the sole object of adoration. " Thou
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only
shalt thou serve." (Matthew iv. 10.)
Here, then, we have the character of God pre
sented to us in the Bible in eight different aspects.
Others might be added, but these will suffice.
Creation is ascribed to him in such a way as to ex
clude the agency of any other being. The omni
potence attributed to him is evidently regarded as
belonging to him alone. So all of the remaining
characteristics were viewed by the Hebrews as dis
tinctively divine and as referable only to Jehovah.
Whenever, therefore, a being is referred to in the

242 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
Bible as a creator, we cannot doubt that God is
intended ; and even more certain must we be, if
such a thing were possible, that God is meant
when a person is named as possessing many or
even all of the characteristics which the Scriptures
have taught us to associate with God alone.
I have in mind, for example, a certain monu
ment in Boston which I may describe as being
221 feet high, as standing on Bunker Hill, as
having been erected to commemorate a battle, and
as being taller than any other structure of the
kind in the city. If, therefore, I am told that
there is on Breed's Hill in Boston a granite shaft
221 feet in height, which commemorates a battle
of the Eevolutionary War and is the loftiest
monument in New England, I am at no loss to
identify the object my informant is speaking of as
the same that I have in mind, notwithstanding the
difference in the name of the hill. I know that
there cannot be two monuments each of which is
higher than the other. All of the characteristics
which he has enumerated cannot by any possibil
ity belong to two different structures. If he is a
perfectly trustworthy person, I have no doubt
whatever that we have both been describing the
same object, and that the apparent disagreement
between us is due to some historical fact which
has led him to give the name of Breed's Hill to
what I have called Bunker Hill.
Or to give another illustration: A foreigner
may be informed that Ulysses S. Grant directed

THE INCARNATION 243
the movements of the army of the Potomac in
the latter part of our civil war, that he cap
tured Vicksburg, and, as commander-in-chief of
the Union forces, received the surrender of Lee's
army. The man may subsequently be informed
that Hiram U. Grant was the last leader of the
Potomac army, that it was his generalship that
brought about the fall of Vicksburg, and that
he was commander-in-chief when Lee laid down
his arms. The person to whom these seemingly
contradictory statements have been made will not
doubt, if they come from reliable sources, that the
same officer is referred to in both of them. The
exploits which each is said to have performed are
related with such attendant circumstances that
they cannot be supposed to have been achieved by
more than one military commander. He will
naturally conclude — what was actually the case
— that Ulysses S. Grant had also been called
Hiram U. Grant.
So the Biblical idea of God is that of a Being
who created the world, who preserves it, and so on.
To whatever Being, therefore, the sacred writings
ascribe the acts and traits which they have already
used to convey to us a distinct conception of God,
we cannot but be certain that by that Being, what
ever name they give to him, God is meant. Now
all the characteristics which I have just mentioned
as uniting to form the Biblical idea of God the
New Testament also ascribes to Jesus Christ.
1. Christ is said to have created the world.

244 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
" Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-
bom of all creation ; for in him were all things
created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things
visible and things invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or principalities or powers; all things
have been created through him, and unto him;
and he is before all things, and in him all things
consist." (Colossians i. 15-18.)
See, also, the creative acts attributed to the
Logos in the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel.
I am aware that there are those who insist
that a distinction should be made in this con
nection between the prepositions by and through
(or, in Greek, between v-n-6 with the genitive, on
the one hand, and Sid with the genitive, on the
other) ; but, in view of the fact that the creation is
ascribed in the Old Testament to God alone (see
text above quoted), that distinction cannot be
pressed in the present case. It can hardly be sup
posed that Paul, if we concede that he wrote the
Epistle to the Colossians, could have intended to
teach anything contrary to the passage in Isaiah
just referred to, that either he or the author of
the Fourth Gospel purposed to contradict by the
use of the word " through " the undoubted teaching
of the word " alone." The fact, therefore, must
stand that what is elsewhere mentioned in the Bible
as an exclusively divine act is said, in the New Tes
tament, to have been performed, in some real and
important sense, by Christ. I feel justified, there
fore, in retaining the act of creation as a point

THE INCARNATION 245
of comparison, although it could be omitted alto
gether without prejudice to my argument.
2. Christ is the preserver of the world. The
closing sentence in the previous quotation would
bear out this statement, but the last clause of the
following passage may also be cited.
" God . . . hath at the end of these days
spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir
of all things, through whom also he made the
worlds ; who being the effulgence of his glory, and
the very image of his substance, and upholding all
things by the word of his power," etc. (Hebrews
i. 1-3.) 3. He is omnipotent. So much would be in
ferred from the acts of power already ascribed to
him in the creation and preservation of the world.
We can form no higher idea of omnipotence than
is suggested by the ability to do such things.
There are not wanting texts, however, in which the
attribute seems to be expressly ascribed to him.
"The Lord Jesus Christ: who shall fashion
anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be
conformed to the body of his glory, according to
the working whereby he is able even to subject all
things unto himself." (Philippians iii. 20, 21.)
4. He is omnipresent. So much is implied in
the fact that in him all things consist. But the
following text is also in harmony with it : " For
where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them." (Mat
thew xviii. 20.)

246 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
5. He is immutable.
" But of the Son he saith,
. . . Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of
the earth, ,
And the heavens are the works of thy hands :
They shall perish ; but thou continuest :
And they all shall wax old as doth a garment ;
And as a mantle shalt thou roll them up,
As a garment, and they shall be changed :
But thou art the same,
And thy years shall not fail." (Hebrews i. 8, 10-12.)
" Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day,
yea and for ever." (Hebrews xiii. 8.)
6. He is eternal. So we should infer from the
general tenor of the first of the two preceding
quotations ; but the same fact is found elsewhere.
" And he laid his right hand upon me, saying,
Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the
Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am
alive for evermore." (Eevelation i. 17, 18.)
7. He is an infallible judge of human thoughts
and motives. "These things saith the Son of
God, . . . And all the churches shall know that I
am he which searcheth the reins and hearts : and
I will give unto each one of you according to your
works." (Eevelation ii. 18, 23.)
This text is all the more noteworthy because it
seems expressly designed to identify, by the words
" I am he," the son of God who uttered it with
Jehovah into whose mouth the same words had
been previously put by Jeremiah. (See citation
above.)

THE INCARNATION 247
8. He is an object of adoration. "Wherefore
also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him
the name which is above every name ; that in the
name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things
in heaven and things on earth and things under
the earth, and that every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father." (Philippians ii. 9-11.)
"And every created thing which is in the heaven,
and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the
sea, and all things that are in them, heard I say
ing, Unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto
the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and
the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever."
(Eevelation v. 13.)
These ascriptions of a joint worship to the
Father and the Son have a peculiar significance
when taken in connection with the citation from
the words of Christ himself which is given above :
" Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him
only shalt thou serve" (koI a£r<3 /*ov<o Aa-rpeiKras).
(Matthew iv. 10.)
This method of condensing the teachings of the
Bible on this subject may be compared to that
pursued in building an arch. Both columns are
made up of stones corresponding in size and num
ber, and gradually approach each other until all
that is needed for the completion of the struc
ture is the insertion of a single stone which will
join the two columns together. The successive
stones in the above argument are creation, pre-

248 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
servation, omnipotence, etc. God created the
world, Christ created the world, God preserves
it, Christ preserves it, God is omnipotent, Christ
is omnipotent, and so on. All that is now lack
ing is some text or texts which will assure us
that these writers were perfectly aware of what
they were teaching, that we are not deducing from
their utterances a conclusion which they would
have repudiated, but that they clearly understood
the logical drift of their momentous statements.
A distinct recognition on their part of the essen
tial oneness of the Father and the Son would serve
to remove all suspicion of accident or carelessness
from the results to which they have led the great
mass of their readers for eighteen centuries. And
this need is abundantly met. The first verse in the
Fourth Gospel, " In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God ; " the sixth verse in the second chapter of
Philippians, "Who, being in the form of God,
counted it not a prize to be on an equality with
God ; " the eighth verse in the first chapter of
Hebrews, already cited for another purpose, " But
of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever," are texts which fulfill the various
conditions just named. So, too, the most natural
rendering of Eevelation xxii. 10-16 identifies
Christ under the name of Jesus with him who is
the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last,
the beginning and the end. That at least the
first three of these passages teach the substantial

THE INCARNATION 249
identity of God and Christ would never have been
questioned save in the interests of a preconceived
theory; and although Lightfoot and Alford can
be quoted against that interpretation of the fourth
which I. have adopted, I am convinced that most
candid persons will feel that the views of these
justly celebrated scholars are opposed to the obvi
ous teaching of the passage. These direct identi
fications of Christ with God, or any one of them,
in fact, will serve for the keystone of the arch ; so
that what began as two ends as one. They help
to support the two columns of evidence already
described, and at the same time are held in place
by them. All of the texts cited and many others
that might be added interpret one another. They
unite to form a coherent, self-consistent structure
of doctrinal teaching, which establishes the propo
sition with which this discussion began, and shows
that Christ was regarded as God incarnate by
some of the leading Christian writers to whom we
owe the groundwork of our religious faith.
It is not enough to show that the texts quoted
may be made, by dint of more or less exegetical
ingenuity, to yield a different meaning from that
which is most obvious. The difficulty to be over
come by him who would assail them lies much
deeper. He is obliged to assume, in utter disre
gard of the theory of probabilities, that several
writers who undertook to reveal the essential na
ture of Christ coincidently blundered so as to give
the impression that he was God incarnate when it

250 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
was not their purpose to convey any such idea.
If we could admit that a single author, as, for
example, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
was infelicitous in expressing himself on this sub
ject, it would be a strange coincidence if the author
of the Fourth Gospel made precisely the same mis
take. And even if we could adjust our minds to
such an improbability, our credulity would be over
taxed if we were asked to believe that the author
of Philippians committed exactly the same blunder.
Moreover, those who deny that Philippians and
Colossians were from the same pen must main
tain that the author of the latter furnishes another
instance of the same error ; while those who con
tend that the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel
were composed by different persons have added
the author of the former to the list as a fifth.
That five, or four, or even three independent au
thors who were writing for common people, or that
three writers in five different books, should have
accidentally used language so awkwardly as to
necessitate the conclusion in most minds that they
believed that Christ was God is improbable to the
verge of absurdity. The truth of their statements
may of course be legitimately questioned, but to
hold that they unintentionally united in teaching a
most startling doctrine which none of them believed
transcends the powers of logical thought.
I am well aware that there are many upon whom
the fact which I have thus endeavored to establish
will make no impression, that the time has gone by

THE INCARNATION 251
when a discussion of this question can be settled
by an appeal to proof-texts. It has been my pur
pose in the foregoing argument only to determine
and set forth just what views were held regarding
the person of Christ by those writers who lived in
his time and who reflect, consequently, the impres
sion made by his life and teachings upon his own
age. And it would seem to be an undeniable fact
that the people to whom is attributed the clearest
theological insight that any section of the human
race has ever attained, who, as Professor Huxley
expresses it, " created the first consistent, remorse
less, naked monotheism which, so far as history re
cords, appeared in the world," who knew no greater
sin than the worship of the creature as the Creator,
gave birth, nevertheless, in the crowning period
of its unique inspiration to a book which, while
embodying the highest phases of that inspiration,
ascribed over and over again such qualities, acts,
and attributes to a man as make it impossible for
most fair-minded persons to distinguish him, in any
important particular, from the Supreme Being.
And, moreover, it is the whole book that is
responsible for this result. The doctrine of the
incarnation does not rest on a certain number of
passages culled from the writings of three or four
of the sacred authors. Of the twenty-seven docu
ments which compose the New Testament and the
nine or more authors who contributed them, there
is scarcely one that does not furnish something to
substantiate the doctrine we are considering. Not

252 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
one of them gives it in its entirety. Not one of
them but leaves some gaps in the story of the
incarnation. Some affirm the original divinity
of Christ and that he took on himself the nature
of man. Others supply a link that is missing in
these accounts by relating the incident of the
miraculous birth. Some who make no statements
as to the essential sublimity of Christ's nature, and
are supposed by some on that account to be igno
rant of the views regarding it which were held by
others, record, nevertheless, works wrought by him
which are in harmony with those views, teachings
uttered by him which deserve to be called divine,
and a life lived by him which may well be deemed
godlike. And still another, hardly more than
glancing at the earthly career and experiences
of Jesus, describes his glory after death in such
language that Baur, whom no one will suspect of
prejudice in the premises, declares that the honors
paid to Christ in the Apocalypse leave no room
for any important distinction between him and the
Deity. And this remarkable harmony and dovetailing
of so many documents, written for different pur
poses and from diverse points of view, was not the
result of collusion. It is now known that they
were all, with possibly an unimportant exception
or two, practically contemporaneous. All, or about
all of them, appeared during a period of hardly
more than forty years. 'They were at the outset,
in many instances, the property of only sections of

THE INCARNATION 253
the Christian Church, and time was required for
them to become generally known. There is no rea
son to suppose that the different authors were as a
rule acquainted with one another's writings. Yet
when their various contributions were brought to
gether in the canon, they were found to fit into one
another in such a way as to create a conception
of Jesus Christ as God incarnate which is at once
adequate, self-consistent, and grand.
It would not be strange if we were reminded of
a large load of boxes which was once landed on an
island near New York city. Each of them con
tained a metallic casting, evidently fragmentary
and of a shape which would be unintelligible to
most people ; but when all were put together they
formed the statue of Liberty which is now stand
ing there. So, out of the New Testament as a
whole, out of a union of various independent docu
ments dating back to the time of the first disciples,
out of the bright, consummate flower of Hebrew
inspiration, there has arisen a supernatural figure,
self-consistent in words and works, in character
and alleged origin, which the Christian Church have
been constrained to regard as the god-man and the
incarnate Deity.
Now we have here a psychological phenomenon
which demands an explanation and compels us to
ask the questions : Were these men in the right ?
Is it irrational to accept their view? Without at
present admitting that their declarations are of
themselves competent to prove so startling a doc-

254 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
trine, is it consistent with a right use of the rea
soning faculties to regard it as at least possibly
true ? Is it entitled to so much respect as a dic
tum of religious philosophy that it may be held by
a thoughtful man without subjecting him to the
charge of superstition or credulity ?
Some years ago a clergyman in one of our most
cultured cities, commenting on a powerful lecture
which had recently been given on this same sub
ject, expressed his amazement that the lecturer
should have had the impiety to put on a level with
the Creator a man who had lived for only thirty
years in far-off Palestine. Now, waiving all crit
icism of any inexactness there may be in his report
of what the lecturer actually said, and without
dwelling on the fact that this man appeared at
the centre and source of the most potent religious
influence of his time, and that the providential
choice of locality has been justified by subsequent
results, the question may properly be asked, Is
there necessarily any impiety in believing that
God might, under any circumstances whatever,
become a man ? Is there necessarily anything so
low and debasing in a life lived in the flesh that
we must deem it inconsistent with an adequate
conception of the great Creator to suppose that he
could for any conceivable reason be moved to live
such a life ? Is the condition of humanity inevi
tably so low in every respect that no considera
tions can be imagined which would induce him
who placed man in it to enter it himself ?

THE INCARNATION 255
To answer these questions affirmatively is to
betray a false idea of true dignity, an inadequate
appreciation of the essentials of divine majesty.
The monarch who forsakes his throne and mingles
in disguise with his subjects in order that he may
become a wiser king resumes his sceptre with no
stain on his royalty, but with a new gloss on his man
hood. The philanthropist who leaves behind him
the comforts and refinements to which he has been
used, who lives with the ignorant and the unclean,
with vagabonds and criminals of every description,
winning his bread as they win it when they come
by it honestly, spending his nights as they do in
station-houses or on the pavement, who endures
the abuse, the insults, the privations incident to
this mode of living, and all merely that he may be
better able to understand and eventually to miti
gate the lot of those who move and have their
being in the lowest social stratum, has certainly
not degraded himself in our estimation by so doing,
but has shed a new lustre on human nature.
Now, if it was necessary, in order that God
might reveal his self-sacrificing nature and so win
an enthusiastic devotion from his creatures which
would develop in them a character that could
not otherwise be produced, if in order to do this
it was necessary that he should perform a stu
pendous act of self-sacrifice, is it derogatory to a
proper conception of divine dignity to believe that
he would do so ? If , in order to enable them to
view him as a friend, a faithful companion, a

256 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
sympathizing confidant, an ever-present help in
time of trouble, and to cultivate in them moral
qualities and conduct appropriate to such a con
ception of him, it was indispensable that he should
afford them such an object-lesson, such a definite
illustration of his true nature as only an incarna
tion would furnish, is there any impiety in affirm
ing that he would, under such circumstances, take
on himself the form and nature of a man ? Admit
ting that such an act on his part would be a mira
cle of vast proportions, would that fact constitute
an insuperable objection to believing that such an
act had been performed, if, as has been previously
urged, there can be nothing irrational in holding
that God would transcend the sphere of familiar
natural law in order to obtain a desirable result
which could not otherwise be achieved? If the
belief in an incarnation has been beneficial to the
human race, if mankind would not have reached
its present spiritual level without it, if it could not
have been omitted from the creeds of Christendom
during the last eighteen centuries, nor from those
of most churches at the present time, without
deadening missionary effort and weakening the
motives to self-denial, certainly there can be no
thing impious or absurd in the supposition that to
create such a belief God would, if it was neces
sary, become a man ; for love makes all sacrifices
possible, and we have learned to regard God as
the personification of love.
H, then, there is nothing intrinsically unreason-

THE INCARNATION 257
able in the belief that God might, to gain other
wise unattainable ends, become a man, is there
anything irrational in the doctrine that he did be
come the man Jesus ? If he should become a man,
is it conceivable that he would be a better one ?
In order to become morally like God, would any
man have to add to his own character any virtues
or any degree of virtue which Jesus lacked ? Could
incarnate Deity be more truthfully represented
than by perfect manhood ? On the contrary, is it
not true that the life of Jesus has exalted our idea
of the ethical qualities of the Almighty, and that
the God whom Christians worship, no matter what
may be their theory of the person of Christ, is sim
ply Jesus of Nazareth abstracted from the neces
sary limitations of a finite human life ? As Mill 1
says : " It is Christ rather than God whom Chris
tianity has held up to believers as the pattern of
perfection for humanity. It is the God incarnate
more than the God of the Jews who being ideal
ized has taken so great and salutary a hold on the
human mind." To say that if God should assume
human nature he would be a better man than
Jesus would be virtually to say that he would be
better than we now deem him to be, since the moral
character we refer to him is simply that of Christ.
If, then, it is supposable that to accomplish a work
of divine love God might become a human being,
there could certainly be no absurdity in supposing
that for such an end he did become the man whose
1 Three Essays on Religion, pp. 253, 254.

258 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
character we are necessarily honoring when we
praise God. Nor can there be any more impiety in
maintaining that Christ was God than in holding
that God is Christ, in seeing the Deity in our
only perfect man than in beholding in the Deity
merely our highest standard of perfect manhood.
That the doctrine of the incarnation should give
rise to some unanswerable questions was to be ex
pected. The fields of philosophic research which
lie beyond the scope of the finite reason are fertile
in paradoxes. The contradictions in which every
one involves himself who ventures to speculate on
the nature of the Absolute are not to be wholly
avoided by those who would explain the transition
of the Absolute into the Conditioned. Indeed, it
may well be questioned whether orthodoxy has not
attempted too much in this direction. No doubt
the temptation was great. The problem suggested
has fascinated some of the profoundest minds the
world has known. There are texts in the Scrip
tures — some of which have been already quoted —
which leave no escape from dualism or tritheism
unless there is such a diversity in the divine unity
that the Godhead can be referred to collectively
as well as in the singular number. It was the
philosophical and exegetical difficulties of the situ
ation that gave birth to the doctrine of the Trin
ity. But as this is sometimes stated, it may be
plausibly stigmatized as an attempt to explain the
inexplicable and to define the indefinable. It may
well be doubted whether the doctrine, in this form,

THE INCARNATION 259
does not weaken rather than strengthen, at the
present time, the creeds of orthodoxy. It may
be freely conceded that the question how a mono-
theist can consistently recognize the existence of
three more or less independent activities in the
divine nature cannot be ignored ; but to answer it
by affirming that the Godhead comprises three
persons who are yet not persons in the ordinary
sense of the word, or in any sense that can be
made intelligible, is really to give no answer at all.
It is practically to evade the question by pushing
the difficulty one step farther back.
It is said by some military critics that the chief
reverses which befell the Union army on the sec
ond day at Gettysburg were due to the fact that
one of the corps occupied a position in advance
of the chosen and natural line of defense. It is
maintained by the same authorities that the suc
cesses of the last day resulted from a change in
the alignment which placed the whole army where
strategically it belonged. Orthodoxy cannot do
without a Trinity, which, as already explained, is
a philosophical and an exegetical necessity, and
forms the capstone of its theology. What it can
do without is attempts to defend untenable propo
sitions, to vindicate dubious theories which are far
in advance of the logical requirements of the situ
ation. All that can be known and all that need
be claimed in reference to the deepest aspects of
the doctrine in question may be summed up in
some such definition as this: The foundation of

260 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
the Trinity is an incomprehensible fact in the di
vine nature which is aptly expressed by the figure
Three. Nothing more than this need be asserted
in order to meet the exigencies of the case, and
nothing more really is asserted even in the most
elaborate definitions of the Trinity when these are
stated in terms that are comprehensible.
We may now review some of the grounds on
which we are justified in regarding the incarnation
as a doctrine which is at least entitled to philoso
phical respect.
The Darwinian theory implies that the human
race is being gradually shaped into moral likeness
to an invisible Being whose crowning attribute is
unselfish love, and the lifelong experience of every
man who is willing to subject this belief to the test
of appropriate personal conduct will furnish him
with a satisfactory proof of its soundness. But
observation of the motives by which the human
will is influenced and the moral character of men
is improved convinces us that an exhibition of self-
sacrifice and paternal love on the part of God is
necessary for the development of the highest type
of righteousness in mankind, and that such an exhi
bition can be given only by his taking upon him
self, in some real sense, the nature of man. That
such an act would be miraculous affords no fatal
presumption against its having been performed,
because a miracle, according to the admissions of
candid writers, may be established by evidence in
case a need has arisen which would justify a spe-

THE INCARNATION 261
cial work of God, — a condition which would seem
to have been fulfilled by such a case of imperative
necessity as that which has just been described, —
and because the miraculous element in the life of
Christ has already been attested by evidence of
extraordinary strength. A race of people which
is widely conceded to have been gifted with a
deeper theological discernment than has been pos
sessed by any other that has appeared on the earth,
whose religious inspiration is assigned by the most
cultivated nations to the highest place, and who
had been impregnably fortified against idolatrous
tendencies by an age-long process of natural selec
tion, closed its prophetic career by producing a set
of writings whose moral and religious teaching
transcends that of all previous and all subsequent
books, and which unite in creating an irresistible
impression that these writers believed that God
became incarnate in Jesus Christ. The character
which they ascribe to him is divine, as is proved
by the fact that it has been transferred to God, and
is what men worship either consciously or uncon
sciously when they worship him ; while the inci
dents which attended the life and death of this
man, as related by biographers whose fidelity in
recording his words shows them to be competent
and conscientious historians, do but strengthen the
inevitable implications of the New Testament re
garding his nature. This view of the person of
Christ is so clearly taught by the fundamental
documents of Christianity that it has been held

262 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
by an overwhelming majority of the church for
more than eighteen centuries, and with such benefi
cent results that we are reduced to the alternative
of either believing that an incarnation has taken
place, or of persuading ourselves that a false doc
trine has been the providential means of convey
ing to the human race its highest conception of
the divine character and the most powerful ethical
stimulus it has ever known.
These considerations would certainly seem to
justify us in including this doctrine among those
articles of faith which, as explained in the first
chapter, every man is warranted in holding with
the hope of having them verified by a later experi
ence of their influence on his own life and on the
religious development of his fellow men. If men
are justified in adopting any religion whatever that
is worthy of the name, we may be confident that
the logical supports of the Incarnation remove
it beyond the range of any sneer leveled at an
antiquated theology or human superstition.

CHAPTER X
THE ATONEMENT
No doctrine of Christian theology has under
gone more mutations or developed wider differ
ences of opinion than the one now to be con
sidered. No definition of the Atonement is given
in the New Testament, which, indeed, as a rule,
contains only the raw material out of which philo
sophical statements of belief have been wrought ;
and the attempts which have been made to ex
plain rationally and satisfactorily the relation of
Christ's life, sufferings, death, and resurrection
to human needs are so diverse that they afford
abundant proof of the difficulty that inheres in the
subject. Among the many expressions used by the sacred
writers to describe the effect of Christ's work on
human destiny, the word "ransom " is prominent..
It was borrowed from the experiences of contem
porary life, at a time when it must have been com
mon to procure the freedom of slaves or of military
captives by the payment of money. It is by no
means strange, therefore, that an analogy should
have been assumed to exist between such a pro
ceeding and the sacrifice of Christ. It is not

264 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
surprising that the human mind in its gropings
after the deeper reasons of his death should have
surmised that it was a price paid to Satan for the
abandonment of his claims upon humanity. Ac
cording to this theory sin renders a man a slave
to a powerful evil personality, a view to which the
helplessness which men so often feel when pitting
their enfeebled wills against an evil habit would,
in an age of crude thought, easily adapt itself,
and which would be sure to find confirmation in
Christ's allusions to " the Prince of this world,"
and in various scriptural references to the power
of Satan and the bondage of sin.
Another view of the Atonement seems to have
been suggested by the conception of sin, in the
Lord's prayer, as a debt, and of men, in the para
ble, as insolvent debtors. Such a conception would
commend itself to many minds. The notorious
inflexibility of creditors, the utter helplessness of
the debtor class as a whole, the manifest impossi
bility of ever paying what imprisonment must keep
one from ever earning, are facts which would nat
urally fit into the experiences of many a man who
had become the victim of remorse, whose sins had
been magnified and emphasized by an upbraiding
conscience. To become a prey to the conviction
that every evil act represents a failure to ren
der to the Almighty an obedience to which he is
entitled, and is consequently of the nature of a
debt due to him which the transgressor can never
discharge, and which the divine Creditor cannot

THE ATONEMENT 265
properly remit, was to be prepared to adopt a view
of the Atonement in harmony with that idea. The
only solution of his own difficulty which could
occur to an imprisoned debtor would be found in
his constant wish that somebody else would pay
his debt. For such an event he would yearn by
day, and he would dream of it by night. That
the sufferings of Jesus were great enough to liqui
date the otherwise hopeless moral indebtedness of
the human race would seem to one who held the
view of sin just suggested a plausible theory ; and,
in an age which was neither critical nor profound,
it was likely to win a wide acceptance.
What is known as " the governmental theory "
has had able and distinguished advocates. It re
gards the death of Christ as satisfying the divine
law against sin, not because it was the actual pen
alty which the law exacted, but because the suf
ferings involved in it were so great that the law
would not be dishonored although the full pun
ishment threatened by it should not be inflicted.
The principle on which it is supposed to operate
has been illustrated by the case of a military com
mander who, to put an end to single combats
between his soldiers and those of the hostile army,
made a law that any man who should accept a
challenge to a duel of that kind should be de
prived of his eyesight. His own son disobeyed
the law and killed his antagonist. The father, to
preserve respect for his law and, at the same time,
to indulge his parental instincts, resorted to a

266 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
compromise. He destroyed one of his own eyes
and one eye of his son. It is maintained that by
this device as much was effected as would have
resulted from a strict execution of the law; that,
in view of the great sacrifice he had himself made,
no one would be likely to suspect afterwards either
that he was devoid of love for his children or that
his laws could be broken with impunity. So,
although the penalty of eternal death, which was
believed to have been incurred by all mankind
because that all had sinned, was not inflicted on
the followers of Christ, yet his death involved so
vast a sacrifice on the part of the supreme Law
giver that leniency towards them would bring no
discredit on the divine law. Neither the veracity
of God as a legislator nor his paternal love for his
creatures could be impeached, it is said, since the
one had been vindicated by the death of Christ as
effectually as it would have been had the law been
mercilessly enforced, while the other had received
a most eloquent and touching illustration.
It is the so-called " moral theory," however, that
wins most favor with advanced theological thinkers
at the present time. It finds the efficacy and mean
ing of Christ's life in the stimulus which his exam
ple and character have imparted to the conscience
and moral ambition of his followers. His death is
the dark background which brings out into clearer
relief the beauty of his holiness, but it is devoid
of sacrificial import. The Atonement, as thus ex
plained, is not usually conceived as vicarious ; but

THE ATONEMENT 267
as it necessarily implies that without the self-sacri
fice and heroic righteousness of Jesus the human
race would have lacked its highest moral motive,
there would seem to be a sense in which that adjec
tive might properly be applied to the theory. If
it is true that but for the sufferings and death of
Christ those who have been morally quickened by
his teachings would have continued in their sins
until they had reached that state of spiritual insen
sibility which may be called the death of the soul,
it is as pertinent to affirm that he died in their
place as it would have been had his death been
substituted for theirs in any other sense of the
word. Each of these theories and others that might be
named have been met by serious objections. The
first accords to evil too large a power, and elevates
Satan to a level with the Ahriman of the old Per
sian dualism. The second implies that our obli
gations to God have been discharged for us once
for all, and gives color to the suspicion that no
thing is now required of the Christian in the way
of obedience to divine statutes.
The third, while professing to honor the veracity
of God, actually impugns it. He does not keep
his word, and the device which is said to have
enabled him to break it without loss of honor can
not be admitted to have had that effect. The
military commander in the illustration could per
haps be defended for tampering with his own law.
It might be urged that a complication had arisen

268 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
which he could not have been expected to foresee
when he published his law. But it cannot be
supposed that an omniscient Being could thus be
taken by surprise. The theory under considera
tion requires us to believe that God threatened to
punish all sinners with endless death, although he
purposed, at the same time, not to punish some
of them in that way, but to accept in their case
the sacrifice of Christ as exempting them from all
judicial retribution whatever. He promulgates a
sweeping ordinance with a mental reservation. It
would be hard to satisfy most minds that such a
proceeding would comport with the moral dignity
of the Euler of the universe.
A serious objection to the theory is found also
in the fact that no such law as it assumes to exist
has ever been generally published. The theory is
meaningless unless it can be shown that God has
definitely pledged himself to pronounce sentence
of eternal death on every one who has violated his
statutes by so much as a single sin. His distribu
tive justice and his veracity would not otherwise
be involved. It would be necessary, also, if the
theory is to be worthy of its name, if it is to
avail itself of the analogy of human governments,
that such a law as it must assume should be uni
versally known. The common maxim that igno
rance of the law excuses no one cannot be recog
nized as applicable here. It is at the best but a
confession of human weakness, an exposure of the
limited discernment of earthly judges. It declares

THE ATONEMENT 269
only a necessary policy of human tribunals. Ig
norance of the law does excuse at the bar of
conscience many an offence which the courts
must punish. It can hardly be supposed that the
legislative resources of the Almighty are so slight
that he could not make known so tremendous an
ordinance to every moral agent. Even if it should
be urged that the Jews might have found after
the captivity such a law in Ezekiel's words, " The
soul that sinneth, it shall die," or even earlier in
the threat in Genesis, "In the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," it is evident
that the Gentiles did not have that opportunity.
It would hardly seem consistent with any worthy
idea of divine justice to hold that the great bulk
of the human race had been condemned to hope
less death for breaking a statute of which they had
never heard. They could not be said to have had
a fair chance, if they had been kept in ignorance
of the penalties which had been attached to diso
bedience. The theory can be very much improved by re
garding sin as a violation of a law of nature rather
than an infringement of an express divine com
mandment. It might be argued that the first
wrongful act disturbs unfavorably the balance of
human nature and begins a process of moral dete
rioration which will continue indefinitely. Every
act that is done is repeated more and more easily.
Every sin, therefore, tends to perpetuate itseK by
increasing the propensity to sin. As recurrent

270 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
acts eventually form habits which in time become
hopelessly fixed, a single sin is but the prelude to
an unchangeable evil character. As James traces
out the process, " Each man is tempted, when he
is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then
the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin:
and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth
death." The man is the victim of natural law as
truly as he would have been had he begun to slide
down a mountain side and acquired at last an un
controllable momentum which ended by carrying
him over a precipice.
Now, to counteract this increasing downward
tendency in those who have sinned, the natural
law to which they are in bondage must be counter
acted by the introduction of a new moral force.
The direction of the soul's development must
be changed from evil to good. The man must be
placed in such a relation to the law of character
that it will make him better and better instead of
worse and worse. There is as much of promise in
it as there is of menace. It will just as surely
render the goodness of a good man habitual as it
will confirm the badness of a bad man. All that
is needed in order to transform it into a beneficent
influence is that the balance of the human will
should be inclined towards righteousness.
Eegeneration is commonly understood in the
Christian Church to involve such a change in the
moral bent of the human soul. It is generally
viewed as a supernatural event, as a new impetus

THE ATONEMENT 271
given to the moral nature of a man by God himself.
It is, therefore, somewhat of the nature of a mira
cle, the manifestation of a force which is outside
the recognized system of psychological laws.
But such an interruption of the regular order
of nature, such a reversal of the natural conse
quences of sin, might produce unfavorable results.
It would tend to cast some doubt on the stability
of the law of character. It introduces an element
of uncertainty into the fundamental postulate on
which moral science must rest. Ground has been
furnished for the suspicion that other laws of
nature may be set aside by a divine fiat. A step
has been taken in the direction of encouraging
men to look for miracles as a means of saving
them from the natural consequences of their own
bad deeds.
To avoid this danger the regeneration of man
must be stamped as unique. It must take place
under such circumstances as will leave no doubt
in any mind that it is an exceptional event. An
incarnation, a divine sacrifice, with which it is
inseparably associated, it might be said, would
have that effect. Such an event would illustrate
most vividly the attachment of God to the estab
lished order of nature, for it would show him to be
unwilling to depart from it without subjecting him
self to unspeakable suffering. It would emphasize
also his transcendent love for mankind through the
magnitude of the sacrifice he would be willing to
undergo in man's behalf. There is no question

272 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
here of vindicating the divine veracity, for he has
given no pledge that the course of nature shall
remain uniform. Nor is his honor as a lawgiver
imperiled, for he has condoned no violation of a
public statute. The only divine attributes that
are in conflict — to borrow the old phraseology —
are his love for men and the wisdom which is ex
pressed in the persistence of natural law ; and the
Atonement, as thus conceived, would honor both
far less ambiguously than colliding attributes are
honored by the governmental theory in its present
form. And it is possible that some such view of
the Atonement as this might meet the needs of
any who are constrained to believe that sin cannot
be pardoned even on repentance without the agency
of a divine sacrifice.
The fourth theory fails to explain satisfactorily
Christ's own implications as to the meaning of his
work and the interpretation of it given by contem
porary apostles and evangelists, who may be fairly
supposed to have had at least some knowledge on
this point.
Moreover, a perfect moral example is not of
itself competent to reform the human race. The
world has had many living illustrations of a high
type of virtue which did not secure a general imi
tation. Nor is it historically true that the moral
character and ethical teachings of Jesus have been
the chief influence to which are due the spread of
Christianity and the consequent elevation of man's
moral ideals. It is even now charged in some

THE ATONEMENT 273
quarters against almost the whole of the Chris
tian Church that it sets creeds above character
and faith above righteousness. In the sermons of
successful evangelists from the days of the apostles
to the present time, the perfect example of Jesus is
not used as the principal motive with which to sway
the human will. The Atonement viewed objec
tively is the influence by which men are made at
one with God, and it is undeniable that whatever
progress has been achieved in that direction was
not initiated by and is not primarily due to the
power of Christ's moral example and precepts.
It does not follow, however, that we must select
one of the various theories that have been pro
pounded and defend it as the only correct one, or
that we must discard them all because of the diffi
culties with which they are separately incumbered.
The very fact that they have been held and that
each of them has, perhaps, many adherents in the
world to-day, might suggest that there is a prac
tical religious truth in every one of them. We
may safely infer that if we can discover in them
some common element, some adaptedness to the
spiritual needs of human nature in which they all
share, we have found the true theory of the Atone
ment, or at least all that is essential to it.
It is a very common belief among men, especially
among those whose consciences are troubled by the
memory of their misdeeds, that repentance does
not of itself afford a sufficient ground for divine
forgiveness. A conviction, or at least a suspicion,

274 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
is quite likely to be cherished that their sins have
erected a barrier between them and their Maker
which cannot be removed even by a subsequent
virtuous life. It is not necessary for us to spend
much time in investigating the soundness of this
very prevalent human opinion, in inquiring whether
it reflects with any considerable accuracy the real
facts of the case. We need not stop to ask
whether the parable of the Prodigal Son would
require to be supplemented by some act of vicarious
sacrifice on the part of the father, or by some pro
pitiatory rite on the part of the returning profligate,
before it could be safely commended to a penitent
man as a true picture of the way of salvation.
It cannot be doubted, especially by those who are
familiar with the workings of human minds under
the influence of remorse, that a very serious draw
back to the reformation of many a guilty person is
created by the fear which he feels that his wrong
doing has interposed an obstacle in the way of his
salvation which no righteousness that he may now
acquire will overcome. The result is that he is in
danger of being discouraged by the seeming use-
lessness of any efforts that may be made by him
to reunite himself with God.
That such a belief in the unpardonable nature
of sin should be very widely entertained was to be
expected. The human race has been educated for
untold generations to regard law as something
which cannot be broken with impunity. The
child is no sooner able to distinguish right from

THE ATONEMENT 275
wrong than it is subjected to commands and pro
hibitions which are not usually to be set at naught
without punishment. The man finds himself
hedged in on every side by civil statutes, of which
the penalties are seldom, if ever, relaxed. He be
comes familiar with the cases of criminals who have
long evaded the pursuit of justice and have even
become — at least, to all outward appearance —
respectable citizens, but who fall at last into the
clutches of the law and are inexorably condemned
to punishment. He sees a broken ordinance mer
cilessly exacting retribution, in spite of the suffer
ings of innocent women and children whom the
culprit has involved in his own fall. He sees
judges who are naturally compassionate and tender
hearted, who even shed tears when it becomes
their duty to pass sentence on their fellow men,
who, nevertheless, have no power to remit punish
ment even in cases where clemency would seem
to be demanded, and who are constrained to
trample under foot every private instinct of hu
manity and pity in the name of justice and social
order. It is no wonder, then, if such experiences,
combined with whatever influence in the same di
rection he may have inherited from a hundred
generations which have had a similar education,
make law to him synonymous with implacable
vengeance, a symbol of an unappeasable monster
which once offended can never be satisfied until
the delinquent has been devoured. The character
of Javert in " Les Miserables " may be regarded

276 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
as an embodiment of the spirit of the criminal
law, and his suicide only emphasizes the common
belief that law must have its victim. As it has
generally manifested itself in human history, law
is an impersonal, inflexible something, which, deaf
to all entreaties, to all promises of amendment, to
all appeals for mercy grounded on the fact of a
changed life, relentlessly calls for retribution, and
which, even if it is eluded, knows not what it is to
forgive. It is but natural that men, having been born and
bred, as it were, with this conception of law, hav
ing grown up in a social atmosphere that was sat
urated with it, should have a similar idea of the
law of God ; that they should come to regard it as
something which even the love of a heavenly Father
cannot mitigate. It is not strange if, when re
morse is painting their sins in the darkest colors,
and they are overawed by the majesty of the sub
lime Being against whom they have offended, they
should feel that the immutable ordinances of hea
ven exclude them from all hope of forgiveness.
The sense of alienation from God which possesses
them at such times, the conviction that they are
outcasts from his presence, is associated in their
minds with an inability to forgive themselves, with
a feeling that they are justly served, and that they
have no right to look for any alleviation of their
condition. That such a view of the attitude of God towards
them is logically necessary cannot be successfully

THE ATONEMENT 277
maintained. It may be due rather to the phenom
enon of association of ideas than to any process of
sound reasoning, to an assumed analogy between
the jurisprudence of earth and that of heaven
rather than to the obvious teachings of nature and
revelation. Even in the Old Testament, with its un
derlying law according to which a New Testament
writer could " almost say all things are cleansed
with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there
is no remission," intimations are not wanting of
the efficacy of repentance and righteousness when
not accompanied by expiatory sacrifices. One of
them forms the central idea of the Book of Jonah.
When the people of Nineveh repented of their
sins, " God saw their works, that they turned from
their evil way ; and God repented of the evil which
he said he would do unto them; and did it not."
The colloquy between Nathan and David would
seem to be another case in point. " And David
said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord.
And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath
put away thy sin ; thou shalt not die." No diffi
culty in the way of divine forgiveness is here sug
gested ; nothing more is needed apparently as a
preparation for it than a change of heart. And
Micah's summary of religious duty is of a like
tenor : " He hath shewed thee, O man, what is
good ; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but
to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly
with thy God ? " There is no hint in these words
of obstacles to salvation which must be removed

278 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
by something besides the practice of the virtues
enjoined. And so in the New Testament. The
parable of the Prodigal Son has already been
referred to. The Sermon on the Mount may be
cited also, which calls only for obedience, and says
nothing to imply that this will not of itself be
sufficient. Nor does natural religion constrain us to believe
that sin is essentially unpardonable or can be par
doned only with difficulty. It is possible to abuse
the human system until it becomes a hopeless
wreck. There are doubtless limits to what may
be called the forgiveness of nature. But how
many sins against the laws of health have been
remitted as a result of simple obedience ! How
often it has proved true when the health has been
broken by excesses that it may be restored merely
by a return to correct habits ! If we regard nat
ural law as only the established method of divine
action in the material world, — and no other con
ception of it would be serviceable in the present
instance, — we can only say that analogy suggests
the possibility of a man's hopelessly alienating him
self from God, but does not teach that repentance
is necessarily incapable of winning divine pardon.
Still, even if a man's conviction to the contrary
does not correspond to any external reality, it
must be dealt with all the same. Even if sin cre
ates no gulf between man and God which cannot
be bridged by a penitent life, the fact that most
men persistently believe otherwise becomes for

THE ATONEMENT 279
them as serious a barrier to moral reformation and
growth as would exist if it were true that the Al
mighty could not forgive even a penitent man with
out first vindicating his distributive justice by a
miraculous and stupendous sacrifice. So long as
men are convinced that there are difficulties in the
way of their salvation which no effort on their part
can remove, it makes no material difference whether
these are imaginary or real, subjective or objective,
they need to be taken out of the way. The mental
condition itself must have an atonement. In other
words, before the man can feel that there is any
encouragement for him to abandon his sin and to
enter into a life-long battle with temptation, some
thing must happen, some influence must be brought
to bear on him, which will enable him to rid him
self of the fatal idea that his case is hopeless, or at
least of discouraging difficulty.
Now it is precisely this effect which the death
of Christ, when taken in connection with his whole
extraordinary career, produces. Even if it did not
serve to annihilate any obstacle to human welfare
which stood in the way of God himself, — a point
on which men may and will differ, — it did destroy
an impediment to religious action in the human
mind, and by so doing added new vigor to the spir
itual growth of mankind.
The power by which this result was achieved
resides in the fact that remission of sins has been
promised in connection with a series of events
which is, at the same time, so impressive, so unique,

280 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
and so mysterious as to suggest to the startled im
agination endless hopeful possibilities. A being
whose character has furnished the most highly de
veloped portion of the human race with its highest
ethical ideal, whose life was so near to the life of
God that it seemed to emit sparkles of omnipotence,
whose death, according to all accounts, was a tran
sition to a visible divine glory, whose whole history
stamps him as a being immeasurably higher than
man, whose own utterances combined with those
of his apostles place him on an equality with God
himself, who is regarded by almost all the church
as an incarnation of the Deity, has declared that
his self-sacrifice has rendered possible the salvation
of every soul.
That he does not make clear in what manner this
effect has been wrought is immaterial. What the
penitent man needs is not so much a definite and
precise explanation of the process by which God
reconciles his grace and his justice as the ability to
believe that in some way he has done so ; and this
can be had in the cases of most men only through
the aid of some occurrence which is impressive and
mysterious enough to afford an unlimited range for
speculation and hope. The more discouraging a
man's conception of the implacability of law is,
the vaster needs to be the suggestiveness of the
event on which he founds his expectation of divine
pardon. A solemn affirmation that the way is open
for any man to return to the Father has been made
by one whose personal character guarantees his

THE ATONEMENT 281
veracity, and the circumstances of whose life are
calculated to forestall all doubt as to his know
ledge. The statement has been emphasized and
enforced by such evidences of supernal power and
wisdom in him who made it as may well disarm
any objection growing out of the supposed diffi
culty or impossibility of the result said to have
been accomplished. The life, death, and resur
rection of Jesus, his miracles, his ethical teachings,
the sublime origin ascribed to him, afford a new
and larger idea of the divine resources, as it were,
and thus encourage the belief that even so arduous
a work as human salvation is apt to seem to him
who most feels his need of it may not, after all, be
too hard for God.
It is not necessary, therefore, to insist, in order
to save the supposed implication of certain Scrip
ture texts, that it is impossible for God to pardon
sin on the mere condition of repentance, that the
way to his favor has not always been as open as
was that of the returning prodigal to his early
home. Nor need we be especially concerned to
deny that such is the case. Whether this view be
correct or not, the texts referred to are equally
useful and necessary. They meet a demand of
human nature. Adapting themselves to the con
victions of the great mass of humanity, irrespective
of the question as to the soundness of these con
victions, they express an inspiring truth in lan
guage which satisfies the cravings of innumerable
hearts. Doing away with the depressing fear that

282 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
sin is virtually unpardonable by the assurance that
an act of commensurate magnitude on the part of
God has rendered it pardonable, these passages
impart an equal stimulus to the soul that receives
them whether the obstacle, which according to
their teaching has been surmounted, had its exist
ence in the mind of God or only in the erroneous
theological opinions of men.
That human curiosity would be active in regard
to the details of the process of reconciliation, the
very nature of the human mind would lead us to
expect, and, as already intimated, the explanations
adopted would take their color from the different
impressions made on human minds by sin itself.
If, owing to previous education or a native mental
tendency, a man should refer the supposed desper-
ateness of his spiritual outlook to the dominion
which a powerful evil spirit had secured over him,
he would naturally be inclined to accept the theory
of the Atonement first given. If, for any reason,
his moral condition should seem to him analogous
to the condition of an insolvent debtor, he would
prefer the second. If his conception of God as
a ruler should suggest certain parallels to his own
case in civil governments, he would be drawn to
the third. While, if he saw no hindrances to
divine forgiveness save his own impenitence and
perverse moral temperament, the fourth alone
would have any attractions for him. These various
explanations of the way in which Christ saves men
bear no resemblance to one another. Not one of

THE ATONEMENT 283
them, as already pointed out, is free from objec
tions. Every one of them, no doubt, has been of
immense service to Christianity. We should natu
rally infer, therefore, that all of them are in some
sense true, though each one of them is in some
respects false. The one point in which they all
agree is this : that whatever the obstacle may be
which stands in the way of divine grace, whether
it be in the law of God or only in the mind of the
transgressor, it need cause no trouble to him who
is willing to live a true life. Theologians may
argue and speculate as to the grounds on which
sin is remitted, but practical religion has no con
cern with the results which they may reach. Its
purposes are amply served by the fact that the
figures, the language, the promises which are asso
ciated with the Atonement, suffice to free minds
of every class from the fear that sin has raised
between them and God a barrier which cannot
be torn down.
This may be called the subjective theory of the
Atonement, and the various teachings of the Scrip
tures on this subject may easily be interpreted in
harmony with it. It explains the prominence
which is given to the blood of Christ in the New
Testament. Whatever may have been the original
meaning and purpose of animal or human sacrifices,
they came at last to have an expiatory signifi
cance. They tacitly recognized the existence of
a chasm between man and God which could only
be bridged by suffering. It may not be necessary

284 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
again to suggest that this chasm may have been
wholly imaginary, or to affirm that it would be
none the less discouraging on that account. The
vail which barred the chosen people from the Holy
of Holies may have been only a visible symbol
of a subjective condition ; its effect on their feel
ings, however, would not have been different had it
represented an actual barrier outside of themselves
which God had placed between them and himself.
If the ethical commandments of the Mosaic code
had not been supplemented by a ritual of blood,
the sense of estrangement from Jehovah which had
thus already found expression in a material symbol
must have led, before the moral life of the nation
became fixed, to a general abandonment of the law.
Without something in their religion to mitigate
their feeling of alienation from God, without the
agency of sacrifices, which had come to be used so
generally in the world as propitiatory rites, it does
not seem probable that the children of Israel
would have retained their belief that they were, in
a special sense, the people of God, or would have
had faith enough to cling to a law which had been
hopelessly broken so many times. But for their
sacrificial rites, which seemed to them in some
measure to keep Jehovah in touch with them not
withstanding repeated transgressions on their part,
the casting away of the tables of stone by Moses
because of a single act of popular disobedience
would have been prophetic of the fate which their
law would have encountered in time at the hands
of the whole people.

THE ATONEMENT 285
It was to Jews and pagans familiar with the
expiatory meaning and use of blood, to cults which
deemed sacrifices inseparable from effective' wor
ship, that the gospel came. With these religious
preconceptions it must reckon. It must meet that
craving for reconciliation with heaven which had
learned to still itself to some extent with the pain
of a dying victim. Apart from any influence
which the tragic sufferings of Christ may be sup
posed by some to have had on the governmental
action of God, they were necessary in order to
meet the demands of human nature. An atone
ment without blood must have failed to win accept
ance with Jew and Gentile alike.
The different aspects in which Christ is pre
sented to men in the New Testament appeal to as
many wants and desires of their moral nature.
He is called, or calls himself, by names which are
so numerous and so suggestive that no need of the
human soul would seem to have been forgotten, no
figure to have been neglected which would make
real his redemptive work to any man. He is
Bread, Light, the Fountain-head of Living Water ;
he is a Propitiation, a Eansom, a Mediator, an
Advocate, a Eedeemer ; he is a Corner-stone, a
Foundation, a Door; he is a Shepherd, a High
Priest, a Bishop ; he is the Eesurrection, the Way,
the Truth, the Life. Whatever may be the truth
which any man needs specially to believe in order
to have the courage to commit himself to the life
long guidance of his highest spiritual impulses, it

286 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
will be found expressed in some one or more of the
attributes or offices ascribed to Christ. The dis
eases of the soul are as various as those of the
body and require as many different remedies. The
imagination clothes the vague yearnings of the
spiritual nature in all manner of forms which are
borrowed from the analogies of physical and mental
experiences. The Atonement recognizes them all,
and offers the appropriate healing medicines. If
a man conceives that he is separated from God
by his want of a righteousness for which he hun
gers and thirsts, Christ comes to him as the Bread
which came down from heaven and as the giver
of a well of water springing up unto eternal life.
If he is kept from his Maker by his sense of the
awful contrast which exists between his character
and that of the Most High, Christ is offered to
him as a Mediator and as an Advocate with the
Father. If he cannot rid himself of the idea that
it will be hard for the Almighty to lay aside the
deep resentment which he cherishes towards him
on account of his many sins, Christ is declared to
be a Propitiation for them. If his difficulties are
intellectual and he is troubled to know, amid the
manifold collisions of human opinion, on what he
may build a life that will lift him up into the
knowledge of God and the light of eternal truth,
Christ is presented to him as the Foundation and
the Chief Corner-stone. And so with the other
titles and powers ascribed to the Son of man.
Some of these will prove helpful to one class of

THE ATONEMENT 287
persons and some to those of a different class;
and the private definitions and conceptions of the
Atonement, its practical bearings on human con
duct, will be as multifarious as are the facets of
many-sided human nature with which it comes in
contact ; but in point of fact it will be found to
be a broad generalization which covers every need
of the soul and anticipates every rhetorical expres
sion in which a spiritual want may clothe itself.
By as much, therefore, as we are constrained to
admit that the moral discouragement which is
almost inseparable from a sense of sin is a seri
ous drawback to the proper ethical development
of the human race, and that it can be effectually
removed only by some assurance which has obvi
ously behind it the authority of God, by so much
are we impelled to recognize still another knot in
the drama of man's evolution and a new reason to
anticipate a miraculous intervention in his behalf.

CHAPTER XI
JUSTIFICATION BT FAITH (PSYCHOLOGICAL)
Christianity aims to promote disinterested
conduct. The virtue which it inculcates is unself
ishness. Its moral ideal is a love which seeketh
not its own. The Christian must not be content
to do good to those who do good to him, to lend
to those of whom he hopes to receive, to invite to
his feast those who can make him a recompense
by bidding him in return. Well-doing, according
to the gospel, cannot be grounded in the expec
tation of reward. Goodness, to be approved by
Christ, must be cultivated for other than personal
ends. The righteousness which is commended in the
New Testament is, in a peculiar sense, divine ; it
is called the righteousness of God. It contains
elements which distinguish it broadly from much
that passes current in the world as goodness. Men
may be ignorant of it even while possessing a cer
tain zeal for God and seeking to establish a right
eousness of their own. It exceeds that of the con
ventional moral standards of the time of Christ by
as much as spiritual success surpasses spiritual
failure ; "I say unto you, that except your right-

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 289
eousness shall exceed the righteousness of the
scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into
the kingdom of heaven." It is a benevolent, un
selfish principle of action, a love which is superior
to the promptings of self-interest and native im
pulse. He who has it in its perfection is equal to
the task of blessing those that curse him, of doing
good to those that hate him, of praying for those
that persecute him. It has found emphatic ex
pression in the apostle's words, " I could wish that
I myself were anathema from Christ for my bre
thren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh."
Whatever appeals to selfish motives the gospel
may seem to make in its promises and threats, its
ultimate aim is to lay the foundations of human
character in a love which casteth out fear, in a
virtue which is not open to the sneer, " Doth Job
fear God for naught ? " " Christ died for all, that
they which live should no longer live unto them
selves, but unto him who for their sakes died and
rose again."
The conception of moral obligation which has
just been outlined is recognized as sound by the
ethical philosophy of the present time. What is
called " altruism " in current discussions of human
duty and of moral evolution is generally only
another name for the unselfish conduct inculcated
by Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount, the
thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, are com
monly accepted by writers on ethics as embody
ing correct ethical ideals. It may be confidently

290 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
expected that the New Testament conception of
righteousness will eventually be adopted by all
religions and by every moral philosophy.
Two obstacles stand in the way of every one who
is disposed to acquire such a righteousness as has
just been described. One of them is found in the
tendency of sin to make moral and religious con
duct selfish, to degrade the ideals even of those
who are ambitious to please God. It is to the
consideration of this that the present chapter is
devoted. All men are naturally under some moral law.
It may be written and elaborate, it may be unwrit
ten and incomplete, it may be only a vague sus
picion that one ought to do better than he is doing.
By the deeds of the law Paul means primarily
those wrought in obedience to the Jewish code,
although to those prescribed by the Gentile con
science he would not refuse the name. The idea
of law which he had in mind while writing his
epistles seems to be a certain standard of moral
action through perfect conformity to which the
divine favor could be obtained. It is essentially
characteristic of all law to be satisfied with nothing
less than a perfect observance of all its require
ments. Whoever, therefore, is seeking peace with
God through complete obedience to special moral
obligations which sum up his idea of religious
duty, whether they have previously been given in
writing or only represent the utterances of his own
conscience, is living, according to the spirit of
Paul's teachings, under a religious law.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 291
There is necessarily a threat in every moral law.
The code of Moses expressly denounced a curse
against every one who should not continue in all
the things written in the book of the law to do
them. But the comminatory element is not want
ing even where the law is simply the particular
standard of righteousness set up by individual con
sciences. In this there is a latent menace which
is brought to the surface by every act of disobe
dience. No man can believe it to be his duty to
conform perfectly to a certain rule of moral con
duct without feeling, in times of temptation, that
he is treading on dangerous ground. He cannot
fail to entertain the suspicion that disagreeable
consequences will accrue to him from any disloy
alty on his part to his sense of right ; and this will
have for him all the force of an authoritative
warning against wrong-doing. It makes no par
ticular difference whether it is due to a natural
association of ideas of the kind explained in the
last chapter, to the results of previous experiences,
or to a direct communication from God ; the fact
that he has it will have its influence and must
be dealt with accordingly. Whether, therefore, a
man derives his sense of duty from the Mosaic
statutes or from his inbred ideas of moral obliga
tion, he is to all intents and purposes under a law
which he feels he cannot break without exposing
himself to evil consequences.
A perfect man, whose virtue had been confirmed
by time and practice, would remain perfect under

292 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
the strictest moral law that could be imposed upon
him. There would be a just proportion between
his moral powers and his moral obligations.
Eighteousness would be natural to him and there
fore easy. Neither would it be a matter of any
practical concern to him that sin has been authori
tatively forbidden with threats. Having no dis
position or desire to commit it, his conduct would
not be influenced by denunciations against it.
There would be no point of contact between him
and the comminatory phrases of the law. He
would continue perfect because he would love to
be perfect, because he would have no inclination
to cease from being so. He would be, therefore,
as really independent of the law as he would be
were he not living under it. No man who has no
desire to kill feels that his liberty is abridged by
civil statutes against murder. No truly honest
man is influenced in his conduct by legislative en
actments against stealing. No truthful man gives
his evidence in a court of justice with any thought
of the penalties attached to perjury. A good man
refrains from killing or stealing or bearing false
witness, not because it will be dangerous for him
to commit these crimes, not because the law will
punish him if he perpetrates them, but because he
loves virtue too well to transgress its requirements.
And so a person of confirmed perfection of char
acter, living under the comprehensive law of God,
would be as untrammeled by selfish motives in his
moral conduct as he would be if he had never

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 293
heard of such a thing as a threat against wrong
doing. He would obey God because he would
love to obey him. There would be no room in his
soul for a selfish conception of duty. When a
ship is making good headway under steam she does
not usually carry sail, for she is already moving
faster than the wind. There is no motive power
in a stern breeze blowing five or ten knots an hour
for a vessel which is already making fifteen or
twenty. And so it would be bootless to try to get
a man to serve God by picturing to him the ter
rible consequences of sin if he is already serving
him perfectly from love of holiness. Perfect love
has cast out fear as a moral incentive, or rather
has kept it from manifesting itself, by propelling
the soul beyond its reach. He may use the law
educationally, that is, as a means of ascertaining
what specific moral acts he ought to perform ; but
when these have been learned he will do them
gladly and with no thought of the danger of leav
ing them undone. It is only in this way and . to
such a person that righteousness can come through
the law.
But if the person who has just been described
should, for any cause, commit a single sin, the face
of his moral affairs would be wholly changed, a
complete revolution would be wrought in his moral
character. A sense of ill-desert would become
lodged within him. He would be unable to think
of God or of his spiritual outlook without misgiv
ings. He would be powerless to banish from his

294 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
mind the suspicion that he was in danger of never
recovering his inward peace, of losing heaven in
fact. A feeling of insecurity, which could never
have found its way into the consciousness of a
perfect man for the want of anything in him to
create it, would become a permanent fixture in the
soul of one who had once transgressed the law of
duty. He would no longer be able to regard the
rewards of righteousness as blessings that would
fall to him as a matter of course. The possibility
that he had forfeited them altogether would be
infallibly suggested to him by the fact that he had
lost his perfect innocence.
The effect thus produced upon his character
would be radical and pronounced. It would
amount to nothing less than a complete moral
overturn, a substitution of selfish for unselfish
considerations as a ground of moral action ; for as
heaven must now be conceived by him as some
thing that is liable to be lost, it will seem to him
eminently a thing to make sure of. Hence the
rewards of virtue will assume greater importance
in his eyes than virtue itself, for he knows that a
failure to obtain them will be fatal to his hap
piness. A single transgression by making him
feel unsafe has lifted the thought of his safety to
the chief place among his religious motives. The
foundations of his character have been shifted from
love of righteousness to love of self.
To illustrate : a man may pursue a trade or a
craft from pure love for it so long as his circum-

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 295
stances are such as to preclude the idea of his ever
coming to want ; but let him lose his property, let
him, as a result, become anxious as to his future
means of subsistence, and his calling will cease to
be altogether or chiefly a recreation. It will be
in danger of degenerating into a wholly mercenary
pursuit, into a sordid means of earning his bread
and butter ; and his prevailing inquiry concerning
it will be likely to be, not, How shall I conduct it
so as to bring out, by means of it, the best that is
in me, but, How shall I manage it so as to make
the most money out of it ? The artist, in such a
case, will be tempted to lower his standards to the
level of a vulgar taste ; the author will be in dan
ger of forsaking the truth in order to cater to the
literary whims of the multitude. Self-interest is
brought to the forefront as a motive, and, as a
result, it leaves its impress on the quality of the
subsequent work.
And so a man would practice righteousness in
utter self-forgetfulness and in a spirit of the purest
love so long as perfect innocence should keep him
free from the thought of spiritual peril ; but let
him feel that his moral failures have clouded his
prospects of reaching heaven and the quality of
his moral conduct will deteriorate. Holiness will
practically cease to be in his estimation something
to be cultivated for its own sake. He will view it
as a species of investment, as a means of obtaining
present comfort and future happiness. In one of
La Fontaine's fables, a poor cobbler who disturbs

296 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
a rich banker by his ceaseless songs is silenced by
a gift of money. He has now something to lose,
and his anxiety about it takes from him all desire
to sing. So when heaven is apprehended by a
man chiefly as something which he is liable to lose,
the fear of falling short of it plucks the element
of joy out of his virtue and imparts a selfish hue to
his whole conception of righteousness. Obedience
to God he views as a means of benefiting himself.
He may be a moral man, — that is, he may con
form to the standard of outward deportment which
is recognized in the community in which he lives ;
but his conduct proceeds from motives which
derive their ethical complexion from his predomi
nant interest in himself.
This is the state in which every man must
find himself when he begins to concern himself
about his moral condition and spiritual destiny.
Whether he be Jew or Gentile, his knowledge of
the fact that he has disobeyed the moral law under
which he lives has made him sensible of the threat
expressed or implied in it. He cannot but fear
lest, having failed to do all that he ought to have
done, the best that he can now do will not be
enough to win divine favor. Consequently, his
distinctively religious acts proceed from his dread
of personal loss. The desire to be safe influences
him in all his efforts to serve God. He does not
regard salvation as deliverance from sin so much
as exemption from the penalties and consequences
of sin. His anxiety about his future welfare out-

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 297
weighs, as a principle of action, his desire for
holiness. His virtue, therefore, is selfish and con
sequently is not, in the Christian sense, virtue at
all. His excessive eagerness to make sure of hea
ven, or of the friendship of the heavenly powers,
defeats itself as a morally purifying influence by
lending a mercenary hue to all his religious con
duct. How, then, is one who has brought himself into
this condition to escape from it ? When he feels
that his moral imperfections have exposed him to
the dangers which he deems inseparable from a
broken law, how is this fact to be deprived of its
natural tendency to promote a selfish desire for
personal safety and happiness to the position of a
supreme religious motive ?
It will be useless to exhort him to forget him
self and his fears and to act without reference
to his spiritual misgivings. His sense of danger
will swallow up all other considerations. It will
ordinarily be futile to advise a person walking on
slippery ice to dismiss all fear of falling, or to bid
one who is reeling with giddiness on the edge of
a precipice to exercise a better control over his
nerves. A feeling of terror has made both insen
sible to all other motives. It has rudely taken pre
cedence of all more rational incentives to action.
And so the fear of losing the divine favor and
eternal happiness will render him who feels it deaf
to all encouraging exhortations. No one who sus
pects that his salvation is not assured will fail to

298 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
be influenced unfavorably in his religious action
by his sense of spiritual peril.
There would seem, then, to be no way to effect
the moral reformation of one who is conscious of
sin save by removing the cause of his alarm.
What he needs in order to become free to practice
virtue for its own sake is immunity from the fear of
failure. He must be convinced that he is safe, that
whether he is succeeding well or ill in his efforts
to purify his character, he will not in the end be
excluded from the kingdom of God. Many a man
who has in him the making of a good workman
will forget his cunning if his employer's eye is
upon him and he feels that a blunder will cost him
his place. He needs to be left to himself, to be
freed from everything that is likely to make him
timid and nervous, in order that he may act natu
rally. So, many a man whose life would be a
moral failure if he believed that his faults were
being treasured up against him by an offended
God and were destroying all his prospects of reach
ing heaven would leave behind him an altogether
different record if he could feel that his moral
awkwardness was not rendering him any the less
certain to win his salvation in the end.
Now it is to this very fact that the mission of
Christ bears an appropriate relation. It was to
enable men who might be attracted by the beauty
of holiness or repelled by the ugliness of sin to ac
quire a genuine, unseffish righteousness that the
gospel has been proclaimed. To use the phrase-

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 299
ology of a previous illustration, its purpose was, in
part, to relieve the apprentices of God from all
spiritual nervousness and unnaturalness in order
that they might do their best work in achieving a
likeness to the divine character. An affirmation
was made in the earth under circumstances which
have riveted upon it the attention of more than
half a hundred generations that God so loved the
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life. The assertion has been
made with many impressive accompaniments that
he who believeth in Jesus Christ hath (already)
eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but
hath passed out of death into life. To all who are
willing to cultivate that spirit of disinterested love
which is the only true righteousness, Christianity
declares that for them there is no law, that their
spiritual safety is not conditioned on their ability
to attain a certain standard of moral excellence,
but that faith is reckoned to them for righteous
ness. It affirms that the honest acceptance of
Christ as a religious guide will assure to them the
blessings which they have been wont to associate
with perfect obedience to the law of duty. For
him who is disposed to practice holiness for its own
sake the law is declared to have been virtually
repealed in order that it may not make selfish and
therefore frustrate the moral efforts which he pur
poses to put forth. Such is the teaching of Chris
tianity in the texts, " There is no condemnation to

300 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
them which are in Christ Jesus ; " J' The law of
the spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from
the law of sin and death ; " " If ye are led by
the Spirit, ye are not under the law ; " " Ye are not
under law, but under grace."
Evidently there is no way to come out from
under the law save by believing the only being
who has given any show of authority to the decla
ration that it is possible to be freed from it. The
earnestness with which faith is enjoined through
out the Bible and the commendations which the
sacred writers uniformly bestow upon it are ex
plained, to a large extent, by the all-important fact
that it is only by the exercise of faith that one
can put himself into the condition which will be
most favorable to his own spiritual development,
that one will no longer be obliged to associate
with thoughts of duty any demoralizing consid
erations suggested by the menaces of a broken
moral law.
The doctrine we are now considering may be
further illustrated, on its psychological side, by the
case of a man who has fallen into the water. He
is safe if he will dismiss all thought of danger ; for
his body is lighter than the element in which it
is submerged, and will float if he will allow it to
do so. Every pupil at a swimming-school is likely
to be taught so much regarding himself in his very
first lesson. Moreover, man, like almost every
other animal, is a natural swimmer, and, in the
case just supposed, he needs only to put in practice

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 301
an instinctive art in order to get ashore. If he
has faith enough in these two facts to act upon
them, it will save him. But if he is influenced
only by the fear of death, he will raise his arms
above his head and so depress his centre of gravity.
The very efforts which he will make to preserve
his life will only force him beneath the surface.
The gospel declares that there is no condemna
tion to them that are in Christ Jesus. It implies,
also, that perfection of character is within ultimate
reach of human effort. If any man will put con
fidence in these two propositions and serve God
in order to make progress in righteousness rather
than for the purpose of freeing his soul from jeop
ardy, his salvation is assured, and he will realize
that he is steadily approaching the strand of a per
fect love. But if he fails to accept those truths,
his religious conduct will be merely a struggle to
free himself from spiritual danger. In other
words, it will be selfish, and will have no other
effect than to sink him all the deeper in sin and
peril. " The body of this death," which seemed to
Saul, the Jew, too heavy to be kept afloat by his
most strenuous moral exertions, seemed light
enough to Paul, the Christian, when he had ex
changed his selfish legalism for trust in the buoy
ant power of divine grace. The seventh chapter
of Eomans describes the splashings and flounder-
ings of a drowning man who discovers, at the last
moment, that underneath him are the everlasting
arms, and that his efforts to keep his head above

302 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
water are a needless waste of time and force.
That sigh of relief which follows his recital of his
terrific spiritual struggles, that grateful prayer, " I
thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord," is the
natural utterance of exhausted human nature when,
after painful spiritual experiences, it has learned
that the sole object to be gained by religious effort
is not self-preservation but moral progress. When
the same truth was thundered into the soul of
Martin Luther, when his bewildered penances were
ended by the inward voice which cried, " The just
shall live by faith," a moral energy was set free
which was destined to do more for the ethical
and intellectual growth of the human race than
any force which has come into operation in modern
times. The belief which will enable a man to free his
moral conduct from the fatal element of selfishness
every one may exercise. It is an act of the will
in no wise different in nature from the volitions
which all persons without exception put forth every
day and almost every hour of their fives. As these
do not rest on a scientific demonstration of their
soundness, but arise out of the necessity that is
laid on men of taking for granted most of the facts
which they must use in their practical affairs, so
the faith which removes from one the fear of the
law need not be, at the outset, the product of an
unanswerable train of reasoning. As explained
in the first chapter, it is a perfectly rational act of
the mind, if it is only an assumption cherished as a

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 303
means of arriving at experimental certainty. And
faith as thus conceived it is comparatively easy
for any one to exercise who is sincerely desirous
of acquiring such a righteousness as the gospel
approves. For, in the first place, every such person is
psychologically predisposed to put confidence in
teachings which are favorable to his hopes. We
see an illustration of this fact in the analogous case
of almost any invalid who has been given up by
his physician. He is prepared in advance to credit
encouraging statements as to his prospect of get
ting well, no matter who may make them. He is
ready to try any nostrum which any one .may recom
mend. He will eagerly place himself in the hands
of quacks, even, who make to him the absurdest
promises. Many a patent medicine owes a large
part of its sale, and many a medical charlatan a
good portion of his practice, to this universal tend
ency on the part of sick people to believe repre
sentations which flatter their hopes of being cured.
And this same human trait paves the way for what
is theologically known as "saving faith." A man
who feels that he is the victim of a desperate moral
disease will be more or less inclined to listen favor
ably to any assurances which hold out to him a
prospect of help. No man can undergo the spirit
ual experiences which are described in the seventh
chapter of Eomans without being brought by them
into a condition in which it will be relatively easy
for him to credit the assertion that there is balm in

304 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
Gilead. So much is proved by the readiness with
which so many persons resort to the most extrava
gant and irrelevant religious rites in the effort to
gain inward peace. The penances, bloody sacrifices,
acts of cruel self-torture through which this end is
sought have their parallel in the quack nostrums
by the aid of which so many persons try to regain
their health. The spiritual and the physical rem
edy alike bear witness to the presence in human
nature of a predisposition to believe in whatever
promises to meet its needs.
But, in the second place, belief in the doctrine
under consideration is facilitated by certain special
considerations which have already been adverted
to in connection with the Atonement. It is the
province of that conspicuous theological tenet to
make faith easy for penitent men. The assertion
that they have been transferred from the dominion
of law to that of grace has behind it the sublime
character of Jesus, the record of his startling works,
the prophetic intimations of his coming which
are discoverable in the utterances of Hebrew and
Gentile seers, the story of the church's vast moral
conquests, the religious experiences of innumer
able Christian disciples. Circumstances have been
providentially so ordered as to impress upon the
heart and memory of man and to stamp indelibly
on the history of the human race the imposing fact
that justification through faith has been promised
in the name of God by a Being whose origin, pur
ity, majesty, and power were commensurate with

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 305
the grandeur of his message, and has been reiter
ated by an apostle whose personal sacrifices for his
belief, whose heroic life, whose intellectual power,
and whose claims to superhuman enlightenment
unite to render him the grandest character which
Christianity has as yet produced. These facts and
others of a similar nature which might be cited
reduce to a minimum the difficulties which sin and
remorse are apt to throw in the way of Christian
faith, and render it possible for any one who is
looking for spiritual help to take the single narrow
step which will suffice to bring him under the
control of unselfish religious motives. And if we
believe that only some extraordinary act of divine
providence would make it possible for most men to
trust an assertion that they are not under the law,
we have encountered one more knot in human de
velopment and still another antecedent probability
of the miracle.
An assurance that the virtual repeal of the-law
will not be abused by him for whom it has taken
place, that his sense of safety will not result in an
indifference, on his part, to morality and religion,
is found in the fact that it is only because and
while faith is exercised for the sake of righteous
ness that it transfers any one from the dominion
of law to that of grace. It is this truth which
Paul seems to have in mind in the answers that he
gives to his own questions : " Shall we continue
in sin, that grace may abound ? " " We who died
to sin, how shall we any longer live therein ? "

306 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
"Shall we sin, because we are not under law,
but under grace ? " " God forbid," is his reply.
"Know ye not, that to whom ye present your
selves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye
are whom ye obey ; whether of sin unto death, or
of obedience unto righteousness?" It is thus
taught clearly by him who interpreted the gospel
in reference to the practical needs of the Gentile
world that no man can get the benefits of this
doctrine which is so prominently associated with
his name who is not honestly committed to the
service of Christ. And what he says in reference
to his own countrymen is also in point. " By
their unbelief they were broken off, and thou
standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but
fear." Terror, which is inappropriate to a state
of grace, may well be felt by one who is tempted
to fall away from grace. Faith working through
love is the steady stream of oil that makes smooth
and safe the waters in which one sails ; but the
threatening waves visible at intervals just beyond
are warning him that it must not cease to flow.
Belief in Christ is substantially inoperative except
in so far as it stimulates and aids one to acquire
the spirit of Christ.
What has been said in reference to the unselfish
nature of the virtue which the gospel would pro
mote through the agency of faith is not nullified
by the fact that Jesus and the sacred writers make
frequent appeals to the fear of punishment and
the hope of reward. The real and deepest psycho-

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 307
logical effect of such appeals is not commonly un
derstood. Much that has been said against fright
ening or bribing men to become righteous is only
half true. It may be freely conceded that a virtue
which is sustained solely by the hope of ultimate
profit is not worthy of the name from the point of
view of Christian ethics, whether the profit is to
be reaped in this world or in the world to come.
It is essentially selfish, and, therefore, is of the kind
which the gospel aims to supplant. It need not
be denied that a Christian who has no other rea
son for the hope that is in him than the fear that
without it he will be debarred from happiness in
the next life is only nominally a follower of Christ.
He is really under the law still and not under
grace. If he is not conscious in a gradually in
creasing measure of that love which casteth out
fear, he has no evidence that the spirit of Christ is
dwelling in him.
But while so much may be admitted to be true
in the objections that are urged against efforts to
bring men to Christ by appeals to selfish motives,
there is another and very important side to the
question. It is a psychological fact that an im
pending punishment often awakens a sense of guilt,
and that a proffered reward frequently creates a
feeling of ill-desert. Many a man has embezzled
money from his employer for years without losing
any sleep on account of an uneasy conscience, but
when exposure and arrest came, the full magnitude
of his wickedness dawned upon him. It is not un-

308 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
common in such cases for the criminal to loathe
the crime more than he dreads the punishment of
it ; and in this fact lies the justification of appeals
in behalf of righteousness to the fear of conse
quences. They serve to direct attention to the
moral defects in the conduct which is followed by
such consequences.
It is not necessary to explain the underlying
causes of the phenomenon. Whether it is due to
a natural association of ideas which has become
instinctive in the human mind through an experi
ence centuries long that ill-desert and suffering go
hand in hand, or to some other mental law, the
fact is undeniable and may be easily corroborated
by observation. It has been recognized by as good
a psychologist as Shakespeare. When the three
noblemen who had conspired to kill King Henry
the Fifth are arrested just in time to nip their
enterprise in the bud, Scroop says, —
" Our purposes God justly hath diseover'd ;
And I repent my fault more than my death ;
Which I beseech your highness to forgive,
Although my body pay the price of it."
Cambridge adds, —
" But God be thanked for prevention ;
Which I in sufferance heartily will rejoice,
Beseeching God and you to pardon me."
And Grey concludes : —
" Never did faithful subject more rejoice
At the discovery of most dangerous treason
Than I do at this hour joy o'er myself,
Prevented from a damned enterprise :
My fault, but not my body, pardon, sovereign."

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 309
When the sense of fear has awakened remorse,
the man has been brought into such a condition
that he can be influenced by distinctively Christian
motives, to which he would otherwise have proved
insensible. The effect of the hope of reward is practically
the same. The first real and abiding sense of sin
that I ever experienced was aroused, in my child
hood, by a sudden appreciation of the beauty of
heaven. It created in me a consciousness that
I was far below the moral level of such a place,
and an earnest determination to lift myself up to
it. In fact, it marked a turning-point in my reli
gious history. The same effect seems to have been
produced on Peter when the perfect manhood of
his Master was suddenly illumined by the light
ning flash of a miracle, and he fell on his knees
exclaiming, " Depart from me ; for I am a sinful
man, O Lord."
A ragged street-boy may not be troubled by the
condition of his clothing until he is invited to some
gathering where he is to meet only well-dressed
people ; then he will suddenly become conscious of
his dilapidated appearance, and will feel, for per
haps the first time in his life, a desire to become
clean and neat. The mental operation in his case
is precisely the same as that described in the last
paragraph. A realization of his unfitness has ren
dered the desire to become fit his ruling motive.
When the promises of the gospel have awakened
in the mind of any man a hatred of sin or a yearn-

310 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
ing for holiness which has taken precedence of
them as a motive to action, they have made it pos
sible to influence his conduct by higher considera
tions than those of personal interest. When he
has fairly begun to love righteousness for its own
sake, his religion is no longer selfish, even though
it is true that his selfishness first gave him his in
terest in it. If, however, the lower motives which
originally led him to call himself a Christian do
not give place to the love which seeketh not its
own and which is independent of the expectation
of reward, he has not yet entered into the liberty
which is in Christ. It is only when an invitation
to the feast makes the guest so sensitive to his
moral raggedness that he puts on the wedding-
garment of a disinterested righteousness that he
has any right or permission to remain.
The need of eliminating selfish considerations
from the practice of righteousness is one that is
commonly recognized by those who are striving to
reach their moral ideals. The mad woman, in the
anecdote, who went through a town with a bucket
of water in one hand and a torch in the other, cry
ing that she was about to extinguish hell and burn
up heaven in order that men might practice right
eousness for its own sake, had method in her mad
ness. Paul had the same purposes in view when
he preached the doctrine of Justification by Faith.
Jesus sought to compass the same ends when he
said, "He that liveth and believeth in me shall
never die." There was no difference between the

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 311
two in what they taught regarding the conditions
of salvation. The doctrine we are considering is
not to be got rid of by setting Paul aside as a
marplot. It is imbedded in the very heart of
Christianity, which owes its success to the fact
that it furnishes penitent men with reasons for
believing that God has accepted them, and so
enables them to live unselfish and holy lives.

CHAPTER XII
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH (PRACTICAL)
The doctrine of Justification has been consid
ered, in the previous chapter, with reference to
the fact that faith is competent to remove the ob
stacle which is thrown in the way of man's moral
development by the tendency of sin to make reli
gious action selfish. This obstacle was shown to
be mainly of a psychological nature, originating,
as it does, in the strongest of the natural instincts,
that of self-preservation. But there is another of
a practical quality which grows out of the inherent
difficulty of lifting the conduct up to the level of
our ideals, and this also must be overcome by faith.
If the only ill effect produced by sin on the
moral nature of a man were the introduction of
selfish motives into his religious conduct, no second
branch of this subject would have to be treated ;
but there are other ways in which wrong-doing
degrades the soul, to which the aspect of justifica
tion already presented bears no special relation.
In the first place, a flaw in the moral character
is sure to spread, for the psychological reason that
a man will usually be less careful to preserve from
injury that which has been already harmed than

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 313
he is to keep from harm that which is as yet unin
jured. The contrast between perfect innocence
and the smallest degree of guilt is far greater than
that between some sinfulness and a slight increase
of it. The resistance to be overcome, therefore,
in committing a first sin is immeasurably greater
than will be opposed to the temptation to sin a
second time ; and as it was not great enough to
preserve a perfect innocence, it will be too small
to prevent an increase of wrong-doing. Every
body has had proof of this fact. It is verified by
almost daily observation. It underlies the current
warnings against the first glass, against the first
downward step. The beginning of evil has often
been compared to the first drop of water which
finds its way through the dike ; it is the commence
ment of a slow but sure process of disintegration.
A further moral degeneration takes place be
cause the consciousness of sin creates in the soul
a certain animosity against the deliverances of the
conscience which imparts a darker quality to the
evil committed. It is a matter of common expe
rience that men are apt to resent attempts that
are made to induce them to perform a disagreea
ble duty. Few persons will welcome criticisms of
their moral conduct or easily resist the impulse
to hate those who have uttered them. Nor is the
reason far to seek. These criticisms cause pain.
It is painful to be reminded of a moral obligation
which one is unwilling to discharge. It is ex
tremely uncomfortable to have the sense of duty

314 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
come in collision with rooted inclinations, and it is
but a natural instinct to conceive enmity against
that which occasions the discomfort. Whether it
be an individual, a religion, a church, or a moral
law, it will be hated for the unhappiness it has
caused; and as hatred naturally seeks revenge,
there will be more or less of vindictiveness in the
opposition which is manifested towards the dis
turbing influence.
It was this psychological fact apparently that
Paul had in mind when he spoke of the law en
tering that sin might abound, and of sin through
the commandment becoming exceeding sinful. It
may shed some light, also, on his own moral condi
tion when he consented to the death of Stephen,
and when, changing a laudable zeal for his religion
into a personal animosity against those who had
embraced the new faith, he became " exceedingly
mad " against them. We have here the natural
workings of a mind that has caught a glimpse of
a truth which cannot be accepted without an act
of most painful self-sacrifice, another illustration of
the profound fact which Jesus expressed in the
words, " For every one that doeth ill hateth the
light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works
should be reproved," and in the explanation which
he gives of the hostility that he encountered among
his own countrymen and that his religion was to
meet with among the Gentiles : " The world cannot
hate you ; but me it hateth, because I testify of it,
that its works are evil."

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 315
Once more, the entrance of sin into the soul
is apt to impart a certain wildness to human con
duct which has the effect of hastening moral de
generation. There would seem to be antecedently
no reason why men should be worse than brutes.
We seldom if ever detect in the lower animals any
tendency to act unnaturally. All are strictly
moral in the sense that they are obedient to the
laws of their own nature. But man, the highest
of them all, betrays an ingenuity in devising sins,
an inordinate desire for original forms of wicked
ness, which needs to be accounted for. His crimes
are often so inexplicable in the light of any temp
tations with which most persons are familiar that
we deem them almost supernatural. We call
them demoniac, and see in them a certain mystery
of iniquity. They may perhaps be explained as
bewildered efforts of the soul to fill up a conscious
spiritual void, a misdirected application of an en
ergy which has been diverted from the spiritual
development of the man.
The effect of all these influences combined is
to render the reformation of human nature a work
of appalling difficulty. No one can seek to achieve
the character which the gospel commends without
soon becoming aware that the spirit of Christian
morality is utterly opposed to the natural springs
of human action. To try to live for others is to
begin to learn how thoroughly the human will is
dominated by selfish motives. It is a formidable
undertaking to make over a man. " The truth is,"

316 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
says Mr. Mill,1 "that there is hardly a single
point of excellence belonging to human character
which is not decidedly repugnant to the untu
tored feelings of human nature." The ambition
to uproot fixed principles of action is apt to seem
chimerical. The result of every honest effort to
build a life on the foundation of love to God and
man is likely to be a discouraging suspicion that
the spirituality of Christ is too spiritual for human
imitation. "The good which I would I do not:
but the evil which I would not, that I practice,"
describes an experience which is familiar to every
one who has striven to free himself from the power
of evil motives ; and it is liable to have disastrous
consequences. Perfect manhood, the measure of
the stature of the fullness of Christ, is an ideal
which may shine very brightly in one's moral fir
mament, and yet, like the fixed stars, be mainly
suggestive of distance and inaccessibility. When
a man regards absolute holiness as beyond his
reach, as something to be admired sentimentally
rather than achieved heroically, he cannot but lose
confidence in the inerrancy of his moral sense.
He will be likely to form the same opinion of any
lower type of virtue which cannot be attained by
any ordinary self-denial and determination. Con
sequently his moral ambition will wane as stimulus
is thus repeatedly withdrawn from it, and will re
present a constantly lowering standard of moral
obligation. He will be overawed and debased by
1 Three Essays on Religion, p. 46.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 317
the very magnitude of the moral attainments he
has been exhorted to acquire.
The remedy for this difficulty is identical with
that which often makes men equal to seemingly
impracticable secular undertakings, namely, energy.
A determmed and persistent purpose is an indis
pensable prerequisite to great worldly success.
The obstacles which stand between any man and
the goal of his ambition yield only to resolution and
force of will. " Dash," " pluck," and " push " are
words which are commonly employed to indicate the
qualities by which men have won success in tem
poral pursuits. It would be but natural to infer
that a like vigor of character must be displayed in
accomplishing high spiritual ends. It is not surT
prising, therefore, that the Scriptures represent
salvation as conditioned on the exercise of moral
determination and force.
Christ has affirmed that a new epoch in the spir
itual history of the human race began with the
preaching of the kingdom of God. It is distin
guished from that which preceded it by a peculiar
tendency to develop spiritual enterprise and en
ergy. " From the days of John the Baptist until
now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and
men of violence take it by force," is his description
of the conditions of spiritual success. The incisive
command, " Strive to enter in by the narrow
door," suggesting as it does in the original the ac
tivity of an athlete contending for a prize, gives
the keynote of the new teachings, and the general

318 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
tenor of the New Testament is in harmony with
that text. The traits of character which the Chris
tian must cultivate are illustrated in the Gospels
by the examples of an importunate borrower, a
pertinacious plaintiff, a belligerent king. It is
indicated in the parables that he must exercise in
the pursuit of righteousness something analogous
to busmess energy, that he must be morally a
driving man, so to speak.
The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seek
ing goodly pearls, and selling everything he owns
in order to buy one of great value. It is like a
treasure which the finder is so bent on having that
he raises money enough to purchase the whole field
where it lies hidden. It is like a rock which a
builder was so determined to reach that he digged
in the earth for it and went deep. It is like tal
ents which were doubled by vigorous management,
like a pound with which a man traded so actively
as to gain ten pounds. And in the Epistles the
Christian is exhorted to display the same intensity
of purpose and action. He must lay aside every
weight in order to run a race in the presence of a
great cloud of witnesses. He must clothe himself
in complete armor in order to engage in combat
with the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the hea
venly places.
The gospel lays emphasis on the fact that holi
ness is a legitimate goal of human ambition, and
that it can be attained only by the exercise of the
same enterprising qualities which are needful for

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 319
success in secular pursuits. Human industry in
almost all its forms is noisy, energetic, almost
fierce. Looms clash, anvils ring, machinery rum
bles. The steam-hammer falls on the glowing
shaft with a blow that jars the earth. The loco
motive shrieks and thunders in the hush of mid
night. Eocks are rent by gunpowder with an ex
plosion that hurls boulders into the clouds. The
kingdom of wealth suffereth violence, and the ef
forts which are made to take it by force have filled
the earth with bustle and uproar. Now Christ
would have men display the same vigorous qualities
in winning spiritual success. He would have them
ambitious to build up pure lives as well as to rear
imposing warehouses. He would have them zeal
ous in weaving divine characters as well as in mak
ing fabrics of cotton or silk. If it is worth while
to pulverize quartz for the sake of gold, it is no less
so to crush temptation for the sake of righteous
ness. If it is profitable to generate steam in order
to lift coal out of underground galleries, it cannot
be less so to develop a spiritual force which will
raise the soul to the level of a divine ideal. If it
is enterprising to embark a fortune in a commer
cial venture in the hope of ultimate returns, it is
vastly more so to consecrate a life to a supreme
ethical ambition in the hope of winning a grander
being and a larger usefulness in time and in eter
nity. These facts illustrate the spirit which Christ
would introduce into the moral life of the world.
Now when that progressive, energetic disposition

320 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
which has just been described is manifested in
secular undertakings, its mainspring, the source
from which it derives its force, is faith. To be
lieve that a thing can be done is the first and most
important step in the process of doing it. The
confidence which a sagacious man reposes in his
ability to succeed in a difficult undertaking is proof
of a peculiar force of will, which it also helps after
wards to sustain. It is not, however, knowledge,
or a conviction wrought by overpowering evidence.
It is rather an exhibition of the mind's creative
power, of its innate ability to transform in effect
a hope into a certainty, or, in other words, to act
as if what is desirable were known to be attain
able. Conduct which is grounded in knowledge or in
an involuntary belief does not adequately reflect
the inherent vigor of the human mind. It is only
when the will not merely originates acts, but also,
in a certain practical sense, chooses the opinions
from which they flow, that the peculiar force which
human nature is capable of exerting receives a fit
ting illustration. That indomitable resolution by
which a man believes that a certain end is within
reach chiefly because he desires to reach it, and
then devotes years or a lifetime to the work of
verifying by toil and self-denial the conviction thus
obtained, evinces, in some degree, the heroism
which exists potentially in the human soul.
The emigrant who braves the dangers and hard
ships of a remote wilderness in the expectation of

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 321
bettering his fortunes and the statesman who risks
reputation and popularity in the attempt to carry
out a new political policy, the miner who has exiled
himself from home in the precarious search for min
eral treasures and the speculator who spends all
he has in order to get control of a particular stock,
the shipowner who exposes his fleet to the storms
and perils of every sea and the military commander
who hazards a decisive engagement on the strength
of information which may turn out to be false, all
derive their courage and resolution from their faith,
which is itself a result, in part at least, of a bold
choice. They run the risk of failure and loss be
cause they believe that they will succeed ; and this
conviction they cherish, not because they know it
to be true, but because, although they are aware
that it may be false, they choose to assume that it
is not so. The confidence, self-reliance, and enter
prise which enable a man to make his mark in
politics or trade are largely a manifestation of his
power to create his own beliefs, or in other words to
decide for himself, in cases of doubt, in what pro
posed course of action he will put his trust. And
the tenacity of purpose and superiority to discour
agement which he afterwards displays are due, in
great measure, to the stimulating force of the con
viction which he has thus voluntarily acquired.
In making faith, therefore, a condition of spirit
ual success, the gospel seeks to evoke for moral
ends the latent energy of human nature. The be
lief which the Scriptures enjoin is a free choice.

322 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
As explained in the first chapter, it is not an act
which is rendered logically necessary by complete
religious evidence. Christianity is not proved at
the outset in the sense that doubt has become irra
tional. It is possible for even a candid man to
withhold belief from it indefinitely, if he inves
tigates it simply by weighing against each other
the arguments on both sides of the question, while
he neglects to avail himself of the broad induc
tion which can be derived from personal experi
ence. No man can have the faith which Christ
enjoins who will adopt no theological opinions until
they have been demonstrated beyond all possibility
of error to be sound.
A person becomes a Christian through the agency
of a volition. He is attracted by the beauty of
holiness, and in order to acquire it he resolves to
put his trust in certain religious teachings which
he cannot as yet prove to be true. Or, what is
almost the same thing, he is repelled by the ugli
ness of sin, and determines to credit a religion which
claims to have the power to rid him of it. He
adopts as his ideal of righteousness the perfect
virtue which is exemplified in Christ, and chooses
to regard it as attainable. He then sets to work
to acquire it. In other words, he exercises for an
unselfish object the same mental vigor which is
displayed by all successful men in their secular
enterprises. He who would enter the kingdom of
heaven must have, to some extent, that force of will
which enables one to act with decision in spite of

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 323
uncertainty and doubt. He must possess that reso
lute bent of mind which will make it possible for
him to choose the beliefs on which he purposes to act
even when his understanding can only halt between
two opinions. He must be able, like the father of
the demoniac child, to lift himself by the summary
exercise of his voluntary power above mere intel
lectual difficulties, and with the words, " I believe,"
adopt a principle of action even while his cautious
reason may be able only to utter the prayer, " Help
thou mine unbelief." The only difference there is
between the faith which all men exercise in the
pursuit of temporal ends and the faith which saves
the soul is in the objects for which they are cher
ished. A belief in the possibility of obtaining what
seems a desirable end is called enterprise when it
is indulged for the sake of earthly prizes, and sav
ing faith when it is exhibited in the pursuit of
righteousness. Faith in Christ is sluggish human
nature rousing itself to meet the exigencies of its
moral condition. It is selfish humanity putting
forth its latent strength to recover the lost image
of God. It justifies simply, as the etymology of
the word suggests, because it makes just, because
it expresses and fosters an energy of purpose which
will make its way through the temptations and
discouragements with which the path of holiness is
beset. Hence, Christ rewarded faith even when it was
devoid of ethical quality, when it was exercised
for personal advantage only, and his reason for so

324 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
doing may be gathered from the facts above pre
sented. He thus gave a public, practical, and em
phatic indorsement to a power of the human mind
which would need, in order to become spiritually
useful, only to be applied to the pursuit of holiness.
The woman of Canaan, the blind man by the way
side, the nobleman whose son was healed at Caper
naum, exercised their great faith to obtain their
own private ends. The despondent father whose
voluntary belief was recompensed in spite of his
intellectual unbelief gave no evidence of having
been converted to Christianity. Faith saves spir
itually only when exercised for spiritual purposes,
and in none of the cases just referred to did it pos
sess apparently any quality different from or mor
ally superior to the resolute confidence with which
an invalid adopts a novel course of medical treat
ment, or which a parent displays when, at a great
pecuniary sacrifice, he sends an ailing child to some
mineral spring or to a more invigorating climate.
Therefore, although Jesus uniformly required
belief in his power to heal before exerting it, he
did not necessarily improve men morally by so
doing. One might have faith enough to recover
his eyesight and yet not become a Christian. Of
ten lepers cleansed at one time, nine had enough
to regain their health without, apparently, being
brought any nearer to God. The marvelous cures
wrought by Christ were not a primary or perma
nent feature of his mission, but seem rather to
have been intended for sensible illustrations of the

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 325
conditions on which its benefits might be received.
By healing the sick in recognition of their faith
he called attention to the dormant power there is
in human nature to overcome the depressing influ
ence of doubt, and at the same time exemplified
its efficacy. Almost every cure wrought by him
emphasized the fact that men may, if they will, put
forth energy enough to believe that what they de
sire to have they can obtain ; and he would merely
have them use this latent power of will in sur
mounting all discouragements which might hinder
them from embarking in pursuit of holiness.
Hence, in a community where unbelief was gen
eral and unconquerable he performed few mighty
works, not, as I apprehend, because his power had
there departed from him, but because he could not
there illustrate by means of it the spiritual lesson
which he was seeking to enforce. He could not
furnish examples of the efficacy of faith where
no faith existed. His miracles of healing taught
most impressively the general truth that all things
are possible to him that believeth ; but only they
reaped the full benefit of their ability to believe
who employed it to obtain the one thing needful,
deliverance from the bondage of sin.
So, too, his miracles as a whole favor the surmise
that they were mainly object-lessons, analogies
which would facilitate the uplifting of human
thought to spiritual facts. How readily his various
cures lend themselves to this interpretation of their
meaning is seen in the naturalness with which

326 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
spiritual infirmities find expression in language
borrowed from physical ailments. " One thing I
know, that whereas I was blind I now see," was
originally the utterance of one who had recovered
his eyesight, but it has been appropriated to de
scribe the experience of those who have come to
recognize the truth which is in Christ. The deaf,
the dumb, the lame, easily suggest religious paral
lels, and seem to have furnished them to the He
brew prophets. Leprosy was a disease which sym
bolized sin to the Jewish mind as no other did ; it
was viewed with peculiar horror on that account ;
and it would have been impossible for Jesus to
give a more forcible and vivid illustration of his
power to save men from sin than he would fur
nish by curing this terrible malady. The raising
of Lazarus he himself interprets as a token of his
ability to quicken the morally dead, as is shown by
his remark, " He that believeth in me, though he
were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth,
and believeth in me, shall never die." When the
blind man was brought to him on the road to Jer
icho, the question which Jesus put to him, " What
wilt thou that I should do unto thee ? " would
seem to have been a needless one unless it was
designed to suggest to the man that the great
Physician could cure other than physical blindness.
So when the paralytic was lowered from the house
top, it was a moral cure which Jesus wrought
first, as appears from his words, " Thy sins be for
given thee." And when his right to use those

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 327
words was virtually denied by some who were pre
sent he replied, " That ye may know that the
Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins
(he saith to the sick of the palsy), . . . Arise, and
take up thy bed and go unto thy house," — as if
there was so close an analogy between the physi
cal and the spiritual cure that the power to per
form the one could be inferred from the power to
work the other.
And so of every other wonderful work ascribed
to him. It fits in so readily with a spiritual in
terpretation of it that in every, or almost every,
case the miracle has supplied the language in
which certain experiences of the church or of in
dividual Christians are most naturally described.
Who can fail to see that the remarkable draught
of fishes that brought Peter to his knees was in
tended as a symbol of the successes which awaited
him and others as fishers of men? How often
has the stilling of the tempest been used to enforce
the truth that Christianity is safe even when the
Master seems oblivious of the perils which surround
it ! Can any one doubt that the chief significance
of the feeding of the multitudes, especially when
considered in connection with the discourse on
the Bread of Life which is associated with it, is
in the apt and much needed illustration it affords
of the adequacy of even the small resources of
Christ's followers to supply the religious needs of
the world when these resources have been conse
crated by the blessing of the Saviour ? Could a

328 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
more impressive emphasis than is furnished by the
narrative which describes his appearance on the
sea to the disciples in their storm-tossed boat be
given to the fact, which the church so gladly be
lieves, that when it has become weary and helpless
in the path of duty it may confidently expect his
presence and aid? Nor will any one who has
been sustained through a troubled and stormy life
by his Christian faith have any difficulty in re
cognizing his experiences in those of Peter when
he left his boat to walk upon the waves, or in
understanding that the whole course of his religious
development has been so ordered as to impress
upon his mind the fact that even the fluctuations
of trial and danger afford a safe footing to him
who would draw near to Christ.
Those who imagine that the miracles were
meant to be permanent features of the Christian
religion, that they may be expected to recur even
in our own time as a sequel to a sufficient degree
of faith, and that it is only the weakness of hu
man belief which keeps them from becoming inci
dents of daily or hourly occurrence, seem to have
missed their real import. They were not designed
to illustrate the power of a great faith, but that
which inheres in the principle of faith, even in
faith which is no larger than a grain of mustard-
seed. They were not wrought to supersede the
common laws of nature or to render men independ
ent of the usual methods of gaining health and
other desirable ends. They are essentially parables

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 329
narrated by signs instead of words. The parable,
in the common acceptation of the term, is a story
that illustrates a spiritual law or fact which might
be apprehended without it ; the miracle is an
event which illustrates a spiritual law or fact that
transcends human powers of observation. A man
needs only to hear the story of the Prodigal Son
in order to form some true idea of God's attitude
towards the penitent sinner ; but he needs to know
that a multitude has been fed by Christ with a
few loaves and fishes in order to believe that the
blessing of God can render the simple truths of
the gospel the ultimate food of all mankind. The
miracle becomes an aid to religious faith by direct
ing the attention, through a sublime analogy, to
recondite but momentous facts in the invisible
world. It fulfilled its mission when it was per
formed and went on record. The truth which it
was designed to teach has thus been added perma
nently to the didactics of Christianity. A repeti
tion of the sign itself, therefore, is needless and is
not to be expected.
The teachings of the Old Testament as to the
import of faith are in harmony with those of the
New. The faith of Abraham was praised even
when, as would appear, it was not exercised for
a spiritual end. When he accepted the divine
assurance that his seed would outnumber the stars
in multitude, his faith had no obvious ethical
quality. It seems to have been evoked by the
influence of personal ambition, by the stimulating

330 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
prospect of becoming the founder of a mighty
nation. Neither is it called, in the Book of Gene
sis, a righteous act. It is said merely to have
been counted to him for righteousness. That is,
apparently, there was a promise of righteousness
in it because the force of will exhibited in it was
competent, when employed in the right direction,
to elevate and sanctify his character. He is to be
understood, no doubt, as already actuated by a
sincere desire for righteousness. This single act
of faith, therefore, evinced on his part a contempt
of difficulties, a superiority to discouragements,
which was sure to show itself in his moral conduct
and to make him in time an eminently holy man.
And when we read that saying of Christ, " Your
father Abraham rejoiced to see my day ; and he
saw it, and was glad," we may surmise that Jesus
meant to teach that the same sanguine, energetic
temperament which had made it possible for the
father of the faithful to put his trust in a seem
ingly incredible promise enabled him to anticipate
the mission of Jesus and to obtain from it the
moral stimulus which won for him the proud title
of " the friend of God."
If, however, it should be thought that some of
the expressions used by Paul are inconsistent with
this view and constrain us to adopt the common
opinion that the faith of Abraham was a righteous
act in itself and was reckoned to him as perfect
righteousness, or a righteous character, this inter
pretation will still be in harmony with what has

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 331
been presented; for there would seem to be no
reason why a single righteous act of belief should
have been counted to any one for a faultless moral
character unless it manifested a moral force which
was competent to develop it into that for which it
had been imputed.
Justification by faith, then, is not an arbitrary
divine act. It is not one that is wrought without
any obvious regard to the inherent fitness of things.
It is not even one which, to any considerable de
gree, is shrouded in mystery. God justifies no
one who is not certain to become just. He im
putes no virtue which is not sure to be acquired.
Belief is reckoned to one for righteousness simply
because it will make one righteous. Faith in
Christ saves the soul, first, because it does away
with the debilitating fear which makes religious
action selfish, and, secondly, because it evinces and
helps to foster an energy which is destined in
time to annihilate sin.
It is a failure to understand the inseparable
connection between belief and conduct which has
given rise to the misconception that there is a
disagreement between Paul and James as to the
fundamental conditions of salvation. The state
ment of the one, ".A man is justified by faith
apart from the works of the law," and that of the
other, "Ye see that by works a man is justified,
and not only by faith," have been often charged
with being irreconcilable with each other. They are
no more so, however, than are the contrasted views

332 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
of Christianity which are found in the utterances
of Christ and which have been given in an earlier
chapter. They are no more self -contradictory than
are the ethics and the doctrinal teachings of Paul
himself. James's declarations of the futility of a
barren faith fall far below those of the great apos
tle to the Gentiles in the thirteenth chapter of
First Corinthians, where he virtually asserts that
a man is justified neither by faith nor by works,
but by love.
In point of fact, both are right and equally so.
The difference between them is mainly that one is
putting emphasis on the first of the essentials of a
Christian character, while the other lays stress on
the second. Paul, analytical, profound, psycho
logical, mentally abstracts faith from the works
which are really inseparable from it, and asserts
the undoubted fact that in it resides the force
which makes the latter possible. James, practical,
plain, familiar, fixes his attention on the ethical
conduct in which faith results, and affirms that this,
as the thing of obvious value, has a share in the
process of making men righteous. Paul maintains
that to the planted seed must be accorded the
honor of producing the fruit rather than to the
tree which but for the seed would not have existed.
James declares that it is the tree that bears the
fruit and not the seed only, which, unless it sprouts
and makes a tree, is barren and dead. They are
simply looking at the subject from different points
of view. Both imply or admit that a perfect life is

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 333
perfect salvation. Neither would deny, and Paul
strenuously contends, that such a life is impossible
save as a gradual growth out of a germ of faith.
When the latter condenses the whole of his reli
gious philosophy into a single formula, the alleged
disagreement vanishes. "For in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncir-
cumcision, but faith working through love," is a
view of justification which tallies exactly with that
of James.
No new principle of action, then, is introduced
into the world by this doctrine. On the contrary,
the wild suggestions of spiritual quackery and an
unreasoning mysticism are set aside by it. The
unity of God receives a fresh illustration from it
through the added evidence it gives that the con
ditions of success are uniform in all branches of
human activity. If faith is needful for redemp
tion from sin and death, it is none the less so for
salvation from poverty and obscurity. If men
need encouragement and support before they can
believe in themselves and in the possibility of win
ning a fortune or a name, the promises of the gos
pel recognize the fact in its relation to eternal
prizes, and reveal the truths which are calculated
to inspire hope and confidence. The parable of
the Unfaithful Steward sets forth its own moral
in the text, " The sons of this world are for their
own generation wiser than the sons of the light."
In other words, men will display when they are
seeking a selfish advantage a shrewdness, an enter-

334 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
prise, a wisdom in suiting means to ends which
they seem to regard as unnecessary when only
spiritual gains are to be had. The doctrine of
Justification by Faith simply translates the con
ditions of temporal success into the language of
spiritual achievement. The sons of the light must
be as wise for their own generation as the sons
of this world if they are to reap in eternity the
success which the others so often win in time.
Human society has found it advisable to em
body the principle of this doctrine in its statutes.
The supersession of imprisonment for debt by
bankrupt laws, which relieve the debtor of all dis
couragement on account of debts which he cannot
pay and permit him to begin business anew, is akin
to one feature of justification by faith. " The re
mission of sins that are past " is indispensable if
men are to try to abstain from sin in the future.
There must be no old accounts of which an im
possible settlement is likely to be demanded by
and by, no pitiless arm reaching up out of the
abyss of time to pluck down an aspiring soul from
the very pinnacles of hope. In real life Jean Val-
jean will never become a saint while Javert is dog
ging his heels. No; heaven also must have its
bankrupt laws if remorse is to eventuate in a new
fife. The threats which are ordinarily inseparable
from sin must be deprived of their terror if it is to
become psychologically possible for one who feels
that he has incurred them to achieve a divine
character.

JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH 335
And the incentives to action which society
brings to bear upon the man it is seeking to re
form are in line with those which the gospel sug
gests to all whom it is trying to justify. To
impress upon a fallen man a conception of the
essential dignity of manhood, to persuade him that
he is an object of friendly interest to those who
are far above him in personal character and social
station, to assure him that future failures will not
exhaust the patience of his benefactors, to promise
him constant sympathy and help, to give hun hope
that he will achieve success in the end, is likely,
if anything is, to arouse his dormant moral energy
and make him equal to the work for which he has
girded himself. All of these motives the philan
thropist presents to the outcast whom he is seeking
to save, and all of them are brought to bear on
him whom Christ is justifying. The declarations
that he is a son of a heavenly Father, that there
is joy over his conversion among the angels of
heaven, that the way is always open for the return
ing prodigal, that there is an ever present Spirit
who will help his infirmities, and that in due sea
son he will reap if he faints not, are cognate with
those enumerated above. They help to keep faith
alive in spite of failures, and so to bring the life
gradually up to its ideals.

CHAPTER XIH
LOVE AND SERVICE
The love which Christianity inculcates and in
which is found its reason for being is not only
disinterested, but it is also comprehensive and
universal. It seeks to bless wherever it can find
anything to bless. Its nature is to promote as far
as possible the happiness of all sentient beings,
to manifest itself in beneficent action towards all
living objects. The ways in which it will express
itself will differ according to the needs and charac
ter of that which calls it forth, and its intensity
will normally be proportioned to the value of that
which is loved, but nevertheless in the last analy
sis it is a single principle. It is a disposition to
render affectionate service to all forms of life ac
cording to their capacity to receive it. Whether
it is cherished towards a worm, a man, or God, it is
intrinsically the same thing. Its names and offices
will be as various as are the classes of objects by
which it is evoked. It will be called piety when
exercised towards the Deity and humanity when
displayed towards the lower animals. When di
rected towards human beings, it will be known by
as many different appellations as there are dis-

LOVE AND SERVICE 337
tinct relations in which it shows itself. It will
be denominated, according to circumstances, jus
tice, morality, virtue, righteousness, holiness. But
these names indicate only so many different ways
in which it finds appropriate expression. Justice
is love giving to others their rights ; morality is
love discharging, in the matter of private conduct,
its obligations to society ; holiness is love imitating
the divine character. All of these names are often
given to conduct and qualities which have no love
in them, but they denote Christian virtues only
when they designate respectively some phase of an
absolute benevolence, of an active good-will felt
towards every sentient being.
On whatever plane this love may first show it
self, it is sure to extend to every other which may
be brought to its knowledge. Whoever loves man
in the Christian sense will love God also, and true
piety necessarily involves the principle of philan
thropy. " He that loveth not his brother whom
he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not
seen," says John. In other words, love can make
no exceptions. It cannot discriminate among its
objects to the prejudice of any. It is an indivisi
ble principle of action, and needs not even to see
that on which it is lavished. It may be mani
fested towards an invisible being. But if it is
not elicited by that which is seen, there is no gen
uineness in it when it is supposed to be exercised
towards that which is not seen. It would be en
tirely pertinent to demand, If a man love not his

338 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
brother whom he hath not seen, how can he love
his brother whom he hath seen ? In the Christian
sense he cannot. Fraternal love, according to the
gospel, is not an emotion which depends on the in
fluence of certain visible attractions ; it is a men
tal attitude which is assumed towards anything vis
ible or invisible, near or remote, which is entitled to
the name of brother. Paul only displayed his cus
tomary psychological precision when he said, " He
that loveth another [Gr. " the other ; " Eev. Vers.
" his neighbor "] hath fulfilled the law." There
was more in the text of the law than the mere
command to love one's neighbor ; but a real obe
dience to that presupposes a moral condition to
which any violation of the law whatever would
be foreign. No man is really honest, even though
he scrupulously pays a certain class of his debts,
if, with the ability to pay them all, he refuses to
do so. If he is really honest in paying a single
creditor, that fact guarantees the payment of every
other as soon as he has the means. It is proof of
a disposition, of one which cannot defraud any man
without being at discord with itself. So love is not
genuine, in the Christian meaning of the word, if
it evinces a needless partiality. They in whom it
exists as a principle may be frequently seduced by
temptation into action which is opposed to it. It
will be slow in gaining full control of the conduct.
But these inconsistencies will be . recognized as
such by him who has committed them and will not
be justified by him. Love as a purpose must be true'

LOVE AND SERVICE 339
to itself. If it is genuine in a single instance it
will manifest itself as a universal principle.
When a certain lawyer put to Jesus the question,
" And who is my neighbor ? " the answer which he
received laid bare the very foundation of practical
Christian ethics ; for it was then that the parable
of the Good Samaritan was related. The scribe
himself had just shown that he was thoroughly con
versant with the supreme law of duty, and with
the fact that it was grounded in love ; for, in an
swer to a question of the Master, he had summed
it up in the single sentence, " Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all
thy mind ; and thy neighbor as thyself," and the
reply of Jesus was, "Thou hast answered right:
this do, and thou shalt live." There was no fault
to be found with the moral theories of the man.
But it would seem as if he himself suspected that
whatever flaws there might be in his practice
would be due to some misinterpretation of the
word " neighbor." He had not been wont to give
to it a very wide meaning. The neighbors of a Jew
were only members of his own race. But there was
a new spirit in the land. The old bottles had
begun to swell. The universalism of Jesus was
already producing its effects ; and among them,
perhaps, we are to reckon the lawyer's second
question, " And who is my neighbor ? "
The definition which it evoked must have star
tled and bewildered the questioner. The great

340 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
Teacher did not choose for a living illustration of
neighborly kindness one of Jehovah's own people.
He did not single out for his purpose some eccle
siastical dignitary whose religious surroundings
might be supposed to have imparted to him a
peculiar sanctity. He selected a member of a
despised and hated race, with which the Jews ha
bitually refused to have any dealings, and in which
no Israelite at that time except Jesus would have
thought of looking for the hero of a moral tale.
Yet he attributed to so unpromising a character a
course of conduct which a prejudiced Jewish scribe
was obliged to confess exhibited the true neigh
borly spirit, although by so doing he necessarily
commended a despised Samaritan at the expense
of certain religious representatives of his own
nation. And Christ's closing admonition, " Go,
and do thou likewise," removed the story from the
realm of mere theory and sentiment and made it a
rule of practical conduct.
The love which Jesus inculcated by this touch
ing and impressive narrative is simply the love of
man as man. Eacial distinctions he ignores. Na
tional feuds cannot cancel the bond of humanity.
The Samaritan was neighbor to the Jew ; the Jew
ought to be neighbor to the Samaritan. The Gen
tile was less an object of loathing to the chosen
people than the mongrel race whose territory sepa
rated their two principal provinces, and so by irre
sistible inference the neighborly tie should be
established between the seed of Abraham and the

LOVE AND SERVICE 341
pagan outcasts. The parable isolated the principle
of love from all immaterial circumstances, exhibited
it unalloyed with any personal, family, or patriotic
preferences, framed it, as it were, against a back
ground out of which no confusing suspicions of
selfish motives could find their way into it to ob
scure the distinctness of its outlines. The moral
of the parable is that we owe neighborly duties to
any fellow being whom we can help, no matter what
maybe his race or what maybe our present feelings
towards him. Philanthropy is lifted above such
extraneous motives as the natural attractiveness
that may inhere in its objects or as even the wel
fare of the nation by whose citizens it is exercised.
Such considerations are not often, if they are ever,
wholly disinterested. They may not merit ethi
cally the highest praise. Christian love sees in
every human being, even the lowest and most re
pulsive, a brother. Its nearest neighbors are those
who most need its help, wherever they are to be
found. In distributing its benefactions it makes
no account of the barriers of country, language, or
race. Its motto was partly anticipated in the famous
sentiment of the pagan dramatist, " Nothing that
pertains to man do I regard as no concern of mine."
By the very necessity of its nature, it reaches up
to God and pays its dues to him, while striving to
bless at the same time any one within the scope
of its influence who bears the name of man.
It was to be expected that a religion with such
a conception of love, with such an idea of the unity

342 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
of the human race, would give to its evangelists a
broad commission ; that its command to them would
be, " Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations." In doing so it was but carrying out the
teachings of the parable we have been considering.
It was pushing its avowed ethical principles to their
practical logical outcome. The definition of love
with which it had familiarized its disciples would
not permit it to neglect any of the sons of men.
Beginning from Jerusalem, they must preach
repentance and remission of sins in the name of
Christ unto all the nations. Commencing at the
spot where it first came in contact with humanity,
the gospel must spread until it had given of its
best to the ignorant and the degraded in every part
of the globe.
There can be no essential distinction between
different kinds of missionary work. Foreign, home,
and local missions are but so many different chan
nels into which the indivisible spirit of Christian
love finds its way, and if the kind of love which
Jesus enjoined is exhibited in any one of them, it
is impossible that those who are interested in that
one should not be interested in the others also. A
lack of ability may sometimes prevent a Christian
from giving a practical expression of his love for
his fellow men in distant parts of the earth, but he
will not be without it, nevertheless. If he says, I
believe in christianizing my own country but have
no desire to do similar work for outside people, he
simply confesses that he has not yet come into full

LOVE AND SERVICE 343
sympathy with the philanthropy of the gospel.
His conception of love is only tribal. It is on a
level with that which would define a neighbor as
a fellow countryman. It is far below the moral
standard of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
When a surveyor purposes to flood a field so as
to cover every irregularity in its surface, he will
adjust his leveling instrument so as to clear the
top of the highest hummock. The spider-lines in
his glass will be projected in the form of a cross
against a hillside miles away perhaps. It will make
no difference whether he directs that the surface
of the pond be raised as high as that point, or that
it be elevated until it hides the hummock ; the re
sult will be the same in both cases. Water main
tains its level. If it covers the top of the mound,
it will reach the spot on the hillside which the
crossed lines had indicated. Or if it rises as high
as that, it will submerge the mound. Whichever
order is carried out the field will be flooded. So
Christian love cannot but seek its level. If it
is genuine when it blesses those who are nearest, it
has risen high enough to plant its crosses on the
most distant shores. If it is deep enough to make
sacrifices for the spiritually needy in foreign lands,
it cannot neglect those at home. In no individual
case will it be able to reach more than a few of
those in far-off climes who need its help ; but it is
not a lack of love which keeps it from furthering
the welfare of all. Its operations may be narrowed
by poverty or by the impossibility of reaching some

344 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
shores ; but when these barriers give way the tide
of benevolence follows its law and flows into every
accessible nook and corner of the earth.
It is a sign of spiritual retrogression, therefore,
when a church or an individual determines to cut
off its contributions to foreign work for no other
reason than that there are heathen enough at home.
Doubtless there are ; but the way to reach them is
not to lower the quality of love any more than the
way to deepen the water on the nearest shore of a
lake is to make it shallower on the opposite side.
The first of all requisites for missionary success,
whether at home or abroad, is a true missionary
spirit. An indispensable condition of the largest
evangelical power is a humanitarianism which is
independent of all motives save the love of man as
man. The surest way to create the deepest inter
est in home missions is to develop an interest in
foreign work, for this is no more than saying that
the best method of getting the amplest results of
love is to make sure that love is of the best quality.
When it is equal to the task of making sacrifices
for those who are too remote geographically and
too unattractive in all respects to excite any inter
est in them on the part of others save what arises
from the fact that they are members of the human
family, it has successfully endured the most deci
sive test of genuineness to which love can be sub
jected. The affection which a mother feels for her
children is not always in all respects commenda
ble, for it often leads her to gratify their transient

LOVE AND SERVICE 345
whims at the expense of their truest interests. The
benevolence which a man practices in his own
neighborhood is not necessarily of a very high type,
for pride in the good name of his town may be at
the bottom of it. The sacrifices which the patriot
makes for his country may be prompted by the
fact that every increase of its glory adds to his own
sense of personal exaltation. None of these cases
afford an indubitable expression of Christian love.
So, too, when some widespread disaster, which
has plunged thousands of persons into misery, so
works on public sympathy that men who have not
been wont to give now for a time give generously,
we have no example of the truest beneficence in
these exceptional acts of charity even though some
of them be of the largest. Philanthropy, accord
ing to the Christian conception of it, is independent
of emotional excitement as well as of considerations
pertaining to locality. It does its work steadily
and persistently, blessing men wherever it can find
them, without the stimulus of thanks, in spite of
the discouragement of ingratitude, needing the
spur of no abnormal and passing outburst of feel
ing. It finds its truest illustration, therefore, in
the foreign missionary service; and when it has
been tested by the requirements of this and not
found wanting, a stamp of genuineness has been
impressed upon it which is a guarantee against dis
appointment when it shall be called upon to meet
the needs of the home work.
When the foliage of spring does not extend to

346 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
the ends of the branches, the tree is dying at the
top. The fact may be hidden for a while by
pruning off the dead wood, but the health of the
tree cannot be so restored. The church which
lops off the cause of foreign missions from its list
of benevolences may imagine that it has promoted
by so doing the vigor of those which it retains,
but it has merely tried to put out of sight the
evidences of a moribund condition. The lack of
spiritual vitality which it has thus betrayed will
lead in due time to the amputation of charities
nearer home. Let the religious organizations of
any city undertake to economize their gifts in this
way, lured by the specious hope of being able thus
to supply more easily the needs of their own com
munity, and they will find the area of their active
sympathy narrowing until it will be hard at last
for them to sustain their own local benevolences.
A distinguished senator said some years ago that
fourteen Congregational churches in a single county
of Massachusetts gave more for benevolent objects
by thousands of dollars than his whole denomina
tion throughout the country. But though none of
the poorest, it had almost no foreign missions. It
was not surprising, therefore, that he was obliged
to admit that it had much difficulty in supporting
a single missionary in Utah. Of course. Love,
like water, preserves its level. If it is drawn
down till it leaves bare the opposite shore, shoals
will appear close at hand. If the sap does not
circulate vigorously enough to keep green the

LOVE AND SERVICE 347
remote twigs, decay will soon show itself nearer
the trunk. And the reason has already been indi
cated. It lies in the fact that the only perennial,
even, and inexhaustible source of charity is love
for man as man rather than as a countryman or
a fellow townsman. Such a love will extend its
beneficence everywhere, and will be relatively free
from the fluctuations of interest and the emotional
ebbs that are inseparable from an affection of a
narrower scope which is dependent for its contin
uance on visible results and tidal waves of feeling.
How, then, is this universal love to be obtained ?
Only by loving universally. To broaden affection
it may be necessary at first to force it into chan
nels into which it does not flow easily, especially
into those that are far distant and unfamiliar. It
is a mental law that our interest grows in that
which we interest ourselves in. Deeds wrought at
first from a cold sense of duty are repeated with
an ever increasing glow of sympathy. Sacrifices
made for the stranger in the antipodes beget a
warm affection for him.
" Is thy cruse of comfort failing ?
Rise and share it with another ;
And through all the years of famine
It will serve thee and thy brother."
These lines are psychologically true. It is undenia
ble that " the heart grows rich in giving." The will
may at first only draw a line in the soul that marks
the course for charity to pursue, but repeated acts
of generosity will deepen it into a groove along

348 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
which the heart will send in time a vital current.
Principle may labor dispassionately in the valley of
weeping to make it a well, but the rain of a kindly
human affection will ultimately fill the pools. A
simple command of Christ, or a mere definition
of Christian love which is followed by a larger
intellectual appreciation of its limitless scope, may
serve as an index-finger to turn some portion of
the Christian's practical energy into the foreign
field, but the expansion of soul which is sure to
follow will make him conscious of the fraternal
tie which constitutes him the keeper of even the
least lovely of his brethren.
When the extremities are benumbed by the
cold of a frosty morning, a man will often beat
himself violently with both hands and stamp
heavily on the ground for a minute or more. In
this way he not only stimulates the ducts in the
parts immediately affected, but he stirs up the cen
tre and source of circulation as well. He sets the
heart to beating more quickly, the lungs to puri
fying the blood more rapidly, the vital currents
to forcing their way more powerfully into chilled
fingers and toes. So an active participation in
the foreign work produces an analogous twofold
effect. It chafes the extremities, as it were, and
at the same time quickens the pulses. It opens
the way for the operations of a world-wide philan
thropy, and by so doing creates the spiritual force
which will propel the sympathies into the new lines
of effort.

LOVE AND SERVICE 349
We see, therefore, in almost the last recorded
utterance of Jesus, " And ye shall be my witnesses
both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria,
and unto the uttermost part of the earth," the fair
est fruit of his teachings and the surest test of the
fertility of the church. They do not indicate any
subordinate Christian duty. They do not contain
a mere afterthought which has no vital relation to
the main body of gospel truth. Nor do they con
template the spiritual advantage of those only to
whom the glad tidings are to be proclaimed. They
have quite as much reference to the needs of those
to whom the message is intrusted. Obedience to
it is an essential feature of Christian discipline, an
indispensable factor of individual spiritual develop
ment. There can be no largeness of human nature
without the cultivation of broad and far-reaching
human sympathies. The gospel, like mercy, " bless-
eth him that gives and him that takes," but the
former is sure of a personal growth which the other
may not attain.
Missionary service, therefore, is always success
ful. It may not at first make many converts, but
that is merely a temporary failure of only one of
its sources of influence. The lives that have been
consecrated to it, the money that has been spent
in it, the prayers that have been offered up in
its behalf, the sympathy of thousands that has
attended it, the deepening of interest in the igno
rant and unfortunate that has resulted from it, the
wider sense of human brotherhood that has been

350 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY '
promoted in all who have helped to carry it on,
represent permanent gains to humanity which no
coldness of reception that the message may encoun
ter at the outset among those to whom it is sent can
neutralize. They have augmented the average
ethical value of the Christian Church ; they have
improved the quality of love in thousands of
Christian hearts ; they have deepened the reser
voirs of spiritual force ; and consequently there is
a larger capacity in the human race for self-denial
and philanthropic self-sacrifice.
It doubtless seems strange to many who appre
ciate the importance of the foreign work, and are
troubled at the same time by the slowness with
which the funds are provided to carry it on, that
God does not open up some other source of revenue
which will render the work independent of human
poverty and parsimony. With that text ringing
in their ears, —
" For every beast of the forest is mine,
And the cattle upon a thousand hills," —
it is but natural that their first thought should
be a wish that the Almighty would turn some of
his boundless wealth into the work of evangel
izing the world, and so relieve the church from
the incessant calls that are made upon it for con
tributions. But if he should do so, he would sac
rifice one of the objects which missionary service
as now conducted promotes. He would secure ex
pansion at the cost of depth. He would increase
the numbers of the Christian fraternity while neg-

LOVE AND SERVICE 351
lecting to develop the spirit of brotherhood. He
would defeat the crowning purpose of the gospel,
which is to develop a neighborly kindness in
human souls, an active beneficence which will bind
each to each by the reciprocal influence of services
rendered and received. Love has climbed upward
through the ages in ever-widening spirals from
self to the family, the tribe, the nation. At every
ascent it has dropped some crude narrowness out
of itself. Like the souls of the Buddhistic evolu
tion, it has gained in purity by each transmigration.
But it must crown the process by lifting itseK up
to the love of man as man, for it is only then that
it will have grown into love for God as God. It
is only then that it will have been freed from
all impurities and distilled into a divine clearness.
And there is no way for it to mount to such celes
tial heights save by broadening the scope of its
work until it is ready to interest itself in and
make sacrifices for those who are far off as well as
for those who are near.
No doubt there were various reasons of an
administrative nature for the world-wide mission
which Jesus committed to his followers. One of
them is found in the fact that a religion will spread
the faster the more numerous and widely diffused
are the centres from which it is propagated. It
would be a work of hopeless slowness for Chris
tians to undertake to evangelize the world by con
centrating their missionary efforts on their own
country and trusting that the frontiers of their

352 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
religious influence will gradually widen until they
shall embrace all the earth. The farmer who
burns over his fields will kindle fires in numerous
spots to hasten the process. The persecution which
scattered the church at Jerusalem was a benefit to
Christianity, for it flung the blazing brands of
truth in all directions, each one of which was to
start more than one independent nucleus of mission
ary influence which would begin at once to enlarge
itself. The principal work of the church in the
foreign field in the last century was to plant its
torches in as many localities as possible. The wis
dom and value of the policy will be made more
fully manifest later when an ever increasing volume
of light shall be poured into the darkness of the
world from thousands of permanent and firmly
established centres of religious illumination.
Jesus may also have had in mind, when he sent
his disciples to all the nations, the imperative need
there is of anticipating the evil influence which
the stronger races exert upon those that are weak.
When Pastor Eobinson heard of the first bloody
collision between the Pilgrims and the Indians,
and wrote back, " Would that you had converted
some before you had killed any," he indicated a
difficulty with which the foreign missionary is
everywhere confronted. The darker side of civili
zation reaches the field first. Commerce and war
too often plant the tares before the wheat is sown.
Christianity becomes a symbol of oppression and
vice before it can associate itself in the minds of

LOVE AND SERVICE 353
an ignorant people with the spirit of love and
mercy. It must encounter suspicion and hostility,
therefore, before it can beget confidence and re
ceive a welcome. If evil is not to preempt large
sections of the globe, good must enter them with
or before it and compete with it there for mastery.
If wickedness is not to intrench itself in strong
holds all over the earth from which all reformative
influences will recoil in hopeless impotence, there
must be foreign missionaries whose field is the
world, and who will be at their posts early enough
to prune the green tree instead of the dry.
It may well be that the Master had in mind
both of these reasons when he left with his church
the command, " Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to the whole creation." But
deeper than either of them, outranking them both
in intrinsic importance, is the one which was first
considered, the psychological fact that nothing less
than universal service, nothing less than a sense
of obligation to man as man, nothing less than a
love of humanity which is proof against the draw
backs of distance and national prejudice, is com
petent to develop the character which is distinc
tively Christian, and that this broadness of sympa
thy and human affection can only be had through
the medium of persistent efforts to promote the
welfare of the whole human race.
The church is right, therefore, in exalting the
meetings of its foreign missionary societies to
the foremost place among its religious gatherings.

354 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
The secular press is right when it accords large
space in its columns to these annual convocations.
The general public is right when, in spite of well-
meaning criticisms and some empty sneers, it
regards them with peculiar interest and attention.
They represent not only the high-water mark of
modern civilization, but also all that is most pecul
iar in the practical ethics of Christianity. They
exhibit the Christian conception of universal bro
therhood in actual and successful operation. They
demonstrate, and set in so clear a light that he who
runs may read, the fact that the church of Christ
does not hold this conception as an idle sentiment,
but is furnishing men and women by the hundred,
and dollars by the million, to aid their fellow crea
tures in all parts of the earth, many of whom are
so far below the standard of civilized humanity
that it is hard sometimes even to call them men.
It may be well for a denomination to point with
satisfaction to the historians, the poets, the states
men, who have held its tenets. The growth of the
intellect is needed in order to round out the ideal
manhood which we desire to see evolved. If the
mental development of such men is due in any
way to their religious beliefs, the creeds, positive
or negative, which have evoked their genius or pro
moted their scholarship are not to be regarded as
barren or unfruitful. But we should not permit
the glare of intellectual achievement to blind us
to the fact that love is better than learning, that
human nature is more honored by philanthropy

LOVE AND SERVICE 355
than by literary success. We should not lose
sight of the fact that Christianity means not pri
marily the embellishment of the mind with intel
lectual graces, but its enlargement by the cultiva
tion of human sympathies. As Jesus saw in the
widow's mite a richer gift than was given by many
who gave much, so he would descry, no doubt,
more that is praiseworthy in the humble talents
that are consecrated on God's altar to the service
of some benighted pagan tribe than in the most
scholarly tome or the most brilliant poem which
has no higher aim than to add to the information
or the pleasure of an educated people.
There was little of culture in the men who left
their nets to follow Jesus. Even Paul labored at
a disadvantage when the polished Greeks began
to criticise his oratory. But he and his fellow
apostles exemplified something better than secular
learning, something of more value than intellec
tual refinement. They were almost the sole living
representatives of the highest ethical possibilities
of human nature. They were at the head of a
small group of devoted men who were imparting
reality to the conception of unselfish love by ex
hibiting it in practical operation. And their suc
cessors in our own time, who are willing to sunder
ties of country and home for the purpose of preach
ing the unsearchable riches of Christ to those who
have no claim upon them save what is created by
the fact that both helpers and helped share a com
mon humanity, are keeping before the eyes of men

356 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
that spiritual plane which raises those who live on
it, even when they are but little, far above the
greatest and wisest of those whose highest motives
pertain to a lower ethical level. They are not only
giving proofs in their own persons that the atmos
phere of self-abnegation in which Jesus lived and
did his work is one that can be breathed by human
beings of a lower spiritual order, but they furnish
a stepping-stone by which multitudes who cannot
follow them personally to foreign lands may,
through the medium of a practical and self-sacrific
ing sympathy with them, mount into a like human
itarian broadness.
The world and even considerable sections of the
Christian Church have yet to learn that the spirit
of the kingdom of heaven is an absolute love such
as has thus been described ; that the very essence
of Christianity is an interest in men which is
neither chilled by any repulsiveness in them nor
dependent on any attractiveness they may possess,
— such a sympathy with needy humanity as Jesus
exemplified so touchingly and eloquently when, in
spite of the prejudices of his time and the inherent
disagreeableness of the act, he laid the hand of
a brother on the person of a loathsome leper. It
was a gesture pregnant with meaning, and illus
trated the conditions of evangelistic success as did
no other act performed by him, not excepting that
of washing the disciples' feet. It emphasized and
illumined the fact that no natural feelings of dis
inclination or repugnance ought to be allowed to

LOVE AND SERVICE 357
stand in the way of him who is able to help a fel
low mortal. It is by the performance of what
might seem at first unpleasant missionary duties
that the Christian Church lays its fraternal hand
on humanity as a whole.
It is the belief of orthodoxy that the work of
Christ himself was the grandest exhibition of for
eign missionary zeal which the history of the uni
verse has afforded. Every Christian worker who
turns his back on the allurements and promises of
secular pursuits is but repeating on a small scale
the sacrifice which is described in the apostle's
words, " Though he was rich, yet for your sakes
he became poor." The hostility and resistance
which Christian teachers are encountering to-day
in China and elsewhere have their parallel in the
experiences of Jesus as set forth in the texts,
" While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,"
and " While we were enemies, we were reconciled
to God through the death of his Son." And that
passage in Philippians, " Who, being in the form
of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality
with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of
a servant, being made in the likeness of men ; and
being found in fashion as a man, he humbled him
self, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the
death of the cross," recording as it does a swift
series of sacrifices for the good of man, seems to
make audible to us the footfalls of divine love as
it descends one after another the successive steps
in the stairway of a sublime self-humiliation. It

358 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
is the belief of orthodoxy that the duty of imi
tating Christ involves that of climbing down the
relatively short ladder by which the more civilized
races can reach the level of those which are least
enlightened, and of so exemplifying a self-sacri
ficing love which is willing to help even the lowest
into the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
It may be superfluous for me to state that I do
not imply that there is necessarily any truer love
shown by the foreign missionary than by him who
labors in the home field. I have had little success
in making myself understood, if I have not con
veyed the idea that if both are really serving Christ
they have precisely the same spirit. Whether a
man or a woman will work in some lawless west
ern town, or among the savages in some far distant
island, or in the slums of the city in which either
was born, will be determined by circumstances
which will probably justify the choice that will be
made. No branch of missionary work ought to be
neglected, and special considerations will lead some
to choose one and some another. If there are
those who regard themselves as best fitted for home
work, it is for that reason and not from any nar
rowness of sympathy that they do not enter the
foreign service. If there are those whose experi
ences have given them a peculiar interest in the
religious needs of their own town, they do not
devote their lives to supplying these because they
have not enough of the spirit of Christ in them to
labor on the other side of the globe. On the con-

LOVE AND SERVICE 359
trary, it is because a man has that broad love for
humanity which reveals to him a brother in the
most degraded savage in the most distant parts of
the earth that he is able to consecrate himself so
earnestly to the work he is doing for his Master
in his own country or neighborhood. The one way
to generate a spiritual force that will be equal to
the demands of the home field is to create an ac
tive interest in the work abroad. Every foreign
missionary sermon is a home missionary sermon.
It is calculated to arouse a feeling of which the
home work will also reap the benefit.
In a town which gets its water from a pond
there may be houses so high that when the pond
is low no water will flow from the faucets in the
upper rooms. In that case the pressure will be
less everywhere, and if a fire breaks out, the jets
from the hydrants may fail to reach a burning
roof. What is needed is a rain that will fill the
pond to the brim and cause the water to rush with
violence from the stop-cocks in the highest attics.
Then the streams from the street mains will be
powerful enough to wet the tops of the loftiest
buildings, and a new force will be added to the jets
that are lower down. So what is needed to give
new impetus to local benevolence and home mis
sionary work is such a deepening of the spirit of
fraternal love in the hearts of a Christian people
as will send the water of life with vigor into the
most distant parts of the earth. The energy thus
evolved will make itself felt in every department
of charitable work.

360 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
A brief summary of the positions I have sought
to establish in these chapters may serve to make
clearer the general trend of thought.
1. Any man may rationally assume to be true
— especially if he purposes to verify his assump
tion by appropriate action — any not improbable
teachings which are not as yet susceptible of sci
entific demonstration, as is shown conclusively
by the fact that in no other way can most of the
practical knowledge which is needed by men be
obtained, or even a prolonged course of scientific
investigation be carried on. Therefore, the body
of facts connoted by orthodox Christianity, if they
cannot be shown to transcend the bounds of prob
ability, may be properly accepted as true until they
shall have been proved false by the test of a sub
sequent experience, or in some other way.
2. Consequently, it may be fairly assumed — at
least provisionally — that the earth is under the
active dominion of a creative and superintending
Mind, of a Being who is developing mankind into
a likeness to himself ; for not only is such an as
sumption not improbable in itself, but it is even ren
dered in a certain degree probable by the fact that
it is a corollary of the theory of evolution, a theory
which is deemed in the highest degree probable by
a large majority of competent scholars.
3. It may be rationally taken for granted, also,
— at least as a working hypothesis, — that this
Being possesses a moral character whose crowning
trait is unselfish love ; for so much would be in-

LOVE AND SERVICE 361
ferred from the fact that the race which it is sup
posed is being developed into his likeness is coming
more and more to recognize such a love as its
supreme ethical ideal, while such facts as evil and
pain, the only ones which are alleged to be incom
patible with such a love, may really contravene only
an incorrect conception of omnipotence.
4. The two assumptions thus named — what
ever may be their original credibility — can be
experimentally demonstrated by any one to his
own satisfaction to be sound by an inductive pro
cess which differs in no particular worthy of men
tion from that by which many another fact is con
sidered to have been scientifically established, and
which requires on the part of him who performs it
almost nothing more than a broadening of his field
of scientific research and a loyalty to the ethical
standards which are recognized by evolution and
by the best moral philosophy of the time.
5. As it may thus be shown to be at least prob
able that there is a Supreme Being with such a
character as has already been described, this fact
removes, according to the admissions of competent
authorities, any antecedent improbability there
might otherwise have been that the sphere of nat
ural law with which we are familiar would ever
be transcended by phenomena which we call mira
cles, and justifies us in believing that this has been
done, if it can be shown that there was a pressing
need of its being done, and that there is a reasona
ble amount of evidence that a miracle has been

362 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
wrought. That such a need existed is made suffi
ciently obvious by the consideration that the human
race would not have reached even approximately
its present ethical level but for a widespread belief
in the resurrection of Christ, which befief can only
be accounted for by supposing that either the
alleged miracle actually took place, or else that
events have been providentially so ordered as
to necessitate an erroneous conviction that it did
occur. The latter alternative, however, is not only
objectionable in itself, but it is opposed to a body
of evidence in behalf of the resurrection which, as
the assumed improbability of miracles has now
been more than neutralized, meets all the require
ments of an historical demonstration.
6. The testimony of the witnesses to the resur
rection is not invalidated or rendered at all ques
tionable by any discrepancies to be found in it,
because these are only normal in quantity and dif
ficulty, and do not exceed, if they equal, in these
respects those occurring in other testimony on the
strength of which other facts are unquestioningly
believed. 7. If it may be reasonably presumed that God
has wrought miracles, it must seem more than prob
able that he has provided a means by which his
purpose in so doing can be made intelligible to
those for whose spiritual welfare these exceptional
events were brought about. And since it is his
uniform custom to convey instruction to the human
race through the medium of individuals belonging

LOVE AND SERVICE 363
to it, we may fairly suppose that he would see to it
that there should be some who would faithfully re
cord and expound the teachings which the miracles
were designed to enforce. As the Hebrew race is
recognized as having evinced the deepest spiritual
knowledge which mankind has ever achieved, we
may rationally expect to find in its highest utter
ances — which are to be looked for especially in
the New Testament — the key to the teachings
referred to. And as a revelation necessarily im
plies an ability on the part of mankind to under
stand it, we shall be convinced that the interpreta
tion of those teachings which has been generally
held from the beginning is substantially correct.
8. The New Testament standard of ethics which
we thus constrain ourselves to approve is in har
mony with that which, as previously shown, is
taught by natural religion ; and we have thus a
twofold reason for regarding it as divinely revealed.
It is so high, however, that it would seem imprac
ticable, and therefore prove discouraging to most
men, if it were not supplemented by stimulating
facts which would enable them to regard it as within
their reach. When, therefore, we find such facts
affirmed in connection with it by writers whom we
are already prepared to regard to some extent as
the mouthpieces of God, we are justified in accept
ing these facts, not only on that account, but also
because if it is rational for us to believe that the
moral teachings of the gospel are in any sense re
vealed by God, it is irrational for us not to believe

364 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
that those doctrines are equally divine without
which Christian ethics would secure little or no
practical hold on men.
9. Under the general head of the dogmatic
teachings which we are thus prepared to accept is
the doctrine that God became incarnate in Jesus
Christ, which is not only clearly taught in the
New Testament, but also derives additional sanc
tion from the facts that without it God could not
have adequately revealed, so far as we can see, the
spirit of self-sacrificing love which underlies his
character, and the world would have been obliged
to do without the ethical inspiration which it has
obtained from its grandest belief.
10. Under the same general head is included
the doctrine of the Atonement, which is not only
plainly taught by the men from whom we have
obtained our highest conceptions of moral obliga
tion, but is rendered practically inseparable from
these by the fact that, whether or not sin creates
any objective barrier between man and God, there
is almost sure to be one of a subjective nature in
the tendency of remorse to magnify the difficulty
of obtaining divine pardon, a tendency which is
liable to discourage those who would otherwise be
moved to acquire a spiritual character.
11. To the same class of teachings belongs the
doctrine of Justification by Faith, which is indis
pensable to a perfect moral code, because without
it there is in the way of every man who has broken
the moral law a psychological obstacle which is

LOVE AND SERVICE 366
well-nigh certain to impart a selfish cast even to
his efforts to serve God.
12. And the same doctrine receives a new acces
sion of credibility from the fact that it conditions
spiritual success on the cultivation of the same
valuable qualities without which no success in sec
ular life is attainable.
13. As the love which the gospel teaches is a
comprehensive principle of action from the benefits
of which no human being whom it is possible to
help may be rightfully excluded, the surest proof
that one has enlarged his nature to the magnitude
of that spirit is found in a missionary zeal which
extends the right hand of a practical Christian
fellowship to the spiritually and temporally needy
in all parts of the earth and in all divisions of the
human family.
The considerations adduced in the foregoing
pages would seem to make it clear that the accept
ance of what is commonly known as evangelical
Christianity involves no leap into the unknown
that can be regarded as unreasonably taxing the
mental and moral powers of any man. On the
contrary, the evidence that can be urged in sup
port of the various dogmas and beliefs which have
been examined, and of others besides, is far stronger
than that on which many a scientific hypothesis
is founded at the outset ; and no one can be prop
erly accused of breaking with the spirit of a scien
tific age who adopts them with the expectation that

366 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
they will be verified by a lifelong induction of his
spiritual experiences. Any just criticisms that can
be made in this connection must be directed against
him who pursues a different course. Science can
not be admitted to have an ethical right to ap
proach all propositions, whatever they may be, in
a spirit of absolute indifference as to whether they
shall prove true or false. Although such a spirit
may be useful and commendable when dealing with
theories which aim only at satisfying the curiosity
of men, it becomes ethically unsound when it is
cherished towards efforts made for the ameliora
tion of human suffering. If an unknown pestilence
is decimating a community, it must be treated em
pirically or not at all ; for science does not as yet
know the proper remedies. The physician who
should be utterly indifferent towards such as might
be suggested, who should not entertain a desire
that they might prove efficacious, who should not
manifest that desire by giving them the first place
in his laboratory experiments, would outrage the
moral sense of the whole community.
Christianity seeks to cure the moral ailments of
an unhappy world. It aims to meet the immedi
ate spiritual needs of men. Science cannot do so,
for she works for the species, not for the individual.
Her discoveries may be expected to benefit the
human race, but the generation in which she begins
a particular line of investigation may not profit by
the results. " Art is long, and time is fleeting."
Even if she shall eventually demonstrate that

LOVE AND SERVICE 367
every essential doctrine of the Christian religion is
true, those now living can reap no benefit from
the fact. The fears, heartaches, sins, and selfish
ness which are now in the world need help. Chris
tianity promises its aid at once and knowledge
afterwards. The fight that is needed for instant
use it accords to faith ; the scientific proof which
the intellect craves it engages to provide through
the medium of a later personal experience. Under
these circumstances, ought it to be halted at the
barred gates of this moral infirmary which we call
the earth and dance attendance there until suspi
cious porters have cross-examined it to their satis
faction through the wicket, or ought it to find all
doors open and servants in waiting who will eagerly
guide it to the bedside of the sick ? In a word,
should it encounter in scientific men a friendly
welcome and a philanthropic willingness to give
it a trial, or only a skeptical distrust which will
have no concern save to pick flaws in its letters of
introduction ?
These questions would hardly seem to need
an answer. Science does not outrank benevolence.
Any scientific canons which would relieve a man
from the obligation to give the most pressing
needs of his fellow men the right of way in his
search for truth are ethically false. The man of
science should be first of all a Christian, in order
that, while he is pursuing his investigations in his
chosen fields of secular study, he may at the same
time be testing by the experiences of a spiritual

368 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
life the sublime religious propositions by which
the gospel would uplift humanity. He cannot be
true at once to the scientific spirit and to the
dictates of an enlightened moral sense unless he
carries his scientific methods first of all into the
field of experimental religion, and so finds out for
himself how much of truth there is in the utter
ances of those consecrated souls who claim to have
found God and eternal truth by following the
counsels of Jesus Christ. " Art thou the teacher
of Israel and understandest not these things ? " is
a reproach which is incurred by every one who has
become an authority in any department of secular
knowledge while neglecting to explore the infinitely
more important field of spiritual truth.
It would follow, then, that no man is justified
in taking refuge in agnosticism to escape from the
urgent demands of Christianity for religious action.
He may rightfully remain an agnostic in reference
to matters which he can properly excuse himself
from investigating ; but if his use of the term im
plies that he is warranted in refusing to make a
personal test of the most momentous subject that
can engage human attention and in continuing
willfully ignorant of facts which are vital to the
highest interests of the human race, he has taken
a position which is capable of neither rational nor
ethical defense. Every Christian at the beginning
of his religious career is an agnostic in the strict
meaning of the word, for he has had no scientific
demonstration of the truth of what he believes;

LOVE AND SERVICE 369
but he becomes worthy of the highest commen
dation, both from a scientific and an ethical point
of view, when he refuses to recognize his agnos
ticism as a desirable or permanent mental condi
tion, and devotes his life to the experimental veri
fication of the religious teachings on which the
dearest hopes of humanity depend.
In view of all the facts which have thus been
presented, it would be idle to deny to orthodoxy a
place among the rational beliefs of mankind, or to
affirm that there is any solid ground for the pre
diction that it will ever be degraded from the high
rank it has always occupied as the most potent
of all the ethical influences that have ever been
brought to bear upon the human race. So long
as human nature shall continue to be what it is in
the present and what it has ever been in the past,
so long as it shall be conscious of its present spir
itual needs and amenable to the motives by which
it is now swayed, so long will the creeds of so-
called evangelical Christianity be held for substance
of doctrine by the great mass of the followers of
Christ. Not until beliefs shall have no important
influence on conduct, not until the conduct shall
be ethically so high as to need the stimulus of no
doctrinal beliefs, will the obvious teachings of the
gospel be superfluous and outworn. Orthodoxy is
built on the foundation of human wants. It has
maintained its place in the world against the at
tacks of powerful enemies, and while hampered by
the weight of many a mistaken tenet, only because

370 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
it has appealed with irresistible force to the com
bined spiritual, moral, and logical needs of the
human race ; and until these shall be done away
with, its preservation is sure.
That philosophical crudities will still be filtered
out of its statements of belief is to be expected.
That education and reflection will broaden the
original creed of individuals and promote them,
as it were, grade by grade, into an ever increasing
rationality of faith can be taken for granted.
That denominations will always exist, and that
some of these will repudiate doctrines which are
deemed by others indispensable to the life of the
Christian Church may be unhesitatingly predicted.
No creed or dogma is of any practical value save
as it furthers the moral growth of him who holds
it, nor is it likely to be held with any intensity
of conviction unless it has been made a factor in
the life and verified by an experience of its utility.
No one will be able to cherish more than a per
functory belief in the Trinity unless he has become
sensible of the need of some theological statement
which shall give at least a semblance of self-con
sistency to the teachings of Scripture regarding
the nature of Christ ; nor will any one be likely to
contend very strenuously for the doctrine of Jus
tification by Faith unless, like Paul and Luther,
he has learned what it is to reach the end of his
spiritual resources in a fruitless attempt to live up
to the requirements of his own moral law.
Denominations illustrate by their existence the

LOVE AND SERVICE 371
fact that all the teachings of Christianity do not
appeal to all men with equal force, and the kindred
fact that mankind is divided into various distinct
groups by emotional, intellectual, or aesthetic pe
culiarities which make it desirable that even the
same truths should be presented in different ways.
There are some churches which could not exist at
all except in an atmosphere which is already satu
rated with beliefs which were due, at the outset, to
the influence of dogmas which these churches have
rejected. There are individual Christians who
have in the same way overturned the ladder by
which they mounted to their present ethical level.
Theological beliefs frequently become atrophied in
individual experience from lack of use. They die
out because the ethical ambition to which they
once proved stepping-stones has come to be suffi
cient in itself and no longer feels the need of- a
special stimulus from without, because the soul
which they once helped to unite with God is now
conscious of divine adoption and no longer craves
the aid of dogmatic encouragement. But notwith
standing all diversities of ministrations and work
ings, it may be confidently affirmed that the tenets
of orthodoxy will still be the mainspring from
which the force that is to redeem human nature
will be derived.
Moreover, so long as it shall be conceded that
but for a belief in the miracles of the New Testa
ment the human race as a whole would have lacked
an adequate appreciation of the self-sacrificing love

372 THE RATIONAL BASIS OF ORTHODOXY
of God, the ability to realize that sin has not erected
an impossible barrier between any man and his
Maker, the sense of security which is indispensable
to an unselfish religious service, and, in general,
the ethical stimulus which has made modern civil
ization possible, so long will the supernaturalism
of the gospel be recognized as one of its essential
features and prove an inseparable adjunct of the
Christian doctrines in securing a world-wide adop
tion of the ethics of Christ.

INDEX

INDEX

Absolute, the, 53, 54, 74, 258.
Acts, Book of, date, etc., 13
Agnosticism, 20, 368.
Alford, Dean, 172, 249.
Altruism, 60, 289.
Apocalypse, Deity of Christ, 252.
Arnold, Edwin, "Light of Asia," 231.
Arnold, Matthew, 54.
Atonement, theories of, 71, 263-266,
269, 273-283 ; objections, 267, 268,
272 ; need of, 278 ; psychology of,
278, 304 ; definition needless, 280 ;
many-sided, 282, 285; blood of
Christ, 283.
Bacon, inductive reasoning, 88.
Baur, 127; resurrection, 124 ; dates of
Gospels, 128 ; Christ in Apocalypse,
252.
Belief, 2 ; voluntary, 22 ; and conduct,
118, 226, 320, 369, 371. (See also
Faith.)
Bible as literature, 183.
Bismarck and Napoleon, 145-149.
Brown, on miracles, 106.
Buddhism, 56, 231.
Busch, Dr., 149, 150.
Butler, Bishop, immortality, 6.
Christ, resurrection of, 161-174 ; ethi
cal ideal, 214, 217 ; and Nathanael,
215 ; self-abnegation of, 233 ; attri
butes, 243-247 ; divinity, 257 ; and
human needs, 285 ; a missionary,
357.
Christian, how to become a, 322.
Christianity, defective proof of, 5, 7,
9, 13, 26; an hypothesis, 25; how
proved, 14 ; and science, 15, 26 ;
value of evidences, 15 ; adapted to
crisis, 15, 366 ; source of energy, 16,
24, 317-321 ; ethically discouraging,
204, 223, 224 ; elements of, 210 ; sup
ports in human nature, 212; its con

trasts, 213 ; secret of influence, 214 ;
and mechanical powers, 217.
Chronicles, idealism of , 191.
Cleopas, 169, 171, 173.
Commentaries, utility of, 223.
Conscience, growth of, 60.
Contemporary Review, on belief, 2.
Creeds, 221, 222 ; and ethics, 370.
Darwin, embryology, 42 ; love, 61 ;
and his critics, 65 ; and Milton, 69 ;
persistence of traits, 203.
Dawson, physical selection, 30 ; phy
togeny, 48.
Deduction, 79-82.
Denominations, utility of, 370.
Descartes on truth, 1.
Design, argument from, 5, 89, 103.
Discrepancies, 141 ; in Gospels, 142 ;
normal, 143*160 ; as to resurrection,
160-174.
Dogma, undervalued, 203 ; and ethics,
207, 213, 215, 219, 220, 225 ; of im
mortality, 208 ; adoption, 209 ; mu
table element in, 209 ; constant ele
ment, 211 ; Trinity, 222, 258, 370 ;
broadening influence, 226 ; incarna
tion, 230-262 ; atonement, 263-287;
justification, 288-311, 312-335,370;
atrophied, 371.
Embryology, 40-46.
Epistles, genuineness of, 129.
Ethics, Christian, 288, 336.
Evidence, 3, 10.
Evil, origin of, 64-66.
Evolution, not proved, 26 ; and mod
ern thought, 28, 33, 34 ; and higher
criticism, 35 ; and Biblical history,
35 ; and Christianity, 35 ; and Gene
sis, 36 ; in O. T., 37 ; in N. T., 38 ;
hard to believe, 39; ontogenetic
parallel, 40 ; a synopsis, 41 ; depend
ent, 44; theistic implications, 47*

376

INDEX

49, 50 ; and First Cause, 52 ; its fu
ture, 57 ; of ethics, 60-64 ; difficul
ties, 65 ; and Adam, 68 ; and Paul,
69 ; of dogma, 204.
Example, influence of, 230.
Experience, argument from, 14, 16,
98 ; in N. T., 99.
Faith, according to President Hop
kins, 4; practical, 17-20, 302; to
Epistle to Hebrews, 23 ; of Thomas,
23 ; of Abraham, 24, 329, 330 ; not
unscientific, 24-27 ; justification by,
288, 323 ; and righteousness, 298 ;
and law, 299 ; a moral force, 320,
321. (See also Belief.)
Fall of man, 66.
First Cause, 52, 57.
First man, 68.
Fiske, John, descent of man, 32 ; fu
ture of evolution, 56 ; moral evil, 67 ;
Aztecs, 190.
Forbes, A., surrender of Napoleon
III., 145-159.
Gautama, 231, 233.
Genesis, and struggle for existence, 75.
God, character of, 59-64 ; argument
for existence, 89 ; argument weak
ened by evolution, 90, 92 ; the true
induction, 92-95, 97-101 ; induction
in N. T., 99; self-sacrifice of, 234 ;
belief in this needed, 232 ; Biblical
idea of, 238, 243 ; characteristics of,
239-242 ; incarnation credible, 254,
257 ; Christ in God, 257.
HAECKEti, proof of evolution, 26 ;
Weismannism, 31 ; evolution histor
ical, 32 ; phylogeny, 41, 46 ; onto
geny, 43.
Harnack, dates of Gospels, 128 ; Fourth
Gospel, 130 ; Johannine writings,
133.
Hebrews, the religious genius of, 185 ;
inductive theism of, 188 ; as critics,
188 ; theological self-consistency of,
189.
Hopkins, President, faith, 49.
Hume's argument, 6, 105.
Huxley, on doubt, 1 ; on knowledge,
9 ; and Genesis, 36 ; Buddhism, 56 ;
protoplasm, 75; Jewish monothe
ism, 251.
Hypotheses, 25, 365.

Idealization, in O. T., 190.
Immortality, F. W. Robertson, 6 ;
Butler, 6 ; Spencer, 73.
Incarnation, need of, 233, 234; and
theophauics, 236 ; teachings of N.
T., 250, 251 ; independence of au
thorities for, 252 ; resume^ 260.
Induction, 82-84 ; methods of, 84-87 ;
of critical tendency, 132-135.
Inductive theism, 92-101 ; of the He
brews, 186.
Inspiration, verbal, 142 ; implied in
miracles, 175 ; also in deism, 176 ;
natural, 179 ; physical, 181 ; of tal
ent, 182 ; literary inspiration of
Bible, 183 ; normal, 184 ; of the He
brews, 185; errors, 189, 190, 192;
exceptional, 194 ; supernatural, 195 ;
and evolution, 196 ; not indispensa
ble, 201.
Joel, on inspiration, 198.
John, resurrection of Christ, 161-163,
165, 166, 168, 169, 171, 173.
Justification by faith, not mysterious,
333 ; in civil law, 334. (See Faith.)
Keys, gift of, 225.
Kidd, conditions of progress, 119.
"Knots" in moral evolution, 116,
234, 287, 305.
Knowledge, 79.
Law, and grace, 218 ; human idea of,
274 ; 'personified, 275 ; and mercy in
O. T., 277 ; in N. T., 278 ; in nature,
278 ; universal, 290.
Lecky, on proof, 1.
Lessing, resurrection of Christ, 127.
Love, 288, 336 ; indivisible, 337 ; of
Good Samaritan, 340 ; missionary,
341, 345 ; and culture, 354.
Luke, resurrection, 161-163, 165-171.
Luther, Martin, 302, 370.
Mark, resurrection, 161-169, 171.
Martineau, James, 53.
Mary Magdalene and resurrection,
161-163, 165, 166, 169, 170, 172, 173.
Mary, "the other," 161, 167-170, 172.
Mathematical reasoning, 2, 81.
Matthew, resurrection, 161-171, 172.
Mill, J. S., argument from design, 5,
90 ; indecision of science, 15 ; im
mortality, 21 ; hypotheses, 25 ; in-

INDEX

377

duction, 79, 84-87 ; deduction, 79 ;
Hume, 106 ; miracles, 107, 115 ;
words of Christ, 135; God and
Christ, 257 ; native goodness, 316.
Mill, James, 61.
Milton and Darwin, 69.
Mind, action of, 178.
Miracles, Hume, 105 ; Brown, 106 ;
definition, 107, 109 ; scientific, 107 ;
natural, 109, 110, 191 ; kind of par
able, 136, 329 ; uncritical witnesses,
137; in O. T., 140; in evolution,
114 ; in mechanics, 112 ; not me
chanical, 116 ; needed, 116-120 ; ob
ject-lessons, 325-328 ; temporary,
328.
Missions, spirit of, 342, foreign, 342,
345, 346, 348 ; and character, 350,
353.
Mivart, religion, 36; missing links,
114.
Milller, Max, goodness, 61.
Napoleon III., surrender of, 144-160,
174.
Natural selection and Hebrew theism,
187; inO. T., 37, 38, 187.
Nature, uniformity of, 112 ; cruelty of,
70.
Needs of man prophetic, 235 ; need of
divine example, 235 ; of divine com
panionship, 236.
Om> Testament, as history, 192 ; pro
phecy, 193.
Omnipotence, 74.
Orthodoxy and mission of Christ, 357 ;
and human needs, 369.
Pain, 70 ; not agglomerated, 71 ; rel
atively small, 73 ; and longevity,
73 ; educational, 73 ; teleology of,
75.
Parables, 136, 329.
Paul, fall of man, 70 ; end of creation,
95 ; resurrection of Christ, 129, 161,
169, 172 ; love, 183 ; philosophy of
history, 198 ; law, 290 ; sin, 305, 314 ;
and James, 331.
Peter, resurrection of Christ, 162,
165, 169, 171, 173 ; inspiration, 198,
and the keys, 225 ; self-knowledge,
309.
Plato, ethics, 135 ; sphere of influence,
220.

Prescott, W. H., Aztecs, 189, 190.
Probability not proof, 4.
Proof, scientific, 1, 2 ; mathematical,
2 ; inductive, 2 ; demand for, 88 ; of
Christianity, 5, 6.
Psychology, its mystery, 77 ; of atone
ment, 278, 304 ; of justification, 288-
311 ; of belief, 303 ; of threats and
promises, 306 ; of Shakespeare, 308.
Ransom, 263.
Recapitulation, 360.
Religion, Spencer on, 52, 56.
Remission, through blood, 277 ; with
out sacrifices, 277 ; by nature, 278.
Renan, Epistles of Paul, 134.
Residual phenomena, 65.
Resurrection of Christ, 120 ; evidence
of, 123-140, 160-174, and modern
history, 123.
Robertson, Rev. V. W., 6.
Romanes, physical selection, 30 ; Weis
mannism, 31 ; religion, 36 ; embry
ology, 42 ; cruelty of nature, 70 ;
biographies of Christ, 135.
Russell, Dr., surrender of Napoleon
III., 148.
Science, and gospel, 102 ; its ethical
obligations, 366 ; its limitations,
366.
Scientific proof, 1 ; of God, 92-99.
Sermon on the Mount, a correct ideal,
60, 289 ; its ethics superhuman, 204,
205, 224.
Sheridan, Gen., surrender of Napo
leon III., 145.
Sin, and ideals, 290, 293 ; revolution
ary, 294 ; neutralized, 298 ; growth
of, 312.
Spencer, H., Weismannism, 31 ; First
Cause, 52, 53 ; ethics, 61 ; immor
tality, 73 ; religion, 56.
Spinoza's reasoning, 80.
Strauss, miracles, 105 ; N. T. writings,
127 ; resurrection, 139.
Supernatural, the, definition, 108;
economy of, 143, 291 ; cannot be
spared, 371.
Syllogism, 80.
Testimony, critical, 137 ; discrepan
cies in, 141 ; and verbal inspiration,
142 ; normal, 159, 174 ; to resurrec
tion, 160-171 ; harmonized, 172.

378 INDEX
Theology, its unscientific arguments, Virtue, 293.

Theophanies, 236.
Trinity, the, 222, definition, 260 :
practical bearing of, 370.
Tubingen school, 127.
Tyndall, 101, 108.

Wallace, sexual selection, 29 ; moral
evolution, 29 ; religion, 36 ; con
science, 61 ; sanctity, 61 ; truthful
ness, 61 ; fall of man, 67.
Weismann, acquired traits, 30.

Electrotyped and printed by H. O. Houghton & Co.
Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.

I

II