{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18578/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18578","id":"gutenberg_18578","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18578","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sermons","Unitarianism"],"text":"Produced by Edmund Dejowski\n\n\n\n\n\nOUR UNITARIAN GOSPEL B M. J. SAVAGE \"The good news of the blessed God\"\nBOSTON GEO. II. Ews, 141 FRANKLIN STREET 1898.\n\nDedication\nTO THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE MESSAGE OF GOD TO HIS CHILDREN MUST BE\nONE OF LIFE AND HOPE INSTEAD OF A THEOLOGY WHICH TEACHES DEATH AND\nDESPAIR.\n\nNOTE. The sermons which make up this volume were spoken in the Church\nof the Messiah during the season of 1897-98. They are printed as\ndelivered, not as literature, but for the sake of preaching to a larger\ncongregation than can be reached on Sunday morning.\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nUNITARIANISM \"WHAT DO YOU IN PLACE OF WHAT YOU TAKE AWAY?\"\nARE THERE ANY CREEDS WHICH IT IS WICKED FOR US TO QUESTION?\nWHY HAVE UNITARIANS NO CREED?\nTHE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRESENT RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION\nDOUBT AND FAITH - BOTH IS LIFE A PROBATION ENDED BY DEATH?\nSIN AND ATONEMENT PRAYER, AND COMMUNION WITH GOD\nTHE WORSHIP OF GOD\nMORALITY NATURAL, NOT STATUTORY\nREWARD AND PUNISHMENT\nTHINGS WHICH DOUBT CANNOT DESTROY\nEVOLUTION LOSES NOTHING OF VALUE TO MAN\nWHY ARE NOT ALL EDUCATED PEOPLE UNITARIANS?\nWHERE IS THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH?\n\n\n\n\nUNITARIANISM.\n\nTHROUGH the lack of having made themselves familiar with the matter,\nthere is a common and, I think, a widespread impression among people\ngenerally that Unitarianism is a new-fangled notion, a modern fad, a\nbelief held only by a few, who are one side of the main currents of\nreligious life and advance.\n\nEven if it were new, even if it were confined to the modern world, this\nwould not necessarily be anything against it. The Copernican theory of\nthe universe is new, is modern. So are most of the great discoveries\nthat characterize and glorify the present age.\n\nBut in the case of Unitarianism this cannot be said. It is not new: it\nis very old. And, before I come to discuss and outline a few of its\ngreat principles, it seems to me well that we should get in our minds a\nbackground of historic thought, that we may see a little what are the\nsources and origins of this Unitarianism, and may understand why it is\nthat there is a new and modern birth of it in the modern world.\n\nAll races start very far away from any Monotheistic or Unitarian\nbelief. The Hebrews are no exception to that rule. The early part of\nthe Bible shows very plain traces of the fact that the Jews were\npolytheists and nature-worshippers. If I should translate literally the\nfirst verse of the Bible, it would read in this way: In the beginning\nthe Strong Ones created the heavens and the earth. \"The word that we\nhave translated God is in the plural; and I have already given you its\nmeaning. This is only a survival, a trace, of that primeval belief\nwhich the Jews shared with all the rest of the world.\"\n\nFrom this polytheistic position the people took a step forward to a\nstate of mind which Professor Max Muller calls henotheism; that is,\nthey believed in the real existence of many gods, but that they were\nunder allegiance to only one, their national Deity, and that him only\nthey must serve.\n\nI suppose this state of thought was maintained throughout the larger\npart of the history of the Hebrew nation. You will find traces\nconstantly, in the early part of the Old Testament, at any rate, of the\nbelief of the people in the other gods, and their constant tendency to\nfall away to the worship of these other gods. But by and by all this\nwas outgrown, and left behind; and the Hebrew people came to occupy a\nposition of monotheism, spiritual monotheism, that is, they were\npassionate Unitarians, so far as the meaning of that word is concerned.\nThough, of course, I would not have you understand that many, perhaps\nmost, of the principles which are held today under the name of\nUnitarian were known to them at that time, or would have been accepted,\nhad they been known.\n\nIn the sense, however, of believing in the oneness of God, they were\nUnitarians.\n\nNow, when Christianity comes into the world, what shall we say? It is\nthe assumption on the part of most of the old- time churches that Jesus\nmade it perfectly plain to his disciples that he was a divine being,\nthat he claimed to be one himself, and that the claim was recognized.\n\nSo far, however, as any authentic record with which we are familiar\ngoes, Jesus himself was a Unitarian. All the disciples were Unitarians.\nPaul was a Unitarian. The New Testament is a Unitarian book from\nbeginning to end. The finest critics of the world will tell you that\nthere is no trace of any other teaching there. And so, for the first\nthree hundred years of the history of the Church, Unitarianism was its\nprevailing doctrine.\n\nI have no very good memory for names. So I have brought here a little\nleaflet which contains some that I wish to speak of. Among the Church\nFathers, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and\nLactantius, all of them in their writings make it perfectly clear and\nunquestioned that the belief of the Church, the majority belief for the\nfirst three centuries, was Unitarian. Of course, the process of thought\nhere and there was going on which finally culminated in the doctrine of\nthe Trinity. That is, people were beginning more and more to exalt, as\nthey supposed, the character, the office, the mission of Jesus; coming\nmore and more to believe that he was something other than a man, that\nhe was above and beyond humanity.\n\nBut one other among the Fathers, Justin Martyr, one of the best known\nof all, takes care to point out explicitly his belief. I will read you\njust two or three words from it. He says: \"There is a Lord of the Lord\nJesus, being his Father and God, and the Cause of his existence.\"\n\nThis belief, then, was universal, practically universal, throughout the\nfirst three centuries. But the process of growth was going on which\nfinally culminated in the controversy which was settled by the Council\nof Nicaea, held in the early part of the fourth century; that is, the\nyear 325. The leaders of this controversy, as you know, were Arius, on\nthe Unitarian side, and Athanasius, fighting hard for the doctrine then\nnew in the Church, of the Trinity.\n\nThe majority of the bishops and leading men of the Church at that time\nwere on the side of Arius; but at last the Emperor Constantine settled\nthe dispute. Now you know that the sceptre of a despotic emperor may\nnot reason, may not think; but it is weightier than either reason or\nthought in the settlement of a controversy like this at such a period\nin the history of the world. So Constantine settled the controversy in\nfavor of the Trinitarians; and henceforth you need not wonder that\nUnitarianism did not grow, for it was mercilessly repressed and crushed\nout for the next thousand years.\n\nUnitarianism, however, is not alone in this. Let me call your attention\nto a fact of immense significance in this matter. All this time the\nstudy of science and philosophy, that dared to think beyond the limits\nof the Church's doctrine, were crushed out. There was no free\nphilosophy, there was no free study of science, there was no free\nanything for a thousand years. The secular armed forces of Europe, with\npenalties of imprisonment, of the rack, of the fagot, of torture of\nevery kind, were enlisted against anything like liberty of thinking.\n\nSo you need not wonder, then, that there was neither any science nor\nany Unitarianism to be heard of until the Renaissance. What was the\nRenaissance? It was the rising again of human liberty, the possibility\nonce more of man's freedom to think and study. Though the armed forces\nof Europe were for a long time against it, the rising tide could not be\nentirely rolled back, and so it gained on human thought and human life\nmore and more. And out of this the Renaissance came, the new birth of\nscience, on the one hand, and on the other, issuing in the\nReformation's assertion of the right of thought and of private judgment\nin matters of religion; and along with this latter the rebirth of\nUnitarianism, its reappearance again as a force in the history of the\nworld.\n\nDuring this Reformation period there are many names of light and power,\namong them being Servetus, whom Calvin burned because he was a\nUnitarian; Laelius and Faustus Socinus, Bernardino Ochino, Blandrata,\nand Francis David; and, more noted in some ways than any of them,\nGiordano Bruno, the man who represents the dawn of the modern world\nmore significantly than any other man of his age, not entirely a\nUnitarian, but fighting a battle out of which Unitarianism sprung,\nfreedom of thought, the right of private judgment, the scientific study\nof the universe, the attempt, unhampered by the Church's dogma or\npower, to understand the world in which we live.\n\nAs a result of this Renaissance, what happened? Let me run over very\nrapidly the condition of things in Europe at the present time, with\nsome glances back, that you may see that Unitarianism has played just\nas large a part as you could expect it to play, larger and grander than\nyou could expect it, considering the conditions.\n\nIn Hungary, one of the few countries where freedom of thought in\nreligion has been permitted, there has been a grand organization of the\nUnitarian Church for more than three hundred years, not only churches,\nbut a Unitarianism that has controlled colleges and universities and\ndirected the growth of learning.\n\nLet us look to the North. In Sweden and Norway it is still a crime to\norganize a church that teaches that Jesus is not God. So we may expect\nto find no Unitarian churches there; though there are many and noble\nUnitarian men, thinkers and teachers. Come to Germany. There are no\norganized Unitarian churches under that name here; but there is a\ncondition of things that is encouraging for us to note. There is a\nunion of the Protestant organizations, in which the liberals, or\nUnitarians, are free, and have their part without any question as to\ntheir doctrine.\n\nThere are hundreds and thousands of Unitarians in South Germany. In the\ncity of Bremen I called on a clergyman who had translated one of my\nbooks, and found out from him the condition of things there. The\ncathedral of Bremen has half a dozen different preachers attached to\nit. Some of them are orthodox, and some are Unitarian, all perfectly\nfree; living happily together in this way, and the people at liberty to\ncome and listen to which one of them they choose. This is not an\nuncommon thing in Germany. That is the condition of things, then,\nthere.\n\nIn Holland there are no Unitarian churches, no churches going by that\nname; but there are thousands of Unitarians particularly among the\neducated and leading men, and one university, that of Leyden, entirely\nin control of the liberal religious leaders of the country.\n\nWhen you come to France, which you know is dominantly Catholic, you\nstill find a large body of Protestants; but one wing of their great\norganization is virtually if not out and out Unitarian. And a few of\nthe most noted preachers of the modern time in France have been\nUnitarians. I have had correspondence with men there which showed that\nthey were perfectly in sympathy with our aims, our purposes, our work.\n\nIn Transylvania and Poland there were large numbers of Unitarian\nchurches which were afterwards crushed out.\n\nYou find, then, all over Europe, all over civilization, just as much\nUnitarianism as you would expect to find, when you consider the\nquestions as to whether the law permits it and as to whether the people\nare educated and free.\n\nI should like, not for the sake of boasting, but simply that you may\nsee that you are in good company, to mention the names of some of those\nwho are foremost in our thought. Take Mazzini, the great leader of\nItaly; take Castelar, one of the greatest men in modern Spain; take\nKossuth, the flaming patriot of Hungary, all Unitarian men.\n\nNow let us come a step nearer home: let us consider England, and note\nthat just the moment free thought was allowed, you find Unitarianism\nspringing into existence. Milton was a Unitarian; Locke, one of the\ngreatest of English philosophers, a Unitarian; Dr. Lardner, one of its\nmost famous theological scholars, a Unitarian; Sir Isaac Newton, one of\nthe few names that belong to the highest order of those which have made\nthe earth glorious, a Unitarian.\n\nAnd, then, when we come to later England, we find another great\nscientist, comparatively modern, Dr. Priestley, who, coming to this\ncountry after he had made the discovery of oxygen which made him famous\nfor all time, established the first Unitarian church in our neighbor\ncity of Philadelphia.\n\nThe first Unitarian church which took that name in the modern world was\norganized in London by Dr. Theophilus Lindsey in 1774; and its\nestablishment coincides with the great outburst of freedom that\ndistinguished the close of the eighteenth century.\n\nYou must not look for Unitarians where there is no liberty; for it is a\ncardinal principle of their thought and their life.\n\nSoon after the London movement, the first Unitarian church in this\ncountry was organized, or rather the first Unitarian church came into\nexistence. It was the old King's Chapel of Boston, an Anglican church,\nwhich came out and took the name Unitarian.\n\nThere is a very bright saying in connection with this old church, which\nI will pause long enough to repeat, because there is a principle in it\nas well as a great deal of wit. They kept there the old English church\nservice, except that it was purged, according to their point of view,\nfrom all Trinitarian belief. It is said that Dr. Bellows, who was\nattending a service there some years ago, had with him an English\ngentleman as a visitor. This man picked up the service, looked it over,\nand, turning to Dr. Bellows, with a sarcastic look on his face, said,\n\"Ah I see that you have here the Church of England service watered.\"\nWhereupon Dr. Bellows, with his power of ready wit, replied, No, my\ndear sir, not watered, washed. King's Chapel, then, was the first\nUnitarian church in this country. But the number grew rapidly, and in a\nfew years perhaps half, or more than half, of the old historic Puritan\nand Pilgrim churches in New England had become Unitarian, including in\nthat number the old First Church of Plymouth.\n\nNow, before I go on to discuss the principles underlying our movement,\nI wish to call your attention to a few more names; and I trust you will\npardon me for this. There is no desire for vain-glory in the\nenumeration. I simply wish that people should know, what only a few do\nknow, who have been Unitarians in the past, and what great names,\nleading authoritative names in the world's literature and science and\nart, find here their place.\n\nAmong the Fathers of the Revolution, all the Adamses, Dr. Franklin,\nThomas Jefferson, and many another were avowed Unitarians. And, when we\ncome to modern times, it is worth your noting that all our great poets\nin this country, Bryant, Longfellow, Whittier, Holmes, Lowell, and in\nthis city Stedman, are Unitarian names.\n\nThen the leading historians, Bancroft, Motley, Prescott, Sparks,\nPalfrey, Parkman, and John Fiske, are Unitarians. Educators, like\nHorace Mann, like the last seven presidents of Harvard University,\nUnitarians. Great scientists, like Agassiz, Peirce, Bowditch, Professor\nDraper, Unitarians. Statesmen and public men, like Webster, Calhoun,\nthe Adamses, the Hoars, Curtis. Two of our great chief justices,\nMarshall and Parsons. Supreme Court Judges, Story and Miller. Literary\nmen, like Whipple, Hawthorne, Ripley, and Bayard Taylor; and eminent\nwomen, such as Margaret Fuller, Lydia Maria Child, Lucretia Mott, Helen\nHunt Jackson, Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, and Mrs. Julia Ward Howe.\n\nI mention these, that you may know the kind of men, ethical,\nscientific, judicial, political, literary, who have been distinguished,\nas we think from our point of view, by being followers of this grand\nfaith of ours.\n\nAnd now I wish you to note again, what I hinted at a moment ago, that\nit is not an accident that Unitarianism should spring into being in the\nmodern world coincidently with the great movements of liberty in France\nand England, and the outburst that culminated in our own Revolution and\nthe establishment here of a State without a king as well as of a church\nwithout a bishop.\n\nWherever you have liberty and education, there you have the raw\nmaterials out of which to make the free, forward looker in religious\nthought and life.\n\nNow what are the three principles out of which Unitarianism is born?\nFirst, I have already intimated it, but I wish to emphasize it again\nfor a moment with an addition, Liberty. Humanity at last had come to a\ntime in its history when it had asserted its right to be free; not only\nto cast off fetters that hampered the body, not only to dethrone the\ndespots that made liberty impossible in the State, but to think in the\nrealm of religion, to believe it more honorable to God to think than to\ncringe and be afraid in his presence.\n\nSecond, coincident with the birth of Unitarianism is an enlargement and\na reassertion of the conscience of mankind. A demand for justice. Just\nthink for a moment, and take it home to your hearts, that up to the\ntime when this free religious life was born, according to the teaching\nof all the old creeds, justice and right had been one thing here among\nmen and another thing enthroned in the heavens. The idea has always\nbeen that might made right, that God, because he was God, had a right\nto do anything, though it controverted and contradicted all the ideas\nof human righteousness; and that we still must bow in the dust, and\naccept it as true.\n\nIf I could be absolutely sure that God had done something which\ncontradicted my conscience, I should say that probably my conscience\nwas wrong. I should wait at any rate, and try to find out. But, when I\nfind that the condition of things is simply this, that certain\nfallible, unjust, uneducated, barbaric people have said that God has\ndone certain things, then it is another matter. I have no direct word\nfrom God: I have only the report of men whose authority I have no\nadequate reason to accept.\n\nAt any rate, the world came to the point where it demanded that\ngoodness on earth should be goodness up in heaven, too; that God should\nat least be as just and fair as we expect men to be. And that, if you\nwill think it out a little carefully, is enough to revolutionize the\ntheology of the world; for the picture of the character of God as\ncontained in the old theologies is even horribly unjust, as judged by\nany human standard.\n\nIn the third place, Unitarianism sprang out of a new elevation of love\nand tenderness. As men became more and more civilized, they became more\ntender-hearted; and they found it impossible to believe that the Father\nin, heaven should not be as kind and loving as the best father on\nearth.\n\nAnd here, again, if you think it out, you will find that this is enough\nto compel a revolution of all the old theological ideas of the world.\n\nJust as soon, then, as the civilized modern world became free, there\nwas a new expansion of the sense of the right to think; there was a new\nexpansion of conscience, the insistent demand for justice; there was a\nnew expansion of tenderness and love; and out of these, characterized\nby these, having these in one sense for its very soul and body, came\nUnitarianism.\n\nNow another point. It is commonly assumed by those who have not studied\nthe matter that, because Unitarians have no printed and published\ncreed, they are all abroad in their thinking. They take this for\ngranted; and so it is assumed by people who speak to me on the subject.\nThey think that there must be just as many views of things as there are\nindividuals.\n\nIf there are any persons here having this idea, perhaps I shall\nastonish them by the statement I am going to make. After more than\ntwenty years of experience as a Unitarian minister, I have come to the\nconviction that there is not a body of Christians in the world to-day,\nnot Catholic or Presbyterian or Methodist or Congregational or any\nother, that is so united in its purposes, not only, but in its beliefs,\nas these very Unitarians.\n\nAnd the fact is perfectly natural. Take the scientific men of the\nworld. They do not expect a policeman after them if they do not hold\ncertain scientific opinions. There is no authority to try them for\nheresy or to turn them out of your society unless they hold certain\nscientific ideas. They have no sense of compulsion except to find and\naccept that which they discover to be true. The one aim of science is\nthe truth. There is no motive for anything else.\n\nAnd truth being one, mark you, and they being free to seek for it, and\nall of them caring simply for that, they naturally come together,\ninevitably come together. So that, without any external power or\northodox compulsion, the scientific men of the world are substantially\nat one as to all the great principles. They discuss minor matters; but,\nwhen they discuss, they are simply hunting for a deeper truth, not\ntrying to conquer each other.\n\nNow Unitarians are precisely in this position. The only thing any of us\ndesire is the truth. We are perfectly free to seek for the truth; and,\nthe truth being one, we naturally tend towards it, and, tending towards\nit, we come together. So there is, as I said, greater unanimity of\nopinion in regard to the great essential points among Unitarians than\namong any other body in Christendom.\n\nNow, as briefly as I can, I want to analyze what I regard as the\nfundamental principles of Unitarianism. I am not going to give you a\ncreed, I am not going to give you my creed: I am going to give you the\ngreat fundamental principles which characterize and distinguish\nUnitarians.\n\nFirst, liberty, freedom of the individual to think, think as he will or\nthink as he must; but not liberty for the sake of itself. Liberty for\nthe sake of finding the truth; for we believe that people will be more\nlikely to find the truth if they are free to search for it than they\nwill if they are threatened or frightened, or if they are compelled to\ncome to certain preordained conclusions that have been settled for\nthem. Freedom, then, for the sake of finding the truth.\n\nSecond, God. The deep-down conviction that wisdom, power, love, that\nis, God, is at the heart of the universe. Third, that God is not only\nwisdom and power and love, but that he is the universal Father, not\nmerely the Father of the elect, not merely the Father of Christians,\nnot merely the Father of civilized people, but the Father of all men,\nequally, lovingly, tenderly the Father of all men.\n\nIn the next place, being the Father of all men, he would naturally wish\nto have them find the truth. So we believe in revelation. Not in\nrevelation confined to one book or one epoch in the history of the\nworld, though we do not deny the revelation contained in them. We\nbelieve that all truth, through whatever medium it comes to the world,\nis in so far a revelation of our Father; and it is infallible\nrevelation when it is demonstrably true, and not otherwise.\n\nThe next step, then: in the words of Lucretia Mott, we believe that\ntruth should be taken for authority, and not authority for truth. The\nonly authority in the world is the truth. The only thing to which\nintellectually a free Unitarian can afford to bow is ascertained and\ndemonstrated truth. We believe, then, in revelation.\n\nIn the next place, we believe in incarnation. Not in the complete\nincarnation of God in one man, in one country, in one age, in the\nhistory of the world. We believe in the incarnation of God\nprogressively in humanity. All that is true, all that is beautiful, all\nthat is good, is so much of God incarnate in his children, and reaching\never forth and forward to higher blossoming and grander fruitage. The\ndifference between Jesus and other men, as we hold it, is not a\ndifference in kind: it is a difference in degree. So he is the son of\nour Father, our elder brother, our friend, our leader, our helper, our\ninspiration.\n\nThe next principle of Unitarianism is that character is salvation. We\ndo not even say that character is a condition of salvation. Character\nis salvation. A man who is right, who is in perfect accord with the law\nand life of God, is safe, in this world, in all worlds, in this year,\nin all future time.\n\nAnd, then, lastly, we believe in the eternal and universal hope. We\nbelieve that God, just because he is God, is under the highest\nconceivable obligation, not to me only, but to himself, to see to it\nthat every being whom he has created shall sometime, somewhere, in the\nlong run, find that gift of life a blessing, and not a curse.\n\nWe believe in retribution, universal, quick, unescapable; for we\nbelieve that this is mercy, and that through this is to come salvation.\n\nThese, then, are the main principles, as I understand them, of\nUnitarianism.\n\nThere is one point more now that I must touch on. When I was\nconsidering the question of giving this series of sermons, one of my\nbest friends raised the question as to whether I had better put the\nword Unitarian? into the title. He was afraid that it might prejudice\npeople who did not like the name, and keep them from listening to what\nI had to say. This is a common feeling on the part of Unitarians. I was\ntrained as a boy, and through all my youth and early manhood in the\nministry, to look with aversion, suspicion, on Unitarianism, and to\nhate the name. But to-day, after more than twenty years of experience\nin the Unitarian ministry, I have come to the conviction, which I wish\nto suggest to you, that it is the most magnificent name in the\nreligious history of the world; and I, for one, wish to hoist it as my\nflag, to inscribe it on my banner, not because I care for a name, but\nbecause of that which it covers and comprehends.\n\nNow, not in the slightest degree in the way of prejudice against other\nnames or to find fault with them, let me note a few of them, and then\ncompare Unitarianism with them. Take the word \"Anglican,\" for example,\nthe name of the Church of England. What does it mean? Of course, you\nknow it is simply a geographical name. It defines nothing as to the\nChurch's government or belief or anything else. There is the word\n\"Episcopal,\" which simply means a church that is governed by bishops;\nthat is all. Take the word \"Presbyterian,\" from a Greek word which\nmeans an elder, a church governed by its old men or its elders. No\nspecial significance about that. Then \"Baptist,\" signifying that the\npeople who wear that name believe that baptism always means immersion,\nindicating no other doctrine by which that body is known, or its method\nof government. \"Congregational,\" no doctrine significance there. It\nsimply means a church whose power is lodged in the congregation. It is\ndemocratic in its methods of government. \"Methodist,\", applied to the\nmembers of a particular church because they were considered over-exact\nor methodical in their ways. There is no governmental significance\nthere. The name Catholic? or Universal? is chiefly significant from the\nfact that the claim implied by it is not true. Now let us look for a\nmoment at the word Unitarian, and see whether it has a right to be\nplaced not only on a level with these, but infinitely above and beyond\nthem in the richness, in the wonder of its meaning. Let me lead you to\na consideration of it. I want you to note that unity? is the one word\nof more significance than any other in the history of man; and that it\nis growing in its depth, its comprehensiveness. What have we\ndiscovered? We have discovered in this modern world, only a few years\nago, that this which we see, the earth, the stars, and all the wonders\nof the heavens, is one, a universe. Not only that. We have discovered\nthe unity of force. There are not, as primitive man supposed, a\nthousand different powers in the universe, antagonistic and fighting\nwith each other. We have learned to know that there is just one force\nin the universe. That light, heat, electricity, magnetism, all these\nmarvellous and diverse varieties of forces, are one force, and can be\nat the will and skill of man converted into each other.\n\nNext, we have learned that there is one law in the universe. Should we\nnot be Unitarians? Should we not believe in the unity of God, when we\ncan see, as far as the telescope can reach on the one hand and the\nmicroscope on the other, one eternal, changeless Order?\n\nAnother point. We have learned the unity of substance. We know how\nComte, the famous French scientist, advised his followers not to\nattempt to find out anything about the fixed stars, because, he said,\nsuch knowledge was forever beyond the reach of man. How long had Comte\nbeen dead before we discovered the spectroscope? And now we know all\nabout the fixed stars. We know that the stuff we step on in the street\nthis morning as we go home from church is the same stuff of which the\nsun is made, the same stuff as that which flamed a few years ago as a\ncomet, the same stuff as that which shines in Sirius, in suns so many\nmiles away that it takes millions of years for their light to reach us.\nOne stuff, one substance, throughout the universe; and this poor old,\ntear-wet earth of ours is a planet shining in the heavens as much as\nany of them, of the same glorious material of which they are made.\n\nThen, again, we have discovered the unity of life. From the little tiny\nglobule of protoplasm up to the brain of Shakspere, one life throbbing\nand thrilling with the same divinity which is at the heart of the\nworld.\n\nWe have discovered not only the unity of life, we have discovered the\nunity of man. Not a hundred different origins, different kinds of\ncreatures, different-natured beings, but one blood to dwell in every\ncountry on the face of the earth: the unity of man.\n\nWe have discovered the unity of ethics, of righteousness, of right and\nwrong, one right, one wrong. A million applications, but one goal\ntowards which all those who hunger and thirst after righteousness are\nstriving.\n\nOne religion: for underneath all the diversity of creeds and religions,\nbarbaric, semi-civilized, civilized, enlightened, we find man, the one\nchild of God, hunting for the clearest light he can command, after the\none Father, that is, the one eternal, universal search of the religious\nlife of the race.\n\nReligion then one; one unifying purpose; every step that the world\ntakes in its progress leading it towards liberty, towards light,\ntowards truth, towards righteousness, towards peace. One goal, then,\nfor the progress of man.\n\nAnd, then, one destiny. Some day, every soul, no matter how belated,\nshall arrive; some day, somewhere, every soul, however sin stained,\nshall arrive; every soul, however small, however distorted, however\nhindered, shall arrive. One destiny. Not that we are to be just alike;\nonly that some time we are to unfold all that is possible in us, and\nstand, full statured, perfect, complete, in the presence of our Father.\n\nDo I not well, then, to say that Unity, Unitarianism, is a magnificent\nname, a name to be flung out to the breeze as our banner under which we\nwill fight for God and man; a name beside which all others pale into\ninsignificance; a name that sums up the secret, the centre, the hope,\nthe outcome of the universe? Greatest name in the religious history of\nman, it coincides with that magnificent hope so grandly uttered by\nTennyson, \"One God, one law, one element, And one far-off divine event,\nTo which the whole creation moves.\"\n\n\"WHAT DO YOU GIVE IN PLACE OF WHAT YOU TAKE AWAY?\"\n\nMY theme is the answer to the question, What do you give in place of\nwhat you take away? For my text I have chosen two significant passages\nof Scripture. One is from the seventh chapter of Hebrews, the\nnineteenth verse; and it sets forth, as I look at it, the drift and\noutcome of the process of which we are a part, the bringing in of a\nbetter hope. Then from the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, the thirty-\nninth and fortieth verses, expressing the relation in which we stand to\nthose who have looked for God and his work in the past: And these all,\nhaving obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise;\nGod having provided some better thing for us, that they without us\nshould not be made perfect.\n\nWhat do you give in place of that which you take away? This is a\nquestion which is proposed to Unitarians over and over and over again.\nIt is looked upon as an unanswerable criticism. We are supposed to be\npeople who tear down, but do not build; people who take away the dear\nhopes and traditional faiths of the past, and leave the world desolate,\nwithout God, without hope.\n\nNot only is this urged against us, from the other side, but there are a\ngreat many Unitarians, possibly, who have not thought themselves out\nwith enough clearness to know the relation between the present\nconditions of human thought and the past; and sometimes even they may\nlook back with a regretful longing towards something which they have\noutgrown, and left behind.\n\nI propose this morning to answer this question, just as simply, as\nfrankly, as I can; to treat it with all reverence, with all\nseriousness, and try to make clear what it is that the world has lost\nas the result of the advances of modern knowledge, and what, if\nanything, it has gained.\n\nBut while I stand here, on the threshold of my theme, and before I\nenter upon its somewhat fuller discussion, I wish to urge upon you two\nor three considerations.\n\nIt is assumed, by the people who ask this question, that, if we do take\naway anything, we are under obligation straightway to put something in\nits place. I wish you to consider carefully as to whether this position\nis sound. Suppose, for example, that I should discover that some belief\nthat has been held in the past is not well founded, not true. Must I\nsay nothing about it because, possibly, I may not have discovered just\nwhat is true?\n\nTo illustrate what I mean: Prince Alphonso of Castile used to say, as\nhe studied the Ptolemaic theory of the universe, that, if he had been\npresent at creation, he could have suggested a good many very important\nimprovements. In other words, he was keen enough to see that the\nPtolemaic theory of the universe was not a good working theory. Must he\nkeep still about that because, forsooth, he was not able to establish\nanother theory of the universe in its place?\n\nDo you not see that the criticism, the testing of positions which are\nheld, are the primary steps in the direction of finding some larger and\ngrander truth, provided these positions are not adequate and do not\nhold?\n\nThe Rev. Dr. George A. Gordon, of the historic Old South Church in\nBoston, told us, in an address which he gave in Brooklyn the other day,\nthat Calvinism was dead; that it was even necessary to clear the face\nof the earth of it, in order to save our faith in God. At the same time\nDr. Gordon said frankly that he had no other as complete and finished\nsystem to put in place of it. Was he justified in telling the truth\nabout Calvinism because he has not a ready-made scheme to substitute\nfor it?\n\nI wish you to note that I do not concede for an instant that I must not\ntell the truth about anything that I perceive because I have not a\nready-made theory of some kind to put in the place of that which is\ntaken away. It is my business to tell what seems to me true in all\nreverence, seriousness, earnestness and love, and trust the\nconsequences to God.\n\nIn the next place, another consideration. I have been talking as though\nI conceded that Unitarians, or that I myself, sometimes take away\nthings, beliefs. Now I wish to ask you who it is that takes away\nbeliefs. Has Unitarianism ever taken away any faith or hope or trust\nfrom the world? Has anybody ever done it?\n\nIf we pit ourselves against one of God's eternal truths, is that truth\ngoing to suffer? Rather shall we not beat ourselves to pieces against\nGod's adamant? If a thing is true, nobody is going to take it away from\nthe world; for nobody has the power to uproot or destroy a divine\ntruth.\n\nWho is it, then, that takes these beliefs away? Is it not just this?\nDoes it not mean that men have discovered that what they supposed to be\ntrue is not true, and it is the old belief that passes away in the\npresence of a larger and clearer light? Is not that the process?\n\nWhen Magellan, for instance, demonstrated that this planet of ours was\nround by circumnavigating it, the ship returning to the port from which\nit started, did he take away the old flat earth, fixed and anchored,\nimmovable, around which the sun moved? Why, there was no old, flat and\nanchored, stationary earth to take away. There never had been. All\nMagellan did was to demonstrate a new, higher, grander truth. He took\naway a misconception from the minds of ignorant and uneducated people,\nand helped put one of God's grand, luminous truths in the place of it.\nThat is all he did.\n\nIt is modern intelligence, increasing knowledge, larger, clearer light\nthat takes away old beliefs. But, if these old beliefs are not true, it\nsimply means that we are discovering what is true; that is, having a\nclearer view and vision of God's ways and methods of governing the\nworld.\n\nI wish you to note, then, in this second place, that Unitarianism does\nnot take away anything.\n\nOne third consideration: Suppose we did. Suppose we took away belief in\nthe existence of God. Suppose we took away belief in man as a soul,\nleaving him simply an animal. Suppose we took away faith in continued\nexistence after death. Suppose we had the power to sweep all of these\ngrand beliefs out of the human mind. Then what?\n\nIf I had my choice, I would do it gladly, with tearful gratitude,\nrather than keep the old beliefs of the last two thousand years.\n\nThe late Henry Ward Beecher, in a review article published not long\nbefore his death, said frankly this which I am saying now, and which I\nhad said a good many times before Mr. Beecher's article was written,\nthat no belief at all is infinitely, unspeakably better than those\nhorrible beliefs which have dominated and darkened the world.\n\nI would rather believe in no God than in a bad God, such as he has been\npainted. And, if I had my choice of the future, what would it be? I\nhave, I trust, just over there, father, mother, two brothers,\nnumberless dear ones; and I hope to see them with a hope dearer than\nany other which I cherish. But, if I were standing on the threshold of\nheaven itself, and these loved ones were beckoning me to come in, and I\nhad the choice between an eternity of felicity in their presence and\neternal sleep, I would take the sleep rather than take this endless joy\nat the cost of the unceasing and unrelieved torment of the meanest soul\nthat ever lived. And I would have no great respect for any man who\nwould not. I would not care to purchase my joy at the price of endless\npangs, the ascending smoke of torment, the wail going up to the sweet\nheavens forever and ever and ever.\n\nSo, even if it were a choice between no belief at all and the old\nbeliefs, the darkness would be light to me; and I would embrace it with\njoy rather than take the selfish felicity of those men who estimate it\nas a part of their future occupation to be leaning over the battlements\nof heaven and witnessing the torture of the damned. This, though\nsounding so terrible to us now, is good old Christian doctrine, which\nhas often been avowed. Thank God we are outgrowing it.\n\nThese, then, for preliminary considerations.\n\nNow let me raise the question as to what has been taken away. You\nremember I said that I have taken nothing away, Unitarianism has taken\nnothing away. But the advance of modern knowledge, the larger, clearer\nrevelation of God, has taken away no end of things. What are they?\n\nLet me make two very brief statements right here. I am in the position,\nthis morning, of appearing to repeat myself; that is, I must go over a\ngood many points that I have made from this platform before. But please\nunderstand that it is not on account of lapse of memory on my part. I\nam doing it with a distinct end in view, which can only be attained by\nthese steps.\n\nIn the next place, my treatment has so much ground to cover that what I\nsay will appear somewhat in the nature of a catalogue; but I see no\nother way in which to make the definite statement I wish to lay before\nyou. I am going to catalogue, first, a lot of the things that modern\nknowledge has taken away. Then I am going to tell you some of the\nthings that modern knowledge is putting in place of what it has\nremoved.\n\nIn the first place, the old universe is taken away; that is, that\nlittle tiny play-house affair, not so large as our solar system, which\nin the first chapters of Genesis God is reported to have made as a\ncarpenter working from outside makes a house, inside of six days. That\nlittle universe, that is, the story of creation as told in the early\nchapters of Genesis, is absolutely gone. I shall tell you pretty soon\nwhat has taken the place of it.\n\nSecondly, the God of the Old Testament, the God of most of the creeds\nhas been taken away, that God who was jealous, who was partial, who was\nangry; who built a little world, and called it good, and then inside of\na few days saw it slip out of his control into the hands of the devil,\neither because he could not help it or did not wish to; who watched\nthis world develop for a little while, and then, because it did not go\nas he wanted it to, had to drown it, and start over again; the God who\nin the Old Testament told the people that slavery was right, provided\nthey did not enslave the members of their own nation, but only those\noutside of it; the God who indorsed polygamy, telling a man that he was\nat liberty to have just as many wives as he wanted and could obtain,\nand that he was free to dispose of them by simply giving them a little\nnotice and telling them to quit; the God who indorsed hypocrisy and\nlying on the part of his people; the God who sent a little light on one\nlittle people along one edge of the Mediterranean, and left all the\nrest of the world in darkness; the God who is to damn all of these\npeople who were left in darkness because they did not know that of\nwhich they never had any chance to hear; the God who is to cast all his\nenemies into the pit, trampling them down, as Edwards pictures so\nhorribly to us, in his hate for ever and ever. This God has been taken\naway.\n\nIn the third place, the story of Eden, the creation of man and then\nimmediately the fall of man and the resulting doctrine of total\ndepravity, this has been taken away. That man was made in the image of\nGod, and then, inside of a few days, fell into the hands of the Power\nof Evil, and that since that day he has been the legitimate subject\nhere on this earth of the prince of this world, that is, the devil, and\nthat is taught both in the Old Testament and in the New, that man is\nthis kind of a being, this is forever gone. There is no rational,\nintelligent, free belief in it left.\n\nThen the old theory of the Bible has been taken away, that theory which\nmakes it a book without error or flaw, and makes us under the highest\nobligation to receive all its teachings as the veritable word of God,\nwhether they seem to us hideous, blasphemous, immoral, degrading, or\nnot. This is gone.\n\nProfessor Goldwin Smith, in an article published within a year, treats\nthe belief, the continued holding to this old theory about the Bible,\nunder the head of Christianity's \"Millstone.\" He writes from the point\nof view of the old belief; but he says, if Christianity is going to be\nsaved, this millstone must be taken off from about its neck, and\nallowed to sink into the sea.\n\nIf we hold that theory, what? Why, then, we must still believe that, in\norder to help on the slaughter of his enemies on the part of a\nbarbarian general, God stopped the whole machinery of the universe for\nhours until he got through with his killing. We must believe the\nliteral story of Jonah's being swallowed by the whale. We must believe\nno end of incredibilities; and then, if we dare to read with our eyes\nopen, we must believe immoral things, cruel things, about men and about\nGod, things which our civilization would not endure, were it not for\nthe power of tradition, which hallows that which used to be believed in\nthe past.\n\nThis conception of the Bible, then, is gone.\n\nThen, in the next place, the blood atonement is gone. What did that\nmean to the world? It meant that the eternal Father either would not or\ncould not forgive and receive back to his heart his own erring,\nmistaken, wandering children unless the only begotten Son of God was\nslaughtered, and we, as the old awful hymn has it, were plunged beneath\nthis fountain of blood I Revolting, terrible, if you stop to think of\nit for one reasoning moment, that God cannot forgive unless he takes\nagony out of somebody equal to that from which he releases his own\nchildren! That, though embodied still in all the creeds, has been taken\naway. It is gone, like a long, hideous dream of darkness.\n\nBelief in the devil has been taken away. What does that mean? It means\nthat Christendom has held and taught for nearly two thousand years that\nGod is not really King of the universe; that he holds only a divided\npower, and that here thousands on thousands of years go by, and the\ndevil controls the destiny of this world, and ruins right and left\nmillions on millions of human souls, and that God either cannot help it\nor does not wish to, one of the two. This belief is taken away.\n\nAnd then, lastly, that which I have touched on by implication already,\nthe belief in endless punishment is taken away. Are you sorry? Does\nanybody wish something put in the place of this? The belief that all\nthose except the elect, church members, those who have been through a\nspecial process called conversion, these, including all the millions on\nmillions outside of Christendom and from the beginning until to-day,\nhave gone down to the flame that is never quenched, the worm that never\ndies, to linger on in useless torture forever and ever? Simply a\nmonument of what is monstrously called the justice of God! This is\ngone.\n\nNow, friends, just ask yourselves, as you go home, as you think over\nwhat I have said this morning, as to whether there is anything else\nlost.\n\nIs there anything of value taken away? Let me run over now in parallel\nfashion another catalogue to place opposite this one, so that we may\nsee as to what has been our loss and as to whether there has been any\ngain.\n\nIn the place of the little, petty universe of Hebrew dream, what have\nwe now? This magnificent revelation of the Copernican students; a\nuniverse infinite in its reach and in its grandeur; a universe fit at\nlast to be the home of an infinite God; a universe grand enough to\nclothe him and express him, to manifest and reveal him; a universe\nboundless; a universe that has grown through the ages and is growing\nstill, and is to unfold more and more of the divine beauty and glory\nforevermore. Is there any loss in this exchange?\n\nNow as to God. I have pictured to you, in very bald outline, some of\nthe conceptions of God that have been held in the past. What is our God\nto-day? The heart, the life, the soul, of this infinite universe;\njustice that means justice; power that means power; love that surpasses\nall our imagination of love; a God who is eternal goodness; who from\nthe beginning has folded his child man to his heart, whispering all of\ntruth that he could understand, breathing into him all of life that he\ncould contain, inspiring him with all love and tenderness that he could\nappreciate or employ, and so, in this way, leading him and guiding him\nthrough the ages, year by year and century by century, still to\nsomething better and finer and higher; a God, not off somewhere in the\nheavens, to whom we must send a messenger; not a God separated from us\nby some great gulf that we must bridge by some supposed atonement; a\nGod nearer to us than our breath; a God who hears the whisper of our\nwant, who understands the dawning wish or aspiration before it takes\nform or shape; a God who loves us better than we love ourselves or love\nthose who are dearest to us; a God who knows better what we need than\nwe know ourselves, and is more ready to give us than fathers are to\ngive good gifts to their children. Is there any loss here?\n\nIn the third place, the new man that has come into modern thought. Not\nthe broken fragments of a perfect Adam; not a man so crippled\nintellectually that, as they have been telling us for centuries, it was\nimpossible for him to find the truth, or to know it when he did find\nit; not a being so depraved, morally, that he never desires any good,\nand never loves anything which is sweet and fine; a being totally\ndepraved, a being who, as one passage in the Old Testament tells us, is\nso corrupt his very prayer is a sin; conceived, born, in evil, and all\nhis thoughts tainted, and drifting towards that which is wicked. Not\nthis kind of a man. A man who has been on the planet hundreds of\nthousands of years, who has been learning by experience, who has been\nanimal, who has been cruel, but who at every step has been trying to\nfind the light, has been becoming a little truer and better; a being\nwho has evolved all that is sweetest and finest in the history of the\nworld; who has made no end of mistakes, who has committed no end of\ncrimes, but who has learned through these processes, and at last has\ngiven us some specimens of what is possible by way of development in\nAbraham and Moses and Elijah and David and Isaiah, and a long line of\nprophets and seers of the Old Testament time; not perfect, but\nmagnificent types of actual men; who has developed in other nations\nsuch men as Gautama, the heroes and teachers of China, like Confucius;\nthen Aristotle, Plato, Socrates; the noble men of Rome; who has given\nus in the modern world the great poets, the great discoverers, the\ngreat philanthropists; those devoted to the highest, sweetest things;\nmusicians and artists; who has given us Shakspere, who has given us,\ncrowning them all, as I believe, by the moral beauty and grandeur of\nhis love, the Nazarene, Jesus, our elder brother, Son of God, and\nhelper of his fellow-man; this humanity that has never fallen; that has\nbeen climbing up from the beginning, and not sinking down. Is there any\nloss here?\n\nThen let us see what kind of a Bible modern science and modern\ndiscovery and modern scholarship and modern life have given us.\n\nOur Bible is the sifted truth of the ages. There is not a passage in it\nor a line for which we need apologize. There is nothing incredible in\nit, except as it is incredibly sweet and good and true. It is the truth\nthat has come to men in all ages, no matter spoken by whose lips, no\nmatter written by what pen, no matter wrought out under what conditions\nor in whatever civilization or under whatever sky.\n\nAll that is true and sweet and fine is a part of God's revelation of\nhimself to his children, and makes up our Bible, which is not all\nwritten yet. Every new truth that shall be discovered in the future\nwill make a new line or a new paragraph or a new chapter. God has been\nwriting it on the rocks, in the stars, in the hearts, on the brains of\nhis children; and his hand does not slacken. He is not tired: he is\nwriting still. He will write to-morrow, and next year, and throughout\nall the coming time. This is the Bible.\n\nWe believe, for example, that the saying of the old Egyptian, God shall\nwipe away all tears from their eyes, is just as divine and sweet as\nwhen said in the New Testament. We believe that the Golden Rule is just\nas golden when uttered by Confucius hundreds of years before Jesus as\nit was afterwards.\n\nWe believe that the saying about two commandments being the sum and\nsubstance of the law was just as holy when Hillel spake them as when\nJesus uttered them after his time. All truth is divine, and part of\nGod's divine revelation to his children.\n\nHere is our Bible, then. Now let me speak about Jesus, and see if our\nthought is less precious than the old. In my old days, when I preached\nin the orthodox church, Jesus was never half so dear, so helpful to me,\nas he is now. If I thought of him at all, I was obliged to think of him\nas somehow a second God, who stood between me and the first one, and\nthrough whom I hoped deliverance from the law and the justice of the\nfirst. I had to think of him as a part of a scheme that seemed to me\nunjust and cruel, involving the torture of some and the loss of most of\nthe race. You cannot pick the old-time Jesus out of that scheme of\nwhich he is a part. I could not love him then as I love him now. I\ncould not think of him as an example to follow; for how can one take\nthe Infinite for an example? How can one follow the absolutely Perfect\nexcept afar off?\n\nBut now I think of Jesus and his cross as the most natural and at the\nsame time the divinest thing in the history of man. Nothing outside of\nthe regular divine order in it. Jesus reveals to me to-day the\nhumanness of God and the divineness of man. And he takes his place in\nthe long line of the world's redeemers, those who have wrought\natonement, how? Through faithfulness even unto death.\n\nThe way we work out the atonement of the world, that is, the\nreconciliation of the world to God, is by being true to the vision of\nthe truth as it comes to us, no matter by the pathway of what\nsuffering, true as Jesus was true, true even when he thought his Father\nhad forsaken him.\n\nDo you know, friends, I think that is the grandest thing in the world.\nHe verily believed that God had forsaken him; and yet he held fast to\nhis trust, to his truth, to his faithfulness, even when swooning away\ninto the unconsciousness of death.\n\nThere is faith, and there is faithfulness; and he shares this with\nthousands of others. There are thousands of men who have suffered more\nthan Jesus did dying for his own truth; thousands of martyrs who, with\nhis name on their lips, have gone through greater torture than he did.\nAll these, whoever has been faithful, whoever has suffered for the\nright, whoever has been true, has helped to work out the atonement, the\nreconciliation, of the world with God, showing the beauty of truth and\nbringing men into that admiration of it that helps them to come into\naccord with the divine life.\n\nThen one more point. Instead of the wail of the damned that is never,\nthrough all eternity, for one moment hushed in silence, we place the\nsong of the redeemed, an eternal hope for every child born of the race.\nWe do not believe it is possible for a human soul ultimately to be\nlost. Why? Because we believe in God. God either can save all souls or\nhe cannot. If he can and will not, then he is not God. If he would and\ncannot, then he is not God. Let us reverently say it: he is under an\ninfinite obligation to his own self, to his own righteousness, to his\nown truth, his own power, his own love, his own character, to see to it\nthat all souls, some time, are reconciled to him.\n\nThis does not mean a poor, cheap, an easy salvation. It means that\nevery broken law must have its consequences so long as it remains\nbroken. It means that in this world and through all worlds the law-\nbreaker is to be followed by the natural and necessary results of his\nthoughts, of his words, of his deeds; but it means that in this\npunishment the pain is a part of the divine love. For the love of God\nmakes it absolutely necessary that the object of that love shall be\ndelivered from sin and wrong, and brought into reconciliation with\nhimself; and the pain, the necessary results of wrongdoing, are a part\nof the divine tenderness, a part of the divine faithfulness, a part of\nthe divine love. So we believe that through darkness or through light,\nthrough joy or through sorrow, some time, somewhere, every child of God\nshall be brought into his presence, ready to sing the song of peace and\njoy and reconciled love.\n\nNow, friends, I have gone over all the main points of the theology of\nour question. I have told you what I think the results of modern study\nhave taken away. I have indicated to you what I believe is to come and\ntake the place of these things that are absolutely gone. Ask yourselves\nseriously, if you are not one of us, is there a single one of these\nthings that modern investigation is threatening that you really care to\nkeep? If you could choose between the two systems and have your choice\nsettle the validity of them, would you not choose the second, and be\ngrateful to bid good-by to the first?\n\nRemember, however, at the end let me say, as I did at the beginning,\nthat, if these things pass away and the other finer things come in\ntheir places, Unitarianism is not to be charged by its enemies with\ndestroying the old, neither is it to take the credit on the part of its\nfriends for having created all the new. That distinguishes us as\nUnitarians from any other form of faith is that we believe in the\nliving, loving, leading God of the modern world, and are ready gladly\nto take the results of modern investigation, believing that they are\nonly a part of the revelation of the divine truth and the Father's\nwill.\n\nWe accept these things, stand for them, proclaim them; but we did not\ncreate them. If anything is gone that you did not like, we did not take\nit away. If anything is come that you do like, give God the glory; and\nlet us share with you the joy and praise.\n\nARE THERE ANY CREEDS WHICH IT IS WICKED FOR US TO QUESTION?\n\nANY body of people whatsoever has, of course, an undoubted right to\norganize on the basis of any belief or principles which it may happen\nto hold. This, always, on the supposition that those principles or\nbeliefs are not antagonistic to human welfare. They have a right to\nestablish the conditions of membership and limit their numbers as much\nas they please.\n\nFor example, suppose a set of persons chanced to hold the belief that\nthe so-called Shakspere plays were written by Bacon. They have a\nperfect right to organize a society, and to say that nobody shall be a\nmember of that society unless he agrees with them in this belief. If I\nhappen, as I do, to hold some other conviction about the matter, I have\nno right to blame them because they do not wish me to be a member. I\ncan organize, if I please, another society that shall have for its\ncardinal doctrinal statement the belief that Shakspere was the author\nof these plays. There is no need that I should quarrel with people\nholding these other ideas.\n\nOr, if I am a laboring man, in the technical sense of the word that is\ncommonly used to-day, I have a right to organize a society devoted to\nthe furtherance of the eight- hour movement, or any other specific end\nor aim which seems to me necessary to the welfare of society as\norganized in the modern world.\n\nAll this we concede at the outset. People have a perfect right to\norganize on the basis of their particular beliefs, and to keep out of\ntheir organization those persons who do not happen to agree with them.\nBut, and here is a most important consideration, if these beliefs seem\nto us who are outside to be vital; if they appear to concern us, to\ntouch our well-being, our future hopes, then we certainly have a right\nto study those beliefs, to criticise them, to put them to the test to\nsee whether they are well founded, whether they have any adequate basis\nof support.\n\nAnd, still further, if the people holding a certain set of beliefs tell\nus that they are inspired of God, that they are spokesmen for God, that\nthey have had committed to them a certain definite deposit of faith for\nthe benefit of the world; if they tell us that, unless we agree with\nthem, unless we accept the conditions and come into their organization,\nthen we are opposed to God, are endangering our own souls, and are\nenemies of the human race, then it becomes not merely our right to look\ninto these matters: does it not become our most solemn duty? Are we not\nunder the highest of all obligations to decide for ourselves one way or\nthe other as to whether these claims are valid? For, if they are, then\nthere is nothing so important for us as that we should accept them and\nlive in accordance with them, join the societies that are organized on\nthem as a basis, do our utmost to extend their acceptance throughout\nthe world.\n\nIf they are not valid, then we ought to do our very best to prove this\nalso, and help those who are in bondage to these false ideas to attain\ntheir liberty, in order that they may join with us in finding out that\nwhich is true, in order that together we may work for the discovery of\nthe will of God, and that we may co-operate in helping the world to\nfind and obey that will.\n\nYou would suppose from the ordinary assumption of those who hold the\nold creeds, and who have organized their churches on these creeds, as\nfoundation stones, that there had been at the outset a clear, a\ndefinite revelation of truth, that it had been unquestioned, that it\nhad come with credentials enough to satisfy the world that the speakers\nspoke by authority, and that the matter had from the beginning been\nwell understood.\n\nIt is assumed that we who do not hold these ideas are wilfully wrong,\nthat we are not inclined to accept the divine truth, that it is on\naccount of the hardness and wickedness of our hearts, and that we\nprefer evil rather than good. We are told that we might know, if we\nwould, that the matter is definite, and has been perfectly well settled\nfrom the beginning. This, I say, is the assumption.\n\nLet us now, then, investigate the matter for a little while, just as\ncalmly, just as simply, just as dispassionately as we are able.\n\nI confess to you, at the outset, that I do not like such a task as to-\nday seems to be imposed upon me. I do not like to be put in the\nposition of seeming to criticise my fellow- citizens, my friends, and\nneighbors; but it seems to me that it is more than a task, that it is a\nduty, and one that I cannot readily escape. I mean as little as\npossible even to seem to criticise people; but I must look into the\nfoundations of their beliefs, and see whether they are valid, whether\nthere is any reason why we should feel ourselves compelled to-day to\naccept them.\n\nLet us take our place, then, at the outset of Christianity by the side\nof Jesus and the apostles. Now let us note one strange fact. For the\nfirst two or three hundred years the belief of the Church was chaotic,\nunconfirmed, unsettled. There was dispute and discussion of the most\nearnest and most bitter kind concerning what are regarded to-day as the\nvery fundamentals of the Christian faith.\n\nThis would hardly seem possible, would it, if Jesus had made himself\nperfectly clear and explicit in regard to these matters? If Jesus were\nreally God, and if he came down on to this earth for the one express\npurpose of telling humanity what kind of moral and spiritual condition\nit was in, just what it needed in order to be saved, would you not\nsuppose that he would have been so clear that there could have been no\nhonest question about it?\n\nIf, for example, Jesus knew he was God, ought not he to have told it so\nplainly that no honest man could go astray about it? If he knew that\nthe human race fell in Adam and was in a condition of loss under the\ngeneral wrath and curse of God, ought not he to have said something\nabout Adam, something about the Garden of Eden, something about the\nfall? Yet it never appears anywhere that he did. If he knew it was\nabsolutely necessary for us to hold certain ideas about the Bible,\nought not he to have told us? If he knew that the great majority of the\nhuman race was going to endless and hopeless torment in the future\nunless they held certain beliefs, ought not he to have made it plain?\n\nBut take that which I read as a part of our Scripture lesson this\nmorning, that magnificent picture of the judgment scene, where he\ndivides the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Who are\nthe sheep, and who are the goats? Those who are to be admitted with\nglad welcome to the presence of the Father are simply those that have\nbeen morally good; and those who are told they must be shut out are\nsimply those who have bee morally bad. There is no hint of the\nnecessity of any belief at all. Nothing said about any Bible, about any\nTrinity, about any faith, about anything that is supposed to be\nessential as a condition of salvation, not a word. Only the good\nreceive the welcome, and the bad are shut out. That is all.\n\nIf this is not true, ought he not to have told us something about it,\nand made it perfectly clear?\n\nNow what was the condition of popular belief? Let me illustrate it by\none or two points. Origen, for example, one of the most famous of the\nChurch Fathers, believed and preached the pre-existence of the human\nsoul and universal salvation. Now, if Jesus said anything contrary to\nthis belief of universal salvation, either Origen did not know anything\nabout it or he did not regard it as of any authority, one or the other.\nWe cannot conceive of his holding a position of this sort if he had\nknown that Jesus had pronounced explicitly to the contrary.\n\nTake another illustration. Two weeks ago this morning I had occasion to\nquote to you a few words from another of the old Church Fathers, Justin\nMartyr, who taught explicitly that Jesus was not the equal of the\nFather, but a subordinate and created being. Now, if Jesus had clearly\ntaught anything approaching the doctrine of the Trinity, is it\nconceivable that Justin Martyr had not heard of it, or, having heard of\nit, had not accepted it?\n\nAt any rate, if these things were true and important, it is\ninconceivable that the Church Fathers, the very founders of\nChristianity, should have been all at sea in regard to them, should\nhave held divergent opinions, and should have been discussing these\nquestions one way and the other for three hundred years.\n\nLet us now see what we have as a basis for belief in regard to what\nJesus really did say. The Gospels grew up in a time when there was no\nshorthand writing, no reporting. Jesus does not say one word about\nhaving any record made of his teaching, does not seem to have\nconsidered it of the slightest importance. He simply talks and\nconverses as friend with friend, preaches to the crowds wherever they\ngather, but says nothing whatever about founding any system of\ndoctrine, says nothing about the importance of having a statement of\nhis doctrine kept.\n\nThe Gospels, as a matter of fact, did not come into their present shape\nfor many years after his death. How long? The critics are not at one in\nregard to it. A book has recently been translated from the German, by a\nprofessor in the Union Theological Seminary in this State, which says\nthat not a single one of the Gospels was known in its present shape\nuntil between the years 150 and 200 A.D. All scholars do not accept\nthis; but they are all at one in the statement that it was a great many\nyears after the death of Jesus before they came into the shape in which\nwe know them to-day.\n\nThere was, then, no clear record at the first in regard to these\nmatters of belief; and, as I said a moment ago, for the first two or\nthree hundred years the condition of the Church was chaotic. It was a\nlong time coming to a consciousness of itself.\n\nNow let us note the time when a few of the creeds were formed, and what\nare some of their characteristics.\n\nAlthough the Apostles' Creed would seem to take us back to the\napostles, we are not to deal with that first, because it was not the\nfirst one of the creeds to come into its present shape.\n\nThe oldest creed that we have to-day is the Nicene. When was that\nformed? It was agreed upon at the Council of Nicaea, in the early part\nof the fourth century. Now note, if you please, what influences shaped\nand determined it.\n\nDid those who proposed that this particular clause or that should enter\ninto it have any proof of their belief? Did they even claim to have?\nWhy, the idea of evidence, the thought of proof, was absolutely unknown\nto the mind of Christendom at that time. Nobody thought of such a thing\nas proposing to prove that this or that or the other was true.\n\nThe Nicene Creed came into existence very much, indeed, as does the\nplatform of a political party at the present time. One man fought for\nthis proposition, another man for that one; and at last it was a sort\nof compromise decided by a majority. And how was the majority reached?\nFriends, there were bribes, there were threats, there were all kinds of\nintimidation, there were blows, there was wrangling of every kind,\nthere was banishment, there was murder. There has not been a political\nplatform in the modern world evolved out of such brutal, conflicting,\nanti-religious conditions as those which prevailed before and in\nconnection with the Council of Nicaea.\n\nAnything like evidence? Not heard of or thought of. Anything like quiet\nbrooding of those who supposed they were, under the influence of the\nHoly Ghost, receiving divine and sacred truth? The farthest possible\nfrom any conditions that could be suggested by such a thought.\n\nAnd at the last, though undoubtedly the majority of the Church at that\ntime was Unitarian, as I told you the other day it was the decisive\ninfluence of the Emperor Constantine which settled the controversy.\nThus came into existence in the fourth century the oldest of the church\nCreeds which is recognized as authoritative in the Catholic, the\nAnglican, and the Episcopal churches of the present time.\n\nAnd this Nicene Creed, if I had time to go into it and analyze it, I\ncould show you contains elements which no intelligent man in any of\nthese churches thinks of believing at the present time; and yet nobody\ndares suggest a change, or the bringing it into accord with what the\nintelligence of the modern world knows to be true.\n\nLet us pass on, and consider for a moment the Apostles' Creed, so\ncalled. There was a time in the Church when people really supposed that\nthe apostles were its author. There are persons to-day who have not\ndiscovered the contrary. I crossed the ocean a few years ago when on\nboard were a bishop of one of the Western States and a young candidate\nfor orders who was travelling with him as his pupil. I fell into\nconversation with this young man, and found that he really believed\nthat the twelve clauses of the Apostles' Creed were manufactured by the\napostles themselves. He had never discovered anything to the contrary.\n\nA still more astonishing fact came to my knowledge last year. During\nthat discussion over Ian McLaren's creed, in which so many people were\ninterested last winter, Chancellor McCracken, of the University of New\nYork, published a letter, in which he referred to the Apostles' Creed\nas  written eighteen hundred years ago. It took my breath away when I\nread it. I wondered, Could the chancellor of a great University\npossibly be ignorant of the facts? Would he state that which he knew\nwas not true? I could not explain it either way. I was compelled to\nthink, if he was thoughtless and careless about it, that he had no\nbusiness to be about a matter of such importance. But he said the\nApostles' Creed was written eighteen hundred years ago.\n\nNow what are the facts? The apostles had nothing whatever to do with\nthe creed, as everybody knows to-day who chooses to look into the\nmatter. It grew, and was four or five hundred years in growth, one\nphrase in one shape held in a certain part of the Church, another\nphrase in another shape held in another part of the Church, people\nholding nothing so sacred about it but that they were at perfect\nliberty to change it and add to it and take away from it, until, as we\nget it to- day, it appeared for the first time in history at about the\nyear 500. And yet it stands in the Church to-day claiming to be the\nApostles' Creed.\n\nAnd this Apostles' Creed, if it were a part of the purpose I have in\nmind this morning, I could analyze, and find that it contains elements\nwhich nobody accepts to-day; and yet nobody dares to propose touching\nit, such is the reverence for that which is old. So much more reverence\ndoes the world have for that which is old than for that which is true.\n\nIf you approach a Churchman in regard to his belief in the resurrection\nof the body, he will say, Of course, we do not believe in the\nresurrection of the body: we believe in the resurrection of the soul.\nBut he does not believe in the resurrection of the soul, either.\n\nLet me make two statements in regard to this. In the first place, if he\ndoes not believe in the resurrection of the body, he has no right to\nsay it, because the House of Bishops, representing the whole Church of\nthe United states, in an authoritative pastoral letter issued within\nthree years, declares that fixity of interpretation is of the essence\nof the creeds. No man, then, is at liberty to change the interpretation\nto suit himself.\n\nAnd then, again, nobody, as I say, believes in the resurrection of the\nsoul. Why? Because that statement, with the authority of the House of\nBishops that nobody has any business to change or reinterpret, carries\nwith it a world underneath the surface of the earth to which the dead\ngo down; and resurrection means coming up again from that underground\nworld. Nobody believes in any underground world to-day. You cannot be\nresurrected. That is, you cannot rise again unless you have first gone\ndown. It is the ascent of the soul we believe in to-day, and not its\nresurrection, much less the resurrection of the body.\n\nNow a word in regard to another of the great historic creeds.\n\nThe third one to be shaped was the Athanasian Creed. Curiously named\nmost of these are. There was a tradition in the Church that Athanasius,\nwho was one of the great antagonists of the Council of Nicaea, wrote\nthis creed called after his name; but, as a matter of fact, the creed\nwas not known in the Church in the shape in which we have it now until\nat least four or five hundred years after Athanasius was dead.\n\nThe Athanasian Creed dates from the eighth or ninth century; and in\nthis for the first time there is a clear, explicit, definite\nformulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. It never had been shaped in\nperfection until the time of the Athanasian Creed; and this creed\ncontains among other things those famous damnatory clauses? which the\nEpiscopal Church in this country, to their credit be it said, have left\nout of their Prayer Book. But this Athanasian Creed is obliged to be\nsung thirteen times every year in the Church of England; and you can\nimagine with what grace and joy they must sing the statement that,\nunless a man believes every single word and sentence of it, he shall no\ndoubt perish everlastingly.\n\nThe Athanasian Creed, then, takes us only to the eighth or ninth\ncentury. You see, do you not, that, instead of there having been any\nclear, explicit, definite statement of church beliefs on the part of\nJesus and his apostles, they are long and slow growths, and not built\nup on the basis of proof or evidence, simply opinions which people came\nto hold and fight for and preach, until at last they got a majority to\nbelieve in them, and they were accepted by some council.\n\nI wish now to ask your attention for a few moments to one or two of the\nmodern statements of beliefs. We are face to face here in this modern\nworld with a very strange condition of affairs. I wish I could see the\noutcome of it. Here are churches printing, publishing, scattering all\nover America and Europe, statements of belief which perhaps hardly one\nman in ten among their pew-holders or vestrymen believes. They will\ntell you they do not believe them; they are almost angry with you if\nyou make the statement that these are church beliefs; and at the same\ntime we are in the curious position of finding that the man who\nproposes himself as a candidate for the ministry in any of these\nchurches dares not question or doubt these horrible statements. And, if\nit is found that he does question them after he gets into the ministry,\nhe is in danger of a trial for heresy.\n\nWe have had a perfect storm here in New York in one of our greatest\nchurches over Dr. Briggs. And what was Dr. Briggs tried for? Simply for\nraising the question as to whether every part of the Old Testament was\ninfallible. That was all. Another professor in a theological seminary\nin the West was turned out of his professorship for a similar offence.\nAn Episcopal minister, a friend of mine in Ohio, was turned out of his\nchurch for daring to entertain some of the modern ideas which are in\nthe air, and which intelligent people believe everywhere. One of the\nbest known Episcopal ministers in this city to-day has an indictment\nover his head. It has been there for eight years; and it is only by the\ngood will of his bishop that he is tolerated. His crime is daring to\nthink, and to believe what all the respectable text-books of the modern\nworld teach.\n\nAnd people in the pews are indignant if you say that their Church holds\nthese ideas! It is a curious state of affairs. How long is it going to\nlast? What is to be its outcome? I do not know.\n\nBut let us look for a moment at another. Let us note one or two points\nin the Presbyterian Confession of Faith.\n\nIt teaches still, with what it claims to be absolute authority, that\nGod, before the foundation of the world, selected just the precise\nnumber of people that he was going to save; that he did this, not in\nview of the fact that they were going to be good people at all, but\narbitrarily of his own will, not to be touched or changed by anything\nin their character or conduct. All the rest he is to \"pass by \"; and\nthey are to go to everlasting woe. The elect are very few: those who\nare passed by are the many. And why does he do this? Just think for a\nmoment. There is no such colossal egotism, such extreme of selfishness,\nin all the world as that attributed to God in this Confession of Faith.\nThe one thing he lives for, cares for, thinks of, labors after, is\nwhat? His own glory. He saves a few people to illustrate the glory of\nhis grace and mercy. He damns all the rest purely to illustrate the\nglory of some monstrous thing called his justice.\n\nThis kind of doctrine we are expected to believe to-day.\n\nAnd worse yet, if anything can be worse. I wonder how many loving,\ntender mothers in all these churches know it, how many know that the\nlittle babe which they clasp to their bosoms with such infinite\ntenderness and love, which they think of as a gift from the good God,\nright out of heaven, is an enemy of God, is under the curse and wrath\nof God? How many of you know that your creed teaches that God hates\nthis blessed little babe, and that, if he does not happen to be one of\nthe elect, he must suffer torment in darkness forever and ever?\n\nThat is taught in your confession of faith, which I have right here at\nmy hand. The only mitigation of it that I have ever heard of on the\npart of consistent believers is the saying of Michael Wigglesworth, a\nfamous alleged poet of the Puritan time in New England, when he states\nexplicitly that none of these non-elect children can be saved, but\nsince they are infants, and not such bad sinners as the grown up ones,\ntheir punishment shall be mitigated by their having the easiest room in\nhell.\n\nFriends, you smile at this. This poem of Michael Wigglesworth's was a\nhousehold treasure in New England for a hundred years. No end of\neditions was sold. It was earnestly, verily believed; and the doctrine\nis still taught every time that a new edition of the Presbyterian\nConfession of Faith? is issued in this country or in Europe.\n\nShall we escape these things by going into other churches? Some of\nthem, yes; but the essentials are there in all of them.\n\nTake for one moment the Episcopal Prayer Book. I have had friends in\nthe old churches who have become Episcopalians for no reason that I\ncould imagine, except that it seemed to them they were escaping some of\nthe sharpest corners of the old beliefs; and yet, if you will read\ncarefully the form of service for the baptism of infants in the\nEpiscopal Prayer Book as held to-day and in constant use in every\nEpiscopal Church in this country and England and throughout Europe, you\nwill find that it is taught there in the plainest and most forcible way\nthat the unbaptized infant is a child of wrath, is under the dominion\nof the devil, is destined to everlasting death, and is regenerated only\nby having a little water placed on its forehead and by a priest saying\nover him certain wonderful words.\n\nCan you believe, friends, for one moment that a little child this\nminute belongs to the devil, is under his dominion, hated of God,\ndoomed to eternal death, then the priest puts his fingers in some\nwater, touches its forehead, and says, \"I baptize thee,\" etc., and the\nchild, after this is said, five minutes later, God loves, has taken to\nhis arms as one of his own little children, and is going to receive him\nto eternal felicity forever?\n\nCan we believe such things to-day? Do people believe them? If they do\nnot, are they sincere in saying they do, in supporting the institutions\nthat proclaim to the world every hour of every day of every week of\nevery month of every year that they do believe them?\n\nI have now said all I am going to about these creeds in any special\nway. I wish now to discuss the general situation for a little.\n\nI have heretofore said, I wish to say it again, to make it perfectly\nplain and emphasize it, that all these old Creeds are based on the\nsupposed ruin of the race. They have come into existence for the\nexpress purpose of saving as many souls as possible from this ruin.\nThey never would have been heard of but for the belief in this ruin.\nAnd yet to-day there is not a intelligent man in Christendom that does\nnot know that the doctrine of man's fall and ruin is not only doubtful,\nbut demonstrably untrue. It is not a matter of question: it is settled;\nand yet these churches go on just as though nothing had happened.\n\nIs it sincere? Is it quite honest? Is this the way you use language in\nWall Street, in your banks and your stores? Is this the way you\nmaintain your credit as business men?\n\nOh, let us purge these statements of outgrown crudities, cruelties,\nfalsities, blasphemies, infamies! Let us dare to believe that the light\nof God to-day is holier than the mistakes about Him made by those who\nwalked in darkness.\n\nNow let me suggest to you. Every one of these creeds sprang out of a\ntheory of the universe that nobody any longer holds. They are Ptolemaic\nin their origin, not Copernican. They sprang out of a time when it was\nbelieved that this was a little tiny world, and God was outside of it,\ngoverning it by the arbitrary imposition of his law. Every one of these\ncreeds is fitted to that theory of things; and that theory of things\nhas passed away absolutely and forever.\n\nConsider for just a moment. Why should we pay such extravagant\ndeference to the opinions of men who lived in the dark ages, of the old\nChurch Fathers, of Athanasius, of Arius, of Justin Martyr, of Origen,\nof Tertullian? Why, friends, just think for a moment. There was hardly\na single point connected with this world that they knew anything about.\nHow did it happen that the whole modern world should get on its knees\nin their presence, as though they knew everything about the Infinite,\nwhen they knew next to nothing about the finite? Is there any proof\nthat they knew anything about it? Not one single particle.\n\nThink for a minute. We know to-day unspeakably more about the origin of\nthe Bible, how it grew, how it came into its present shape, than any\nman from the first century until a hundred years ago could by any\npossibility know. We know a good deal more than Paul, though he was one\nof the writers, unspeakably more. He had no means of knowing. We have\nsifted every particle of evidence, every source of knowledge that the\nworld has to show. We know unspeakably more about this universe than\nany man of the olden time had any way of knowing. He had no way of\nknowing anything.\n\nI said something recently about the origin and nature of man. Very\nlittle was known about this until within the present century. We know\nsomething about how religions grow. We have traced them, studied them,\nnot only Christianity and Judaism, but all the religions of the world\nback to their origin, and seen them coming into shape. We can judge\nsomething about them to-day. You want the antiquity of the world?\nPeople are bowing in the presence of what they suppose to be the\nantiquity, that is, the hoary-headed wisdom, of the world. Why,\nfriends, as you go back, you are not going back to the old age of the\nworld: you are going back to its childhood. The world was never so old\nas it is this morning. Humanity was never so old, never had such\naccumulated experience, such accumulated knowledge, as it has this\nmorning.\n\nIf you want the results of the world's hoary-headed antiquity, its\nwisdom, its accumulated experience, its knowledge, then get the very\nlatest results of the very finest modern investigations; for that is\nwhere you will find them.\n\nThen let us note in just a word some other reasons why we cannot hold\nthese old creeds. The statements that are made about God are horrible.\nThe statements that are made in regard to the method by which God is\ngoing to deal with his creatures are horrible; and then what they tell\nus in regard to the outcome of human history is pessimistic and\nhopeless in the extreme.\n\nWhere do they claim to get the authority for these old beliefs? They\ntell us they find them on the one hand in the Bible. What do you find\nin the Bible? You find almost anything you look for. Is it not\nperfectly natural you should? The Bible was written by ever so many\ndifferent writers during a period covering nearly a thousand years.\nWould you expect to find the same ideas throughout it? The book of\nEcclesiastes teaches that man dies like a dog. The Bible upholds\npolygamy, slavery, cruelty of almost every kind. You might prove almost\nany kind of immorality from the Bible if you wished to.\n\nBut take the highest and noblest conception of the Bible you can have.\nI was talking with an eminent and widely known clergyman of the\nPresbyterian Church during the present year; and we were speaking about\nthe Bible. I tell you this to show how modern ideas are permeating the\nthoughts of men. He said: I confess that, if God had ever given the\nworld an infallible book, I should be utterly appalled and\ndisheartened; because it is perfectly clear that we have no such book\nnow. And, if God ever gave us such a book, then he has lost control of\nhis universe, and was not able to keep us in possession of it.\n\nHere are Quakers and Methodists proving their beliefs, the Baptists\nproving theirs, the Episcopalians proving theirs, the Presbyterians\ntheirs, all of them different in some particular, and each of them\ngetting their proof from the Bible.\n\nLet us remember that the Bible is simply a great body of national\nliterature, and that you can prove anything out of it. Then remember\nthat it has been proved over and over again by the facts of the\nhandwriting of God himself to be mistaken and wrong in any number of\ndirections.\n\nGod is writing his own book in the heavens, in the earth, in the human\nheart; and we are reading the story there. No creed, then, particularly\nif it be infamous and unjust and horrible, can prove itself to us so\nthat we are bound to accept it to-day on the basis of an appeal to any\nbook. But the Catholic Church claims not only that the book is\ninfallible, but that their church tradition is infallible too. Is it?\nHow can a church prove that its declarations are infallible? Is there\nany way of proving it? Think for a moment. It can make the claim: the\nonly conceivable way of proving it is by never making a mistake. Try\nthe Catholic Church by that test. It has committed itself over and over\nand over again to things which have been demonstrated beyond question\nto be mistakes. It has made grave mistakes, not only as to fact, but as\nto morals as well.\n\nOn what, then, shall we base any one of these \"infallible\" creeds?\nThere is no basis for any such claim; and thank God there is not. For\nnow we are free to study, here, there, everywhere; to read God's word\nin the stars; to read it in the rocks; to read it in the remains of\nold-time civilizations; to read it in the development of education, the\narts, science; to read it in the light of the love we have for each\nother, the love for our children, and the growing philanthropy and\nwidening benevolence of mankind.\n\nWe have thus perfect freedom to listen when God speaks, to see when he\nholds a leaf of his ever-growing book for our inspection, and to\nbelieve concerning him the grandest and noblest and finest things that\nthe mind can dream or the heart can love.\n\nWHY HAVE UNITARIANS NO CREED?\n\nFOR a Scripture suggestion touching the principle involved in my\nsubject, I refer you to the words found in the fifth chapter of the\nGospel according to Matthew, the forty-third and the forty-fourth\nverses, \"Ye have heard that it hath been said; but I say unto you.\" I\ntake these phrases simply as containing the principle to which I wish\nto call your earnest attention at the outset.\n\nJesus here recognizes the fact that the religious beliefs of one age\nare not necessarily adequate to a succeeding age. So he says over and\nover in this chapter, Ye have heard that it hath been said by the\nfathers, by the teachers, the religious leaders in old times, so and\nso: but I say unto you something else, something in advance, something\nbeyond.\n\nIf any one chooses to say that Jesus was infallible, inspired, and\ntherefore had a right to modify the teachings of the fathers, still\nthis does not change the principle at all. In any case he recognized\nthe fact that the beliefs of the old time might not be sufficient to\nthe new time.\n\nAnd, even if any one should take the position that Jesus was the second\nperson in the Trinity, that he was the one who revealed the old-time\ntruth, and also revealed the new, still the principle is not changed:\nit is conceded, whatever way we look at it. For, even if he were God,\nhe is represented as giving the people in the time of Moses, the time\nof David, certain precepts, certain things to believe, certain things\nto do, and then, recognizing at a later time that they were not\nadequate, changing those precepts, and giving them something larger,\nbroader, deeper, to accept and to practise.\n\nBecause this principle is here involved, I have taken these words as my\nScripture point of departure.\n\nNow to come to the question as to why Unitarians have no creed. Of\ncourse, the answer, though it sounds like an Hibernicism, is to say\nthat they do have a creed. Not a creed in the sense in which some of\nthe older churches use the word. If by creed you mean a written or\npublished statement of belief, one that is supposed to be fixed and\nfinal, one that is a test of religious fellowship, which is placed at\nthe door of the church so that no one not accepting it is able to\nenter, why, then, we have no creed. But, in the broader sense of the\nword, it means belief; and Unitarians believe quite as much, and, in my\njudgment, things far nobler and grander, than those which have been\nbelieved in the past.\n\nWe are ready, if any one wishes it, to write out our creed. We are\nperfectly willing that it should be printed. We can put it into twelve\nclauses, like the Apostles' Creed; we can make thirty-nine clauses or\narticles, like the Creed of the Anglican Church; we can arrange it any\nway that is satisfactory to the questioner. Only we will not promise to\nbelieve all of it to-morrow; we will not say that we will never learn\nanything new; we will not make it a test of fellowship; we will admit\nnot only to our meeting-house, but to our church organization, if they\nwish to come, people who do not believe all the articles of the creed\nthat we shall write. Perhaps we will admit people who do not believe\nany of it; for our conception of a church is not the old conception.\n\nWhat was that? That it was a sort of ark in which the saved were taken,\nto be carried over the stormy sea of this life and into the haven of\neternal felicity beyond. As opposed to that, our conception of the\nchurch is that it is a school, it is a place where souls are to be\ntrained, to be educated; and so we would as soon refuse to admit an\nignorant pupil to a school as to refuse to admit a person on account of\nhis belief to our church. We welcome all who wish to come and learn;\nand if, after they have studied with us for a year, they do not then\naccept all the points which some of us believe, and hold to be very\nimportant, we do not turn them out even on that account.\n\nUnitarians, then, do have a creed, only it is not fixed, it is not\nfinal, and it is not the condition of religious fellowship.\n\nNow I wish to give you some of the reasons, as they lie in my mind, for\nthe attitude which we hold in regard to this matter.\n\nI do not believe in having a fixed and final statement of belief which\nwe are not at liberty to criticise or question or change. Why? Because\nI love the truth, because I am anxious to find the truth, because I\nwish to be perfectly free to seek for the truth.\n\nOur first reason, then, is for the sake of the truth.\n\nNow let me present this to you under three or four minor heads. The\nuniverse is infinite, God is infinite, truth is infinite. If, then, on\nthe background of the infinite you draw a circle, no matter how large\nit may be, no matter how wide its diameter, do you not see that you\nnecessarily shut out more than you shut in? Do you not see that you\nlimit the range of thought, set bounds to investigation, and that you\npledge yourselves beforehand that the larger part of truth, of God, of\nthe universe, you will never study, you will never investigate?\n\nThere is another point bearing on this matter. If a man pledges himself\nto accept and abide by a fixed and final creed, he does it either for a\nreason or without a reason. If he does it without a reason, then there\nis, of course, no reason why we should follow his example. If he has a\nreason, then two things: either that reason is adequate, sound,\nconclusive, or it is not. If it is not adequate, then we ought to study\nand criticise and find that out, and be free to discover some reason\nthat is adequate. If the reason for his holding the creed is an\nadequate one, then, certainly, no harm can be done by investigation of\nit, by asking questions.\n\nIf the men who hold these old creeds and defend them can give in the\ncourt of reason a perfectly good account of themselves, if they can\nbring satisfactory credentials, then all our questioning, all our\ncriticism, all our investigation, cannot possibly do the creeds any\nharm. It will only mean that we shall end by being convinced ourselves,\nand shall accept the creeds freely and rationally.\n\nIt has always seemed to me a very strange attitude of mind for a man to\nfeel perfectly convinced that a certain position is sound and true, and\nto be angry when anybody asks a question about it. If there are good\nreasons for holding it, instead of calling names, why not show us the\nreasons? He who is afraid to have his opinions questioned, he who is\nangry when you ask him for evidence, to give a reason for the position\nthat he holds, shows that he is not at all certain of it. He admits by\nimplication that it is weak. He shows an attitude of infidelity instead\nof an attitude of faith, of trust.\n\nThere is no position which I hold to-day that I consider so sacred that\npeople are not at liberty to ask any questions about it they please;\nand, if they do not see a good reason for accepting it, I am certainly\nnot going to be angry with them for declining to accept. The attitude\nof truth is that of welcome to all inquiry. It rejoices in daylight, it\ndoes not care to be protected from investigation.\n\nThen there is another reason still, another point to be made in regard\nto this matter. People are not very likely to find the truth if they\nare frightened, if they are warned off, if they are told that this or\nthat or another thing is too sacred to be investigated. I have known\npeople over and over again in my past experience who long wished they\nmight be free to accept some grander, nobler, more helpful view of\ntruth, and yet have been trained and taught so long that it was wicked\nto doubt, that it was wicked to ask questions, that they did not dare\nto open their minds freely to the incoming of any grander hope.\n\nIf you tell people that they may study just as widely as they please,\nbut, when they get through, they must come back and settle down within\nthe limits of certain pre-determined opinions, what is the use of their\nwider excursion? And, if you tell them that, unless they accept these\nfinal conclusions, God is going to be angry with them, they are going\nto injure their own immortal souls, they are threatening the welfare of\nthe people on every hand whom they influence, how can you expect them\nto study and come to conclusions which are entitled to the respect of\nthoughtful people?\n\nI venture the truth of the statement that, if you should inquire over\nthis country to-day, you would find that the large majority of people\nwho have been trained in the old faith are in an attitude of fear\ntowards modern thought. Thousands of them would come to us to-day if\nthey were not kept back by this inherited and ingrained fear as to the\ndanger of asking questions.\n\nDo I not remember my own experience of three years' agonizing battle\nover the great problems that were involved in these questions, afraid\nthat I was being tempted of the devil, afraid that I was risking the\nsalvation of my soul, afraid that I might be endangering other people\nwhom I might influence, never free to study the Bible, to study\nreligious questions as I would study any other matter on the face of\nthe earth on account of being haunted by this terrible dread?\n\nAnd, then, there is one other point. I must touch on these very\nbriefly. The acceptance of these creeds on the part of those who do\nhold to them does not, after all, prevent the growth of modern thought.\nIt does hinder it, so far as they are concerned; but the point I wish\nto make is this, that these creeds do not answer the purpose for which\nthey were constructed. They are supposed to be fixed and final\nstatements of divine truth, which are not to be questioned and not to\nbe changed.\n\nDr. Richard S. Storrs, of Brooklyn, the famous Congregational minister,\nsaid a few years ago that the idea of progress in theology was absurd,\nbecause the truth had once for all been given to the saints in the\npast, and there was no possibility of progress, because progress\nimplied change. And yet, in spite of the effort that has been made to\nkeep the faith of the world as it was in the past, the change is\ncoming, the change does come every day; and it puts the people who are\ntrying to prevent the change coming in an attitude of what shall I say\nI do not wish to make a charge against my brethren, it puts them in a\nvery curious attitude indeed towards the truth. They must not accept a\nnew idea if it conflicts with the old creed, however much they may be\nconvinced it is true. If they do accept it, then what? They must either\nleave the Church or they must keep still about it, and remain in an\nattitude of appearing to believe what they really do not believe. Or\nelse they must do violence to the creed, reinterpreting it in such a\nway as to make it to them what the framers of it had never dreamed of.\n\nDo you not see the danger that there is here of a person's disingenuous\nattitude towards the truth, danger to the moral fibre, danger to the\nprogress of man? Take as a hint of it the way the Bible has been\ntreated. People have said that the Bible was absolutely infallible:\nthey have taken that as a foregone conclusion; and then, when they\nfound out beyond question that the world was not created in six days,\nwhat have they done? Frankly accepted the truth? No, they have tried to\ntwist the Bible into meaning something different from what it plainly\nsays. It expressly says days, bounded by morning and evening; but no,\nit must mean long periods of time. Why? Because science and the Bible\nmust somehow be reconciled, no matter if the Bible is wrenched and\ntwisted from its real meaning.\n\nAnd so with regard to the creeds. The creeds say that Christ descended\ninto hell; that is, the underworld. People come to know that there is\nno underworld; and, instead of frankly admitting that that statement in\nthe creed is not correct, they must torture it out of its meaning, and\nmake it stand for something that the framers of it had never heard of.\nI think it would greatly astonish the writers of the Bible and the\nChurch Fathers if they could wake up to-day, and find out that they\nmeant something when they wrote those things which had never occurred\nto them at the time.\n\nIs this quite honest? Is it wise for us to put ourselves in this\nattitude?\n\nI wish to speak a little further in this matter as to not preventing\nthe coming in of modern thought, and to take one illustration. Look at\nAndover Seminary to-day. The Andover Creed was arranged for the express\npurpose of keeping fixed and unchangeable the belief of the Church..\nIts founders declared that to be their purpose. They were going to\nestablish the statement of belief, so that it should not be open to\nthis modern criticism, which had resulted in the birth of Unitarianism\nin New England; and, in order to make perfectly certain of it, they\nsaid that the professors who came there to teach the creed must not\nonly be sound when they were settled, but they must be re-examined\nevery five years. This was to prevent their changing their minds during\nthe five years and remaining on there, teaching some false doctrine\nwhile the overseers and managers were not aware of it. So every five\nyears the professors and teachers of Andover have to reaffirm solemnly\ntheir belief in the old creed.\n\nIt is not for me to make charges against them; but it is for me to make\nthe statement that so suspicious have the overseers and managers come\nto be of some of the professors in the seminary that they have been\ntried more than once for heresy; and everybody knows that the leading\nprofessors there to-day do not believe the creed in the sense in which\nit was framed.\n\nAnd, to illustrate how this is looked upon by some of the students, let\nme tell you this. My brother was a graduate of Andover; and not long\nago he said to me that when the time came around for the professors to\nreaffirm their allegiance to the creed, one of the other students came\ninto his room one day, and said, \"Savage, let's go up and see the\nprofessors perjure themselves.\"\n\nThis was the attitude of mind of one of the students. This is the way\nhe looked at it. I am not responsible for his opinion; but is it quite\nwise, is it best for the truth, is it for the interests of religion, to\nhave theological students in this state of mind towards their\nprofessor?\n\nModern thought does come into the minds of men: they cannot escape it.\nWhat does it mean? It means simply a new, higher, grander revelation of\nGod. Is it wise for us to put ourselves into such a position that it\nshall seem criminal and evil for us to accept it? If we pledge\nourselves not to learn the things we can know, then we stunt ourselves\nintellectually. If, after we have pledged ourselves, we accept these\nthings and remain as we are, I leave somebody else to characterize such\naction, action which, in my judgment, and so far as my observation\ngoes, is not at all uncommon.\n\nWe then propose to hold ourselves free so far as a fixed and final\ncreed is concerned, because we wish to be able to study, to find and\naccept the truth. There is another reason. For the sake of God, because\nwe wish to find and come into sympathy with him, and love him and serve\nhim, we refuse to be bound by the thoughts of the past.\n\nWhat do we mean by coming into a knowledge of God? Let me illustrate a\nmoment by the relation which we may sustain to another man. You do not\nnecessarily come close to a man because you touch his elbow on the\nstreet. The people who lived in Shakspere's London might not have been\nso near to Shakspere as is Mr. Furness, the great Shakspere critic to-\nday, or Mr. Rolfe, of Cambridge.\n\nPhysical proximity does not bring us close to a person. We may be near\nto a friend who is half-way round the world: there may be sympathetic\nheart-beats that shall make us conscious of his presence night and day.\nWe may be close alongside of a person, but alienated from him,\nmisunderstanding him, and really farther away from him than the\ndiameter of the solar system. If, then, we wish to get near to God, and\nto know him, we must become like him. There must be love, tenderness,\nunselfishness. We must have the divine characteristics and qualities;\nand then we shall feel his presence, know and be near him.\n\nPeople may find God, and still have very wrong theories about him; just\nas a farmer may raise a good crop without understanding much about\ntheories of sunshine or of soil. But the man who does understand about\nthem will be more likely to raise a good crop, because he goes about it\nintelligently; while the other simply blunders into it. So, if we have\nright thoughts about God, it is easier for us to get into sympathy with\nhim. If we think about him as noble and sweet and grand and true and\nloving, we shall be more likely to respond to these qualities that call\nout the best and the finest feelings in ourselves.\n\nI do not say that it is absolutely necessary to have correct theories\nof God. There have been good men in all ages, there have been noble\nwomen in all ages, in all religions, in all the different sects of\nChristendom. There are lovely characters among the agnostics. I have\nknown sweet and true and fine people who thought themselves atheists. A\nman may be grand in spite of his theological opinions one way or the\nother. He may have a horrible picture of God set forth in his creed,\nand carry a loving and tender one in his heart. So he may be better\nthan the God of his creed. All this is true; but, if we have, I say,\nright thoughts about him, high and fine ideals, we are more likely to\ncome into close touch and sympathy with him.\n\nAnd, then, and here is a point I wish to emphasize and make perfectly\nclear, this arbitrary assumption of infallibility cultivates qualities\nand characteristics which are un and anti-divine.\n\nLet us see what Jesus had to say about this. The people of his time who\nrepresented more than any others this infallibility idea were the\nPharisees. They felt perfectly sure that they were right. They felt\nperfectly certain that they were the chosen favorites of God. There was\non their part, then, growing out of this conception of the\ninfallibility of their position, the conceit of being the chosen and\nspecial favorites of the Almighty. They looked with contempt, not only\nupon the Gentiles, who were outside of the peculiarly chosen people,\nbut upon the publicans, upon all of their own nation who were not\nPharisees, and who were not scrupulously exact concerning the things\nwhich they held to be so important.\n\nWhat did Jesus think and say about them? You remember the parable of\nthe Pharisee and the publican. Jesus said that this poor sinning\npublican, who smote upon his breast, and said, \"God be merciful to me a\nsinner,\" was the one that God looked upon with favor, not the Pharisee,\nwho thanked God that he was not as the other people were. And, if there\nis any class in the New Testament that Jesus scathes and withers with\nthe hot lightning of his scorn and his wrath, it is these infallible\npeople, who are perfectly right in their ideas, and who look with\ncontempt upon people who are outside of the pale of their own inherited\ninfallible creeds and opinions.\n\nWe believe, then, that the people who are free to study the splendors\nof God in the universe, in human history, in human life, and free to\naccept all new and higher and finer ideas, are more likely to find God,\nand come into sympathetic and tender relations with him, than those who\nare bound to opinions by the supposed fixed and revealed truths of the\npast.\n\nWe reject, then, these old-time creeds for another reason, for the sake\nof man. A long vista of thought and illustration stretches out before\nme as I pronounce these words; but I can only touch upon a point here\nor there.\n\nOne of the most disastrous things that have happened in the history of\nthe past and it has happened over and over again is this blocking and\nhindering of human advance, until by and by the tide, the growing\ncurrent, becomes too strong to be held back any more; and it has swept\naway all barriers and devastated society, politically, socially,\nreligiously, morally, and in every other way.\n\nAnd why? Simply because the natural flow of human thought, the natural\ngrowth of human opinion, has been hindered artificially by the\nassumption of an infallibility on the part of those who have tried to\nkeep the world from growth.\n\nSuppose you teach men that certain theological opinions are identical\nwith religion, until they believe it. The time comes when they cannot\nhold those opinions any more, and they break away; and they give up\nreligion, and perhaps the sanctities of life, which they are accustomed\nto associate with religion.\n\nTake the time of the French Revolution. People went mad. They were\nopposed not only to the State: they were opposed to the Church. They\ntried to abolish God, they tried to abolish the Ten Commandments; they\ntried to abolish everything that had been so long established and\nassociated with the old regime.\n\nWere the people really enemies of God? Were they enemies of religion?\nWere they enemies of truth? No: it was a caricature of God that they\nwere fighting, it was a caricature of religion that they were opposed\nto. When Voltaire declared that the Church was infamous, it was not\nreligion that he wished to overthrow: it was this tyranny that had been\nassociated with the dominance of the Church for so many ages.\n\nThis is the result in one direction of attempting to hold back the\nnatural growth and progress of the world. If you read the history of\nthe Church for the last fifteen hundred years until within a century or\ntwo, and by the Church I mean that organization that has claimed to\nspeak infallibly for God, you will find that it has been associated\nwith almost everything that has hindered the growth of the world. I\ncannot go into details to illustrate it. It has interfered with the\nworld's education. There is only one nation in Europe to-day where\neducation has not been wrenched out of the hands of the priesthood in\nthe interests of man, and that even by Catholics themselves; and that\ncountry is Spain. It pronounced its ban on the study of the universe\nunder the name of science. It made it a sin for Galileo to discover the\nmoons of Jupiter. And Catholic and Protestant infallibility alike\ndenounced Newton, one of the noblest men and the grandest scientists\nthat the world has ever seen, because in proclaiming the law of\ngravity, they said, he was taking the universe out of the hands of God\nand establishing practical atheism.\n\nSo almost everything that has made the education, the political, the\nindustrial, the social growth of the world, this infallibility idea has\nstood square in the way of, and done its best to hinder. Take, for\nexample, an illustration. When chloroform was discovered, the Church in\nScotland opposed its use in cases of childbirth, because it said it was\na wicked interference with the judgment God pronounced on Eve after the\nfall.\n\nSo, in almost every direction, whatever has been for the benefit of the\nworld has been opposed in the interests of old-time ideas, until the\nwhole thing culminated at last in this: Here is this nineteenth century\nof ours, which has done more for the advancement of man than the\npreceding fifteen centuries all put together. Political liberty,\nreligious liberty, universal education, the enfranchisement and\nelevation of women, the abolition of slavery, temperance, almost\neverything has been achieved, until the world, the face of it, has been\ntransformed. And yet Pope Pius IX., in an encyclical which he issued a\nlittle while before his death, pronounced, ex-cathedra and infallibly,\nthe opinion that this whole modern society was godless. And yet, as I\nsaid, this godless modern world has done more for man and for the glory\nof God than the fifteen hundred years of church dominance that preceded\nit.\n\nFor the sake of man, then, that intellectually, politically, socially,\nindustrially, every other way, he may be free to grow, to expand, to\nadopt all the new ideas that promise higher help, hope, and freedom,\nfor the sake of man, we refuse to be bound by the inherited and fixed\nopinions of the past.\n\nNow two or three points I wish to speak of briefly, as I near the\nclose.\n\nWe are charged sometimes, because we have no creed, with having no bond\nof union whatever. As I said a few Sundays ago, they say that we are\nall at loose ends because we are not fixed and bound by a definite\ncreed.\n\nWhat is God's method of keeping a system like this solar one of ours\ntogether? Does he fence it in? Does he exert any pressure from outside?\nOr does he rather place at the centre a luminous and attractive body,\ncapable of holding all the swinging and singing members of the system\nin their orbits, as they play around this great source of life and of\nlight? God's method is the method of illumination and attraction. That\nis the method which we have adopted. Instead of fencing men in and\ntelling them to climb over that fence at their peril, we have placed a\ngreat, luminous, attractive truth at the centre, the pursuit of truth,\nthe love of truth, the search for God, the desire to benefit and help\non mankind. And we trust to the power of these great central truths to\nattract and keep in their orbits all the free activities of the\nthousands of minds and hearts that make up our organization.\n\nThen there is one more point. Suppose we wanted an infallible creed;\nsuppose it was ever so important; suppose the experience of the world\nhad proved that it was very desirable indeed that we should have one.\nWhat are we going to do about it? I suppose that men in other\ndepartments of life than the ecclesiastical would like an infallible\nguide. Men engaged in business would like an infallible handbook that\nwould point them the way to success. The gold hunters would like an\ninfallible guide to the richest ores. Navigators on the sea would like\ninfallible methods of manning and sailing their ships. The farmer would\nlike to know that he was following an infallible method to success. It\nwould be very desirable in many respects; it would save us no end of\ntrouble.\n\nBut it is admitted that in these other departments of life, whether we\nwant infallible guides or not, we do not have them. And I think, if you\nwill look at the matter a little deeply and carefully, you will become\npersuaded that it would not be the best for us if we could. Men not\nonly wish to gain certain ends, but, if they are wise, they wish more\nthan that, to cultivate and develop and unfold themselves, which they\ncan only do by study, by mistakes, by correcting mistakes, by finding\nout through experience what is true and what is false. In this process\nof study and experience they find themselves, something infinitely more\nimportant than any external fact or success which they may discover or\nachieve.\n\nSo I believe that a similar thing is true in the religious life. It\nmight be a great saving of trouble if we were sure we had an infallible\nguide. I am inclined to think that a great many persons who go into the\nRoman Catholic Church, in this modern time, go there because they are\ntired of thinking, and wish to shift the responsibility of it on to\nsome one else.\n\nIt is tiresome, it is hard work. Sometimes we would like to escape it:\nwe would like infallible guides. But I have studied the world with all\nthe care that I could; and I have never been able to find the materials\nout of which I could construct an infallible guide, if I wanted it ever\nso much.\n\nWhether it is important or not to have infallible teaching in the\ntheological realm, there is no such thing as infallibility that is\naccessible to us; and I, for one, do not believe that it would be best\nfor us if there were. God is treating us more wisely and kindly than,\nif we were able, we would treat ourselves; because it is not the\ndiscovery of this or that particular fact or truth that is so important\nas is the development of our own intellectual and moral and spiritual\nnatures in the search for truth.\n\nLessing said a very wise thing when he declared that, if God should\noffer him the perfect truth in one hand and the privilege of seeking\nfor it in the other, he should accept the privilege of search as the\nnobler and more valuable gift, because, in this seeking, we develop\nourselves, we cultivate the Divine, and work our natures over into the\nlikeness of God.\n\nAnd now at the end I wish simply to say that God has given us the\nbetter thing in letting us freely and earnestly and simply investigate\nand look after the truth, cultivating ourselves in the process, and\nbeing wrought over ever more and more into the likeness of the divine.\n\nAnd I wish also to say, for the comfort of those who may think that\nthis lack of infallible guides is a serious matter, it may astonish you\nto have me say it, that there is not a single matter of any practical\nimportance in our moral and religious life concerning which there is\nany doubt whatsoever. If anybody tells you that he is not living a\nreligious life or not living a moral life, for the lack of light and\nguidance, do not believe him.\n\nWhat are the things that are in question? What are the things of which\nwe are sure? Take, for example, the matter of Biblical criticism, as to\nwho wrote the book of Chronicles, as to whether Deuteronomy was written\nby Moses or compiled in the time of King Josiah. Are there any great\nspiritual problems waiting for those questions to be settled? Do you\nneed to have that matter made clear before you know whether you ought\nto be an honest man in your business, whether you ought to judge\ncharitably of a friend who has gone astray, whether you ought to be\nhelpful towards your neighbors, whether you ought to be kind to your\nwife, and whether you ought to lovingly train and cultivate your\nchildren?\n\nTake another of the great questions, as to the authorship of the Gospel\nof John. I shall be immensely interested in the settlement of that if\nthe time ever comes when it is settled; but it would be a purely\ncritical interest that I should have. I am not going to wait until that\nis settled before I lead a religious life. I am not going to let that\nstand in the way of my helping on the progress of the world.\n\nI tell you, friends, that these matters that are in doubt, that need an\ninfallibility to settle them, are not the practical matters at all. We\nlook off into the vast universe around us, and question about God. Is\nhe personal? Can we have the old ideas about him? One thing is settled:\nwe know we are the product of and in the presence of an Eternal Order,\nand that knowing and keeping the laws of the universe mean life and\nhappiness, but the opposite means death. That is the practical part of\nit.\n\nWe know that the Power that is in this universe is making gradually\nthrough the ages for righteousness; and we know that the righteous and\nhelpful life is the only manly life for us to lead, for our own sake,\nfor the sake of those we can touch and influence.\n\nAre we going to wait for criticism to settle metaphysical problems\nbefore we do anything about these great practical matters?\n\nWhatever your theory about Jesus may be, you can at least be like him,\nand wait; and, when you see him, you will love him, and know the truth\nabout him, if you cannot before.\n\nMatthew Arnold, an agnostic, has put into two or three lines, which I\nwish to read now at the end, what might well be the creed of the person\nwho doubts so much that he thinks nothing is settled. If you cannot say\nany more than this, here is all that is absolutely necessary to the\nvery noblest life:\n\n\"Hath man no second life? Pitch this one high. Sits there no Judge in\nheaven our sin to see? More strictly, then, the inward judge obey. Was\nChrist a man like us? Ah I let us try If we, then, too, can be such men\nas he.\"\n\nTHE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRESENT RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION.\n\nSCIENCE tells us that the law of growth is embodied in the phrase, \"the\nstruggle for life and the survival of the fittest.\" As we look beneath\nthe surface in any department of human endeavor, analyze things a\nlittle carefully, we discover that this contest is going on. We know\nthat it is not confined to the lower forms of life or the order of the\ninanimate world. It is a universal law. We are not always conscious of\nit; but, when we do think and study, we discover it as an unescapable\nfact.\n\nIn the religious world, for example, between the different thoughts and\ntheories which are held among men as solutions of the problems of life\nwe find this contest going on. Here, again, it is not always noticed;\nbut in the mind of any man who thinks, who reads, who reflects, this\nprocess is apparent. This view is considered, another view mentioned by\nsomebody else is set over against it, and the claims of the two\ntheories are brought up for judgment. And so there goes on perpetually\nthis debate. Now and again it comes to the surface, and attracts\npopular attention. We have been in the midst of an experience of this\nkind for the last two or three weeks here in New York City.\n\nBut the thing I want you to note is -- and that is the great lesson I\nhave in mind this morning that all of this superficial discussion of\none point or another is only an indication of a larger, deeper contest.\nWhen, for example, men are debating as to the infallibility or\ninerrancy of the Old Testament, as to the story of the creation as told\nin Genesis, as to the nature and work of Jesus, as to the future\ndestiny of the race, when they are discussing any one of these\nparticular problems, they are dealing with matters that are really\nsuperficial. Underneath these there is a larger problem; and to this\nproblem and its probable issues I wish to call your attention this\nmorning.\n\nThere are two great world theories, complete each in itself, both of\nthem thinkable, mutually exclusive, one of which only can be true, and\none of which must finally become dominant in the educated and free\nthought of the world. These two theories I wish to place face to face\nbefore you this morning, call your attention to some of their special\nfeatures and note the claims they have on our acceptance.\n\nBefore doing this, however, I wish you to note that there are\nindications of a dual tendency on the part of the human mind which has\nnot been manifested in the development of these two theories alone, but\nwhich has had illustrations in other directions and in other times.\n\nIn the early traditions of Greece and Rome you find two tendencies on\nthe part of the mind of man. There was, first, an old-time tradition\nwhich placed the Golden Age of humanity away back in the past. The\npeople dreamed of a time when Saturn, the father of gods and men, lived\non the earth, and governed directly his children and his people. In\nthat happy time there was no disease, no pain, no poverty. There were\nno class distinctions. There were no wars. The evil of the world was\nunknown. That was the Golden Age which a certain set of thinkers then\nplaced far back in the past. They told how that age was succeeded by a\nbronze age, a poorer condition of affairs, how the gods left the earth,\nand ill contentions and evils of every kind began to afflict the world.\nThis was succeeded by the age of brass, that by the age of iron; and so\nthe poor old world was supposed to be getting worse and worse, lower\nand lower, from one epoch of time to another.\n\nBut also among these same people there were another set of traditions,\nillustrated sufficiently for our purpose by the story of Prometheus.\nAccording to this the first age of humanity was its worst and poorest\nand lowest age. The people lived in abject poverty and misery. They\nwere even neglected on the part of the gods, who did not seem to care\nfor them, but treated them with contempt. Prometheus is represented as\npitying their evil estate, caring more for them than the gods did; and\nso he steals the celestial fire, and comes down to the world and\npresents it to men, and so helps them to begin civilization, a period\nof prosperity and progress. For this he is punished by the gods.\n\nThe point I wish you to note is that even among the Greeks and the\nRomans there were two types of mind, one of which placed the Golden Age\nin the past, and the other of which placed it in the future as the goal\nof man's endeavor and growth.\n\nA precisely similar thing we find in the Old Testament, so that these\ntwo types of mind appear among the Hebrews. In one of these we find\nagain the Golden Age, the perfect condition of things, placed at the\nbeginning. There was a garden, and man and woman were perfect in it.\nThere was no labor, no toil, no pain, no sorrow, no fear, no trouble of\nany kind. But that was followed by sin, evil, entering the world, by\ntheir being driven out; and so the world has again been going from bad\nto worse, as the ages have passed by.\n\nOn the other hand, among the Hebrews, as illustrated in the writings of\nthe great prophets, the master minds of the Hebrew race, there is the\nopposite belief manifested. There is no fall of man, no perfect\ncondition of things, no Golden Age at the beginning, in the prophets.\nThere is none in the teaching of Jesus. Rather do they look forward\nwith kindling eye and beating heart to some grander thing that is to\nbe.\n\nHere is this dual tradition, then, in the world, in different parts of\nthe world, this dual way of looking at the problem of life.\n\nNow I wish to place before you the two great contrasted theories of the\nuniverse. In presenting that which has been dominant for the last two\nor three thousand years, two thousand, perhaps, speaking roughly, I am\nquite well aware that I shall have to seem to tell you what you\nperfectly well know, what I have said on other occasions; but it is\nnecessary for me to run over it, and I will do so as briefly as I can,\nsetting it before you in outline as a whole, so that you may see it in\ncontrast with the other theory which I shall then endeavor to set forth\nalso as a whole.\n\nAccording to that theory of the world, then, which lies at the\nfoundation, the old-time and still generally accepted theory of\nChristendom, the world was created in the year 4004 B.C. It was created\nin a week's time. This was the general teaching until thinkers were\ncompelled to accept another theory by the advances of modern\ninvestigation. The world was created inside of a week. God got through,\npronounced it good, and rested. Then in a short period of time we do\nnot know how long evil entered this world which God had pronounced\nperfect. Satan, a real being, the leader of the hosts of the fallen\nangels, the traditional enemy of God, who had fought him even in his\nown heaven and been cast out, invades this fair earth. He seduces our\nfirst parents, gets them to commit a sin against God which makes them\nhis enemies, turns them into rebels against his just and holy\ngovernment. The world, then, is fallen. Now from that day to this the\none effort on the part of God, according to this theory, has been to\ndeliver the world from this lost condition. Jonathan Edwards, for\nexample, published a book called \"The History of Redemption.\" He\nconceived the entire history of the world under that title, because the\nhistory of the world, according to this theory, has been the history of\nthe effort of God to deliver man from the effects of the fall.\n\nNow let us note the story as it proceeds a little further. The world\nexists for I think I have a date here which may interest you 1,656\nyears, God meantime doing everything he could, by sending angels and\nspecial messengers and teaching the people; and he had accomplished so\nlittle that the world was in such a condition that he was compelled to\ndrown it. So came the flood. After that, he chooses one family, one\nlittle family and the descendants of that family, one little people,\nand bends all his energies to the education and training of that\npeople,-- a small people inhabiting a country on the eastern coast of\nthe Mediterranean Sea just about as large as the State of\nMassachusetts.\n\nFor more than two thousand years he devotes himself to the training of\nthis people. How does he succeed here? He sends his messengers again,\nhis angels, his prophets, one after another. He inspires a certain\nnumber of men to write a book to deliver his will to the people, fallen\ninto such condition that they are incapable of discovering the truth\nfor themselves. But, after all his efforts, they are so far from the\ntruth that, when the second person of the Trinity appears, they have\nnothing to do with him except to put him to death. After that, God\nsends the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, to organize his\nChurch, spread his truth, convert men, bring them into the Church, and\nso fit them to be saved. And, after two thousand years of that kind of\neffort, what is the result? They tell us that not more than a third\npart of the inhabitants of the world have heard anything about it, that\nthe majority of those who have heard about it reject it. Mr. Moody told\nus last year that in this country, which we love to think of as the\nmost favored and highly civilized and intelligent country in the world,\nout of seventy millions of inhabitants, not more than thirty millions\never see the inside of any kind of church. I do not vouch for the\naccuracy of the statistics. I wish to impress upon you the result of\nthis theory of this six thousand years of endeavor on the part of God\nto bring his own children to a knowledge of his own truth. The upshot\nof it is that the few, the minority, will be saved, and the great\nmajority eternally lost.\n\nNow here is one world theory, one scheme of world history which I wish\nyou to hold clearly and as definitely as possible in your minds, while\nI place alongside of it another theory.\n\nAccording to this other, God did not suddenly create the world in a\nweek or in a hundred thousand years. It is a story of continuous and\neternal creation. As Jesus said, with fine and noble insight, \"My\nfather worketh hitherto.\" He did not recognize that God was resting on\nany day or through any period of time.\n\n The world, then, has always been in process of creation. The same\nforces at work in accordance with substantially the same laws. The\nworld has been millions of years in this process; and the process all\naround us, if we choose to open our eyes and note it, is still going on\nwith all its wonder and divinity. And we know, as we study the heavens\nabove us, or around us rather, with our telescopes, that there are\nworlds and systems of worlds in process of creation on every hand. We\nare permitted to look into the divine workshop and observe the divine\nmethod.\n\nThe world, then, is always in process of creation. This is the first\npoint in the new theory. It follows, of course, from this that we are\nto hold the story of the antiquity of the earth, the earth millions of\nyears old, instead of six thousand or ten thousand.\n\nAnd then, in the third place, it tells us the story of the antiquity of\nthe human race.\n\nAll scholars, for example, as bearing on this I will give you just this\none illustration, know that there was a civilization in Egypt, wide-\nspread, highly developed, with nobody knows how many ages of growth\nbehind it, there was this civilization in Egypt before the world was\ncreated according to the popular chronology that has been generally\nreceived until within a few years.\n\nWe know that man has been on the earth hundreds of thousands of years.\nThis is the next point in that story.\n\nIn the next place, they tell us a wondrous tale of the origin and\nnature of man, tracing his natural development from lower forms of\nlife. When I say \"natural,\" I do not wish you to think for one moment\nthat I leave out the divinity; for, according to this story of the\nworld which I am hinting and outlining now, God is infinitely nearer,\nmore wonderfully in contact with us, than he ever was in the old.\nNatural, then, but divine at every step, so that we are seeing God face\nto face, if we but think of it, and are feeling his touch every moment\nof our lives.\n\nNo fall of man, then, on this theory. No invasion of this world by any\nform of evil or any evil person from without. This story of the fall of\nman came into the world undoubtedly to account in some philosophical\nfashion for the existence of pain, of evil, and of death. We account\nfor it on this new theory much more naturally, rationally, more\nhonorably for God, more hopefully for man.\n\nThe history of the world, then, since man began has not been by any\nmeans a history of universal progression. Evolution, however much it\nmay be misunderstood and misrepresented, does not mean the necessity of\nprogress on the part of any one person or any one people, any more, for\nexample, than the growth of the human body is inconsistent with the\nfact that cells and composite parts of the body are in process of decay\nand dissolution every hour, every moment of our lives.\n\nNations grow, advance, if they comply with the laws, the conditions, of\ngrowth and advance; and, if not, they die out and disappear. And so is\nit of individuals. But, on the other hand, in the presence of the\nloving, lifting, leading God, humanity in the larger sense has been\nadvancing from the beginning of human history until to-day; and the\ngrade, dim glimpses of which we gain as we look out toward the future,\nis still up and still on.\n\nAccording to this theory of the universe, there does not need to be any\nstupendous breaking in of God into his own world after any miraculous\nfashion. We do not need an infallible guide in religion any more than\nanywhere else, unless we are in danger of eternal loss because of an\nintellectual mistake. We do not need any stupendous miracle to\nreconcile God to his own world; for he has always been reconciled. We\ndo not need any miraculous bridging of any mythical gulf; for there\nnever has been any gulf. And the outcome, not as we look forward are we\nhaunted by fearful anticipations of darkness and evil; as we listen, we\ndo not ever hear the clanking of chains; as we look, we know that the\ndimness that hangs over the coming time is not caused by \"the smoke of\nthe torment that ascendeth up forever and ever.\" It is a story of\neternal hope for every race, for every child of man and child of God.\n\nHere are these two theories, then, two schemes of the universe and of\nhuman history. Which of them shall we accept?\n\nI wish you to note now, and to note with a little care, that you cannot\nrationally accept a part of one theory and a part of the other, and so\nmake up a patchwork to suit yourselves. Take, for example, the one\nquestion, Is man lost or is he not? He is not half lost or sort of\nlost: he is either lost or he is not lost. Which is true? If he is not\n\"lost,\" then he does not need to be \"saved.\" He may need something\nelse; but he does not need that, for the two correspond and match each\nother. Let us think, then, a little clearly in regard to this matter,\nand remember that the outcome of the conflict between these two\ntheories must be the supremacy of either one or the other.\n\nNow, before I come to any more fundamental and earnest treatment of the\nsubject, let me call your attention to certain things that are\nhappening to the old theory.\n\nHow much of that old theory is intact to-day? How much of it is held\neven by those who, being scholars and thinkers, still hold their\nallegiance to the old-time theology? Let us see. The story of the\nsudden and finite creation of the world is completely gone. Nobody\nholds that now who gives it any attention. They have stretched the six\ndays of the week, even those who hold the accuracy of the Genesis\naccount, into uncounted periods of time. So that is gone. The antiquity\nof man is conceded by everybody who has a right to have and express an\nopinion; that is, by everybody who has given it any study. Every\ncompetent and free scholar knows to-day that the story of the fall of\nman and the whole Eden story, is a Babylonian or a Persian legend that\ncame into the life of the Jews about the time of their captivity, and\nwas not known of till then among them, and did not take hold on the\nleading and highest minds of their own people. And there are, as you\nknow, hundreds, if not thousands of clergymen in all the churches to-\nday who are ready to concede that the story of Eden is poetry or legend\nor tradition: they no longer treat it as serious history. And yet, as I\nhave said a good many times, they go on as though nothing had happened,\nalthough the foundation of their house has been removed. Only theories\nwhich stand in the air can thus defy the law of gravitation.\n\nNobody to-day who has a right to have an opinion believes that God ever\ndrowned the world. That is gone. As to the question as to whether we\nhave an infallible book to guide us in religious matters, there are\nvery few scholars in any church to-day, so far as my investigations\nhave led, who hold any such opinion. That is gone; and the Bible, the\nOld Testament, at any rate is coming to be recognized, not as\ninfallible revelation, but as ancient literature, immensely\ninteresting, full of instruction, but not as an unquestioned guide in\nany department of life.\n\nThere are many among the nominally old churches who are coming to hold\na very different theory concerning Jesus, his life, his death, and the\neffect of his death on the salvation of man. More reasonable ideas are\nprevailing here. In every direction also there are thousands on\nthousands who are becoming freed from that horrible incubus of fear as\nthey look out towards the future.\n\nAs you note then, point after point of this old scheme of the universe\nis disappearing, being superseded by something else; until I am\nastonished, as I converse with friends in the other churches, to find\nhow little of it is really left, how little of it men are ready, out\nand out, to defend. In conversation with an Episcopal clergyman a short\ntime ago on theological questions, we agreed so well that I laughingly\nsaid I saw no reason why I should not become a clergyman in the\nEpiscopal Church.\n\nNow, friends, what I wish you to note is this: that there is not one\nsingle point in this old scheme of the universe that can be reasonably\ndefended to-day. It is passing away from intelligent, cultivated human\nthought.\n\nAnd note another thing: it is a scheme which is a discredit to the\nthought of God. It is unjust. It is dishonorable in its moral and\nreligious implications. It is pessimistic and hopeless in its outlook\nfor the race. It does not explain the problems of human nature and\nhuman experience half as well as the other theory does, even if it\ncould be demonstrated as truth.\n\nNow let us look at the other. The other theory is magnificent in its\nproportions. It is grand in its conception and in its age-long sweep\nand range. It is worthy of the grandest thought of God we can frame;\nand we cannot imagine any increase or heightening or deepening of that\nthought which would reach beyond the limits of this conception of the\nuniverse, magnificent in its thought of God. And, instead of being\npessimistic and hopeless in its outlook for man, it is full of hope, of\nlife, of inspiration, of cheer, something for which we well may break\nout into songs of gladness as we contemplate.\n\nAnd, then, it is true. There is not one single feature of it, or point\nin it, that has not in the main been scientifically demonstrated to be\nGod's truth. I make this statement, and challenge the contradiction of\nthe world. Whatever breaks there may be in the evidence for this second\ntheory that I have outlined, every single scrap and particle of\nevidence that there is in the universe is in its favor; and there is\nnot one single scrap or particle of evidence in favor of the other. As\nI say, I challenge the contradiction of the scholarly world to that\nstatement.\n\nIt is true then. Being true, it is God's truth, God's theory of things,\nthe outline of human history as God has laid it down for us; and, as we\ntrace it, like Kepler, we may say, \"O God, I think over again thy\nthoughts after Thee.\"\n\nNow I wish you to note one or two things concerning this a little\nfurther. There are a great may persons who shrink from accepting new\nideas because they are haunted with the fear that in some way something\nprecious, something sweet, something noble, something inspiring that\nthey have associated with the past, is going to be lost. But think,\nfriends. When the Ptolemaic theory of the universe gave way to the\nCopernican, not only did the Copernican have the advantage of being\ntrue, but not one single star in heaven was put out or even dimmed its\nlight. All of them looked down upon us with an added magnificence and a\nfresher glow, because we felt at last we were standing face to face\nwith the truth of things, and not with a fallible theory of man.\n\nDo not be afraid, then, that any of the sanctities, any of the\ndevoutness, any of the tenderness, any of the sweet sentiments, any of\nthe loves, any of the charities, any of the worships of the past, are\nin danger of being lost. Why, these, friends, are the summed-up result\nof all the world's finest and sweetest achievement up to this hour; and\nour theories are only vessels in which we carry the precious treasure.\n\nI am interested in having you see the truth of this universe, because I\nbelieve you will worship God more devoutly and love man more truly and\nconsecrate yourselves more unreservedly to the highest and noblest\nends, when you can think thoughts of God that kindle aspiration and\nworship, and thoughts of men as children of God that make it grandly\nworth your while to live and die for them.\n\nDo you think there is going to be a poorer religion than there has been\nin the past? I look to the time when we shall have a church as wide as\nthe horizon, domed by the blue, lighted by the sun, the Sun of\nRighteousness, the Eternal Truth of the Father; a church in which all\nmen shall be recognized as brothers, of whatever sect or whatever\nreligion, in which all shall kneel and chant or lisp their worship\naccording as they are able, the worship of the one Father, cheered and\ninspired by the one universal and eternal hope for man.\n\nDo not be afraid of the truth, then, for fear something precious is\ngoing to be lost out of human life. Evolution never gives up anything\nof the past that is worth keeping. It simply carries it on, and moulds\nit into ever higher and finer shapes for the service of man.\n\n I intimated a moment ago? I wish to touch on this briefly for the sake\nof clearness that man, according to this new theory, does not need to\nbe saved, in the theological sense, of course, I mean, because he is\nnot lost. He has never been far away from the Father, never been beyond\nthe reach of his hand, never been beyond the touch of his love and\ncare. What does he need? He needs to be trained, he needs to be\neducated, he needs to be developed for man is just as naturally\nreligious as he is musical or artistic, as he is interested in problems\nof government or economics, or any of the great problems that touch the\nwelfare of the world.\n\nMan needs churches, then, or societies of those interested in the\nhigher life of the time, needs services, needs all these things that\nkindle and train and develop and lift him up out of the animal into the\nspiritual and divine nature which is in every one of us. So that none\nof the worships, none of the religious forms of the world that are of\nany value, are ever going to be cast aside or left behind.\n\nBut there is one very important point that I must deal with for just a\nlittle while. I will be as brief as I can.\n\nI have been very much surprised to note certain things that have come\nout in the recent religious discussions. The editor of the Brooklyn\nEagle, for example, has deprecated all talk in regard to matters of\nthis sort, saying, in effect: What difference does it make? What is\ninvolved that is of any importance? Why not let everybody worship and\nbelieve as he pleases? A writer in the New York Times? I think perhaps\nmore than one, but one specially I have in mind has said substantially\nthe same thing. It does not make any difference. Let people worship as\nthey please, let them believe as they please, let them go their own\nway. What difference does it make?\n\nFriends, it makes no difference at all, provided there is no such thing\nin the world as religious truth. If there is, it makes all difference.\nLet us take this \"Don't care\" and \"No matter\" theory for a moment, and\nin the light of it consider a few of the grandest lives of the world.\n\nIf it makes no difference what a man believes in religion or how he\nworships or what he tries to do, how does it happen that we Unitarians,\nfor example, glorify Theodore Parker, and count him a great moral and\nintellectual hero? Why should he have made himself so unpopular as to\nbe cast out even of the Unitarian fellowship? Was he contending for\nnothing? Was he a fool? was he making himself uncomfortable over\nimaginary distinctions? Perhaps; but, then, why are we foolish enough\nto honor him?\n\nWhy is it that we glorify Channing, who at an earlier period was cast\nout of the best religious society of the world for what he believed to\nbe a great principle? Why is it to-day that we lift John Wesley on such\na lofty pedestal of admiration? He left the Church of England, or was\ncast out of it, went among the poor, preached a great religious reform,\nled a magnificent crusade, teaching a higher and grander spiritual\nreligion, a religion of heart, of life, of character, against the mere\nformalism of the Church of his time. Was he contending about airy\nnothings without local habitation or a name? If so, why are we so\nfoolish as to admire him?\n\nGo back further to Martin Luther, putting himself in danger of his\nlife, standing against banded Europe, and saying, \"Here I stand: God\nhelp me, I can do no otherwise!\" What is the use? What did he do it\nfor? If it made no difference whether a man worshipped God\nintelligently or according to the things Luther thought all wrong, what\nwas the difference? What was he contending about, and why does the\nworld bow down to him with reverence and honor?\n\nWhy are we fools enough to honor the men who were burned at Oxford? Why\ndo we honor to-day the line of saints and martyrs? Why do we look upon\nSavonarola with such admiration?\n\nTo go back still farther, why was it that the early Christians were\nready to suffer torture, to be racked, to be persecuted, to be thrown\ninto kettles of boiling oil, to be cast to the wild beasts in the\narena? Were they contending for nothing at all? If it makes no\ndifference, why were they casting themselves away in this Quixotic and\nfoolish fashion and, if there was nothing involved, how is it that\nthese names shine as stars in the religious firmament of the world's\nworship?\n\nGo to the time of Jesus himself. A young Nazarene, he leaves his home\nin Nazareth, joins the fortunes of John the Baptist. After John the\nBaptist had been fool enough to get his head cut off contending for his\ntheory, Jesus takes up his work, dares to speak against the temple,\ndares to challenge the righteousness of the most righteous men of their\ntime, dares at last to stand so firmly that he is taken out one\nafternoon and hung upon a tree on the hill beyond the walls of the\ncity, the one supreme piece of folly in the history of the world from\nthe \"Does not make any difference\" point of view.\n\nIs there any truth involved? Does it touch the living or the welfare of\nthe world? If not, why, then, are these looked upon as the grandest\nfigures since the world began? Are all men fools for admiring them,\nexcept these wiseacres who stand for the theory that it makes no\ndifference and who ought not to admire them at all?\n\nSuppose you apply the principle in other departments of life. We had a\ntremendous issue in this city and country last fall over the financial\nquestion. Would it have made any difference which side won? If it was\njust as well one way as the other, why not let the people who clamored\nfor silver have silver, those who wanted greenbacks have greenbacks,\nand those who desired gold have gold? What was the use of troubling\nabout it? We thought there were principles involved.\n\nTake it in the economic world, the individualist here with his theory,\nthe socialist here with his; theories outlined like those in Edward\nBellamy's \"Looking Backward\"; a hundred advancers of these different\nschemes, each contending for mastery. And we feel that the welfare of\ncivilization is at stake; and we stand for our great principles. Take\nit in politics. What difference does it make whether the theories\nembodied in the reign of the Czar of Russia prevail, or these here in\nthe United States which we are so foolish as to laud and pride\nourselves so much about? What did we have a Civil War for, wasting\nbillions of money and hundreds of thousands of lives? Are these great\nhuman contests about nothing at all?\n\nFriends, think one moment. Either man is a child of God or he is not.\nMan fell at the beginning of his history, and came under the wrath and\ncurse of God, or he did not. God has sent angels, breaking into his\nnatural order of the world, or he has not. He has created an infallible\nbook or he has not. He has organized an infallible church that has\nauthority to guide and teach the world or he has not. He himself came\ndown to earth in the form of a man once and for all, and was crucified,\ndead and buried and ascended into heaven, or he did not.\n\nThese are questions of historic fact. Does it make no difference what\nwe believe about them? If man is a fallen being, condemned to eternal\ndeath, and God has provided only one way for his escape and salvation,\nthen it makes an infinite and eternal difference as to whether we know\nit or believe it or act on it or not. If the majority of the human race\nis doomed to eternal torture unless it escapes through certain\nprescribed conditions, does it make any difference whether we know it\nor not?\n\nAnd, if he is not so doomed, does it make no difference to the heart\nand hope, the life, the cheer, the courage and inspiration of man,\nwhether or not we lift from the brain and the heart this horrible\nincubus of dread and fear?\n\nHere are all these churches with their wealth, their intelligence,\ntheir enthusiasm, their inspiration, ready to do something for\nhumanity. Does it make any difference whether they are doing the right\nthing for it or not? We could revolutionize the world if we could be\nguided by intelligence, and find out what man really needs, and devote\nourselves to the accomplishment of what that is. The waste, the waste,\nthe waste of money and thought and energy and time and inspiration\npoured into wrong channels, unguided by intelligence, directed towards\nthings that do not need to be done, and away from things that do need\nto be done!\n\nThese are the questions involved in discussions as to what God is and\nhas done and is going to do with his world.\n\nThe one thing we need, then, almost more than all others just now, is\nto be led by the truth, and have the truth make us free from the errors\nand the burdens of the past, so that we may place ourselves truly at\nthe disposal of God for the service of our fellows.\n\nO star of truth down-shining, Through clouds of doubt and fear, I ask\nbut 'neath your guidance My pathway may appear. However long the\njourney, How hard soe'er it be, Though I be lone and weary, Lead on,\nI'll follow thee. I know thy blessed radiance Can never lead astray,\nHowever ancient custom May tread some other way. E'en if through untrod\ndesert Or over trackless sea, Though I be lone and weary, Lead on, I'll\nfollow thee. The bleeding feet of martyr Thy toilsome road have trod;\nBut fires of human passion May lead the way to God. Then, though my feet\nshould falter, While I thy beams can see, Though I be lone and weary,\nLead on, I'll follow thee. Though loving friends forsake me Or plead\nwith me in tears, Though angry foes may threaten To shake my soul with\nfears, Still to my high allegiance I must not faithless be, Through life\nor death, forever Lead on, I'll follow thee.\n\nDOUBT AND FAITH-BOTH HOLY.\n\nTHE object of all thinking is the discovery of truth. And truth for us,\nwhat is that? It is the reality of things as related to us. There has\nbeen a good deal of metaphysical discussion first and last as to what\nthings are \"in themselves.\" It seems to me that this, if it were\npossible to find it out, might be an interesting matter, might satisfy\nour curiosity, but is of absolutely no practical importance to us. I do\nnot believe that we can find out what things are in themselves, in the\nfirst place; and I do not believe that, if we could, it would be of any\nservice to us. What we want to know is what things are as related to\nus, as touching us, as bearing upon our life, upon our practical\naffairs.\n\nOnce more: there has been a good deal of discussion as to whether the\nuniverse is really what it appears to be to us. They tell us that it is\nquite another thing from the point of view of other creatures, to\nbeings differently constituted from ourselves. Again, all this may be.\nIt might be interesting to me, for example, to look at the world from\nthe point of view of the fly or of the bird or some one of the animals;\nbut, again, while it might satisfy my curiosity, it could be of no\npractical importance to me. It might be very interesting to me to know\nhow the universe looks from the point of view of an angel. But, so long\nas I am not an angel, but a man, what I need to know is what the\nuniverse is as related to man.\n\nSo truth, I say, then, is the reality of things as related to us.\n\nI must make another remark here, in order perfectly to clear the way.\nPhilosophers and scientific men, a certain class of them, are\nperpetually warning us of the dangers of being anthropomorphic. Some\none has said, \"Man never knows how anthropomorphic he is.\" This means,\nas you know, that we look at things from the point of view of\nourselves. We see things as men, as anthropoi. This has been erected in\ncertain quarters into a good deal of a bugbear in the way of thinking.\nWe are told we can never know the universe really, because we shape\neverything into our own likeness, we are anthropomorphic, we look at\neverything from the point of view of men.\n\nI grant the charge; but, instead of being frightened by it, I accept it\nwith content. How else should we look at things except from the point\nof view of men, since we are men? We cannot look at them in any other\nway. Let us be, then, anthropomorphic. The only thing we need to guard\nagainst is this: we must not assume that we have exhausted the\nuniverse, and that we know it all. This is the evil of a certain type\nof anthropomorphism. But I cannot understand why it is important for us\nto be anything else but anthropomorphic. I want to know how things look\nto a man, what things are to a man, how things affect a man, how I am\nto deal with things, being a man.\n\nThis is the only matter, let me repeat again, which is of any practical\nimportance to us, until we become something other than men.\n\nTruth, then, the truth that we desire to find, is the reality of things\nas related to us. Now doubt and faith are attitudes of mind, and are\nneither good nor bad in themselves, either of them. They are of value\nonly as they help us in the discovery of this reality about which I\nhave been speaking. If a certain type of doubt stands in our way in\nseeking for truth, then that doubt so far is evil. If a certain\nsomething, called faith, stands in the way of our seeking frankly and\nfearlessly for the truth, that is evil. If -doubt helps us to find\ntruth, it is good: if faith helps us to -find truth, it is good. But\nthe only use of either of them is to help us discover and live the\ntruth.\n\nThe attitude of the Church and by the Church I mean the historic Church\nof the past towards doubt and faith is well known to us. It has\ncondemned doubt almost universally as something evil, sinful. It has\nextolled faith as something almost universally good. But in my judgment\nand I will ask you when I get through, perhaps, to consider as to\nwhether you do not agree with me the trouble with the human mind up to\nthe present time has not been a too great readiness to doubt: it has\nbeen a too great inclination to believe. There has been too much of\nwhat has been called perhaps by the time I am through you will think\nmiscalled faith; and there has been too little of honest, fearless,\nearnest doubt. This is perfectly natural, when you consider how the\nworld begins, and the steps by which it advances.\n\nLet us take as an illustration the state of mind of a child. A child at\nfirst does not doubt, does not doubt anything. It is ready to believe\nalmost anything that father, mother, nurse, playmate, may say to it.\nAnd why? In the first place it has had no experience yet of anything\nbut the truth being told it; and in the next place it lives in a world\nwhere there are no canons or standards of probability. In the child-\nworld there are no laws, there are no impossibilities, there is nothing\nin the way of anything happening. The child mind does not say, in\nanswer to some statement, Why, this does not seem reasonable. The\nchild's reason is not yet developed into any practical activity. The\nchild does not say, Why, this cannot be, because there is such a force\nor such a law that would be contravened by it. The child knows nothing\nabout these forces or laws: it is a sort of a Jack- and-the-Beanstalk\nworld. The beanstalk can grow any number of feet over night in the\nworld in which the child lives. Anything is possible. If father and\nmother and nurse tell the child about Santa Claus coming down the\nchimney with a pack of toys on his back, it does not occur to the child\nto note the fact that the chimney flue is no more than six inches in\ndiameter, and that Santa Claus and his pack could not possibly pass\nthrough such an opening. All this is beyond the range or thought of the\nstage of development at which the child has arrived.\n\nSo in the childhood world. As I said, anything may happen. But you will\nnote, beautiful, sunny, lovely as this childhood world is as a phase of\nexperience, as a stage of development, sweet as may be the memory of\nit, yet, if the child is ever to grow to manhood, is ever to be\nanything, ever to do anything, it must outgrow this Jack-and-the-\nBeanstalk world, this Santa Claus world, this world in which anything\nmay happen, and must begin to doubt, begin to question, begin to test\nthings, to prove things, find out what is real and what is unreal, what\nis true and what is untrue, must measure itself against the realities\nof things, learn to recognize the real forces and the laws according to\nwhich they operate, so as to deal with them, obey them, make them serve\nhim, enable him to create character and to create a new type of\ncivilization, new things on the face of the earth.\n\nNow what is true of each individual child has been true of the race.\nThe world started in childhood; and for thousands of years it believed\nvery easily, it believed altogether too much for its good, it believed\naltogether too readily. Naturally, perhaps, necessary in that stage of\nits development; but so long as it remained in that stage there was no\npossibility of its becoming master of the earth.\n\nNote, for example, the state of mind of the old Hebrews, I use them\nmerely as an illustration, because you are familiar with their story as\ntold in the Old Testament. Similar things are true of every race on the\nface of the earth. They knew nothing about the real nature of this\nuniverse. They knew nothing about natural forces working in accordance\nwith what we call natural laws. Consequently, they lived in a child-\nworld, a world of magic and miracle, a world in which anything might\nhappen. It did not trouble one of the people of that time to be told\nthat, in answer to the prayer of one of the prophets, an axe-head which\nhad sunk in the water rose and floated on the surface. There were no\nnatural laws in his mind contradicted by an asserted fact like that. It\nnever occurred to him to be troubled about it. There was nothing very\nstartling to him in being told that the sun stood still for an hour or\ntwo to enable a general to finish a battle in which he was engaged. He\ndid not know enough about the universe to see what tremendous\nconsequences would be involved in the possibility of a thing like that.\nHe was not troubled when you told him that a man had been swallowed by\na great fish, and had lived for three days and three nights in its\nstomach, and had come out uninjured. There was no improbability in it\nto him. Simply, a question as to whether God had chosen to have the\nfish large enough so that it could swallow him. To be told again that a\nhuman body that could eat food and digest it, a body like ours, might\nrise into the air and pass out of sight into some invisible heaven, not\nvery far away, there was nothing incredible about it. He knew nothing\nabout the atmosphere, limited in its range so that it would be\nimpossible to breathe beyond a certain distance from the planet. He\nknew nothing about the intense cold that would make life impossible\njust a little way above the surface.\n\nThe world in which our forefathers lived until modern times was just\nthis magic, Jack-and-the-Beanstalk world, a world without any\nimpossibilities in it, without any improbabilities in it. All this\nthought of the true and the untrue, the possible and the impossible,\nthe probable and the improbable, is the result of the fact that man has\ngrown up, has left his childhood behind him, has begun to think, has\nbegun to study, has begun to search for reality, to find out the nature\nof the world in which he lives, the forces with which he must deal, to\nunderstand the universe at least in some narrow range, measured by his\nso-far experience.\n\nThe world, then, until modern times has believed too readily, has\naccepted things too easily. Let us note, for example, what have been\ncalled by way of pre-eminence the Ages of Faith, the Middle Ages, the\nage, say, from the seventh or eighth century until the thirteenth or\nfourteenth. What was characteristic of those ages? Were they grand,\nnoble? They were ages of ignorance, of superstition, of cruelty, of\nimmorality, of poverty, of tyranny, of degradation. Almost everything\nexisted that men would no longer bear to-day; and hardly any of the\ngrand things that characterize modern civilization had then been heard\nof.\n\nWhere did this modern civilization of ours begin? Did it ever occur to\nyou that it began when men began to doubt? It began, we say, with the\nRenaissance. What was the Renaissance? The Renaissance was the birth of\ndoubt, the birth of question, the demand on the part of men, who began\nto wake up and think, for evidence. It was the beginning of the\nscientific age, the birth of the scientific spirit which has renovated,\nre- created, uplifted the world. Men began to think, to look about\nthem, and to prove all things. And instead of holding fast all things,\nas they had been doing in the past, they began to hold fast only the\nthings which they found by experience, and after testing and trial, to\nbe good.\n\nHere began, then, the civilization of the world; and all that is finest\nand highest in industry, in education, in discovery, in the whole\nexternal civilization of the world, came in with the coming of this\nspirit that questions and that asks for proof.\n\nI do not wish you to understand me as supposing that all kinds of doubt\nare good, equally good. The Church, as I said a little while ago, has\nbeen accustomed to teach us that doubt was wrong; and there are certain\nkinds of doubt that are morally wrong, certain kinds of doubt that are\ndisastrous to the highest and finest life of the world.\n\nI wish now to analyze a little and define and make clear these\ndistinctions, that you may see the kind of doubt which is evil and the\nkind of doubt which is good.\n\nThere are doubts which spring out of the fact that men, under the\ninfluence of personal interest, as they suppose, or strong desire, wish\nto follow certain courses, wish to walk in certain paths; and they\ndoubt and question the laws, moral or mental, religious or what not,\nwhich stand in their way, which would prohibit their having their will.\nAs an illustration of what I mean, suppose a man is engaged in a\ncertain kind of business, or wishes to manage his business in a certain\nkind of way. He suspects, if he stops and thinks about it, that the\ninterests of other people may be involved, that the way in which he\nwants to conduct his business is a selfish way, that the interests of\nother people may be injured, that the world as a whole may not be as\nwell off; but it seems to be for his own advantage.\n\nNow it is very difficult, indeed, for you to persuade a man that he\nought to do right under such circumstances. He is ready to doubt and\nquestion as to whether these laws of right are imperative, whether they\nare divine, whether they may not be waived one side in the interest of\nthe thing which he desires to do. So you must guard yourself very\ncarefully, no matter what the department of life may be that you are\nfacing, if you find yourself doubting under the impulse of your own\nwishes, if you are trying to argue yourself into the belief that you\nmay be permitted to do something which you very much want to do.\n\nBe suspicious of your doubts, then, and remember that probably they are\nwrong. Great moral questions may be involved, and doubt may mean wreck\nhere.\n\nThere is another field where doubt is dangerous and presumably an evil.\nYou will find most people, in regard to any question which they have\nconsidered or which has touched them seriously, with their minds\nalready made up. They have some sort of a persuasion about it, they\nhave a theory which they have accepted; and, if you bring them a truth\nwith ever such overwhelming credentials which clashes with this\npreconceived idea or prejudice, the chances are that it would be met\nwith doubt, with denial, not a clear-cut, intelligent, well- balanced\ndoubt, but a doubt that springs out of the unwillingness that a man\nfeels to reconstruct his theory.\n\nLet me give you an illustration of what I mean, and this away off in\nanother department of life from our own, so that it will not clash with\nany of your particular prejudices. Sir Isaac Newton won a great and\nworld-wide renown, and magnificently deserved, by his grand discovery\nof the law of gravity. You will see, then, how natural it was for\npeople to pay deference to his opinion, to be prejudiced in favor of\nhis conclusions. It was perfectly natural and, within certain limits,\nperfectly right. Sir Isaac Newton not only propounded this law of\ngravity, but he propounded a theory of light which the world has since\ndiscovered to be wrong. But it was universally accepted because it was\nhis. It became the accepted scientific theory of the time. By and by a\nman, unknown up to that time, by the name of Young, studied Newton's\ntheory, and became convinced that it was wrong; and he propounded\nanother theory, the one which to- day is universally accepted through\nthe civilized world. But it was years before it could gain anything\nlike adequate or fair consideration, because the preconception in favor\nof Newton's theory stood in the way of any adequate consideration of\nthe one which was subsequently universally adopted.\n\nSo you will find scientific men, I know any quantity of them, grand in\ntheir fields, doing fine work, who are not willing to consider anything\nwhich would compel a reconstruction of their theories and ideas. This\nis true not only in the scientific field, but it is true everywhere: it\nis true in politics. How many men can you get fairly to consider the\npolitical position of his opponent? He not only doubts the rightness\nand the sense of it, but he is ready to deny it. How many people can\nyou get fairly to weigh the position of one who occupies a religious\nhome different from their own? And these religious prejudices, being\nbound up with the tenderest and noblest sentiments, feelings, and\ntraditions of the human heart, become the strongest of all, and so are\nin more danger of standing in the way of human progress than anything\nelse in all the world.\n\nPeople identify their theories of religion with religion itself, with\nthe honor of God, with the worship and the love of God, and feel that\nsomehow it is impious for them to consider the question whether their\nintellectual theories are correct or not; and so the world stands by\nthe ideas of the past, and opposes anything like finer and nobler ideas\nthat offer themselves for consideration. And not only in the religious\nfield; but these religious prejudices stand in the way of accepting\ntruths outside the sphere of religion. For example, when Darwin\npublished his book, \"The Origin of Species,\" the greatest opposition it\nmet with was from the religious world. Why? Had they considered\nDarwin's arguments to find out whether they were true? Nothing of the\nkind. But they flew to the sudden conclusion that somehow or other the\nreligion of the world was in danger, if Darwinism should prove to be\ntrue. And it is very curious to note I wonder how long the world will\nkeep on repeating that serio-comic blunder from the very beginning it\nhas been the same; almost every single step that the world proposes to\ntake in advance is opposed by the constituted religious authorities of\nthe time because they assume at the outset that the theories which they\nhave been holding are divinely authorized and infallible, and that it\nis not only untrue, this other statement, but that it is impious as\nwell.\n\nThe doubt, then, that springs from preconceived ideas is not only\nunjustifiable, but may be dangerous and wrong.\n\nThen there is another kind of doubt against which you should beware.\nThere are certain doubts that, if accepted and acted on, stand in the\nway of the creation of the most magnificent facts in the world. Take as\nan illustration of what I mean: when Napoleon, a young man in Paris,\nwas asked to take command of the guard of the city, suppose he had\ndoubted, questioned, distrusted, his own ability; suppose he had been\ntimid and afraid, the history of the world would have been changed by\nthat one doubt. Take another illustration. At the opening of our war or\nin the months just preceding the beginning of active hostilities the\nman then occupying the presidential chair had no faith, no faith in\nhimself, no faith in the perpetuity of our institutions, no faith in\nthe people; and so he sat doubting, while everything crumbled in pieces\naround him. And then appeared a man in whom the people had little faith\nat first, and who had no great faith perhaps in his own ability; but he\nhad infinite faith in God, faith in right, faith in the people, faith\nin the possibilities of freedom trusted in the hands of the people. And\nthis faith created a new nation.\n\nIf there had been doubt in the heart of Abraham Lincoln, again the\nhistory of the world would have been &hanged. He believed that \"Right\nis right, since God is God, And right the day must win: To doubt would\nbe disloyalty, To falter would be sin.\"\n\nYou see, then, here is another field where you had better be wary of\ndoubt. Do not doubt yourself, do not doubt the possibilities of noble\naction, noble character, of achievement. We say of a young man entering\nlife, brimful of enthusiasm, that all this will be toned down by and\nby; and we speak of it as though the enthusiasm itself somehow was a\nfault or a folly. And yet it is just this enthusiasm of the young men\nthat moves and lifts the world. It is this faith in themselves and in\nthe possibility of great things, it is this faith that lies at the\nheart of every invention, of every great discovery, of every\nmagnificent achievement. Read the history of invention. The world is\nfull of stories of men who got a new idea. They were laughed at, they\nwere told it was impracticable; and, if they had been laughed out of\nit, it would have been impracticable. It was their faith in the\npossibility of some great new thing, their faith in the resources of\nthe universe, their faith in themselves as able to discover some new\ntruth and make it applicable to the needs of the world, it was this\nfaith which has been at the root of the grandest things that have ever\nbeen done.\n\nIt is this which was in the heart of Columbus as he sailed out towards\nthe West. It is this which was in the heart of Magellan as he studied\nthe shadow of the earth across the face of the moon, and believed in\nthe story that shadow told him against the constituted authorities of\nthe world.\n\nBut now let us turn sharply, and find out where doubt does come in, and\nwhere it is as honorable, as noble, as necessary as faith.\n\nPeople misuse this word \"faith.\" Doubt applies to all questions of fact\nthat may be investigated, to all questions of history, to all questions\nopen to the exercise of the critical faculty. For example, if I am told\nthat Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and I say I accept that statement on\nfaith, I am abusing the dictionary. I have no business to accept it on\nfaith. Faith has nothing whatever to do with it. It is a pure matter of\nscholarship. It is a matter of study, of investigation, a matter of\nclear and hard intelligence and nothing more.\n\nSuppose I am told that the Catholic Church is infallible, and I am\nasked to accept it as an article of faith. Here, again, the\nintroduction of the word \"faith\" into a domain like that is an\nimpertinence. Faith has nothing whatever to do with it. That is a\nquestion of fact. We can read history for the last eighteen hundred\nyears. We can find out what the Catholic Church has said and what the\nCatholic Church has done, as to whether it has proved itself absolutely\ninfallible or not. It is a matter of study and decision intellectually;\nand it is my duty to doubt that which does not bring authentic\ncredentials in a field like this.\n\nTake the question of the authorship of the Gospel of John. Was it\nwritten by the apostle John, who lay in the bosom of Jesus, and was\ncalled the beloved disciple? Have I any business to say I have faith\nthat it was written by him, and let it rest there? Faith has nothing to\ndo with it. We can trace the history of that book, find out when first\nit was referred to, follow it back as far as possible, find out whether\nit was in existence before the apostle John had died or not. It is a\npure matter of criticism, a matter of study; and I have no business to\naccept it as a matter of faith, because, if I do, I am in danger not\nonly of deceiving myself, but of misleading the world. And truth, we\ncannot say it too often or too emphatically, truth is the only thing\nthat is holy in investigations of this kind. Men's beliefs and\nmistakes, old, venerable, reverenced though they may have been by\nthousands and for hundreds of years, are no less unworthy longer to\ndelude the minds of men. Truth is divine, truth is the one object of\nour search.\n\nNow let us come to consider for a moment the nature of faith. I said a\nlittle while ago that the word is very frequently misused. Nine times\nout of ten, when I hear people using the word \"faith\" and I see the\nconnection in which they use it, I discover they do not know the\nmeaning of the word. That which has favor generally under the name of\nfaith is simple credulity. It is closing the eyes and accepting\nsomething on somebody's authority without any investigation. That,\nremember, is not faith.\n\nLet us see now if I can give you a clear idea of what faith really is;\nand now I have the Bible and I am glad to say it  behind me. This\nmagnificent chapter,* a portion of which I read as our lesson this\nmorning, gives precisely the same idea of faith as that which I am\ngoing to outline. What is faith? Faith is a purely rational faculty. It\nis not irrational, but it is perfectly understandable. Suppose there is\na man suddenly accused of a crime, and I never saw him before, I do not\neven know his name; but I go into court when he is brought up for\ntrial, and I say that I have faith in that man, and I do not believe\nthat he committed the crime. Do you not see that I am talking nonsense?\nI have no business to have faith in him, there is no ground for faith,\nit is an entire misuse of the word. But now take another case. Here is\na man that I have known for twenty years. I have seen him in business.\nI have seen him in his home, among his neighbors and friends, and in\nthe street. I have met him in all sorts of relations. I have talked\nwith him, I have tested him. I have been intimate with him. He is\nsuddenly accused of crime, and is brought into court. I appear, and say\nI have faith in that man, I do not believe that he committed the crime.\nI do not know that he did not commit it; but I have grounds here for\nfaith. In the light of his past life, of his experience, of his\ntemptations, of his opportunities to go wrong, and of his having gone\nright, in the light of all this past experience of years, I have faith\nin this man; and I say it, and I am talking reason and sense. In the\nother case I am talking folly.\n\nFaith, you see, is a rational faculty. Let me give you another\nillustration. Suppose I am driving along through the country some\nmorning when there is a very thick fog hanging over the landscape. The\nfog is so thick that I can see no more than ten or fifteen feet ahead\nof me; but I discover that I am near the bank of a river, and I come to\nthe entrance to a bridge. I can see enough to know that here is an\nabutment of a bridge and an arch springing out into the fog. I drive on\nto that bridge with simple confidence. I do not know that there is any\nother end to the bridge. I have never seen it before. I have seen other\nbridges, however; and I know that, generally, bridges not only begin\nsomewhere, but end somewhere. So, though I do not know for certain that\nthe bridge ends on the other side of the river, for aught I know there\nmay be a break in it, the bridge may not be completed, something may\nhave happened to it, I confidently drive on; and in ninety-nine times\nout of a hundred my faith is justified by the result. This is a pure\nact of faith, but faith, do you not see, based in reality, springing\nout of experience, and so a purely rational act of the mind.\n\nLet me give you one illustration of the scientific use of faith, very\nstriking, beautiful, as it seems to me. The only time Mr. Huxley was in\nthis country, I happened to be in New York, and heard him give the\nopening one of a brief course of three lectures in Chickering Hall. He\nwas very much interested then in the ancestry of the horse. Most of you\nare probably aware of the fact that they have traced its ancestry to a\nlittle creature having five toes, like ordinary animals. At the time\nthat Mr. Huxley was here, one link in this chain was missing; that is,\none of the forms in the line of the horse's ancestors had not been\ndiscovered.\n\nBut here, for example, was the first one and the second one, we say,\nand the third one was missing, and here was the fourth one, and here\nwas the horse itself. Now, in the light of the presumable uniformity of\nnature, Mr. Huxley went on to describe this missing animal. He said, if\nthe remains of this creature are ever found, they will be so and so;\nand he went into an accurate detailed explanation as to what sort of\ncreature it would be. He had not been at his home in England a year\nbefore Professor Marsh, of Yale College, discovered this missing link\nin Colorado, and it answered precisely to the description which\nProfessor Huxley had beforehand given of it.\n\nNow here is a case of scientific prophecy, scientific faith, a faith\nbased on previous scientific observations, based on the experienced\nuniformity of nature. Mr. Huxley did not know, he could not have known;\nbut he believed. He believed in the universe, he believed in the sanity\nof the universe, he believed in the uniformity, the order, the beauty\nof the universe; and the result justified his faith.\n\nFaith, then, is a purely rational faculty. It has nothing to do with\nthe past, but is always the evidence of things hoped for, the substance\nof something not yet seen. It is always looking along the lines of\npossible experience for something as possibly or probably to be.\n\nNow at the end I wish to suggest a few things that are in the rightful\nprovince and field of faith, fields where we can fearlessly exercise\nthis grand faculty, where indeed we must exercise it if we are to\nachieve the highest and finest results in the world.\n\nAnd, in the first place, quoting the words of the old writer, let me\nsay, \"Have faith in God.\" I do not mean by this, accept certain\nintellectual statements or propositions about him, though they may be\nmine, and though I may thoroughly accept and believe them.\n\nYou may doubt the representation of God that is made in any one of the\ntheologies of the world, as to whether the statements made about him\nare accurate. It is not this intellectual belief that I am talking\nabout at this minute. Have faith in God! You may not even use the name.\nI am no such stickler for phrases as to condemn a man who cannot say\n\"God.\" I have known a good many men, who have hesitated to pronounce\nthe name, who were infinitely more divine in their life and character\nthan those who are glibly uttering it every hour of their lives. It is\nnot this I mean. It is something deeper, higher, grander than that. As\nyou look along the lines of history from the far-off time when we begin\nto trace it until to-day, and see the magnificent march of advance, an\norderly universe lightening and glorifying as it advances, becoming\never finer and higher and better; as you observe the order and truth\nand beauty and good dominant, and ever coming to be more and more\ndominant as the years advance, believe in this and trust this, trust to\nall possibilities of something finer and grander by way of outcome in\nthe future. Have faith in God!\n\nAnd, then, have faith in truth. I meet only a few people that seem to\nme to have utter faith in truth, who really believe that it is safe to\ntell the truth, always tell it. I talk with a great many people I wish\nto mention this as an illustration of what I mean who speak in the\ngreatest commendation of the Roman Catholic Church. They say, We do not\nknow what we should do in this country if we had not the Roman Catholic\nChurch to keep a certain section of the people down, to keep them in\norder. I wonder if people ever realize just what this means. It means a\nlack of faith in God and faith in truth and faith in humanity, all\nthree. If it is not safe to tell the truth, then I am not responsible\nfor it. I propose to say it, although people tell me that there is\ndanger of the explosion of the universe on account of it. If there is,\nI am not responsible for making it true. Oh, I get so tired of this\nkind of timidity, this playing hide-and-seek with people! I have had a\nminister tell me that he wished he was free to tell the truth in his\npulpit, as I am; and then I have had people in his congregation tell me\nafterwards that they wished their minister would preach the truth\nplainly, as I did. Simply playing hide-and-seek with each other!\n\nYou remember the story of the man in Italy, who asked the priest if he\nreally believed the religion of the country; and the priest said, \"Oh,\nno! we have to go slowly on account of the people; they believe it.\"\nAnd when the people were asked if they believed it, they said, \"Oh, no,\nwe are not such fools; but the priests believe it.\" And so people play\nhide-and-seek with each other, not daring to tell the magnificent,\nclear truth of things.\n\nHave faith in the truth. It is feared that it is not quite safe to tell\npeople the truth, because they are not quite ready for it; and I have\nhad no end of conversations during the religious discussion of the last\ntwo or three weeks right in this line. It seems to me very much like\nsaying that, because a man has been shut up in a dark prison for a long\ntime, you had better keep him there, because it would be such a shock\nto him suddenly to face the light. Undoubtedly, it would be a shock.\nUndoubtedly, it would trouble and stagger people for a little while to\nbe told the simple truth; but how is the world ever to get ahead, if\nyou keep on, as a matter of policy, lying to it for ages? How is it\never going to find the truth? Shall I lie for the glory of God, the\nsupposed honor of God? I will take no such responsibility.\n\nLet us have faith in the truth, then. Tell it fearlessly, simply,\nutterly; and, if God is not able to take care of his own world, why,\nthe sooner it ends and we get into a stage of existence where it is\nsafe to tell the truth, the better.\n\nHave faith in men. Have faith in the people. This it is that we trust\nto in all our hopes of progress for the future. This it is which\ndistinguished Lincoln among our statesmen. You remember that grand\nsaying of his, true and humorous, so that it sticks in our memory, and\nwe can never forget it, \"You can fool all the people a part of the\ntime; you can fool a part of the people all the time; but you can't\nfool all the people all of the time.\" Here is the basis on which we\nrest our republic. Our republic is fallen unless the people are really\nto be trusted.\n\nHave faith, then, in the people, faith in their healthy instincts,\nfaith in their general sanity, faith in their desire for the right and\nthe true; and this is a genuine exercise of faith, for the past history\nof the world justifies it.\n\nAnd, then, have faith in yourself as a child of God. I do not mean\nconceit now. I do not mean an overestimate of your ability, but belief\nthat you can do great, grand, noble things, belief that you can become\nsomething great, noble, grand; belief in the possibility in this life\nor in some other life of unfolding all that is highest, truest,\nsweetest, in manhood and womanhood. It is this faith that is able to\ncreate the fact and make that which it trusts in.\n\nLet us then believe in God, believe in truth, believe in humanity,\nbelieve in ourselves; and then we may work towards the coming of that\nfar, grand time when the dreams of the world shall be realized and its\nfaith shall become reality.\n\nIS LIFE A PROBATION ENDED BY DEATH?\n\nMY subject this morning is an attempted answer to the question, \"Is\nLife a Probation ended by Death?\" It will broaden itself naturally, if\nwe cannot accept that theory of it, into the further question, What is\nthe main end and purpose of our life? I take my text from the fifth\nchapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, the fifteenth and the\nsixteenth verses. I will read them as they appear in the Old Version:\n\"See, then, that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,\nredeeming the time.\"\n\nThe idea of the writer is that, as we pass through the world, we should\ndo it with our eyes kept intelligently open, looking about us on every\nhand, trying to comprehend the situation, to see what things are, and\nwhat we ought to do to play our part in the midst of them. Not\nheedlessly, not unwisely, he says, perhaps hardly the harsh word\n\"fools,\" but as wise, as persons intelligently ready to take advantage\nof the situation and make the most of the condition in which one finds\nhimself; redeeming the time, or, as the Revised Version has it, \"buying\nup the opportunity \"; being ready, that is, to pay whatever price is\nnecessary in order to make the most of the situation.\n\nThis, then, is the spirit according to our text in which we should look\nover the problem of life; and this is the method by which we should\nattempt to guide its practical affairs.\n\nThat which people regard as the matter of most importance, any\nparticular theory or plan of life which they may hold to be for them\nthe most desirable, this, of course, is that to which they will direct\ntheir chief attention, on which they will lavish their thought, on\nwhich they will pour out their care, to which they will consecrate\ntheir energies. If now the theory or plan of life be false, if it be\ninadequate, if one is looking in the wrong direction for the success\nthat he desires, or if he expects to achieve the great end and object\nof living by means which are not real, which do not match the actual\nfacts of the world and of human life, then of course his effort is so\nfar thrown away. He wastes energies, power, time, enthusiasm on wrong\nends which might be used to the attainment of things which are real and\nfine and high.\n\nIs it not then of the utmost importance that our conception of life,\nwhat it is for, what we ought to attempt to reach, and how we should\nmake this attempt, should be an accurate one? Any young man starting\nout in life, if he sets up for himself a goal which is unworthy, which\ndoes not match his faculties and powers, and if he proposes to reach it\nby means which are not adequate to the attainment of his desires, do\nyou not see how he wrecks and wastes his life? His opportunity is gone;\nand by and by he wakes up to find that the years have been dissipated,\nand he has not attained any worthy or noble end.\n\nIf this be true of a young man as he looks forward to a scheme or plan\nof life here during these few short years, how much more is a similar\nthing true, when we are contemplating not merely the question of a\nbusiness, or professional or social failure and success, but are\nlooking at the grander and more inclusive theme of the beginning and\naim and outcome of life itself We have inherited from the past the idea\nthat this life here, under the blue sky for a few years, as we live it,\nis a probation, that we are put here on trial, and that death ends it,\nand that, when we have passed that line, gone over from that which is\nvisible here into the invisible, we are either \"lost\" or \"saved,\" and\nthings are definitely fixed forever.\n\nI am perfectly well aware that the most of us who are here have given\nup this idea, though there may remain fragments and suggestions of it\nin our minds still haunting the chambers of the brain, not yet\noutgrown, not yet cleared away. But with most people in the modern\nworld, if they are sincere, if they are consistent, the one great\nquestion with them is whether they are to be saved or lost in another\nlife. And, if this be the true theory of things, then not only ought\nmen to bend all their thought, their energies, devote their\nenthusiasms, consecrate their time and money to it as much as they do,\nbut a thousand times more.\n\nWe look, perhaps, with a sort of amused curiosity, some of us, from\nwhat we regard as our superior point of view, at a man like Mr. Moody;\nand yet Mr. Moody is one man out of a million for his consistency and\nconsecration to the thought which underlies all the Protestant churches\nof the modern world, with the exception of a few here and there. Mr.\nMoody believes that this life is a probation ended by death. There are\nthousands on thousand on thousands of men who say they believe it, who\nstill cast in all their influence with churches that are based on it,\nand who yet devote their energies mainly to making money, to attaining\nsocial success, to pleasures of one kind or another, to political\nambitions, who live as though this great fate were not overhanging the\nworld, who meet their neighbors for pleasure or business, believing, if\nthey are sincere, that this neighbor is heedlessly walking on to the\nbrink of a gulf, and yet never speaking to him about it, never saying a\nword to imply that they really believe it; and yet this fear hangs over\nthem, haunts their consciousness waking or sleeping; and, if you ask\nthem if they believe it, they will say they suppose they do. In hours\nof danger, when disease threatens them or they are looking death in the\nface, they are affrighted, and try to flee to the traditional refuge as\na place of safety.\n\nThe whole great Catholic Church teaches that nobody has the slightest\nchance of being saved except by becoming a member of her great body of\nbelievers and partaking of her sacramental means of grace.\n\nThis, I say then, is the great underlying belief of Christendom; and,\nif it is true, the world ought to consecrate itself, head and brain and\nsoul, time, money, power, prayer, enthusiasm, everything, to delivering\nmen from the imminent danger. If it is not true, then it ought to be\nbrushed completely one side, put out of consciousness, of thought, of\nfear. The world ought to be dispossessed of its haunting presence. Why?\nSo that we may fix our attention on the true end and aim of life, and\nfind out what it means to live, how we ought to live, and why and what\nfor, what ought to be the goal of our human endeavor.\n\nSo long, then, as this belief does lie at the foundation of all the\ngreat churches of Christendom, so long as it is employed in all the\ncriticisms of us who do not any longer accept it, it seems to me that\nit is worth our while to reconsider the question for a little while, so\nthat we may clear our minds and thoughts, and may fix our attention\ndefinitely and earnestly on that which ought to be the goal of all our\nendeavor, our enthusiasm and our hope.\n\nLet us, then, look for just a few moments at this theory, and see what\nit means and implies.\n\nIt is said that our first father was put on probation, was called upon\nto decide, not for himself only, but for all his descendants, as to\nwhat the future history of the inhabitants of this planet should be.\nTwo famous books were published only a few years ago by Dr. Edward\nBeecher, the eldest son in that famous family. These were \"The Conflict\nof Ages\" and \"The Concord of Ages.\" Dr. Beecher argued that anything\nlike a fair probation on the part of Adam was an impossibility. This in\nthe face of the prevailing beliefs of the time when the books were\nwritten. He said that, if a man were to choose on such a momentous\nquestion as this, choose adequately, choose fairly, he must be so\ncircumstanced and endowed that he could comprehend the entire result of\nhis choice. He must be able to look down the ages imaginatively, and\nsee on one hand all the line of sin and misery, of death, finite and\neternal, which should issue from his choosing in one direction. He must\nbe able to comprehend all the good, the music, the joy, the beauty, the\nglory, the infinite perfectibility, in this world and the next, which\nshould follow his choice in the other direction. And he said that Adam\nhad no such opportunity as that, and was not endowed with the ability\nor the experience to make any such momentous choice; in other words,\nthat the fundamental basis of the whole theological scheme of the world\nwas unjust and unfair.\n\nThis was Dr. Beecher's contention. How did he get over the difficulty?\nHe believed in the pre-existence of human souls, and that in some other\nlife before Adam there must have been an intelligent and fair choice,\nand that we here and now are only fighting out one stage of the results\nof that far-off decision. But, if you will stop to think of it a\nmoment, you will see that this puts the difficulty only a little\nfurther back: it does not solve it. How does this first person, if it\nis so, countless millions of ages ago, happen to be endowed with\nintelligence and experience and ability enough to make such a momentous\nchoice?\n\nAnd now just consider a moment. Is it conceivable that a sane person\nshould intelligently choose evil, unless he had some inherited bias or\ntendency in that direction? For what does the choice of evil mean? It\nmeans sorrow, it means pain, it means death, it means everything\nhorrible, everything undesirable, and means that a person deliberately\nand intelligently pits himself against an infinite and almighty power\nin what he knows must be an eternally losing battle. Can you conceive\nof a sane person making such a choice as that?\n\nIf one of these first ancestors in the Garden of Eden, or no matter how\nfar back, had a right to choose for himself, I deny his right to choose\nfor me. What right had he to choose for you? What right had he to\ndetermine that you should be born with a perverted and corrupt nature,\nso that you would be certain to choose evil instead of good, helpless\nin the hands of a fate like this?\n\nNow you may look at this theory any way you please, place this\nprobationary choice at the beginning of human history on this planet,\nor place it just as far back as you will, it is inconceivable, it is\nunfair, it is unjust, it is insane, it is everything that is foolish\nand wrong. And yet, note clearly one thing. So long as the world\nbelieves this, so long as the one end and aim of human life, as held up\nto people, is to be saved, think of the waste, think of the time, the\nanxiety, the enthusiasms, the prayers, the consecrations; think of the\nwealth, think of the intellectual faculties, think of the moral\ndevotion, this whole power of the world expended on a false issue,\nturned into wrong channels!\n\nIs this a dead question? Is there no reason for us to consider it here\nin this latter part of the nineteenth century? Why, nine-tenths of\nChristendom to-day is spending its time in trying to propitiate a God\nwho is not angry and trying to \"save\" souls that are not \"lost.\"\nExpending its energies along mistaken channels towards issues that are\nentirely imaginary! Think, for example, if during the last two thousand\nyears all the time and the money, all the intelligence, all the\nconsecration, could have been spent on those things that would have\nreally helped men to find out the meaning of life, and to illustrate\nthat meaning in earnest living; suppose the money that has been spent\non the cathedrals, on the monasteries, spent in supporting hordes and\nhordes of priests, spent in all the endeavor to save men in a future\nlife, if all this had been used in educating men and training them into\na comprehension of what kind of beings they really are, what kind of a\nworld this is in which they have found themselves, spent in training\nthem into mastery of themselves, spent in teaching them how to\nunderstand and control the forces of nature in order to serve and\ndevelop the higher life, think what a civilization might have been\ndeveloped here on this poor old planet by this time! How much of the\ndisease, how much of the corruption, how much of the unkindness, how\nmuch of the cruelty, how much of all that still remains in us of the\nanimal, might have been outgrown, sloughed off, put underneath our\nfeet!\n\nIs it not, then, a vital question, so long as so many thousands, so\nmany millions of people are still consecrating their time, their money,\ntheir energy, in the attempt to do that which does not need to be done?\n\nLet us turn, now, and for a little while face another theory of human\nlife; try to find out, or to suggest, what we are here on this planet\nfor, what may be accomplished, how much of grand and true may be\nwrought out as the result of our attempt.\n\nThe philosopher Kant has somewhere said that there are three things\nneeded to the success of a human life, \"something to do, some one to\nlove, something to hope for.\" The old Catechism says that the chief end\nof man is \"to glorify God and enjoy him forever.\" I indorse the words\nof Kant; I agree most heartily and thoroughly with the Catechism.\nPhilip James Bailey, the author of that once famous poem \"Festus,\" has\nsaid,\n\n\"Life's but a means unto an end; that end, Beginning, mean, and end to\nall things, God.\"\n\nThis also I indorse. I believe that life is something inner, something\ndeeper than that which we ordinarily think of as constituting the\nmatters of chief concern regarding it. Let me quote two or three lines\nagain from Bailey's \"Festus,\" familiar to you because so fine.\n\nWe live in deeds, not years; in thoughts, not breaths; In feelings, not\nin figures on a dial.\n\nWe should count time by heart-throbs. \"He most lives Who thinks most,\nfeels the noblest, acts the best.\"\n\nWhat is human life, then? What is it for? The object of life is living.\nBut what does living mean? Most people cannot answer that question,\nbecause they have never more than half lived, and consequently have\nnever appreciated its depth and significance. As I have had occasion\nover and over and over again, to say to business men, and I like to say\nit on every opportunity, it seems to me, as I look over the face of\nsociety, that most people live only in some little fragmentary way,\nsome corner of their being.\n\nMost men spend their lives in the attempt to accumulate the means to\nlive, and forget to begin to live at all. Sometimes, as you are riding\nthrough the country on a winter evening, you come to a silent farm-\nhouse, and you see one window lighted; and, if you should go and knock\nat the door, you would probably find out that the light is shining from\nthe kitchen, where the family is gathered in the evening, perhaps as a\nmatter of economy to save fire, perhaps to save trouble. And, if you\nexamine the lives of these people, you would find that they live\nchiefly in the kitchen. They may have a sitting-room where they spend a\nfew leisure hours; perhaps they have the beginning of a library; but\nthey do not spend much time in that. They have little opportunity for\nthe life of the parlor, representing the expansive, social human life\nwhich comes into contact with other lives. And so you will find that\nthis, which is a figure, represents that which is true of most of us.\nWe have only begun to live; and we live in the lower ranges of our\nnature, or perhaps we have touched life on a higher level in some\ntentative sort of way. But the most of us are only partly alive, have\nonly developed a little of what is possible in us, have only come in\ncontact with some fragments of this wonderful universe that is all\naround us on every hand.\n\nWhat, then, is the meaning of life? What shall we try to do? What are\nwe here for? I do not attempt to go into the profound explanation of\nmysteries too deep for me to answer, as to what must have been in the\nmind of God when he planned and created this universe of which we are a\npart. My task is a humbler one. Let us see if I can help you comprehend\na little part of it. Take an illustration.\n\nAn immensely wealthy man suddenly dies, leaving his estates to a little\nboy seven or eight years of age. He has wide stretches of land, hill\nand valley, river, woods, all that is beautiful as making up a\nlandscape. The house represents the accumulated resources of the\nexperiences and the intelligence of a lifetime. There are not only\nbeautiful drawing-rooms, telling of taste, but there is a library in\nwhich is all that the world has been able to accumulate of learning, of\nliterature in every department. Here is another room containing\ninstruments of music and the works of the great composers. There is an\nart gallery, containing some of the finest masterpieces in the way of\npainting and sculpture; and then there is a room devoted to scientific\nexperiments,-- chemistry, the microscope, the telescope. Here are means\nand opportunity for finding out what the world has so far developed.\n\nNow has this young boy come into possession of these things? He has\ninherited them, he is his father's heir. We say they belong to him; but\ndo they belong to him? In what sense and to what extent do they belong\nto him? They belong to him just in so far and just as fast as he\ndevelops himself into capacity of comprehension and enjoyment, no\nfaster, no farther. As he enters upon his inheritance then he is put\nunder tutors. Some man comes to teach him the languages which he does\nnot comprehend; and by and by that part of the library which is\ncomposed of books written in other speech than his own begins to belong\nto him. It belongs to the tutor a good deal more than it does to the\nchild, until the child has learned the lessons of the tutor. And so\nanother teacher comes to instruct him in art; and the masterpieces of\nart belong to the person of taste, of culture, with appreciation, to\nthe teacher again, to any one who knows and who feels, instead of to\nthe boy, who merely has possession of the title-deeds.\n\nDo you see the suggestion of the picture? Man wakes up here on this\nplanet what sort of a being? Not at first \"a little lower than God,\" as\nthe old Psalmist says of him, but only a little higher than the\nanimals, ignorant of himself, ignorant of his surroundings, weak,\nundeveloped in every faculty and power. He begins, we say, to live; and\nwhat does that mean? He begins to explore this wonderful world, which\nis his heritage; and do you not see that along with this exploration\nthere goes of necessity a process of self- development? I would pit\nagainst that statement of Kant's a phrase something like this. The\nobject of life is threefold: it is to become all possible, it is to\nserve all possible, it is to enjoy all possible. But I cannot outline\ncompletely either one of these suggestions; for they blend, they\nintermingle, as you will see in a moment. They are like different notes\nin a piece of music that are so blended together that they constitute\none tune, while separate they are only fragments, or discords.\n\nThe first thing, then, if a man wishes really to live, is that he\nshould develop himself, unfold the faculties and powers which lie\ndormant in him. He is a child of God. He is capable of comprehending\nwithin his limit that which is divine. He is capable of being touched,\nplayed on, by all the phases and forces of the universe surrounding\nhim. He is an instrument of ten thousand strings; and marvellous may be\nthe music of his life.\n\nFirst, he should be as complete an animal as possible. Then he should\ndevelop himself as a being capable of thinking, of knowing. How many\nmen are there that take possession of the intellectual realm that lies\naround them on every hand? Just think. Let me hint suggestions,\nillustrations, in one or two directions. A man goes out for a walk in\nthe park, or, better yet, into the country. The park is too artificial,\nperhaps, to carry just the meaning that I have in mind. Let it be a\nwalk in the country, then. How much do the grasses and the flowers have\nto say to him?\n\nI have a friend in Washington, a famous botanist, a botanist not only\nof all things that live and grow to-day, but who has pushed his\nresearches back and down into the prehistoric ages so as to understand\nand explain the records, the prints, the leaves and twigs, the forms of\nevery kind that are on the rocks and left to tell the story of a life\nthat has passed away many thousands on thousands of years ago. How much\nof all this marvellous realm, or even a suggestion of it, is revealed\nto the ordinary man as he walks through the field?\n\nLook in the direction of geology a moment. Here is a river course; here\nis the shape of a hill top; do they say anything to the ordinary man\nwho walks with his head down, and occupied with some problem of Wall\nStreet, perhaps? Here are marvels of creative power. God shaped the\nslope of that hill as really as though he smoothed it down with his\nhand. And he who understands the methods of world building, of\nlandscape-sculpture, may stand in wonder and awe and reverence before\nthe forces that have been at work for millions of years, and are at\nwork the same to-day. How many men have even a conception of the\nwonders of the microscopic world? To how many men do the star have\nanything to say at night? A man looks at a bowlder, unlike any other\nrock there is to be found anywhere in the neighborhood, and perhaps he\ndoes not even ask a question about it; while a man who has made a\ncareful study of these things sees spring up before him in his\nimagination that long ice age before man lived on the planet, when this\nbowlder was swept from some far-off place by the glacial power,\ndeposited where it is, scraped on its surface by the passing of the\nice, as if God himself had left his sign-manual here, his autograph,\nthat he, in after- ages who might make himself capable of reading,\nmight understand.\n\nThese merely as fragmentary, brief hints of what it is to live in the\nintellectual realm.\n\nGo up to that realm where the intellect is blended with the emotions,\nthe glamour of pictures, poetry, sculpture, music, beauty of color and\nform and sound. What a world this is, infinite resources of an infinite\nuniverse, appealing to, and, if a man responds, calling out the\nfaculties and powers of his own nature that are capable of dealing with\nthese things, so that a man may feel that he is thinking over the\nthoughts of God, tracing his footsteps, listening to the marvellous\nmusic of his words! This is one of the results of self-development, if\na man is unfolding, developing himself, becoming as much as possible.\n\nNow let us turn sharply to one of these other phases which I spoke of,\nof doing what we can to help the world. And now note, this universe is\nso cunningly contrived that a man cannot possibly be successful as a\nselfish man. It is one of the most conclusive proofs, it seems to me,\nnot only of the divine goodness, but of the moral meaning and scope of\nthe world. Selfishness is not wicked only, it is the most outrageous\nfolly on the face of the earth. If a man develop himself, if he\ndevelops that which is finest in him, that which is best and sweetest\nand truest, he develops not only his power to think, but his capacity\nto love, his capacity to enjoy, and to bestow enjoyment; and he cannot\npossibly succeed in the long run, and in the best ways, on selfish\nlines.\n\nPeople used to have a notion that he who grasped and retained\neverything he could get hold of was the fortunate, the successful man.\nPeople had an idea in politics, for example, that that nation was\nhappiest which humbled other nations; and, if it was superior to all\nthe rest, by as much as they were poor and devastated, this nation was\nfortunate. We know now that a nation finds its prosperity in that of\nother nations, in its ability to exchange, to trade, to carry on all\nthe grand avocations of life with them. If a man writes a book, he\nwants the world intelligent enough to understand and appreciate it. If\na man paints a picture, he wants artistic ability on the part of the\npublic, so that they will appreciate and buy his pictures. If a man\ncarves a statue, he wants the people to appreciate glory of form enough\nto see how great and true his work is, and reward him for his endeavor.\nIn other words, no man would write a book, and go off with it alone by\nhimself. No man would paint a picture, and hide it. No man would carve\na statue, and conceal it from his fellows.\n\nWe have learned, and are learning constantly in every direction, that\nour happiness is involved in the happiness of other people. The world\nis haunted to-day and I thank God that it is with the thought of the\nunhappiness, the misery, of men. What does it mean? It means that men\nhave developed so on their sympathetic side that they cannot be happy\nthemselves while the world is unhappy. So you see that this self-\ndevelopment, which I placed as the chief thing at the outset in the\nmeaning of life, carries with it the necessity on the part of those who\nare developed, of doing everything they can to develop and lift up\neverybody else; so that making the most of yourself means making the\nmost of everybody else.\n\nAnd now, if I turn for a moment to that other point, merely to\ndistinguish it by itself, although I have been dealing with it all the\nwhile, the end and aim of life once more is to be happy. I am perfectly\nwell aware that the old Puritan theology has taught otherwise, so far\nas this life is concerned. I was brought up with the feeling that, if I\nwanted to do anything, the chances were it was wrong, that it was a\ngood deal more likely to be in the way of virtue if it was something\nthat was disagreeable to me. And yet, curiously enough, this old\nPuritan theology invented and held up before men, as a lure to lead\nthem to virtue, the most tremendous bribe that ever entered into the\nimaginations of men, eternal felicity on the one hand, and eternal woe\non the other. So that it conceded the very thing that it seemed to\ndeny, that men naturally and necessarily sought happiness, and could\nnot possibly do otherwise.\n\nAnd so we learn to live, to think, to serve others. We are beginning to\nlearn also that this desire for happiness is natural, is necessary, is\nright. If a man is not happy, you may be sure there is something wrong.\nIf there is pain in the body, it means disease, difficulty,\nobstruction, something out of the way. It means that God's laws are not\nperfectly kept. If there is pain up in the mental realm, pain in the\nmoral realm, pain in the spiritual realm, it means always something\nwrong. Man ought to be happy. He ought to seek happiness as the great\nend and outcome of human life.\n\nAnd we are learning, as the natural and necessary result of our\nexperiences in knowing and in serving, that just in so far as we know\nthe laws of God, just in so far as we obey the laws of God, just in so\nfar as we help others to know and obey, just in so far there comes into\nour lives the blessedness of the blessed God.\n\nThe end of life, then, the object of life here on earth, is to develop\nourselves to the utmost. It is to learn to know, take possession of our\ninheritance, this earth, control all its forces for the service of\ncivilization. It is to rejoice in all this self-development, in all\nthis help, in all this knowledge, in all this power. It is to feel\nourselves thrilling with the consciousness that we are sons of God, and\nare co-operating with him in bringing about the grand result of the\nages, the perfection of man.\n\nAnd then what? Death? This is only one stage of our career. We are here\nat school; we learn our lessons or we do not; we attain the ends we\nseek after or we only partly attain them or do not attain them at all;\nand then we go on. Does that mean that it ends there? I do not believe\nit. I believe that it simply means that we go out into a larger\nopportunity, from the planet to the system, to the galaxy, to the\nuniverse, wider knowledge answering to more magnificent resources in\nthe infinite universe. We, with undeveloped powers that may increase\nand advance forever, and a universe so complete, so exhaustless, that\nit may match and lure and lead and rejoice us forever; we being trained\nas God's children in God's likeness and helping others to attain the\nsame magnificent ends, this I believe to be the significance, the\nmeaning, the purpose, of life.\n\nAre there any here this morning who think or fear that the taking away\nof the old idea concerning the results of Lying may remove moral\nmotive, may undermine character, nay make people less careful to do\nright? It seems to me hat, if people understand the significance of\nthis universe, and their relation to it, they will find that all the\ncarelessness of motive, the ease of salvation, as they call it, is with\nthe old idea. Our theory is a more strenuous and insistent one. Children\nare learning as they become wiser that evil is not only evil, but it is\nfolly. A man wishes life, health, happiness, prosperity, all good. He\nlearns, as he goes on, that the universe is in favor of the keeping of\nits own laws; and that, f he flings himself against the forces of the\nuniverse, he is only broken for his pains. If you wish to be healthful,\nsappy, strong, wish to attain any desirable thing, it is to be bound\nnot in defiance of the laws of the universe, but in loving and tender\nobedience.\n\nAnd, then, if you only remember that in this universe and coder the\nuniversal law of cause and effect you are building to-morrow out of\nto-day, and next week and next year, and all he future, that every\nthought, every word, every action, is  cemented together as a part of\nthis structure that you build, hat you can make your own future for\ngood or ill, and that you cannot build it successfully except in\naccordance with he eternal laws of things, then you find that here are\nthe most insistent and tremendous motives it is possible for the human\nmind to conceive.\n\nThis life of ours, if we lead it nobly and truly, then, we shall find\nto be a growth into the likeness of the Divine, a growth into an\nincreasing opportunity to share the work of our Father in building and\nhelping men, and that, as the result of this, joy, infinite joy, is to\nfill our hearts until we share the very blessedness of our Father.\n\nGod made our lives to be a song Sweet as the music of the spheres, That\nstill their harmonies prolong For him who rightly hears. The heavens\nand the earth do play Upon us, if we be in tune: Winter shouts hoarse\nhis roundelay, And tender sweet pipes June. But oftentimes the songs\nare pain, And discord mars our harmonies: Our strings are snapped by\nselfish strain, And harsh hands break our keys. But God meant music;\nand we may, If we will keep our lives in tune, Hear the whole year sing\nroundelay, December answering June. God ever at his keyboard plays,\nHarmonics, right; and discords, wrong: \"He that hath ears,\" and who\nobeys, May hear the mystic song.\n\nSIN AND ATONEMENT.\n\nFor the sake of clearness, and in order that you may definitely\ncomprehend the doctrine of sin and atonement which I believe to be the\ntrue one, I need in the first place to outline as a background that\nwhich lies at the foundation of all the popular theologies of\nChristendom. I am perfectly well aware that at least a part of the\ntime, while I am doing this, I shall be traversing ground with which\nyou are already familiar. Some of it, however, I think may be somewhat\nstrange to you.\n\nThe tradition begins with the story of a war in heaven. In some way\nrebellion began among the angels; and he who had been Lucifer, the\nlight-bearer, prince among the glorious sons of God, took up arms of\nrebellion against the Almighty. Naturally, he failed in this inevitably\nlosing battle, and was cast out into the abyss, with a third part of\nall the angels, who had followed him. Then the tradition goes on: God\ndecided to create the world, that the sons of men born and trained here\nmight ultimately take the places that had been held by the angels who\nhad been cast out on account of their sin. But Satan, seeing this fair\nand beautiful earth, this wondrous handiwork of God, determined, if\npossible, to thwart and defeat the purposes of the Almighty. He\ntherefore invades this beautiful world. He finds Adam and Eve in their\ncondition of perfect felicity, innocent, but inexperienced; and they\nfall a ready prey to his intention.\n\nThey then share his rebellion, accept him instead of God as king.\nHenceforth they are followers of him in his age-long warfare against\nlight and truth, and, unless in some way saved, are to be sharers of\nhis eternal destiny, cast out into chains and darkness forever.\n\nNow comes the necessity for noting for a moment the nature of sin on\nthis theory. You see it is not ignorance, it is not weakness merely, it\nis not inherited passion only: it is conscious and purposeful rebellion\nagainst God, putting yourself at enmity with his truth, his\nrighteousness, his love. In action it is some specific deed done\nagainst God or against his truth or his right. As a state of mind, it\nis a heart perverted, choosing always that which is evil, a heart at\nenmity with God and with all that is good; and the theologians have\nalways been obliged, as a matter of consistency, to hold, no matter how\nnoble, how unselfish men might appear to be, that the natural man has\ninherently, always, necessarily been evil. He carries about with him\nthe taint of original sin; that is, sin of constitution, ingrained,\ninherited, that which is of the very fibre of his being. This is the\ncharacter of man as required by the old theological systems; and this\nis how it happened to come about. Evil is not something natural, not\nimperfection, not something undeveloped, not yet outgrown. Sin\noriginated outside of this world, invaded it, and worked its ruin and\ndestruction.\n\nNow comes the device that has been called the Atonement, by which it is\nsupposed that God is going to be able to save at least a part of this\nrebellious humanity. There have been a good many different theories of\nthe atonement that have been held, eighteen or twenty varieties of the\ndoctrine, three or four of which I must outline, in order to make them\nclear to your mind, that you may see what have been the devices by\nwhich the theologians have supposed that they could find a way for the\ndeliverance of man from this condition of loss, and fit him to share\nthe felicity for which he was originally intended.\n\nOf course, the main point in the whole scheme is that the Second Person\nof the Trinity becomes incarnate, comes down here to this world, is\nborn, grows up, teaches, suffers and at last is put to an ignominious\ndeath. This is the central idea of the doctrine of the atonement; or,\nrather, the Christ is the central figure in that doctrine. But how is\nit supposed to work out the atonement that is necessary, in order that\nman may be saved? You will see that the world, according to the ideas I\nhave been delineating, is in a condition of rebellion. What men need is\nto be persuaded that they are wrong, convinced of sin, in theological\nlanguage, and then made repentant, and in some way be forgiven for the\nwrong which they have done.\n\nNow it is supposed that God must invent some scheme by which to make it\npossible for him to save these lost and fallen men. If you read the\nparable of the Prodigal Son as Jesus has so tenderly, touchingly,\nbeautifully outlined it for us, you will see that there is no thought\nor plan or necessity for either in that. The son left his home,\nfollowed the impulses and passions of youth, had gone among those that\nwere degraded, had soiled his character, done despite to his father's\nlove, injured his own nature, degraded himself by his associations and\nactions. But when at last he awakes, becomes conscious of his father's\nlove and righteousness and truth, and says, \"I will arise, and go to my\nfather,\" there is no talk of God's not being ready to receive him, or\nnot being able to receive him, or needing to have something done before\nhe can receive him, no thought of anybody's suffering any more in order\nthat he may be forgiven. You see all these elements that are associated\nwith the popular doctrines of atonement are not once thought of, never\neven alluded to. He simply arises, and goes to his father; and his\nfather is so anxious to help him that he goes to meet him before he\nreaches the father's house, and gladly falls on his neck and kisses him\nand folds him in his arms. It only needs that the son should recognize\nthe righteousness and goodness of his father, and should wish to go\nback. That is the doctrine of Jesus as taught in this wonderfully sweet\nand beautiful parable.\n\nNow what are the theories of atonement as outlined in the popular\ntheology? For the first thousand years of Christian history one of the\nstrangest conceptions possessed the ecclesiastical mind that has ever\nbeen dreamed of. It was held literally that through the sin of Adam the\nhuman race had become the rightful subjects of Satan, that they\nbelonged to him. He was their king, their emperor, their ruler, and had\na right to them in this world and the next. And so some diplomatic\nnegotiations must be entered into with the Devil, in order to deliver a\ncertain part of these his subjects, and open the way for them to be\nsaved. So the Church Fathers taught that Satan recognized in Christ his\nold adversary in heaven, and he entered into a bargain with God that,\nif he could have Christ delivered over to him, in exchange for that he\nwould give up his right to so many of the souls of men as were to be\nsaved as the result of this compact. So the work of the atonement used\nto be preached as being this sort of bargain entered into with Satan.\n\nBut note what quaint, naive ideas possessed the minds of people at that\ntime. Satan did not know that Jesus possessed a divine nature, and\nthat, consequently, he could not beholden of death; and so, when he\nentered into this bargain, he was cheated, he found out to his dismay\nthat he had lost not only humanity, but Christ also, had been defrauded\nof them both. This was the doctrine of the atonement that was preached\nduring the early centuries of the Christian Church, at least in certain\nparts of Europe.\n\nBut later there came another doctrine, the belief that the sufferings\nof the Christ were a substitute offered to God for what would have been\nthe sufferings of the lost. He was made sin for us, he who had known no\nsin, as the New Testament phraseology has it. So that he, being\ninfinite, in a brief space of time during his little earthly career,\nduring his suspension on the cross and his descent into hell, was able\nto suffer as much pain as all the lost would have suffered throughout\neternity. And this suffering of the Christ was supposed to be accepted\non the part of God as the substitute for that which he would have\nexacted on the part of the souls of those that for his sake were to be\nsaved.\n\nThere is still another theory that I must mention briefly, that which\nis called the governmental theory, that which I was taught during my\ncourse of theological instruction. The idea was that God had a moral\ngovernment to maintain, not only on this earth, but throughout the\nrange of the universe among all his intelligent creatures, and, if he\npermitted his laws to be broken without exacting an adequate penalty,\nthen all governmental authority would be overthrown. In other words,\nmen took their poor human legal devices, their political ideals, and\nlifted them into the heavens, made them the models after which it was\nsupposed God was to govern his great, intelligent universe.\n\nSo they said that God would be willing to forgive, he would like to\nforgive, he was loving and tender and kind, but it was not safe, safe\nfor the interests of his universal government, for him to forgive any\none until an adequate penalty had been paid in expiation of human sin.\n\nYou see, according to this theory, it does not apparently make much\ndifference who it is that suffers, whether it is the person who has\ncommitted the sin or not; but somebody must pay an adequate penalty,\nand Jesus volunteered to do this, to be the victim, and so to deliver\nman from the righteous deserts which he had incurred as a transgressor\nof the law of God.\n\nGradually, however, as the world became civilized, as wider and broader\nthoughts manifested themselves in the human mind, as tenderer and truer\nfeelings took possession of the human heart, these theories receded\ninto the background; and there came to the front I remember the bitter\ncontroversies over it in my younger days what was called the Moral\nTheory of the Atonement. The originator and sponsor for this theory was\nthe famous Dr. Horace Bushnell, of Hartford. He taught that God did not\nneed the punishment of anybody to uphold the integrity of his moral\ngovernment. He taught that God was not angry with the race, and did not\ncare to exact a penalty before he was ready to forgive human sin. He\ntaught that the inner nature of God was love, and that in the Second\nPerson of the Trinity he came to earth, was born, grew up, taught,\nsuffered, died, as a manifestation to the world of his love, of his\ngoodness, of his readiness to forgive and help, and that the efficacy\nof the atonement as thus wrought on the part of the Christ was in its\nrevelation to men of the love and saving power of righteousness.\n\nThis was the moral theory of the atonement. It was not supposed to work\nany result in the nature of God or his disposition towards men. Its\neffect was to work along the lines of human thought and human action:\nit was to affect men, and make them willing to be saved instead of\nmaking God willing to save them. This was the moral theory of the\natonement; and you will see how it gradually approaches that which\nintelligent and free men, it seems to me, must hold to-day in the light\nof their careful study of human history and human nature. It is almost\nthe theory which is being held by the freest and noblest men of to-day.\nThe difference between it and that which I shall in a moment try to set\nforth is chiefly that Dr. Bushnell confines this work of the atonement\nto the person and history and character of one man instead of letting\nall men share in this divine and atoning work which is being wrought\nout through all the ages.\n\nLet me now come to set forth what I believe to be the simple and\ndemonstrated truth. My objections against this old theory are\nthreefold. I will mention them, and have done with them in a word.\n\nIn the first place, the supposed origin of sin in heaven seems to me so\nabsurd as to be utterly unthinkable. This idea of war in heaven,\nrebellion against God, smacks too much of the Old World traditions, of\nthe mythologies of Greece and Rome and of other peoples. Jupiter could\ndethrone his father, the god Saturn, because Saturn was not almighty\nand all-wise. These gods of the ancient time were merely exaggerated\ntypes of human heroes and despots. There could be war among them, and\none of them overthrown; and Jupiter could divide the universe, after he\nhad conquered and dethroned his father, with his two brothers.\n\nAll this is reasonable, when you are talking about finite creatures;\nbut try to think for one moment of an archangel, a pure and clear-eyed\nintelligence, deliberately choosing to rebel against Omnipotence! He\nmust have known it would be utterly, absolutely, forever hopeless!\nIntelligent creatures do not rebel under conditions like that,\nparticularly when you combine with the absolute hopelessness of the\ncase the fact that he knew he was choosing misery, suffering, forever.\n\nAs I said, the whole conception of the origin of evil that implies the\nrebellion of a spiritual being who knew what he was doing is\ninexpressibly absurd, so absurd that we may dismiss it as impossible.\nIf there were any such rebellion, if you waive the absurdity for the\nmoment and consider the possibility, God would be responsible; for he\nmade him. The whole theory is not only absurd: it is unjust in its\nimplications towards both God and man. And then, and perhaps we need\nnot say any more about it, we know that it is not true. It did not even\noriginate in the Bible, it did not even originate among the Jews: it is\nnothing in the world but a pagan myth imported into Jewish tradition\njust a few hundred years before the birth of Jesus. It is of no more\nauthority in rational human thought than the story of Jason or\nHercules, not one particle.\n\nLet us now turn, then, to what we know, from the history of man and the\nscientific study of the universe, to be something approaching the\nreality of things. People have always been talking about the origin of\nevil. It is not the origin of evil that we have to face or deal with or\nexplain at all. Let me ask you to consider for a moment the condition\nof the world when man first appeared on this planet. Here among the\nlower animals were what? All the vices and all the crimes that we can\nconceive of, only they were not vices nor crimes at all. There were all\nthe external actions and all the internal feelings and passions; but\nthey were not vices, and they were not crimes. Why? Because there was\nno moral sense which recognized anything better, no moral standard in\nthe light of which they might be judged.\n\nHere, for example, in this lower world, were all hatreds, jealousies,\nenvies, cruelties, thefts, greeds, murders, every kind of action that\nwe speak of as evil in man. And yet I said there was no evil there, no\nmoral evil there, because there was no consciousness, no recognition,\nof the distinction between the lower and the higher. This was a part of\nthe natural and intended order of the development of life, not an\naccident, not an invasion from the outside, not a thwarting of the will\nof God, not an interference with his purpose, all of this a part of the\nworking out of his purpose.\n\nNow, when man appeared, what happened? The origin, not of evil, but the\norigin of goodness. A conscience was born. Man came into possession of\na moral ideal, in the light of which he recognized something higher\nthan this animalism that was all around him, and became conscious of\nthe fact that he must battle against that, and put it under his feet.\nSo that the life of the world, from that day to this, has been the\ngrowth, the gradual increase, and the gradual conquest of good over\nthat which was in existence before.\n\nThere is no fall of man, then, there is no conscious and purposeful\nrebellion against God to be accounted for, there is no need of any\ndevil to explain the facts. He is only an encumbrance, only in the way,\nonly makes it difficult and practically impossible to solve our\nproblem.\n\nThe old story was that, after the rebellion, pain and death and all\nevil came into the human world; and the natural world was blighted.\nThorns and briers and thistles sprang up on every hand; and animals\nwhich before had been peaceful began to fight and destroy each other.\nWe all know this to be a childish myth, and pagan. The actual history\nof the world has been something entirely other than that.\n\nNow I do not wish that you should suppose that I minimize evil, that I\nmake light of sin, that I do not properly estimate the cruelties and\nthe wrongs that have devastated the world. I need only suggest to you\nthat you look in this direction and that to see how hideous all these\nevils may be; how bitter, how cruel, is the fruit of wrong thoughts and\nof wrong actions. Look at a man, for example, divine in the\npossibilities of his being, but through vice, through drink, through\nhabits of one kind and another, corrupted until it is an insult to a\nbrute to call him brutal. We do not deny all this. Notice the cruelties\nof men towards each other, the jealousies, the envies, the strifes, the\nwarfares. How one class looks down upon and treats with contempt\nanother that is a little lower! How masters have used their slaves; how\ntyrants like Nero and Caligula have made themselves hideous spectacles\nof what is possible to humanity, on a stage that is world-wide and\nilluminated by the flash-lights of history!\n\nI do not wish you to suppose for a moment that I belittle, that I\nunderestimate these evils, only we do not need anything other than the\nscientific and historic facts of the world in order to account for\nthem. What is sin, as science looks at it and treats it? Not something\nconsciously and purposely developed, not something originating in a\nrebellion in some other world than this. It seems to me that we can\nvery easily account for it when we recognize that man has been\ngradually coming up from the lower orders of life, and that he still\nhas in him the snake and the hyena, the wolf, the tiger, the bear, all\nthe wild, fierce passions of the animal world only partly sloughed off,\nnot yet outgrown; when you remember how ignorant he is, how he does not\nunderstand yet the meaning of these divine laws and the divine life,\nglimpses of which now and then attract his attention and lure him on;\nwhen you remember that selfishness, misguided by ignorance, can believe\nthat one man can get something for his behoof and happiness and good at\nthe expense of the welfare of somebody else, and harm come only to the\nperson that is defrauded. Right in here, if I had time to treat it in\nstill further detail, it seems to me we have a simple and adequate\nexplanation of all the evil that has ever blasted, blighted, and\ndarkened the history of man.\n\nNow, man being this kind of a creature, having an animal origin as well\nas a divine one, gradually climbing up out of this lower life and\nlooking towards God as his ideal, what is it that he needs? Is there\nany need of atonement? All need of atonement! What does atonement mean?\nThe word itself carries its clearest explanation. In its root it means\n\"atonement,\" healing the division, whatever its nature or kind,\nbringing man into one-ness with God and men into one-ness with each\nother.\n\nNow let me suggest to you a little as to the things that keep man and\nGod apart, keep men away from each other; and they will suggest the\natonement that is needed to heal all these divisions, and bring about\nthat ideal condition of things that we dream of and pray for and talk\nabout, when men shall perfectly love God, and when they shall love each\nother as themselves.\n\nWhat is it that keeps man from God? First, it seems to me, it is\nignorance. What man needs in order to bring him into oneness with God\nis first to have some clear conceptions of the divine, some high,\nsweet, noble thoughts of God, some knowledge of the laws of God as\nembodied in himself and in the universe around him. Man needs\nintelligence, then, to help him, needs education.\n\nIn the next place, he needs such a picture of God as shall; make him\nseem lovable. You cannot make the human heart love that which seems\nhateful. The picture of God, as he has been outlined to the world in\nthe past, has repelled the human heart; and I do not wonder. I do not\nthink it strange that humanity should be at enmity with that conception\nof the divine. Make God the ideal of all that is noble and sweet and\nlovely, and the heart will be as naturally attracted and drawn to him\nas a flower is toward the sun.\n\nThen man needs to have his spiritual side developed, that in him which\nis akin to God, so that he shall naturally live out the divine love.\nEducation, then, is all on man's side, you will see. God does not need\nto be changed: we need to know him, to love him, to come into conscious\nrelationship with him. This is what we need, so far as our relation to\nGod is concerned.\n\nNow for the more important side; for it is infinitely the more\nimportant practically. Let me speak a little while of the work of\natonement between man and man. If we trace the history of humanity, we\nfind that men were scattered in groups all over the world, isolated,\nseparated from each other, ignorant of each other, misunderstanding\neach other, hating each other, fighting each other; and the work of\nsome other world than this. It seems to me that we can very easily\naccount for it when we recognize that man has been gradually coming up\nfrom the lower orders of life, and that he still has in him the snake\nand the hyena, the wolf, the tiger, the bear, all the wild, fierce\npassions of the animal world only partly sloughed off, not yet\noutgrown; when you remember how ignorant he is, how he does not\nunderstand yet the meaning of these divine laws and the divine life,\nglimpses of which now and then attract his attention and lure him on;\nwhen you remember that selfishness, misguided by ignorance, can believe\nthat one man can get something for his behoof and happiness and good at\nthe expense of the welfare of somebody else, and harm come only to the\nperson that is defrauded. Right in here, if I had time to treat it in\nstill further detail, it seems to me we have a simple and adequate\nexplanation of all the evil that has ever blasted, blighted, and\ndarkened the history of man.\n\nNow, man being this kind of a creature, having an animal origin as well\nas a divine one, gradually climbing up out of this lower life and\nlooking towards God as his ideal, what is it that he needs? Is there\nany need of atonement? All need of atonement! What does atonement mean?\nThe word itself carries its clearest explanation. In its root it means\n\"atonement,\" healing the division, whatever its nature or kind,\nbringing man into one-ness with God and men into one- ness with each\nother.\n\nNow let me suggest to you a little as to the things that keep man and\nGod apart, keep men away from each other; and they will suggest the\natonement that is needed to heal all these divisions, and bring about\nthat ideal condition of things that we dream of and pray for and talk\nabout, when men shall perfectly love God, and when they shall love each\nother as themselves.\n\nWhat is it that keeps man from God? First, it seems to me, it is\nignorance. What man needs in order to bring him into oneness with God\nis first to have some clear conceptions of the divine, some high,\nsweet, noble thoughts of God, some knowledge of the laws of God as\nembodied in himself and in the universe around him. Man needs\nintelligence, then, to help him, needs education.\n\nIn the next place, he needs such a picture of God as shall: make him\nseem lovable. You cannot make the human heart: love that which seems\nhateful. The picture of God, as he has been outlined to the world in\nthe past, has repelled the human heart; and I do not wonder. I do not\nthink it strange that humanity should be at enmity with that conception\nof the divine. Make God the ideal of all that is noble and sweet and\nlovely, and the heart will be as naturally attracted and drawn to him\nas a flower is toward the sun.\n\nThen man needs to have his spiritual side developed, that in him which\nis akin to God, so that he shall naturally live out the divine love.\nEducation, then, is all on man's side, you will see. God does not need\nto be changed: we need to know him, to love him, to come into conscious\nrelationship with him. This is what we need, so far as our relation to\nGod is concerned.\n\nNow for the more important side; for it is infinitely the more\nimportant practically. Let me speak a little while of the work of\natonement between man and man. If we trace the history of humanity, we\nfind that men were scattered in groups all over the world, isolated,\nseparated from each other, ignorant of each other, misunderstanding\neach other, hating each other, fighting each other; and the work of\ncivilization means to bring men together, to work out an atonement\nbetween nation and nation, religion and religion, family and family,\nman and man.\n\nHere, again, as in the case of God, the first thing that needs to be\novercome is ignorance. Look back no further than our late war. I think\nevery careful student of that tremendous conflict is ready to say\nto-day that, if the North and South had been acquainted with each other,\nknown each other as they know each other now, the war would have been\nimpossible. We need to know other men. As you go back, you find curious\ntraditions illustrating this ignorance of different nations and\ndifferent peoples of each other. Plato, for example, taught it as a\nvirtue that the Athenians should hate all other peoples except the\nGreeks and all other Greek cities except Athens; and they spoke of the\noutside nations that did not speak Greek as barbarians, people who\ncould not talk, people who, when they essayed to speak, said, \"Ba, ba,\"\nmisusing words and expressions. They had traditions of men who carried\ntheir heads under their arms, who had only one eye, which was in the\nmiddle of their forehead, all sorts of monstrosities in human shape,\nantagonistic to the rest of mankind.\n\nEven in modern times those ignorances, misconceptions, and prejudices\nare far from being outgrown. Lord Nelson counted it as a virtue in an\nEnglishman that he should hate a Frenchman as he did the devil. How\nmany people are there to- day who look with an unprejudiced eye upon a\nforeigner?\n\nThe things, then, that keep nations apart are ignorance. Then there is\nthe lack of sympathy. You will find people walking side by side here in\nour streets, people in the same family, who find it impossible to\nunderstand each other.\n\nThey cannot put themselves in the place of another; they cannot\ncomprehend something which is a little different from what they are\naccustomed to hear; not only cannot they understand it, they cannot\nlovingly or patiently look at it. Think of the things that have kept\npeople apart in physical and mental and spiritual realms, the rivers,\nthe mountain chains, the oceans; differences of religion, differences\nof language, differences of civilization; different ethical ideas,\nuntil people of the world have sat looking at each other with faces of\nfear and antagonism instead of with the dawning in their eyes of love\nand brotherhood.\n\nNow what the world needs is something to atone, to bridge over these\ndifferences, to bring men into sympathetic and loving acquaintance with\neach other. I wish to note two or three things that have wrought very\nlargely and effectively in this direction. Does it ever occur to you\nthat commerce is something besides a means for the accumulation of\nwealth? Commerce has played one of the largest parts in the history of\nthis world in atoning the differences, the antagonisms, between nation\nand nation and man and man. It has taught the world that there is a\ncommunity of interests, and that, instead of fighting each other, they\nare mutually blessed and helped by coworking, co-operating, exchanging\nwith each other.\n\nSo the inventors, the discoverers, have helped to bring about this\nsense of human brotherhood, this community of human interests. How\nmuch, for example, was wrought when the electric wire was placed under\nthe seas, and, instead of allowing weeks and weeks for a\nmisunderstanding to grow and for ill-feeling to ferment between England\nand this country, puts us in such quick relations that a\nmisapprehension could be corrected in an hour. All these things have\nhelped bring the world together, are engaged in this magnificent\nreligious service of atonement, of making nations one, making humanity\none, a family.\n\nI do not wish you to suppose that I misunderstand or underestimate the\nwork of the Christ in this direction. He has done a grander work of\natonement than any other figure in the history of the world. He\nrevealed to us the glory, the tenderness, the love, of God, and so\nlifted the heart of the world towards the Father as no other one man\nhas done who has ever lived. And, then, he lived out and manifested the\nglory, the tenderness, the wonder, of human character and human life as\nhardly any other man who has ever lived; and on so world- wide a stage\ndid he do this that the influence of his work has overrun all national\nbarriers, and is rapidly coming to be world-wide, and in admiration of,\nand love for him, Jew and Greek, and barbarian, Scythian, Arabian,\nEuropean, and Asiatic, all the nations of the world are becoming one.\nFor no matter what their theory may be about him, whether they hold him\nto be God or man, they hold the ideal that he set forth and lived to be\nspiritually human and nobly divine. So Jesus is more and more, as the\nages go by, helping us to one-ness with God, helping us into\nsympathetic one-ness with each other.\n\nBut I would not have you think that Jesus is the only one who has\nwrought atonement for the sin of the world. Every man in his degree, in\nso far as he has been divine and human, patient, faithful, has rendered\nservice to the world, has done his part in bringing about this\nmagnificent consummation.\n\nLook for a moment at Abraham Lincoln. Think what he did by the atoning\nsacrifice of his life for liberty, for humanity, for truth. On the one\nhand, his murderer showed what sin may come to in its ignorance, its\nmisconception, its antagonism to whatever is right and good and true.\nAnd, on the other hand, he, with words of forgiveness on his lips,\nwords of human love, with all tenderness and charity in his heart,\nillustrated again and lived out the sweetness of divinity and the\ntenderness of humanity.\n\nAs another illustration, human, simple, natural, just let me say a word\nconcerning the act, the attitude, of General Grant at Appomattox. He\ndid more at the surrender of Lee to send a thrill of brotherly sympathy\nthrough North and South and help wield this nation into one than he\ncould have possibly done by the most magnificent achievement of arms,\nwhen he refused to take his opponent's sword; when he let the officers\ngo away with their side-arms; when he told each man that his horse or\nhis mule was still of right his because he would need it to begin the\nnew life again that was before him.\n\nFacts like these suggest the naturalness, the humanness, as well as the\nGod-likeness of the work of atonement that is going on all over the\nworld, as it climbs and swings slowly up out of the darkness and into\nthe light of life. Jesus the great atoning sacrifice? Yes, but\nthousands on thousands of others atoning in just the same divine way,\njust the same human way, just as naturally, just as necessarily. Every\nman who does an honest day's work, every man who is kind and loving in\nhis family, every man who is helpful as a neighbor, every man who\nstands faithfully by his convictions of truth, every man who shows that\nhe cares more for the truth than he does for worldly success, that he\nknows that in that truth only is immortality, and that it is greater\nand better and sweeter than even life, every man who consecrates\nhimself in this way is doing his part towards working out the atonement\nof human sin, the reconciliation of man with God, the reconciliation of\nmen with each other.\n\nLet us, then, while loving Jesus, while reverencing him for the\ngrandeur of his work and the beauty of his life, let us rise and claim\nkinship with him, rise to the dignity and glory of the thought that we\nare sons of God as he was, and that we may share with him the grandest\nservice that one man can render to his time, the helping of people to\nfind and love and serve God, the helping of people to discover and love\nand serve each other. The outcome of this atoning work is simply the\ncoming of that time which we speak of familiarly without half\ncomprehending it, when the world shall recognize the universal\nFatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.\n\nPRAYER, AND COMMUNION WITH GOD\n\nSOME years ago I heard a minister, then widely known throughout the\ncountry, say in a public address, \"Prayer is the power that moves the\narm that moves the world.\" Can we accept that to-day as a definition of\na rational view of the relation in which we stand to God? Many of you\nwill remember that not long ago the churches and the scientific men of\nEngland and America were much stirred and roused over a discussion\nconcerning the practical efficacy of prayer. There was much talk of\nwhat was called the \"prayer-gauge.\" I think it was Professor Tyndall\nwho proposed to test the question as to whether prayer was a real power\nin the physical world; and his test, if I remember rightly, was\nsomething like this. He said: You churchmen claim that prayer is able\nto heal the sick. Now, he said, let us take a certain hospital. We will\ndivide it, a certain number of wards on one side, and a certain number\nof wards on the other, equalizing so far as we can the nature of the\nillnesses which afflict the patients. You now concentrate as much as\nyou please, and as many as you please, the prayers on certain wards in\nthe hospital, and we will commit the rest to the ordinary treatment of\nthe physicians; and we will see if you are able to produce any results.\n\nAgainst a certain type and theory of prayer I suppose a test like that\nis legitimate enough; and this type, this theory, is the one that has\nprevailed throughout Christendom largely for a good many hundreds of\nyears. I suppose you can remember in your boyhood some of you are as\nold as I that it was not an uncommon thing for the minister to pray\nearnestly for certain things that intelligent men would hardly think of\npraying for in the same fashion to-day. It was not an uncommon thing, a\nfew years ago, to have a special prayer- meeting during a drought in\nthe endeavor to prevail upon God to send the rain; and there was\ncertainly a Scriptural warrant for it; for Elijah is represented in the\nOld Testament as having, by the power of prayer, shut up the heavens\nfor three years and a half, and then as bringing rain again as the\nresult of his petition. If you study the Book of James, and remember,\nwhen you do study it, that it was not written by the apostle, but by\nsome unknown author towards the middle of the second century, you will\nsee that he teaches that, if any one is sick, you are not to send for a\nphysician. The brethren are to assemble, the invalid is to be anointed\nwith oil, they are to pray over him, and the explicit and unqualified\npromise is given that the prayer of faith shall save the sick. And yet\nwe have been confronted for ages with the spectacle of people breaking\ntheir hearts in pleading prayer for those that were sick, and seeing\nthem fade and vanish from their sight in spite of their petitions.\n\nI have heard it said a good many times that the fame of the Cunard line\nof steamships touching the matter of the safety of its passengers was\nto be explained by the piety of the founders of the line, and the fact\nthat they prayed every time a ship sailed that it might safely cross\nthe seas and land its passengers without accident in the wished-for\nhaven. Are there no prayers for other lines? Has no one ever prayed on\nbehalf of a ship that did meet with an accident? But this would be\nexplained on this theory by saying that the prayer was not the prayer\nof faith or that there was some defect in it somewhere.\n\nI refer to these things simply by way of illustration to recall to your\nmind that prayer used to be supposed to be a power touching the winds,\nthe waves, the prosperity of the crops, insuring safety during a\ndangerous journey; that it was a power that was able to heal disease,\nthat could accomplish all sorts of strange and startling effects in the\nphysical realm.\n\nAnd now I simply wish to call your attention to the naturalness of that\nkind of prayer in the olden time. To some of us this thought may seem\nstrange, it may seem almost absurd, to-day; but remember it was not\nstrange, it was not absurd, in the times when the old theory of the\nuniverse was thoroughly believed in, not only by church members, but by\nscientific men as well.\n\nWhat was that old conception? I have had occasion to refer to it in one\nconnection or another a good many times; and now I shall have to refer\nto it again, so that you may clearly see what is involved in this\nquestion of the efficacy of prayer. God was supposed to be up in\nheaven, away from nature. Nature was a sort of mechanism, a machine\nthat ordinarily ran on after its own fashion. God had made it, indeed,\nin some sense, God supported it continually; but it went on apart from\nhim, and he was away from it. He was, as Carlyle used to say, looked\nupon as an absentee God. He was up in heaven. He ruled this world as\nthe Kaiser rules Germany, arbitrarily. He was not even always supposed\nto know everything that was going on, at least, if you are to judge by\nthe tone of the prayers of a good many people such as I have heard. He\nneeded information concerning matters. He needed to be pleaded with,\nthat he might interfere and accomplish some results that would not\notherwise take place. He ruled the world arbitrarily and from a\ndistance.\n\nNow, if any German wishes a certain thing accomplished that would not\nhappen in the ordinary course of nature and human life, he knows that\nthe Kaiser has almost unlimited power; and, if he can persuade him to\nundertake it, it may be accomplished. So he will send a petition to the\nKaiser; and he will back that petition with all the influence that he\nis able to bring to bear upon it. If there is a prime minister who\nstands specially high in favor with the Kaiser, do you not see how much\nmight be accomplished by winning his ear, and getting him to intercede\non behalf of the petitioner? Do you not see right in there the parallel\nto the old idea that used to dominate us in regard to the government of\nthe universe? If only we could get God interested in the matter, if we\ncould bring to bear upon him an adequate amount of influence, if we\ncould get Jesus to intercede with him, then something might be\naccomplished.\n\nAre these antiquated ideas? I received a letter only a little while\nago. It told me nothing new; but it came to me with a shock, roused me\nto a recognition of ideas still dominant and popular in the common\nmind. It was from a Catholic. He said: We do not worship Mary; but she\nis in the spirit world, and she is in sympathetic relation with this\nworld's sorrow and trouble. We pray to her, asking her to intercede\nwith her son, because a mother's influence is efficacious. Think for a\nmoment of the implications of this theory of governing the universe.\nGod is away off, has forgotten us, or does not care, at any rate, is\nnot doing for us the things we need. If we can get Jesus to intercede!\nBut, according to this Catholic theory, Jesus had perhaps forgotten or\nwas not attentive. So he pleads with his mother, and gets the mother to\nexert her influence on Jesus so he may exert his influence on God, and\nat last something may be done. I confess to you, friends, that this\ntheory of things does not seem piety to me, but the precise opposite.\n\nI ask you now to follow me while I attempt to point out some of the\ndifficulties that confront us in this old-time theory of prayer. Why is\nit that we cannot pray to God to change the order of the natural world?\nWhy cannot we believe that prayer is the power that moves the arm that\nmoves the world??? Why cannot I consistently pray to God to heal my\ndisease or the disease of a friend, or to save the soul of some friend\nwho would otherwise be neglected by the divine care? Why cannot I any\nlonger pray to God to send his light and truth to the heathen world?\nWhy cannot I pray to him to insure my safety in mid-Atlantic, to do\nsomething to prevent my colliding with a derelict, as the Van-dam has\ndone during the last few days? Do you think there was no one on that\nship that prayed? What is the difficulty in the mind of the\nintelligent, modern thinker when he faces this conception of prayer?\n\nLet us think a little clearly just a moment; and I imagine I can make\nit plain. We no longer think of God we cannot think of him as outside\nthe system of nature, and as possibly interfering with it to produce a\nresult that would not otherwise take place. Why? Because God is the\nsoul, the mind, the heart of nature. The forces of the universe, acting\naccording to their changeless and eternal laws, are simply God at work.\nAnd, when I pray to God to interfere, I am praying him to interfere\nwith himself, I am praying him to contradict his own wisely and\neternally and changelessly established methods of controlling the\nworld.\n\nThe question is sometimes asked, but a man can interfere with the\ncourse of nature, and produce a result that would not be naturally\nproduced without it? Certainly, because man does not stand in this\nrelation to natural forces. But man, however, does not change any law,\nhe does not interfere with any law. He simply discovers some law and\nobeys it, and in that way produces a result that would not otherwise be\nproduced. But man does not stand, I say, in this vital relation to the\nforces of the universe and their laws. When you remember that these\nforces working, as I said, changelessly, eternally, after their\nmethods, when you remember that these are God in his ceaseless and wise\nand loving activity, then do you not see that he cannot contradict or\ninterfere with himself? Here is the great difficulty in regard to this\nold method, this old conception of prayer which confronts the\nintelligent, the educated, the thoughtfully devout man.\n\nWhen I was first struggling out into the light? as it seems to me now\nfrom my old theological training, I met another difficulty that I think\nwill appeal to you. It seemed to me an impertinence for me to be\ntelling God, as I heard so many people on every hand, all sorts of\nthings that he knew before. I reconsidered the words of Jesus, You are\nnot to give yourself to much speaking in your prayers, for your Father\nknoweth what you have need of before you ask him. And then there was\nanother difficulty which troubled me more than any of the others, a\ndelightful, splendid difficulty it has seemed to me since those days.\nIt was connected with the thought of God's goodness and love. There are\nheathen, they tell us, who have got a glimpse, from their point of\nview, of this fact about God. It is said they do not bring any\nofferings, except some flowers, to the deities they regard as good,\nbecause, they say, they do not need to be persuaded. They bring all\ntheir costly offerings to the bad gods, the ones they are afraid of;\nand they attempt to buy their favor or buy off their anger.\n\nWhen I waked up to the free and grand conception of the eternal love\nand the boundless goodness of the Father, then it seemed to me that\nmany of my prayers in the past had been so far from reasonable that\nthey were absurd, and so far from piety that they were wrong. To\nillustrate what I mean. When I was minister of an orthodox church in\nthe West, a lovely, faithful lady came to me to raise some question\ntouching this matter of prayer. It had been suggested, I suppose, by\nsomething I had said; and I asked her this question: What would you\nthink of me if I should come to you, and with pathos in my voice, and\nperhaps with tears in my eyes, plead with you to be kind to your own\nchildren, beg you to give them something to eat, beseech you to furnish\nthem with clothes, entreat you to educate them, to do the best for them\nthat you knew how? What would you think of it? I asked. She said, I\nshould feel insulted. And I replied, Do you not think that God is\nalmost as good as you are?\n\nIf you are anxious and ready, do you think that God needs to be pleaded\nwith and entreated and besought in order to make him willing, in order\nto make him kind, in order to bring some sort of pressure to bear upon\nhim so that he will do the things for his children of which they most\nstand in need? No scientific difficulty, no question of theories of the\nuniverse, has ever affected my practice in the matter of prayer so much\nas this overwhelming, blessed thought of the loving-kindness and care\nof the infinite Father. He does not need to be informed, he does not\nneed to be persuaded. Has not Jesus told us that your heavenly Father\nis more ready to give the things which you need than you are to give\ngood gifts to your children?\n\nAnd so I came to have a difficulty with the kind of prayer- meetings in\nwhich I was brought up as a boy, and which I used to lead as a young\nand earnest minister. I have heard kinds of prayers which have seemed\nto me reflections on the goodness and the kindness of our Father in\nheaven. I remember one man I used to hear him over and over again, week\nby week who would pray, It is time for thee, O God, to work! And, as I\ncame to think of it, it hurt my sense of reverence. I shrank from it.\nAnd I could not believe that God was going to let thousands of souls in\nChina or Africa perish merely because Christians in America did not\npray hard enough and long enough for their salvation. Why should they\nmeet with eternal doom on account of the lack of enthusiasm or devotion\nof people of whom they have never heard?\n\nSo I used to find myself troubled about this question of praying so\nhard for the salvation of other people's souls. If, as the old creeds\ntell us, it is settled from all eternity as to just who is to be saved\nand who is to be lost, there would hardly seem place for a vital\nprayer; and if, as a friend of mine, a minister, and a very liberal and\nbroad one, though in one of the older churches, said to me, \"I believe\nthat God will save every single soul that he can save,\" then do you not\nsee again that it touches this kind of prayer? If he cannot save them,\nthen why should I beg him to do it? If he can, and loves them better\nthan I do, again, why should I plead with him after that fashion to do\nit?\n\nThese, frankly and freely spoken, are some of the difficulties\nconnected with a certain theory of prayer.\n\nI gladly put all that now behind my back, and come to the grand and\npositive side of my theme. I wish to tell you what I myself believe in\nregard to this matter of prayer. And, in the first place, let me\nsuggest to you that prayers, even the prayers of the past, any of them,\nthe most objectionable types, are not made up only of petition; they\nare not all begging, teasing for things. There enter into their\ncomposition gratitude, adoration, reverence, aspiration, a sense of\ncommunion with the spiritual Being, a longing for higher and finer\nthings; a sense of refuge in time of trouble, a sense of strength in\ntime of need, a sense of hope, uplift, and outlook as we glance towards\nthe future. A prayer, then, you see, is a very composite thing, not a\nsimple thing, not merely made up of the element of pleading with God to\ngive us certain things that we cannot come into possession of by\nordinary means.\n\nRight here let me stop long enough to ask you to attend a little\ncarefully to the teaching of Jesus on the subject of prayer. You will\nsee he chimes in almost perfectly with the things I have been saying.\nIf we followed his directions literally, we should never pray in public\nat all. He says, Enter into your chamber, and shut to the door, and\ncommune with the Father in secret. He does not advocate long prayers,\nnor this kind of pleading, begging prayers that I have referred to. Do\nyou remember the story of the unjust judge? Jesus tells this parable on\npurpose to enforce the point I have been speaking of. He says: Here is\nan unjust judge: a widow brings her case before him. She pleads with\nhim until she tires him out; and at last he says, although I am an\nunjust judge, and fear neither God nor men, because with her continual\npraying she wearies me, I will grant her petition. Jesus does not say\nyou are to weary God out in order to get your petitions granted, but\njust the opposite. How much more shall God give good gifts unto those\nthat ask him Read once more that other story of the man who rises at\nnight and goes to a neighbor for assistance. The neighbor, for the sake\nof being gracious and kind, will rise, although it gives him trouble\nand he does not wish to, and grant his request. But God is not like\nthat neighbor: he does not need to be wearied or roused to make him\ncare for our interests. This is the teaching, you will notice, of\nJesus. If there is anything that appears like contrary teaching, you\nwill find it in the supposed Gospel of John, written by an anonymous\nauthor, in which quite different doctrines are taught in regard to a\ngood many things from those that are reported of Jesus in the other\ngospels.\n\nNow I wish to come to my own personal position concerning the subject\nof prayer. It is fitting is it not that we should open our hearts with\ngratitude to God, no matter what has come to us of good or bright, of\nbeautiful, sweet and true things, no matter through what channel, by\nthe ministry of what friend, as the result of the working of no matter\nhow many natural forces. Trace it to its source, and that source is\nalways of necessity the one fountain, the one eternal Giver. And, if\nthere be no more than courtesy in our hearts, ought it not to be easy\nand fitting for us to think, at least, if we do not say, Thank you,\nFather? Not only thanksgiving, but adoration.\n\nAny uplook to something beautiful and high and fine above you partakes\nof the nature of worship. So that prayer which is worship, is it not\naltogether fitting and sweet and true? Only as we look up do we ever\nrise up, do we ever attain to anything finer and better.\n\nAnd then there is communion. Is it true that God is Spirit, and that he\nis Father of his children, also spirit? Are we made in his likeness? Is\nthere community of nature between him and us? I believe that he is\nhuman in all essential qualities, and that we are divine in all\nessential qualities. I believe the only difference between God and man\nis a difference not of kind, but of degree, and that there is,\npossibility of constant interchange of thought, of feeling, communion,\nbetween God and his children. Profound, wonderful truth it seems to me\nis expressed in those beautiful words of Tennyson's:\n\n\"Speak to him thou, for he hears, And spirit with spirit may meet.\nCloser is he than breathing, And nearer than hands and feet.\"\n\nCommunion then possible, the very life of that which is divine within\nus!\n\nThen I do not believe for one moment that prayer is only a sort of\nspiritual gymnastics, that it produces results in us merely by the\nexercise of spiritual feelings and emotions. I believe that in the\nmoral and spiritual realms prayer does produce actual results that\nwould not be produced in any other way. This, however, mark you\ncarefully, not by producing any change in God, only changing our\nrelations towards God. Can I illustrate it? I have a flower, for\nexample, a plant in a flower-pot in my room. It seems to be perishing\nfor the lack of something. It may be that the elements in the air do\nnot properly feed it: it may be that it is hungry for light. At any\nrate, I try it: I take it out into the sunshine, I let the air breathe\nupon it, the dews fall upon it, the rains touch it and revive it and\nthe plant brightens up, grows, blossoms, becomes beautiful and\nfragrant. Have I changed natural laws any? Not to one parunticle. I\nhave changed the relation of my plant and the air; and I have produced\na result of life and beauty where would have been ugliness and death.\n\nSo I believe in prayer in that sense, that it may and does change the\nspiritual attitude of the soul towards God so that we come into\nentirely new relations with him, and the spiritual life in us grows,\nunfolds, becomes beautiful and sweet, not because we have changed God,\nbut because we have got into a new set of relations with him.\n\nIf I thought that I could change God by a prayer, that I could\ninterfere in the slightest degree with the working of any of the\nnatural forces, I would never dare to open my lips in prayer again so\nlong as I live. We do not need to change God: we need simply to change\nour attitude towards him, change our relations to him. Is not this true\nin every department of human life? How is it that you produce results\nanywhere? You wish a mountain stream to work for you. Do you change the\nlaws of motion? You adapt your machinery to those laws of motion, and\nall the power of God becomes yours. You do not change him, you change\nyourself, your attitude towards him. And so in every one of the\ndiscoveries, in every one of the revolutions, that have come to the\nworld, simply by discovering God's methods, and humbly adapting our\nways to those methods Thus the forces of God, which are changeless and\neternal, produce for us results which they would not have produced but\nfor adapting our lives to the working of their ways.\n\nA great many people do not think they ever pray. I have never seen a\nman yet who did not pray. You cannot live, and not pray: you cannot\nescape it if you try. Take Montgomery's famous old definition, \"Prayer\nis the soul's sincere desire, Uttered or unexpressed, The motion of a\nhidden fir That trembles in the breast.\"\n\nSoul's sincere desire. Yes, the body's desire, the mind's desire, the\nheart's desire, any desire, any outreach of life, is a prayer, an\nappeal for something that only the universe, that only God, can bestow.\nSo, no matter whether you think you are religious or not, you are a\npraying man so long as you are a living man; and you cannot escape the\nfact if you try. It is merely a question whether you are a loving praying\nman or some other kind.\n\nThere is another aspect of prayer to which I wish to call your\nattention. Prayer is the refuge of a soul in trouble. It does not mean\nhere, again, that you change God any. Can you not understand what it\nmeans to go to God, as it were, and fling yourself, like a child,\nagainst his breast and feel yourself folded in the everlasting arms?\nYour sorrow may not be removed, the burden may not be taken away, the\nlife of your friend may not be saved, the sickness may not be healed;\nbut there is comfort, there is strength, there is peace, there is help.\nWhy, even in our human life do you not know how it is? You go to some\nfriend you trust and love with your trouble. Perhaps he cannot lift it\nwith one of his fingers; but he can tell you that he loves you, he\ncares, he would help you if only he were able. He can put his arm\naround you, he can say, God bless you; and you are stronger. You go\naway with lifted shoulder and with head that fronts the heavens; and\nyou are able to bear the burden. Is there nothing akin to this in the\nsense of coming into intimate relations with the eternal Father, when\ntroubled, pressed, when the outside world is dark, and feeling that\nhere is refuge in a love deeper, higher, unspeakably more tender than\nthat of the dearest friend that ever lived?\n\nAnd this suggests another point. I have no doubt that sometimes, in my\nattempts to lead the devotions of this congregation, I use words which,\nif I were to sit down and critically analyze, I could not logically\njustify. I do not mean to; but, perhaps, sometimes I do. What of it?\nWhen my children were small, and my little boy came and climbed up in\nmy lap and expressed himself in all sorts of illogical and foolish\nways, telling me every sort of thing he wanted, impossible things,\nunwise things, things I could not get for him, things I would not get\nif I could, because I thought myself wiser than he, did these things\ntrouble me? I loved to have him pour out his whole little soul into\nmine, because he was my child and because I did not expect him to be\nover-wise. It was this simple touch of kinship, this simple communion\nof father and child, which was sweet and tender and true.\n\nSo I believe with my whole soul that God loves us, his little children,\nwith an unspeakable tenderness, a tenderness infinitely beyond that\nwith which any earthly father ever loved a child, and that we can go to\nhim freely and pour out our hearts, whether it is wise in expression or\nunwise; only let us do it with the feeling, \"Not my will, Father, but\nThine, be done,\" not as though we were trying to persuade him to do\nthings for us that he would not otherwise do, but merely as the pouring\nout of our gratitude, our tenderness, our love.\n\nThere is another thing that needs just a word of suggestion. I believe\nthat we ought to pray to God, not in the sense of begging for things,\nbut sympathetically bringing in the arms of our sympathy all those we\nlove and all those we hate, if there are any, and all things that live\non the face of the earth. There is a hint of what I mean in those\nbeautiful words of Tennyson's:\n\n\"For what are men better than sheep or goats That nourish a blind life\nwithin the brain, If, knowing God, they lift not hands in prayer Both\nfor themselves and those who call them friend? For so the whole round\nearth is every way Bound by gold chains about the feet of God.\"\n\nLet us reach out our arms of sympathy to all the world and bring the\nworld sympathetically into the presence of our Father. So our own\nhearts and loves will broaden, until they, too, are divine.\n\nAnd, then, there is one other thing. What a strength prayer has been to\nthe grandest souls of the ages! Never was truer, finer truth written\nthan those magnificent words of Isaiah: \"Even the youths shall faint\nand be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: but they that wait\nupon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with\nwings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, and\nnot faint!\"\n\nTake Jesus in his hour of agony, take Savonarola with his struggle,\ntake Huss, Wyclif, Luther, take all the grand souls of the ages when\nthey have simply stood with the feeling, One with God is a majority,\nand ready to face the world, if need be, in the conviction that they\nspoke for and represented the truth. The times of which Lowell speaks:\n\n\"Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that\nscaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God\nwithin the shadow, keeping watch above his own.\"\n\nThis sense that God is for the truth and right, and, if you are\nstanding for the truth and right, the Almighty Power is backing you up,\nthe ground you stand on impregnable, because of that position. You do\nnot expect God to work miracles, you do not expect him to do anything;\nbut simply the sense that you are in his presence, that you are on his\nside, re- enforces you more than a thousand men could re-enforce an\narmy in the time of its need. This is the great sense of surety that\nthe poet Clough had in mind, when he wrote those wonderfully fine\nwords:\n\n\"It fortifies my soul to know That, though I perish, Truth is so; That\nhowsoe'er I stray or range, Whate'er I do, thou dost not change. I\nsteadier step when I recall That, if I slip, thou dost not fall.\" Here\nis the confidence, the strength, that comes from prayer, from communion\nwith God, from the sense of being in his presence, from a feeling of\nfellowship with the Divine.\n\nThe truest and finest, the sweetest prayer must come oft of the loving,\nthe sympathetic, the tender soul. No selfish prayer can expect to enter\ninto the heart of God. You will note in the words that Jesus teaches\nhis disciples, it is not \"My\" Father, it is \"Our\" Father. And, if we\nwish to pray in the divine spirit, we shall broaden that \"Our\" until it\nincludes not only our family, our church, our city, our State, our\nnation, our humanity, but until it includes all life that swims or\nwalks or flies, feeling that it is the one life of the Father that is\nin us all. For, as Coleridge has finely put it, He prayeth best who\nloveth best All things, both great and small; For the dear God who\nloveth us, He made and loveth all.\n\nTHE WORSHIP OF GOD\n\nTHERE are those who in religious matters, as well as in all other\ndepartments of life, are content to walk unquestioningly the path which\nthe footsteps of previous generations have made easy and familiar. But\nthere are others and these among the more thoughtful and earnest minds\nto whom it is not enough to utter earnest words concerning enthusiasm\nand devotion, consecration and worship. These spiritual attitudes and\nexercises must first be made to appear reasonable to them, fitting,\nfitting to their conception of God, fitting to their ideas of that\nwhich is highest and finest in man.\n\nSo there are many things that pass to-day as forms of worship, many\nideas connected with worship, which this class of minds cannot heartily\nand fully accept. Some of them do not seem to them fitting, as they\nlook upward towards God. They cannot, for example, believe that God\ncares for flattery, cares to sit on his throne, and be told by his\ncreatures how great and how wonderful he is. They cannot think that he\ncares to have presents brought to him, gifts offered on his altar, as\nmen say. They cannot believe that he really is anxious for many of\nthese external forms and ceremonies, which seem to the onlooker to\nconstitute the essential element of much that passes as popular\nworship.\n\nAnd then, on the other hand, man has grown into a sense of dignity. He\nhas a higher and loftier idea of his own nature and of what is fitting\nto a man; and he cannot any longer heartily enter into the meaning of\nwords which speak of him as a worm of the dust, which seem to him to\nintimate that God cares to have him prostrate himself in utter\nhumiliation, to speak of himself always as a miserable sinner, as one\nwithout any good in him.\n\nMany of these things from the point of view of the man himself no\nlonger constitute the real conviction, the real feeling of the noblest\nhearts; and so there are many who are troubled over this question of\nworship, who are not quite sure as to how much spiritual significance\nit may any longer retain, not quite sure as to how vital a part it may\nplay in the development of the religious life of man.\n\nWe find an adequate and perfectly natural explanation of some of these\nphases of worship that trouble us to-day, as we look back and note some\nof the steps in the religious development of the race. I shall not\nraise the question as to how or where or in what way the act of human\nworship began. I will simply say that one of the first manifestations\nof that which came to be religious worship which we are able to trace\nat the present time is to be found in the burial-mounds of the dead.\nMen reverenced the memory of the chief of the tribe who had passed into\nthe invisible. They did not believe that he had ceased to exist: they\nrather looked upon him as having become, because invisible, a higher\nruler. They thought of him as still interested in the welfare of the\ntribe, still its guardian, still its avenger, still demanding of the\ntribe the same reverence that it paid to him while he was yet alive;\nand his followers clothed him with all the human attributes with which\nthey were familiar during the time he was among them. He was still\nhungry, he was still thirsty, he still wanted his old-time weapons, all\nthose things he was familiar with during his earthly career. And so\nthey brought food, and laid it on the burial-mound above his body; and\nthey poured out their libations of drink to quench his spiritual\nthirst.\n\nThese were very real beliefs on the part of man universally during a\ncertain stage of his mental, his moral, his spiritual growth. It was a\nvery natural step beyond this to the origin of sacrifices. All\nsacrifice began right here. It was a religious meal, in which God and\nhis worshippers equally shared. Some animal, supposed to partake of a\nlife similar to that which distinguished the god and the worshipper,\ntoo, is sacrificed. It is cooked, and the worshippers partake of the\nmeal; and they fully believe that the god joins in it also. And then\nthe drink they partake of, and pour out their libation for the\ninvisible spirit.\n\nSo the first sacrifice was a meal eaten together; and just as, for\nexample, to-day you see a remnant of this idea when a man eats with an\nArab, although the Arab may discover five minutes after that it was his\nbitterest foe, he finds himself at least during a little time bound to\namity and peace by the fact that they have shared this sacred meal\ntogether, so in the act of sacrifice it was believed that the\nworshipper consecrated himself in loyalty to his God, and that the God\nconsecrated himself in faithfulness to his worshippers as their\nguardian and protector. Here is given the central significance of\nsacrifices that have made so large a part of the religious ceremonial\nof the world.\n\nThese are not peculiar to what we call pagan people. Do you remember\nthe story of how, after the flood, Noah offers a sacrifice, and God up\nin heaven is represented as smelling the flavor of the burning meat and\nas rejoicing in it, accepting the offering, and pledging himself to\nguard and care for his worshippers? Do you remember, also, that story\nof Jacob, how, when he is on his journey, he falls asleep, and has his\nwonderful dream, and sees the ladder starting at his feet and ending at\nthe throne of God, up and down which the angels are passing? When he\nwakes in the morning, he says, \"Surely, this is holy ground\"; and he\ntakes the stone on which he slept, and sets it up as an altar, and\npours out the sacred oil as an offering to his God.\n\nAll the way through the Old Testament, in the history of the Hebrew\npeople, you trace these same ideas that you find in the life of almost\nall the other nations of the world. It was only a step beyond this to\nthe idea of presenting gifts to God, no matter what the nature of that\ngift might be. And, as men came to make him these sacred offerings,\nthey came also to believe and in the most natural way in the world\nthat, the more costly the gift, the more likely it was to be accepted\non the part of its sublime recipient.\n\nSo human sacrifices arose; for there could be no more sacred gift than\nfor a man to offer his own child or his own wife to God. The gods were\nlooked upon as sometimes demanding these tremendous sacrifices as the\nconditions of their mercy or their care. I refer you for illustration\nto one of the most striking and touching of Tennyson's poems. I think\nit is entitled \"The Victim.\" There had been famine in the land, and the\npriests have announced that they have learned that the gods demand as\nan offering that which is most sacred and most dear to the heart of the\nking; and the question is as to whether it is his son, his boy, or his\nwife. They think it must be the boy, because he was the one that would\ncontinue the kingly line; but the wife detects the gladness of her\nhusband when he sees that the boy is to be selected, and knows by that\nsense of relief that passes over his face that the priests have made a\nmistake, and that she herself is to be the victim. And so, in her love\nfor him and for the people, she rushes upon the sacrificial knife.\n\nAll these ideas, you see, are perfectly natural in certain stages of\nhuman development, logically reasoned out in view of their thought of\nthe gods and of their relations to them and of what these gods must\ndesire at their hands. It is not only among the very early beliefs that\nyou find these ideas controlling the thought and action of men. Study\nthe ancient classical times as they are reflected in the Iliad, in the\nOdyssey, or in Virgil's Aeneid, and you will find that the gods were\nvery human in all their feelings, their thoughts, their passions. As,\nin the Old Testament, Yahweh is reported to have been a jealous God,\nnot willing that respect should be paid to anybody but himself, so you\nfind the old Greek and Roman deities very jealous as to what were\nregarded as their rights, as to what the people must pay to them; and,\nif they are angry, they can be appeased if an offering rare and costly\nenough be brought by the worshipper. You can buy their favor; you can\nward off their anger, if only you can offer them something which is\nprecious enough so that they are ready to accept it at the worshipper's\nhands.\n\nThese are not merely Old Testament ideas, nor only pagan ideas. Some\nyears ago, when I was in Rome, I visited among others one of the many\nchurches dedicated to Mary under one name or another; and there was a\nstatue of the Virgin by the altar, and it impressed me very much to see\nthat it was loaded down with gifts. Every place on the statue itself to\nwhich anything could be attached, anything on the altar around it, was\nweighted down with gold chains, with jewels, with precious gifts of\nevery kind. These had been brought as thank-offerings, expressions of\nworship, or pledges connected with a petition, because I have brought\nthee this gift, have mercy, do this for me which I need.\n\nSo these old ideas are vital still, and live on in the modern world.\nAnd yet modern and magnificent are those utterances of the old Hebrew\nprophet, who had so completely outgrown the common customs even of his\ntime, when he represents God as saying that he is weary of all these\nexternal offerings. He says: I do not want the cattle brought to my\ntemples. Those that wander on a thousand hills are already mine. If I\nwere hungry, I would not ask thee. He does not want the rivers of oil\npoured out. What does he want? The old prophet says, What doth the Lord\nrequire of thee but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly\nwith God? And some of the later writers caught a glimpse of the same\nspiritual truth when they said, Not burnt- offerings, not calves of a\nyear old; when they cry out, Shall I bring the fruit of my body for the\nsin of my soul? No, it is a broken and contrite heart, a heart sorry\nfor its sin, a heart consecrating itself to righteousness and truth,\nthis inner, spiritual worship.\n\nThe prophets, you see, were climbing up to that magnificent ideal so\nfinely set up by Jesus as reported in the Gospel from which I read our\nlesson this morning. They had not only believed that God was to be\nworshipped after these external fashions, but that there was some\nspecial place, not only where it was easier to think of him, but where\nhe demanded the offering should be brought. He said to the woman at the\nwell: You think it is Mount Gerizim where the people ought to worship,\nand the Jews think it is Mount Moriah; but I say unto you that neither\nin this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem shall men worship the Father. God\nis spirit, the universal spirit, every place a temple, every spot\nhallowed, if only those that worship him do so in spirit and in truth.\n\nYou see, then, how up these stairways of gradual approach the human\nrace, in the person of its highest and finest representatives, has\nclimbed, how near it has come to the spiritual ideal of God and the\nspiritual thought of that which he requires at our hands.\n\nIs worship, then, so far as external form is concerned, to pass away?\nBy no manner of means, as I think. As you analyze any one of these old\nprimitive acts of worship, no matter how crude, no matter how cruel,\nhow bloody, how repulsive it may be to-day from the outlook of our\nhigher civilization, you will note that it has in it an element which,\nI believe, is permanent, and can never be outgrown. Whatever else there\nis, there is always the sense of a Presence, Invisible, mighty, high,\nand, from the point of view of the worshipper, holy and set apart.\nThere is always the feeling of being in the shadow of the high and\nlofty One who inhabiteth eternity. There is always the sense of\nuplooking, of worship, in the higher sense of that term. Always, at any\nrate, the germ of these; and this, it seems to me, we may be sure and\ncertain, however it may clothe itself in the future, shall never pass\naway.\n\nI wish now, if there are any who think it is not befitting the\ngreatness, the nobleness of man that he should bow himself in the\npresence of the highest, humiliate himself, if you choose to use that\nterm, in acts of worship, I wish now, I say, to consider worship under\ntwo or three aspects, and see what it means. And, in the first place, I\nask you to note that the ability to worship is always the measure of\nthe rank of a being, it is the test and the standard of greatness.\n\nAs you look over the animal world, which one of them are we accustomed\nto think of as coming the nearest to man? What one do we love to have\nmost with us, to associate most with our joys, with the peace of our\nhomes? Is it not the dog? And as you examine the dog, study carefully\nhis nature and characteristics, do you not note that there is in his\nnature a hint, a suggestion, of that which is the root of all worship?\nThe dog is the one animal with which man is accustomed familiarly to\nassociate himself, who looks up with an incipient reverence, love,\nalmost worship, to his master. And it is this quality in the dog that\nenables him to look up, and, however dimly, feel the life of some one\nthat is above him, that lifts him into our society, and makes us feel\nthis tenderness of heart-kinship with that which is finest in his\nnature.\n\nAnd man is man simply because he is able to look above himself. The old\nGreeks had an anticipation of that idea when they called man anthropos;\nfor the meaning of the word is the upward-looker. As in imagination you\ngo back and down to the time when man first appeared, developed from\nthe lower life which preceded him, the first thing you can think about\nhim as human is the opening of his eyes in wonder, the lifting of his\nface in curiosity and question, and the birth of adoration in his soul.\nThis is that which made him man.\n\nYou go and study the lowest type of barbaric life to-day; and you will\nfind that the barbarian has very little curiosity as compared with the\ncivilized man. You will find that it is very difficult to astonish him\nwith anything. He does not wonder. He takes everything for granted. He\ndoes not see clearly and deeply enough to appreciate the marvel. Let me\nillustrate from a specimen of barbaric life itself. A few years ago the\nchief of an Indian tribe was brought from the plains of the West to\nvisit Washington. The idea was to impress him as much as possible with\nthe idea of our civilization, so that he might report it to his people\nwhen he went home. After they had crossed the Mississippi on their way\nto the West, the gentleman in whose care he was travelling asked the\nchief what the one thing which he had seen during his trip was which\nhad impressed him the most; and he said at once the St. Louis bridge.\nBut his companion said, Are you not astonished at the Capitol of\nWashington? \"Yes,\" he said, \"but my people can pile stones on top of\neach other; but they cannot make a cobweb of steel hang in the air.\"\n\nYou see how that perception lifted him above the average level of his\npeople? He was showing his capacity for higher and nobler civilization.\nIt is just this ability in the man to wonder, to see something to\nwonder at, to worship, to admire, which lifts him one grade higher than\nthat of the average level of his tribe. So that which makes man a man\nis the capacity in him to admire. All admiration is the essence, the\nroot, of worship. And, the more things a man admires, the greater and\nnobler type of man he is seen to be. If he can admire music, if he can\nadmire painting, if he can admire sculpture, if he can admire poetry,\nif he can admire literature of every kind, if he can admire grand\narchitecture, the beautiful monuments of the world, we say, Here is a\nlarge, all-round type of man. We estimate his dignity, his greatness,\nby the capacity that he shows for worship in its lower type; for\nworship is simply looking up with admiration.\n\nThere is another quality about this worship that I wish to speak of. It\nis the power that is capable of transforming a man, making him over\ninto the likeness of that which he admires. You find the man without\nthis capacity, and you know it is hopeless to appeal to him, hopeless\nto set up ideals, hopeless to place before him enticing examples. There\nis nothing in him to which these things appeal. Take Alexander the\nGreat. It is said he carried around with him a copy of the Iliad, and\nthat Achilles was his ideal of a hero. Do you not see how this\nadmiration transformed the life of the young king, and made him after\nthe type of that which he admired? It does not make any difference what\nthis special admiration may be. Let a man admire Beethoven, and he will\ncultivate instinctively the qualities that make the beauty and\ngreatness of Beethoven's character and the wonders of his career.\n\nThis ideal may be in a book, it may be embodied in fiction. I have\nliked always, either on the walls of my room or on the walls of my\nheart, to have certain portraits of persons whom I have loved, who are\nno longer living; and they are to me constant stimulus. They speak to\nme by day, and in my dreams at night their eyes follow me, and seem to\nlook into my soul; and in their presence I could not do a mean, an\nunmanly thing. I love, I reverence, I worship these lofty ideals. And\nthe quality of these characters filters down through and permeates the\nthought and the life.\n\nYou remember how the other aspect of this thought is illustrated by\nShakspere. He says, \"My nature is subdued To what it works in, like the\ndyer's hand.\" If that with which you keep company, that you admire, is\nbelow you, it degrades; if it is above you, it lifts. In any case you\nare transformed, shaped into the likeness of that which you admire.\n\nThere is another aspect of this close akin to that which I have just\nbeen dealing with. It is only the worshipper who has in him any\npromise, any possibility, of growth. Whether it is the individual or\nthe nation, it makes no difference. If you find no capacity to admire\nthat which is above and beyond you, then there is no hope of progress.\nTake the young man who thinks he has exhausted the possibilities of the\nworld, who has reached the stage, who prides himself on not being\nsurprised, not being over whelmed, not admiring anything. The careful\noutside observer knows that, instead of having exhausted the\npossibilities and greatness and wonders of the universe, he has simply\nexhausted himself.\n\nThe man who knows how full the world is of that which is beautiful and\ngreat and true and noble walks through the universe with his head bared\nand bowed, and feels, as did Moses when standing in the presence of the\nburning bush, that he ought to take off his shoes from his feet, for\nthe place where he is standing is holy ground. Wherever you are\nstanding in this universe, which is full of God from star to dust\nparticle, is holy ground; and, if you do not feel it, if you are not\ntouched, if you are not bowed, if you are not thrilled with wonder, it\nis defect in you, and not lack of God.\n\nIf the musician admires his great predecessors and strives to emulate\nthem; if the painter in the presence of the Sistine Madonna feels\nlifted and touched, so that he never can be content with poor work\nagain; if the sculptor is ready to bend his knees in the presence of\nthe Venus of Melos, as he sees her standing at the end of the long\ngallery in the Louvre; if the lover of his kind admires John Howard,\nand can never be content unless he is doing something for his fellow-\nmen again; if we can be touched by lives like Clara Barton's, like\nFlorence Nightingale's, like Dorothea Dix's, like the great and\nconsecrated ones of the earth; if in any department of life we can be\nlifted, humbled, thrilled, at the same time with the thought of the\ngreatness and glory and beauty that are above and beyond us, then there\nis hope of growth, then there is life that can come to something fine\nand noble in the future.\n\nI wish, in the light of these illustrations of what worship means, to\nnote the thought that a great many men  conscientious, earnest, simple\nwho have never been accustomed to think of themselves as religious, and\nperhaps would deny it if a friend suggested to them that they had in\nthem the possibilities of worship, that perhaps they are worshippers,\neven if they know it not. A great many persons have thrown away the\ncommon ideals of worship, and perhaps have settled down to the idea\nthat they are not worshippers at all, while all the time the substance\nand the beauty and the glory of worship are in their daily lives and\nalways in their hearts. I want to suggest two or three grades of\nworship, to show that this worship climbs; and I want to call attention\nto the fact that on the lowest grade it is worship of God just the same\nas on the highest, that all worship or admiration for truth, for\nbeauty, for good, wherever, however, manifested, is really worship of\nGod, whether we think of it or call it by that name or not, because\nthey all are manifestations of God.\n\nTake the man who is touched and lifted by natural beauty, the sense of\nnatural power; the man who loves the woods, who turns and stands to see\nthe glory of a sunset, who is lifted by tides of emotion as he hears\nthe surf beat on the shore, who feels bowed in the presence of the wide\nnight sky of stars, who is humbled at the same time that he is uplifted\nin the presence of the mountains, who is touched by all natural scenes\nof beauty and peace and glory. Are not these men in their degree\nworshippers?\n\nTake the feeling that is expressed in those beautiful lines of Byron.\nWe do not think of Byron as a religious nature, but certainly he had in\nhim the heart of worship when he could write such thoughts as these:\n\n\"'Tis midnight.\nOn the mountains brown\nThe cold, round moon shines deeply down;\nBlue roll the waters; blue the sky\nSeems like an ocean hung on high,\nBespangled with those isles of light,\nSo wildly, spiritually bright.\n\nWhoever looked upon them shining\nAnd turned to earth without repining,\nNor wished for wings to flee away\nAnd mix with their eternal ray?\"\n\nAnd Wordsworth says he feels a Presence that \"Disturbs him with the joy\nof elevated thought, A sense sublime of something far more deeply\ninterfused.\"\n\nAnd so you may run all through the poets, these simply as hints,\nspecimens, every one of them worshippers, touched by the beauty, glory,\nuplift of the natural world.\n\nAnd then pass to the next stage, and come to the worship of the human,\nto the admiration of the highest and finest qualities that are\nmanifested in the lives of men and women. Who is there that is not\ntouched and thrilled by some story of heroic action, of heroic self-\nsacrifice, of consecration to duty in the face of danger and death? And\nno matter what this manifestation of human goodness may be, if you can\nbe thrilled by it and lifted by it, then you have taken another step up\nthis ladder of worship which leads you into the very presence chamber\nof the Divine.\n\nLet a boy read the life of Lincoln, see his earnest thirst for\nknowledge, the sacrifice he was willing to pay for it, his consecration\nto his ideals of truth, the transparent honesty of the man, the supreme\ncontempt with which he could look down upon anything poor or mean or\nlow, the firmness and simplicity with which he assumes high office, the\nfaithfulness, the unassuming devotion, that he carries into the\nfulfilment of the trust. Take him all the way through, study his\ncharacter and admire, and you are a worshipper of that which is divine.\n\nSo in the case of Jesus, the supreme soul of history in its\nconsecration to the Father, its simple trust in the divine love, its\nsuperiority to fear, to question, to death. When we bow ourselves in\nthe presence of the Nazarene, we are not worshipping another God. We\nare worshipping his Father and our Father as lie shines in the face of\nJesus, as he illumines and beautifies his life, as he makes glorious\nthe humble pathways of Galilee, and so casts a reflected glory over the\nhumblest pathways any of us may be called upon to tread.\n\nThe next step in our ascent brings us to the conscious worship of God\nhimself. We cannot grasp the divine idea. The finite cannot measure or\noutline the infinite; and so, when we say God, we mean only the\ngrandest ideal that we can frame, that reaches on towards, but can\nnever adequately express the Deity. And so we worship this thought,\nthis ideal, growing as our capacity develops, advancing as the race\nadvances, and ever leading us Godward, as when we follow a ray of light\nwe are travelling towards its source. And the attitude of our souls in\nthe presence of this which is divine is truest worship. The humility of\nit, the exaltation of it, is beautifully phrased in two or three lines\nwhich I wish to repeat to you from Browning's Saul: \"I but open my\neyes, and perfection, no more and no less, In the kind I imagined,\nfull-fronts me, and God is seen God In the star, in the stone, in the\nflesh, in the soul and the clod. And, thus looking within and around\nme, I ever renew (With that stoop of the soul which in bending upraises\nit, too), As by each new obeisance in spirit I climb to his feet!\"\n\nHere is the significance of the thought I had in mind at the opening.\nWe talk about humbling ourselves. When we can bend with reverence in\nthe presence of that which is above us, the very bending is exaltation;\nfor it indicates the capacity to appreciate, to admire, to adore. Thus\nwe climb up into the ability to worship God, the infinite Spirit, our\nFather, in spirit and in truth.\n\nNow to raise one moment the question suggested near the opening, Are\nforms of worship to pass away? The reply to this seems to me perfectly\nclear. Those forms which sprang out of and are fitted to only lower\nideals of worship, ideals which humanity outgrows, these must be left\nbehind, or else they must be transformed, and filled with a new and\nhigher meaning. But forms will always remain. But note one thing: they\nsometimes say that we Unitarians are too cold, and do not have form\nenough. You will see that, the higher men rise intellectually, the less\nthere is always of outward expression.\n\nFor example, before men were able to speak with any large vocabulary,\nthey eked out their meaning by all kinds of motions and gestures. But\nthe most highly cultivated men to- day, in their conversation, are the\nones who get the least excited and have the least recourse to gestures,\nbecause they are capable of expressing the highest, finest, and most\nvaried thoughts by the elaborate power of speech which they have\ndeveloped. And perhaps the highest and finest worship of the world will\nnot be that which has the most elaborate ceremonial and ritual; but it\nwill have adequate and fitting ceremonial and ritual, because it will\nnaturally seek to express in some external way that which it feels.\n\nI sometimes wish and perhaps you will pardon me for saying it here and\nnow that we Unitarians were a little less afraid of adequate posture\nand gesture in our acts of public worship. God is, indeed, everywhere\nas much as he is here; but this is the place we have specially\nconsecrated to thinking about him and to going through our stated forms\nof worship. And if, when you enter the house of a friend, you take off\nyour hat, you bow the head, it seems to me it would be especially\nfitting to do it, when one enters a Christian church. And, in the\nattitude of prayer, I wish that all might find it in their hearts to\nsit with bended brow and closed eyes as in the presence of the Supreme,\nshutting out the common, the outside world, and trying to realize what\nit means to come consciously to the feet of the eternal One.\n\nI love these simple, fitting, external manifestations of the worshipful\nspirit; and, if we do not substitute them for the worship, and think we\nworship when we bend the knee, this appropriate expression of the\nspirit, or feeling, it seems to ought to help cultivate the feeling and\nthe spirit, and make it easier for us to be conscious of the presence\nof the Divine.\n\nWe are men, then, in the highest sense of the term, only as we are\nworshippers. And the more worshipful we are, in high and true sense of\nthat word, the nobler and higher manhood, and the grander the\npossibilities in us of de intellectual, moral, spiritual growth.\n\nLet us, then, cultivate the admiring, the wondering, the worshipful\nattitude of heart and mind, and recognize on lowest steps of this\nladder that lifts to God, the presence of the same divine power and\nbeauty and glory as that which we see clearly on the highest, and know\nthat always, when we are worshipping any manifestation of God, we are\nshipping Him who is spirit, in spirit and in truth.\n\nWhen on some strain of music Our thoughts are wafted high; When,\ntouched with tender pity, Kind teardrops dim the eye; When thrilled\nwith scenes of grandeur, Or moved to deeds of love, Do we not give thee\nworship, O God in heaven above? For Thou art all life's beauty, And\nThou art all its good: By Thy tides are we lifted To every lofty mood.\nWhatever good is in us, Whatever good we see, And every high endeavor,\nAre they not all from Thee?\n\nMORALITY NATURAL, NOT STATUTORY.\n\nIT is very common for people to identify their special type of religion\nor their theological opinions with religion itself, and feel that those\nwho do not agree with them are in the rue sense not religious. Not only\nthis. It is perhaps quite less common for them to identify their\nparticular type of religion with the fundamental ideas of morality, and\nthink that the people who do not agree with them are undermining the\nmoral stability of the world. For example, those who question the\nabsolute authority of the Catholic Church are looked upon the\nauthorities of that Church as the enemies, not only of religion, but as\nthe enemies of society, the enemies of humanity, as doing what they can\nto shake the very foundations of he social order. You will find a great\nmany Protestant theologians who seem to hold the opinion that, if you\ndare to question the authenticity or authority of some particular nook\nin the Bible, you are not only an enemy of religion, but you are an\nenemy of morality. You are doing what you can to disturb the stability\nof the world.\n\nBut, if we look at the matter with a little care, we shall see that we\nought to turn it quite around, look at it from another point of view.\nThough every Bible, every particle of religious literature, every hymn,\nevery prayer on the face of the earth, were blotted out of existence\nto-day, religion would not be touched. Religious books did not create\nreligion, did not make man a religious being. It is the religious\nnature of man that made the Bibles, that uttered itself in prayers,\nthat created the rituals, that sung the hymns and chanted the anthems.\nIt is man, a religious being, who makes religious institutions, who\ncreates all the external aspects and appearances of the religious life.\nAnd the same is true precisely in regard to moral precepts. If the Ten\nCommandments were blotted out of the memory of man, if every single\nethical teaching of Jesus should perish, if the high and fine moral\nprecepts of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius and all the great teachers of\nthe pagan world should cease to exist, if there were not a printed\nmoral precept on earth, morality would not be touched. It is not these\nthat have created morality. It is the natural moral nature of man that\nhas written all the commandments, whether they have come to us by the\nhand of Moses or of Gautama or Mohammed or Confucius or Seneca, or no\nmatter who the medium may have been.\n\nMan is a moral being, naturally, essentially, eternally, and this is a\nmoral universe, inherently, necessarily, eternally; and, though all the\nexternal expression of moral thought and feeling should be lost, the\nhuman race would simply reproduce them again.\n\nIt is sometimes well for us to get down to the bed-rock in our\nthinking, and find how natural and necessary the great foundations are.\nThe Hindu priests used to tell their followers that the earth, which\nwas flat, rested on certain pillars, which rested again on some other\nfoundation beneath them, and so on until thought was weary in trying to\ntrace that upon which the earth was supposed to find its stability. And\nthey also told their followers that, if they did not bring offerings,\nif they did not pay the special respect which was due to the gods, if\nthey were not obedient to heir teachings, these pillars would give way,\nand the earth would be precipitated into the abyss.\n\nBut we have found, as a result of our modern study of he universe, that\nthe earth needs no pillars on which to rest; but it swings freely in\nits orbit, as the old verse that used to read in my schoolboy days\nsays, \"Hangs on nothing in the air,\" part of the universal system of\nthings, stable in its eternal sound and motion, kept and cared for by\nthe power that lever sleeps and never is weary. So, by studying into\nthe foundations of the moral nature of man, we have discovered a last\nthat it needs no artificial props or supports, but that morality is\ninherent, natural and eternal.\n\nI shall not raise the question, which is rather curious than practical,\nas to whether there are any beginnings of moral feeling in the animal\nworld below man. For our purpose this morning it is enough to note that\nthe minute that man appears conscience appears, and that conscience is\nan act which springs out of social relations. In other words, when the\nfirst man rose to the ability to look into the face of his fellow and\nthink of the other man as another self, like himself in feelings, in\npossibilities of pleasure or pain, when this first man was able\nimaginatively to put himself in: he place of this other, then morality\nas a practical fact was Dorn.\n\nWe may imagine, for the purpose of illustration, this man saying: Here\nis another being who appears to be like myself. He is capable of\nsuffering pain, as I am. He does not like pain any better than I do.\nTherefore, I have no right to make him suffer that which I do not wish\nto suffer myself. This other man is capable of pleasure. He desires\ncertain things, similar things to those which I desire. If I do not\nwish him to take these things away from me, I have no right to take\nthem away from him.\n\nI do not mean that this was thought out in this clear way, but that,\nwhen there was the first dim perception of this other self, with\nsimilar feelings, similar possibilities, similar pleasures, similar\npains, then there became a conscience, because there was a\nconsciousness of this similarity of nature. Morality, then, is born as\na social fact.\n\nTo go a little deeper, and in order to trace the natural and historical\ngrowth of the moral ideal, let me say that morality in its deepest and\ntruest sense is born of the fact of sex, because it is right in there\nthat we find the root and the germ of permanent social relations. And I\nwish you to note another very significant fact. You hear people talking\nabout selfishness and unselfishness, as though they were direct\ncontraries, mutually exclusive of each other, as though, in order to\nmake a selfish man unselfish, you must completely reverse his nature,\nso to speak. I do not think this is true at all. Unselfishness\nnaturally and necessarily springs out of selfishness, and, in the\ndeepest sense of the word, is not at all contradictory to that.\n\nFor example: A man falls in love with a woman. This, on one side of it,\nis as selfish as anything you can possibly conceive. But do you not see\nby what subtle and divine chemistry the selfishness is straightway\ntransformed, lifted up, glorified, and becomes unselfishness? The very\nlove that he professes for her makes it necessary for his own happiness\nthat she should be happy, so that, in seeking for his own selfish\ngratification, he is devoting himself unselfishly to the happiness of\nsomebody else.\n\nAnd, when a child is born, do you not see, again, how the two\nselfishnesses, the father's and the mother's, selfishly, if you please,\nbrooding over and loving the child, at once go out of themselves,\nconsecrating time and care and thought and love, and even health or\nlife itself, if need be, for the welfare of the child?\n\nRight in there, then, out of this fact of sex and in the becoming of\nthe family, are born love and sympathy, and tenderness and mutual care,\nall those things which are the highest and finest constituent elements\nof the noblest developments of the moral nature of men.\n\nImagination plays a large part in the development of morality; for you\nmust be able to put yourself imaginatively in the place of another\nbefore you can feel for that other, and in that way recognize the\nrights of that other and be ready to grant these rights to that other.\nSo we find that morality at first is a narrow thing: it is confined\nperhaps to the little family, the father, the mother, the child, bound\ntogether by these ties of kinship, of love, of sympathy, devoting\nthemselves to each other; but they may look upon some other family as\ntheir natural enemies, and feel no necessity whatever to apply these\nsame principles of love and tenderness and care beyond the limits of\ntheir own little circle.\n\nSo you find, as you study the growth of the moral nature of man, that\nit is confined at first to the family, then to the patriarchal family,\nthen the tribe; but the fiction of kinship is still kept up, and, while\nthe member of the primeval tribe feels he has no right to rob or murder\nwithin the limits of his tribe, he has no compunction whatever about\nrobbing or murdering or injuring the members of some other tribe. So\nthe moral principle in its practical working is limited to the range of\nthe sympathy of the tribe, which does not go beyond the tribal limits.\nWe see how that principle works still in the world, from the beginning\nclear up to the highest reaches which we have as yet attained.\n\nTake the next step, and find a city like ancient Athens. Still,\nperhaps, the fiction of kinship is maintained. All the citizens of\nAthens are regarded as members of the same great tribe or family. But\neven in the time of Plato, whom we are accustomed to look upon as one\nof the great teachers of the world, there was no thought of any moral\nobligation to anybody who lived in Sparta, lived in any other city of\nGreece, and less was there any thought of moral obligation as touching\nor taking in the outside barbarian. So when the city grew into a\nnation, and we came to a point where the world substantially stands\nto-day, do you not see that practically the same principle holds, that,\nwhile we recognize in some abstract sort of fashion that we ought to do\njustice and be kind to people beyond our own limits, yet all our\npolitical economy, all our national ideas, are accustomed to emphasize\nthe fact that we must be just and righteous to our own people, but that\naggression, injustice of almost any kind, is venial in our treatment of\nthe inhabitants of another country? And it may even flame up into the\nfire of a wordy patriotism in certain conditions; and love of country\nmay mean hatred and injustice towards the inhabitants of another\ncountry, or particularly towards the people of another race.\n\nLet me give you a practical illustration of it. What are the relations\nin which we stand to-day towards Spain? I have unbounded admiration for\nthe patience, on the whole, for the justice, the sense of right, which\ncharacterize the American people. I doubt if there is another nation on\nthe face of the earth to-day that would have gone through the last two\nor three years of our experience, and maintained such an attitude of\nimpartiality, of faithfulness, of justice, of right. And yet, if we\nexamine ourselves, we shall find that it is immensely difficult for us\nto put ourselves in the place of a Spaniard, to look at the Cuban\nquestion from his point of view, to try to be fair, to be just to him.\nIt is immensely difficult, I say, for us to look at one of these\ninternational questions from the point of view of another race,\ncherishing other religious and social ideas, having another style of\ngovernment.\n\nAnd there is another illustration of it that has recently occurred here\nin our country, which is sadder still to me. Only a little while ago a\npostmaster in the South was shot by a mob. The mob surrounds his house,\nmurders him and his child, wounds other members of the family, burns\ndown his home; and why? Under no impulse whatever except that of pure\nand simple race prejudice, the utter inability of a white man to put\nhimself in the position of a black to such an extent as to recognize,\nplead for, or defend his inherent rights as a man.\n\nI am not casting any aspersion on the South in what I am saying, none\nwhatever. Were the conditions reversed, perhaps we should be no better.\nIt is not a practical problem with us. If there were two or three times\nas many colored men in the State of New York as there are white men,\nthen we might understand the question. Let us not mentally cast any\nstones at the people across the line. I point it out simply as\nillustrating the difficulty that we have in recognizing the rights, the\nmoral rights, of people beyond the limits of that sympathy to which we\nhave been accustomed and for a long period trained.\n\nI believe the day will come when we shall be as jealous of the right of\na man as we are now of the right of an American. We are not yet. There\nhave been foregleams and prophecies of it in the past. Long ago a Latin\nwriter said, I am a man, and whatever is human is not foreign to me.\nBut think what a lone and isolated utterance that has been for hundreds\nof years. Jesus taught us to pray, not my Father, but our Father, and\nwe do pray it every day in the-year; but how many are the people in any\nof the churches that dream of living it? A hundred years ago that\nheretic, who is still looked upon as the bugaboo of all that is fine\nand good, Thomas Paine, wrote, \"The world is my country, and to do good\nis my religion,\" a sentence so fine that it has been carved on the base\nof the statue of William Lloyd Garrison on Commonwealth Avenue in\nBoston, as being a fitting symbol of his own philanthropic life.\n\nHow many of us have risen to the idea of making these grand sentiments\nthe ruling principles of our lives? But along the lines of moral growth\nit is to come. The day will be when, as I said, we shall feel as keenly\nwhatever touches the right of any man as to-day we feel that which\ntouches the right of one of our own people; and the moral growth of the\nworld will reach beyond that. I love to dream of a day when men will no\nlonger forget the inherent rights of any inhabitant of the air or of\nthe waters or of the woods or any of the domesticated animals that we\nhave come to associate with our lives.\n\nWe feel towards them to-day as in the old days a man felt towards\nanother man who was his slave, that he had a right to abuse, to\nmaltreat, even to kill, if he pleased. We have not yet become civilized\nenough, so that we feel it incumbent upon us to recognize the fact that\nanimals can suffer pain, that animals can enjoy the air or the\nsunshine, and that they have a right to each when they do not trespass\nupon the larger rights of humanity. I was something of a boy when it\nfirst came over me that it was not as amusing to animals to be shot and\nkilled as it was to me to shoot and kill them. From the time I was able\nto lift a gun I had always carried one; but I soon learned that for me\nthere was no pleasure in taking needlessly the life of anything that\nlived. We are only partially civilized as yet in the treatment of our\ndomesticated animals. How many people think of the torture of the curb\nbit, of the check, of neglect in the case of cold, of thirst, of\nhunger? How many people, I say, civilized and in our best society, are\ncareful yet as to the comfort, the rights, of those that serve them in\nthese humble capacities?\n\nThe time will come when our moral sympathetic sense shall widen its\nboundaries even farther yet, and shall take in the trees and the\nshrubs, the waters, the hills, all the natural and beautiful features\nof the world. I believe that by and by it will be regarded as immoral,\nas unmanly, to deface, to mar, that which God has made so glorious and\nso beautiful. As soon as man develops, then, his power of sympathy, so\nthat it can take the world in its arms, so soon he will have grown to\nthe stature of the Divine in the unfolding of his moral nature.\n\nI wish now to raise the question, for a moment, as to what is to be our\nguide in regard to moral facts and moral actions. I was trained, and\nperhaps most of you were, to believe that I was unquestioningly to\nfollow my conscience, that whatever conscience told me to do was\nnecessarily right. The conscience has been spoken of as though it were\na sort of little deity set to rule man's nature, this little kingdom of\nthought and feeling and action. But conscience is nothing of the kind.\nHalf of the consciences of the world to-day are all wrong.\n\nLet me hint by way of illustration what I mean: Calvin was just as\nconscientious in burning Servetus as Servetus was in pursuing that\ncourse of action which led him to the stake. One of them was wrong in\nfollowing his conscience, then. You take it to-day: some people will\ntell you there is a certain day in the week that you must observe as\nsacred. Your conscience tells you there is another day in the week that\nyou must observe as sacred. Can both be right? Many of the greatest\ntragedies of the world have come about through these controversies and\nconfusions of conscience. The Quaker in old Boston went at the cart's\ntail, in disgrace, because he followed his conscience; and the Puritan\nput him there because he followed his conscience. Were both of them\nright? The inquisitor in Spain put to death hundreds and thousands of\npeople conscientiously; and the hundreds and thousands of people\nconscientiously went to their deaths.\n\nWhat is conscience, then? Conscience is not a moral guide. It is simply\nthat monitor within that reiterates to us forever and forever and\nforever, Do right. But conscience does not tell us what is right. We\nmust decide those questions as a matter of calm study and judgment in\nthe light of human experience. It is the judgment that should tell us\nwhether a thing is right or wrong. And how shall we know whether it is\nright or wrong? Simply by the consequences. That which helps, that\nwhich lifts man up, that which adds to the happiness and the well-being\nof the world, as the result of human experience, is right. That which\nhurts, that which injures men and women, that which takes away from\ntheir welfare and happiness, that is wrong. All these things, as we\nshall see before I get through, are inherent in the nature of things,\nnot created by statute, not the result of the moral teaching of\nanybody.\n\nThis leads me to extend this idea a little farther, and to raise the\nquestion as to what is the standard by which you are to judge moral\naction. If you will think it out with a little care, you will find that\nthe standard of all moral action may be summed up in the one word\n\"life.\" Life, first, as continuance; second, to use a philosophical\nterm, content, that which it includes. Life, this is the standard of\nright and wrong.\n\nTo illustrate, take me physically, leave out of account all the rest of\nmy nature now for a moment, and consider me as an animal. From the\npoint of view of my body, that which conduces to length of life, to\nfullness, to completion, to enjoyment of life, is right, the only\nright, from this physical point of view. That which threatens my life,\nthat which takes away my sum of strength, injures my health, takes away\nfrom my possibility of enjoyment, that, from a physical point of view,\nis wrong; and there can be no other right or wrong from the point of\nview of the body.\n\nBut I am not simply body. So this principle must be modified. Come up\nto the fact that I am an intellectual being. In order to develop myself\nintellectually, I may have to forego things that would be pleasant on\nthe bodily plane. I sacrifice the lower for the higher; and that which\nwould be right on the physical plane becomes relatively wrong now,\nbecause it interferes with something that is higher and more important.\n\nRise one step to man as an affectional being. If you wish to develop\nhim to the finest and highest here, you may not only be obliged under\ncertain conditions to sacrifice the body, but you may be obliged to\nsacrifice his intellectual development. In order that he may be the\nbest up here, he must put the others sometimes, relatively, under his\nfeet. So, again, that which would be right on the physical plane or the\nintellectual plane becomes relatively wrong, if it interferes with that\nwhich is higher still.\n\nAnd so, if you recognize man as a spiritual being, a child of God, then\nyou say it is right, if need be, to put all these other things under\nhis feet, in order that he may attain the highest and best that he is\ncapable of here. But you see it is life all the way, it is the physical\nlife or it is the mental life or it is the affectional life or it is\nthe spiritual life; and that which is necessary for the cultivation and\ndevelopment of these different grades of life becomes on those grades\nright, and that which threatens or injures one or either of these\ngrades becomes, so far as that grade is concerned, wrong.\n\nLife, then, continuance, fullness, joy, use, this is the standard of\nright and wrong; a standard which no book ever set up, which no book\ncan ever overthrow; a standard which is inherent, natural, necessary, a\npart of the very nature of things.\n\nI wish now for a moment I must of course do it briefly to consider the\nrelation of religion to this natural morality. And perhaps you will\nhardly be ready some of you, at any rate for the statement which I\npropose to make, that sometimes, in order to be grandly moral, a man\nmust be irreligious. I mean, of course, from the point of view of the\nconventional religion of his time, he must be ready to be regarded as\nirreligious. In the earliest development of the religious and moral\nlife of a tribe, very likely, the two went hand in hand, side by side;\nfor the dead chief now worshipped as god would be looked upon as in\nfavor of those customs or practices which the tribe had come to regard\nas right. But religion perhaps you will know by this time, if you have\nthought of it carefully is the most conservative thing in the world.\nNaturally, it is the last thing that people are willing to change. This\nreluctance grows out of their reverence, grows out of their worshipful\nnature, grows out of their fear that they may be wrong.\n\nBut now let me illustrate what I mean. Religion, standing still in this\nway, has become an institution, a set of beliefs, of rites and\nceremonies, which do not change. The moral experience of the people\ngoes right on; and so it sometimes comes to pass that the moral ideal\nhas outgrown the religious ideal of the community. And now, as a\npractical illustration to illume the whole point, let us go back to\nancient Athens for a moment at the time of Socrates. Here we are\nconfronted with the curious fact that Socrates, who has been regarded\nfrom that day to this as the most grandly moral man of his time, the\none man who taught the highest and noblest human ideals, is put to\ndeath as an irreligious man. The popular religion of the time cast him\nout, and put the hemlock to his lips; and at the same time his teaching\nin regard to righteousness and truth was unspeakably ahead of the\npopular religion of his day.\n\nLet us come to the modern Athens for a moment, to the time of Theodore\nParker in Boston. We are confronted here, again, with this strange\nfact. There was not a church in Boston that could abide him, not even\nthe Unitarian churches; and in the prayer-meetings of the day they were\nbeseeching God to take him out of the world, because they thought he\nwas such a force for evil. And at the same time Theodore Parker stood\nfor the very highest, tenderest, truest moral ideal of his age.\n\nThere was no man walking the earth at that time who so grandly voiced\nthe real law of God as did Theodore Parker. And yet he was outcast by\nthe popular religious sentiment of his time.\n\nThis, then, is what I mean when I say that we ought to be careful, and\nstudy and think in forming our religious ideals, and see that we do not\nidentify our own unwillingness to think with the eternal and changeless\nlaw of God. This is what I have meant in some of the strictures which I\nhave uttered during the last year upon some of the theological creeds\nof the time. The people have grown to be better than their creeds, but\nthey have not yet developed the courage to make those creeds utter the\nhighest and finest things which they think and feel. This is what I\nhave meant when I have said that the character of God as outlined in\nmany of these creeds is away behind and below the noblest and finest\nand sweetest ideals of what we regard as fitting even to humanity\nto-day.\n\nReligion, then, may be ahead of the moral ideal or it may be behind it.\nThe particular type of religion I mean, of course, which is being held\nat any particular time in the history of the world. But the moral ideal\nof necessity goes on, keeping step with the social experience of the\nrace.\n\nI must touch briefly now just one other point of practical importance\nthat we need to guard, in order to be tender and true in our dealings\nwith our fellow-men. You will find, if you look over the face of\nsociety, that there are two kinds of morality, frequently quite\ninconsistent with each other; and sometimes the poorer of the two kinds\nis held in higher esteem than the better. I mean there is conventional\nmorality, and there is real morality.\n\nAs a hint of illustration: An American woman goes to Turkey to-day; and\nshe is shocked by the customs of the women and their style of dress. It\nseems to her that no woman can possibly be moral who, although she\ncovers her head, can appear on the street with feet and ankles bare.\nBut this same Turkish woman is shocked beyond the possibility of\nutterance to know that in Europe and America women carefully cover\ntheir feet, but expose their faces and their shoulders. It seems\nterrible to her, and she cannot understand how a European or American\nwoman can have any regard for the principles of delicacy and morality.\n\nDo you not see how, in both cases here, it is purely a matter of\nconvention? No real question of morality is touched in either case. I\nspeak of this to prepare you to note how conscience can be as troubled\nover things which are purely conventional as it can over things which\nare downright and real. Let me use another illustration, going a little\ndeeper in the matter. Here is a man, for example, who is terribly\nshocked because his neighbor takes a drive with his family on Sunday\nafternoon. It seems to him an outrage on all the principles of public\nand social morality; and he is eager to get up a society to abolish\nsuch customs, that seem to him to threaten the prosperity of all that\nis good in the world. But this same man, perhaps, has been trained in a\nway of conducting his business that, while legal, is not strictly fair.\nThis man may be hard and cruel towards his employees. He may cherish\nbitter hatreds towards his rivals. In his heart he may be transgressing\nthe law of vital ethics, while fighting with all the power of his\nnature for that which does not touch any real question of right or\nwrong at all.\n\nOr take a woman who, while shocked at the transgression of some social\ncustom in which she has been trained from her childhood, or, for\nexample, has come to think that a certain way of observing Lent, on\nwhich we have just entered, is absolutely necessary to the safety of\nreligion and morals both, is yet quite willing, and without a qualm of\nconscience, on the slightest hint of a suspicion, to tear into tatters\nthe character of one of her neighbors or friends, does not hesitate to\nslander, perhaps is unjust or cruel to the servants that make the house\ncomfortable and beautiful for her; in other words, transgressing the\nreal laws of right and wrong, she is shocked and troubled over the\ntransgression on the part of others of some purely conventional\nstatute, the keeping or breach of which has no real bearing on the\nwelfare of the world.\n\nA good many of our social judgments are like the case of the old lady\npardon me, if it should make you smile, but it illustrates the case who\ncriticised with a great deal of severity a neighbor and friend who wore\nfeathers on her bonnet. Somebody said to her, But the ribbons on your\nbonnet are quite as expensive as the feathers that you criticise. \"Yes,\"\nshe said, \"I know they are; but you have got to draw the line\nsomewhere, and I choose to draw it at feathers.\" So you find a great\nmany people on every hand in society who are choosing to draw these\nlines purely artificial, purely conventional in regard to matters of\nsupposed right or wrong, while they are not as careful to look down\ndeeply into the essential principles of that which is inherently right\nor wrong.\n\nAnd now at the end I wish to suggest what is a theme large enough for a\nsermon by itself, and say that these laws of righteousness are so\ninherent that they are self-executed; and by no possibility did any\nsoul from the beginning of the world ever escape the adequate result of\nhis wrong-doing. The old Hebrews, as manifested in the Book of Job, the\nPsalms, and all through the Old Testament, taught the idea, which was\ncommon at that time in the world, that the favor of God was to be\njudged by the external prosperity of men and women. The Old Testament\npromises long life and wealth and all sorts of good things to the\npeople who do right; and I find on every hand in the modern world\npeople who have inherited this way of looking at things. I have heard\npeople say: I have tried to do right, and I am not prosperous. I wonder\nwhy I am treated so? I have heard women say, I have tried to be a good\nmother: why is my child taken away from me? As though there was any\nsort of relation between the two facts. I hear people say, Don't talk\nto me about the justice of God, when here is a man, who has been\ndishonest all his life long, who has prospered, and become rich and\nlives in a fine house, drives his horses, and owns a yacht. As if there\nwas any sort of connection between the two, as though a man  merely\nbecause he had a fine house and owned a yacht was escaping the\npunishment of his unjust and selfish life.\n\nRemember, friends, look a little below the surface. There is no\npossibility of escape. I break some law of my body; do I escape the\nresult? I break some law of my mind; do I escape the result? I break\nsome law of my affectional nature; is nothing to happen? I break a law\nof my spiritual nature; does nothing take place as the result of it?\nYou might as well say that the law of gravity can be suspended, that a\nman can fling himself over the edge of a precipice, and come to no\nharm. The precipice over the edge of which you fling yourself may be a\nphysical one, may be a mental one, an affectional one, a spiritual one;\nbut the moral gravity of the universe is never mocked, and the man who\nbreaks any of God's laws never goes free. He may discover that he has\nbroken it, be sorry for it, begin to keep it again, and recover\nhimself; but the consequences are sure, inevitable, eternal.\n\nYou look at a man who is externally prospering, and because of this you\nsay he is not suffering the result of the evil he has done. Go back\nwith me to Homer's Odyssey at the time when Ulysses and his companions\nfell into the hands of the sorceress, and his companions were turned\ninto swine. Would you go and look at these swine, and say they are not\nsuffering anything? See how comfortable they are. See with what gusto\nthey eat the food that is cast into their troughs. See how happy they\nare as swine. They are not suffering anything Is it nothing to become\nswinish, merely because you have your beautiful pen to live in? Is a\nnot suffering the result of his moral wrong when he debases and\ndegrades and deteriorates his own nature, and becomes less a man,\nbecause he is surrounded with all that is glorious and beautiful that\nart can supply? Look within whatever department of nature where the law\nhas been disobeyed, and there forever and forever read the result, the\ninevitable law, that the soul that sinneth, in so far as it sinneth, it\nshall die.\n\nREWARD AND PUNISHMENT.\n\nTwo WEEKS ago I preached a sermon, the subject of which was \"Morality\nNatural, not Statutory.\" Judging by the conversations which I have had\nand letters which I have received, it has aroused a good deal of\nquestion and criticism in certain quarters. This must be for one of\nthree reasons. In the first place, the position which I took may not be\na tenable one. In the second place, it is possible that the views\nexpressed, being somewhat new and unfamiliar, were not found easy of\napprehension and acceptance. In the third place, it is possible that,\nin endeavoring to treat so large a subject, I did not analyze and\nillustrate enough to make myself perfectly clear.\n\nAt any rate, the matter seems to me of such supreme importance as to\nmake it worth my while this morning to continue the general subject by\na careful and earnest treatment of the great question of reward and\npunishment as applied to feeling, to thought, to conduct, the whole of\nhuman life.\n\nLet me say here at the outset, as indicating the point towards which I\nshall aim as my goal, that in the ordinary use of language, in the\npopular use of language, I do not believe in either reward or\npunishment: I believe only in causes and results. This, as I said, is\nthe point that I shall aim at. Where shall I begin?\n\nI need to ask you to consider for a moment the state of mind of man, so\nfar as we can conceive it, when he first wakes up as a conscious being,\nand begins to look out over the scene of nature and human life with the\nendeavor to interpret facts as they appear to him. Of course, he knows\nnothing whatever of what we mean by natural law: he knows nothing of\nnatural cause and of necessary result. So far as we can discover by our\nresearches, all the tribes of men about whom we have been able to\ngather any information have had a belief, if not in God, at least in\ngods, or in spiritual existences and powers that controlled within\ncertain limits the course of human events. It may have been the worship\nof ancestors, it may have been the worship of some great chief of the\ntribe; but these invisible beings have been able to help or hurt their\nfollowers, their worshippers; and of course they have been thought of\nas governing human life after substantially the same methods that they\nused when they were living here in the body.\n\nThat is, it has been a magical or arbitrary government of the world\nthat has been for ages the dominant one in the human mind. People have\nsupposed that these invisible beings desired them to do certain things,\nto refrain from doing certain other things, and they have expected them\nto reward or punish them how? By giving them that which they desired,\non the one hand, or sending them something which they did not desire,\non the other. They have brought the gods their offerings, their\nsacrifices, their words of praise, and have asked that they might be\nsuccessful in war, that they might bring home the game which they\nsought when they went on a hunting expedition. When there have been\ndisease, pestilence, famine, drought, no matter what the nature of the\nevil, they have been regarded as allotments of these divine powers sent\non account of something they have done or omitted to do. It never\noccurred to them to interpret these as part of a natural order, because\nthey knew nothing about any natural order. They reasoned as well as\nthey were able to reason at that stage of culture in any particular age\nof the world's history which they had reached. But this has been the\nthought of men time out of mind concerning the method of the divine or\nspiritual or unseen government of the world.\n\nIs this way of looking at it confined to primitive man, confined to\npagan nations? Do we find something else, some other condition of mind,\nwhen we come to study carefully the Old Testament? Let us see. Take the\nfirst verse which I read as a part of my text. The author of this Psalm\nwe do not know who he may have been says, \"I have been young, and now\nam old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed\nbegging their bread.\" As I have read this a great many times in the\npast, I have wondered as to the strange experience that this man must\nhave had in human life, if this is a correct interpretation of that\nexperience. I have been young: I do not like to admit that as yet I am\nold; but, whether I am or not, I have a good many times seen the\nrighteous forsaken, and his seed begging their bread.\n\nIt seems to me that the writer of this verse was trained in a theory of\nthe government of human affairs that does not at all match the facts.\nHe has this magical, this arbitrary theory in his mind. It was the\ngeneral conception I think, as any one will find by a careful reading\nof the Old Testament or study of Jewish history, the ordinary\nconception among the Hebrews, that God was to reward people for being\ngood by prosperity, long life, many children, herds of cattle,\ndistinction among his fellow-men, positions of political honor and\npower; and the threat of the taking away of these is frequently uttered\nagainst those that presume to do wrong. In other words, it seems to me\nthat the ordinary theory of the government of human affairs as set\nforth in the Old Testament is precisely this same one that I have been\nconsidering as the natural and necessary outcome of the ignorance and\ninexperience of early man.\n\nAs time went on, now and then some deeper, more spiritual thinker\nbegins to question this method of reasoning, begins to wonder whether\nit is quite adequate; and we have a magnificent poetical expression of\nthis kind of critical thought in the Book of Job. This Book of Job is\nany way and every way worthy of your careful attention. It is the\nnearest to a dramatic production of anything in the Bible. James\nAnthony Froude said once in regard to it that, if it were translated\nmerely as a poem and published by itself, it would take rank as a\nliterary work among the few great masterpieces of the world.\n\nBut the thing that engages our attention this morning is not its power\nas a dramatic production, but its criticism of God's government of the\nworld. It has been assumed, as I have said, and we are not through with\nthat assumption, that, if a man suffered, if he was ill, if his wife or\nchildren were taken away from him, if his property was destroyed,\nsomehow he had offended God, and that this was a punishment for the\ncourse of wrong-doing in which he had been engaged. But the author of\nthe Book of Job conceives that this does not quite match the facts; so\nhe gives us this magnificent character that he declares upright,\nspotless, free from wrong of any kind, who yet is suffering. He has\nlost his property, it has been swept away, his children have been put\nto death, almost everything that he cared for he has lost, and he from\nhead to feet is sick of a loathsome disease; and he sits in the midst\nof his deprivation and sorrow. His friends gather around him; and with\nthis old assumption in their minds some of them begin to taunt him.\nThey say, Now, Job, why not confess, why not own up as to what you have\nbeen doing? Of course, you have been doing something wrong, or all this\nwould not have happened. This is the tone that one of his critics\ntakes. This is the kind of comfort that he receives in the midst of his\nsorrow. But Job protests earnestly and indignantly that it is not true.\nHe says he is innocent, there are no secret wrongs in his life; and he\nwishes that he might find some way by which he could come into the\npresence of the great Ruler of the universe, and openly plead his\ncause. But his friends do not believe him.\n\nNow the writer of the book lets us into the explanation he has thought\nout for this: God for a special reason is testing Job, to see whether\nhe will be true to him in spite of the fact that he does not get the\nordinary blessings that the people were accustomed to look for as the\nrewards of their conduct. But the writer is not consistent with the\nwonderful position that he makes Job assume; for, after the trial is\nall over, he falls in with the popular theory, and shows us Job, not\nwith the old children who could not be brought back, but with a lot of\nnew ones, with herds and cattle again in plenty, with honor among his\nfellow-citizens, with all that heart could wish in the way of worldly\nprosperity and peace.\n\nSo I say the writer is not quite consistent, for he falls back at the\nend on the old theory, and he lets us gain a glimpse behind the scenes,\njust enough to see that there are cases, special cases, where the\npopular theory does not hold; but he still seems to assume that, in a\ngeneral way, we are to accept it as correct, and as explaining the\nfacts of human life.\n\nThe Jews acted on this theory in their political history. Their\nprophets, their great teachers, asserted over and over again that, if\nthey were true to their God, if they were faithful in their obedience\nto the law, if they lived out all these highest and finest ideals of\nceremonial as well as heart righteousness, that they would be mighty as\na nation, that their enemies would be put under their feet, that they\nwould have political success and power; and yet their increasing\ninsistence on this ceremonial and interior righteousness of thought and\nlife was found to be no adequate defence against the Roman legions.\nPolitical success did not come to them. In spite of all their\nobedience, they were swept out of existence as a nation.\n\nNow do we find any difference in teaching in the New Testament? We do;\nand we do not. The teaching of the New Testament is not consistent in\nthis matter. If Jesus be correctly reported, his own teaching is not\nquite consistent on this subject. Let me give you one or two\nillustrations, that you may see what I mean. John tells us that a\ncertain man, who had been born blind, was brought to Jesus to be cured;\nand the people stood about, and said to Jesus, \"Who is it, this man\nhimself or his parents, that sinned, so that he was born blind?\" You\nsee it does not occur to them that there is any natural cause for a\nman's being blind, apart from some sin on the part of somebody. Who is\nit, then, his father or mother, or he himself, that has sinned, that is\nthe cause of it? Jesus says, \"Neither this man nor his parents have\nsinned,\" and you think at first that you are going to get an adequate\nexplanation; but he straightway adds that the man was blind in order\nthat the works of God might be manifest in him; which we cannot accept\nto-day as quite an adequate explanation.\n\nThen take the case of the man who was lying at the pool of Bethesda,\nand was reported as cured. Jesus meets him, after a good deal of\nquestion and criticism on the part of the Jews, and says, \"Now you have\nbeen healed, see to it that you sin no more, lest a worse thing come to\nyou,\" seeming to imply again that sin might be punished by lameness, by\naffliction of this kind or that.\n\nSo it seems to me that we do not get, even in the New Testament,\nentirely free from this old conception. Indeed, there are the verses\nwhich I read as a part of our lesson from the fifth chapter of Matthew,\none of which for a clear or more spiritual insight I have quoted as a\npart of my text, \"Blessed are they that do hunger and thirst after\nrighteousness, for they shall be filled\" with what? Filled with\nrighteousness; not filled with health, external prosperity, many\nchildren, friends, political position, honor. Blessed are the pure in\nheart, for they shall what? See God. \"Blessed are the merciful, for\nthey shall obtain mercy. Blessed are they that are persecuted for\nrighteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.\"\n\nYou see these beatitudes strike down to the eternal principle of\nnatural, necessary causation and result, just as does the last verse\nwhich I have quoted from Galatians, \"Be not deceived; God is not\nmocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap,\" not\nsomething else, that. Here is a clear and explicit annunciation of the\neternal, universal law of cause and effect, of the idea that those\nthings which happen are not arbitrary infliction, but natural and\nnecessary result.\n\nLet us, then, consider this matter for a little as we look over the\nface of human life as it is manifested to us at the present time. I\nsuppose hardly a week passes that, either by letter or in conversation,\nI do not come face to face with this same old problem, showing that\nonly partially and here and there have men and women even to-day come\nto comprehend the real method after which this universe of ours is\ngoverned. For example, let me give you a few illustrations.\n\nI have a friend in Boston, one of the noblest men I ever knew, sweet,\ngentle, true: he came to me one day, and said: \"Mr. Savage, I have\ntried all my life to be an honest man. I do not own an ill-gotten\ndollar. I have tried to be kind and helpful to people in need, in\ntrouble; and yet,\" and then it began to dawn on him that he was not on\na very logical track, for he smiled, \"and yet I have not got on very\nwell in the world; I have not made a great deal of money; I have not\nbeen specially prosperous in business.\" And the implication was that\nhere, next door or in another street, was a man who had a good many\nill-gotten dollars, and who had not been generous or kindly or humane\nor tender, but who had prospered and become rich, as he had not. And he\nraised this as a serious objection against the justice of the\ngovernment of the world.\n\nI have had mothers; I presume a thousand times, say to me: \"I have\ntried to take the best possible care of my child. I loved my child, I\nwatched over it night and day, I have money enough to give it a good\neducation, I could train it into fitness for life; and yet my child is\ntaken away.\" Here is somebody else who has not the means to educate her\nchild, perhaps whose character and intelligence are a good deal below\nthe average level. Her child is spared, spared for what? Spared for a\ncareer for which it will be entirely unfitted; and the question is, Why\ndoes God do such things, why is the universe governed in this fashion?\n\nAnd I have had persons say to me: \"I have been ill all my life, I have\nsuffered no end of pain and trouble: I wonder why? What have I done\nthat I must be burdened and afflicted after this fashion?\" So these\nquestions are coming up perpetually, showing that underlying the\nordinary surface of our common daily life is still this theory that God\narbitrarily governs the world, and rewards people for being good with\nhealth and with money and with children and with all sorts of\nprosperity. There is no end of talk in regard to judgments, as they are\ncalled. I remember when I was living in the West I take this as an\nillustration as good as any a neighboring small city was badly\ndevastated by fire. All the ministers around me in my city began to\npreach about it as a judgment of God for the supposed wickedness of\nthis city. One peculiar thing about this particular judgment, which I\nnoticed as reported in the papers, was that the last thing which the\nfire burned was a church; and it left standing next door, and\nuntouched, a liquor saloon. It seemed to me a very peculiar kind of\ndivine judgment, if that is what it really was.\n\nAnd so, as you look into these cases of supposed divine judgments,\nwhich people are so ready to see in regard to their neighbors, you will\nfind that it has some serious defect of this sort almost always that\nmakes you question whether a wise man would be guilty of that method of\nconducting his affairs.\n\nThis, perhaps, is enough by way of setting forth the popular method of\nlooking at these problems. I want to ask you now to go with me for a\nlittle while, as I attempt to analyze some of these cases, and get at\nthe real principle involved as to what it is that is really going on.\n\nNow take this case of the mother whose child is taken away from her, as\nshe says. Let us see if we can find out what is really being done. It\nis possible, of course, that the child has inherited, it may be from a\ngrandfather or great-grandfather, from somewhere along the line, a\ntendency to a particular kind of disease. It may be that, without\nanybody's being to blame for it or anybody's knowing it, the child was\nexposed to some contagious disease on the street or at school. It may\nbe that the mother, through a little otherwise pardonable vanity,\nwishing to display the beauty of the child rather than to dress it in\nthe healthiest manner, has been the means of exposing it to cold. It\nmay be any one of a dozen things has caused the death of this child.\nAnd do you not see that in every case it has nothing whatever to do\nwith the mother's moral goodness or spiritual cultivation? It is absurd\nto think that the mother, in this case, is being punished for something\nthat she is entirely unconscious of having been guilty of. Do you not\nsee that there is no logical connection between an inherited disease,\nbetween exposure, between taking cold, between any of these natural\ncauses and the goodness of the mother? Is it not absurd to talk about\ntheir having anything whatever to do with each other?\n\nI remember hearing a famous revivalist preach some years ago; and in\nthis particular sermon he represented God as using all means to try to\nturn such a man from his path of evil, as he regarded it, into the way\nof right and truth and salvation; and he said: First, perhaps, God\ntakes his property away from him; and that does not change him. And by\nand by he takes his wife; and that does not change him. And then he\ntakes one of his children; and, as he expressed it, he lays these\ncoffins across his pathway in order to warn him of his sinful\ncondition, and turn him into the right way.\n\nThink of a God who kills other people on account of my wrong!\n\nI had a friend in Boston once, a lady, a school-teacher, who in all\nseriousness told me, when her sister died, that she was afraid God had\ntaken her sister away because she had not been sufficiently faithful in\nattending church services during Lent. Think of it! Not only the lack\nof logic in linking things like these together, but the practical\nimpiety of attributing to God such feelings and action in regard to his\ndealings with his children!\n\nLet us take the case of a man who, not being highly elevated in\ncharacter, becomes rich. Let us see if we can get at the principles\ninvolved here. Perhaps you can call to mind one or another case that\nyou may be thinking of while I speak. Of course I shall mention no\nnames. Here is a man who possesses remarkable natural business ability,\npower to read the commerce, the business of his times. He deals with\nthese in a practical way. He complies with the conditions of\naccumulating wealth. No matter for the present whether he does wrong in\ndoing it or not, that is, whether he is unjust or hard or cruel; but he\ncomplies with the conditions for the obtaining of money in this\nparticular department of life. Now do you not see that, no matter what\nhis moral character may be in other directions, whether he is kind to\nhis wife, whether he is loving towards his children, whether he is\ngenerous in a charitable way, whether he is politically stanch or\ncorrupt, do you not see that these questions are entirely irrelevant,\nhave nothing whatever to do with the question of success in the money\nfield? He sows according to the laws of the product which he wishes to\nraise, and the product appears.\n\nOr take the case of a farmer: Here is a certain tract of land adapted\nto a particular crop. He sows wisely in this field. He cultivates it:\nthe rain and the sun do their part; and in the fall he has a\nmagnificent result. Now has that anything whatever to do with the\nquestion whether the man was a good man or not, as to whether he went\nto prayer-meeting or not, as to whether he read his Bible or not, as\nto whether he was profane or not, as to whether he was a good neighbor\nor not? Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap, and reap it where\nhe sows it. Is it not perfectly plain? So in any department of human\nlife, I care not what, trace it out, and you will find that precisely\nthe same principle is involved, and that you get results, not arbitrary\nbestowal's of reward or punishment.\n\nNow I must come having, I hope, made this sufficiently clear, though\nafter this fragmentary fashion to deal a little more with some of the\nethical sides of this question. I have had no end of persons tell me,\nfirst and last, that it seemed to them that the universe could not be a\nmoral universe, that it was not governed fairly, that reward and\npunishment were not meted out evenly to people; and they based their\ncriticism on statements of fact similar to those with which I have been\ndealing.\n\nNow let us look into the matter a little deeply; and let us see if we\ncan find any hint of light and guidance. I have had a person within a\nweek say to me, \"I do not feel at all sure that it means much that\npeople get the moral results of their moral action in a particular\ndepartment of life. If a person becomes a little bit callous and hard,\nwisely selfish and prudent, and so prospers in the affairs of this\nlife, I am not sure that he is not as well off as anybody, perhaps a\nlittle better off, perhaps a little better off than a person who is\nsensitive, and worries because he does not reach his ideals; and it is\npossible that he serves the world after all quite as well.\" This is a\nkind of criticism, I say, that has been made to me in the last week.\n\nLet us look at it for just a minute. People do not seem able as yet to\nunderstand that a man is really \"punished,\" in the popular sense of\nthat word, unless they can see him publicly whipped. It does not seem\nto them to mean anything because a man deteriorates, because the\nhighest and finest qualities in him atrophy and threaten to die out. I\nused an illustration in my sermon two weeks ago to which I shall have\nto recur again, to see if I can make it mean more than it did then. It\nis the story of Ulysses who fell into the hands of the famous\nsorceress, and whose companions were turned into swine. Now would you\nbe willing to be turned into a pig, merely because, being a pig, you\nwould not know anything about it, and would not suffer? Would you be\nwilling to be reduced to the life of an oyster, merely because, being\nan oyster, you would be haunted by no restless ideals, and, so far as\nyou had any sense at all, would probably be very comfortable indeed? Is\nthere no \"punishment\" in this deprivation of the highest and finest\nthings that we can conceive of?\n\nIt seems to me that a person who has deteriorated, who has become\nselfish, who has become mean, who has lost all taste for high and fine\nand sweet things, and is unconscious of them, is having meted out to\nhim the worst conceivable retribution. If a man is mean and knows it,\nif a man is selfish and is conscious of it, if a man is unjust and is\nstung by the reflection, there is a little hope for him, there is life\nthere, there is moral vitality, there is a chance for him to\nrecuperate, to climb up into something higher and finer; but, if he has\nnot only become degraded and mean, but has become contented in that\ncondition, it seems to me that he is worse off than almost anybody else\nof whom we can dream.\n\nLet us see for a moment on what conditions a man who has deteriorated\nis well off. There are three big \"ifs\" in the way, in my thought of it.\nIf a man really is a spiritual being, if he is a child of God, if there\nare in him possibilities of unfolding of all that is sweet and divine,\nthen he is not well off when he is not developing these, and is content\nnot to develop them. Browning says, in his introduction to \"Sordello,\"\n\"The culture of a soul, little else is of any value.\"\n\nIf we are souls, and if the culture of a soul is of chiefest\nimportance, then cursed beyond all words is the man who has\ndeteriorated and become degraded and is content to have it so. Blessed\nbeyond all words is the soul that is haunted by discontent, haunted by\nunattained and unattainable ideals, who is restless because of that\nwhich he feels he might be and yet is not, he who is touched by the\nfar-off issues of divinity, and cannot rest until he has grown into\nthe stature of the Divine!\n\nAnd then, once more, if it be true that it is worth our while to help\nour fellow-men in the higher side of their nature, to help them be men\nand women, to help them realize that they are children of God, and to\ngrow into the realization of it, if, I say, this be worth while, then\nlamentable beyond all power of expression is the condition of that man\nwho does not feel it and does not care for it, and does not consecrate\nhimself to its attainment. Look over the long line of those who have\nserved mankind. Who are they? From Abraham down, the prophets of\nIsrael; Jesus, Paul, Savonarola, Huss, Wyclif, Luther, Channing,\nParker, who have these men been but the ones who were ready at any\nprice to do something to lift up and lead on the progress of mankind?\nThese are the ones who have felt the meaning of those sublime words of\nJesus: \"He that loseth his life shall save it.\" If there is any meaning\nin that splendid passage from George Eliot, that is so trite because it\nis so fine,\n\n\"Oh may I join the choir invisible\nOf those immortal dead who live again\nIn minds made better by their presence: live\nIn pulses stirred to generosity,\nIn deeds of daring rectitude, in score\nFor miserable aims that end with self,\nIn thoughts sublime that pierce the night like stars,\nAnd with their mild persistence urge man's search\nTo vaster issues.\nSo to live is heaven:\nTo make undying music in the world,\nBreathing as beauteous order that control\nWith growing sway the growing life of man.\nThis is life to come,\nWhich martyred men have made more glorious\nFor us who strive to follow.\nMay I reach That purest heaven, be to other souls\nThe cup of strength in some great agony,\nEnkindle generous ardor, feed pure love,\nBeget the smiles that have no cruelty,\nBe the sweet presence of a good diffused,\nAnd in diffusion ever more intense.\nSo shall I join the choir invisible\nWhose music is the gladness of the world.\"\n\nIf, I say, there is any meaning in that magnificent song, then indeed\nit is worth while to be miserable, if need be, worth while to suffer,\nworth while to sacrifice for the sake of planting seed in the spiritual\nfields, and looking for its spiritual results, and not finding fault\nwith the universe because we do not get results of spiritual goodness\nin material realms.\n\nThere is one other \"if.\" If it be true, as I believe it is, that this\nlife goes right on, and that we carry into the to-morrow of another\nlife the precise and accurate results that we have wrought out in the\nto-day of this; if it be true that, when we get over there, it will be\nspiritual facts and spiritual things with which we shall deal, then the\nman who has cultivated his spiritual nature and has reaped spiritual\nresults has no right to find fault with the universe because it has not\npaid him with material good.\n\nLet us remember, then, that we get what we sow. God has not promised to\npay you in greenbacks for being good; God has not promised to give you\nphysical health because you are gentle and tender; God has not promised\nto give you long life because you are generous; God has not promised to\ngive you positions of social or political honor because you are kind to\nyour neighbors, faithful to your wife, true to your children. Can you\nnot see that whatsoever a man sowest, that shall he reap; and that he\nwill reap in the field where he sows, and not in some other; and that\nGod is dealing fairly, justly, tenderly, truly, with you in giving you\nthe results at which you aim, and not the results at which you do not\naim?\n\nSo, if you really care to be a man, if you care to be a woman, honest,\nnoble, tender, true, then be these, and be grateful that you reap the\nreward where you sowed, and do not find fault with God or the universe\nbecause he does not pay you for things that you have not done, because\nhe does not make a crop grow in some field that you have not\ncultivated, because it is eternally true that God is not mocked, and\nthat whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.\n\nTHINGS WHICH DOUBT CANNOT DESTROY.\n\nTHE critical and investigating work of the modern world threatens to\nshake not the earth only, but also heaven. And there are large numbers\nof people who are disturbed and afraid: they are troubled lest certain\nthings that are precious, that are dear to them, may be taken away. Not\nonly this, they are troubled lest things of vital importance to the\nhighest life of the world be taken away. I propose, then, this morning\nto run in rapid review over a few of the changes that are caused by the\ninvestigating spirit of the time, and then to point out some things\nthat are not touched, that cannot be shaken, and that therefore must\nremain. And I ask you to have in mind, as I pursue this line of\nthought, the question whether doubt has taken away anything really\nvaluable from mankind. The negative part of my theme I shall touch on\nvery lightly, and dispose of as briefly as I may.\n\nWhat has doubt, what has investigation, done concerning the universe of\nwhich we are a part? In the old days, before doubt began its work,\nbefore men asked questions and demanded proof, we lived in a little,\npetty, tiny world, which the imagination of the superstitious and the\nfear of ignorant men had created. But the cycles and epicycles which\nPtolemy devised, and by means of which he explained, as well as he knew\nhow, the movements of the heavenly bodies around us, these have passed\naway. The breath of doubt has blown upon them; and they have gone, like\nmists driven by the wind.\n\nBut has doubt quenched the light of any star? Has doubt taken away from\nthe glory of the universe? Rather, as the result of the work of these\nmyriad investigators, whose one aim and end was truth, at last we have\na universe worthy to be the home of an infinite God, a universe that\nmatches our thought of the Divine, a universe that thrills and lifts\nus, fills us with reverence, and bends us to our knees in the attitude\nof worship.\n\nThe same spirit has raised no end of questions concerning God. What has\nbeen the result? We have lost the old thought of God in the shape of a\nman sitting on a throne located in the heavens just above the blue or\non some distant star. We have lost the thought of a God as a tyrant, as\na jealous being, as angry every day with his children, as ready to\npunish these children forever for their ignorance, for their\nintellectual mistakes, for their sins of whatever kind. We have changed\nour conception of him; but have we lost God? I will not answer that\nquestion at this stage of the discourse, because I wish merely to\nsuggest it now, and dwell on it a little more when I come to the\npositive treatment of our morning's theme.\n\nLet us glance at the Bible a moment. Doubt and investigation have been\nat work there. What has been the result? Have we lost the Bible? No. We\nhave gained it. We have lost those things about it which were\nintellectual burdens because we could not believe them, which were a\nmoral burden because they conflicted with our highest and noblest sense\nof right. We no longer feel under the necessity of reconciling human\nmistakes with divine infallibility. Professor Goldwin Smith has told us\nrecently that these old theories of the Bible were a millstone about\nthe neck of Christendom, and that they must be gotten rid of if\nChristianity was to live. This is all that doubt and investigation have\ndone to the Bible. They have cleared away the things that no sane and\nearnest and devout mind wishes to keep; and they have restored to us in\nall their dignity and beauty and sweetness and power the real human\nBible, the Bible which poured out of the heart of the olden time, and\nwhich is in all its truth and sweetness, so far as they go, a\nrevelation of the divinest things in human thought and human dream.\n\nPreachers tell us every little while that those who ask questions have\ntaken away our Lord, and they know not where he has been laid. What has\nthis spirit done concerning Jesus? Has it taken him away from us?\nRather, as the result of all this question and criticism, at last we\nhave found him, found him who has been hidden away for ages, found the\nman, divine son of God, son of man, brother, friend, inspirer,\ncompanion, helper. It has done for Jesus the grandest service of which\nwe can conceive.\n\nAnd now one more point. People used to suppose they knew all about the\nnext world. They knew where heaven was and where hell was, and who were\nto be the inhabitants of either place, and why. Doubt and question have\nbeen at work here, and now we do not know where heaven is; and we do\nnot know where hell is, except that it is within the heart of those\nthat are not in accord with the divine life. Where the places are, we\nknow not; but blessed beyond all words be ignorance like this! We know\nbecause we believe in righteousness and truth that there is no hell\nexcept that which we create for ourselves; and that is in this world,\nin any world where there is a breach of a divine law. But has the great\nhope gone? Has doubt touched that, so that it has shrivelled and become\nas nothing? That I shall have occasion to touch on a little more at\nlength in a moment; and so I leave it here with this suggestion.\n\nI wish you now to note, and to note with a great deal of care, that\ndoubt, criticism, question, investigation, have no power to destroy\nanything. People talk as though, if you doubted a thing, it\ndisappeared, as though doubt had magical power to annihilate in some\nway a truth. If you really do doubt an important divine truth, it may\ndisturb and trouble you for a while; but the truth remains just the\nsame. I remember some years ago a parishioner came to me, an\nintelligent lady, and said, \"Mr. Savage, I have about lost my belief in\nany future life.\" I smiled, and said: \"I am sorry for you, if it\ninterferes with your comfort and peace; but remember one thing, neither\nyour doubt nor my belief touches or changes the fact.\" The eternal life\nis not something to be puffed away with a breath, if it be real. So\nrest right there in the firm assurance that whatever is true is true,\nand rests on the eternal foundation of the permanence of God; and\nasking questions about it, digging away at its foundations, testing it\nin any and all sorts of ways, cannot by any possibility injure it.\nEnforce thus this idea, simple as it seems, because thousands of men\nand women at the present time are made to tremble by utterances from\nthe pulpit, as though doubt were really a destroyer. Of course, it\nseems commonplace the moment you think of it; and, still for your peace\nand for the restfulness of your mind as you look on the things that are\ntaking place about us, hold fast to this simple idea.\n\nThere is one other point which I wish to raise. What is the use of\ncriticism? What is the use of all this investigating? Why indulge in\nall this doubt? And now let me give you an illustration which will lead\nme to answering this question and enforcing the point I have in mind. A\nfarmer, if he selects a favorable piece of ground, plants good seed,\ncultivates it properly, if the rain falls and the sun shines, and the\nweather is propitious, will have a successful crop. Does it make any\ndifference now whether the farmer has correct ideas about soil and seed\nand cultivation? Does it make any difference whether he has any true\nconception of the nature and work of the sunshine in producing this\ncrop? In one sense, No. In another, a very important sense, Yes.\nSuppose the farmer, having gotten into his mind the idea that the sun\nis the source of all the life and growth of the things that he plants\nand the crops he cultivates, should say, \"Well, now, it does not make\nany difference whether I have correct scientific theories about the sun\nor not: the sun carries on his work just the same.\" I have heard people\nsay, over and over again, using an illustration like this: \"What\ndifference does it make what your theories are about the spiritual\nlife, about the origin and nature of religion, about morality? If you\nlive a good life, the results are just the same, whatever your thinking\nmay be.\" And I grant it. But now suppose the farmer should say to\nhimself: \"The sun is the source of all the life that I am able to\nproduce, that I see growing around me; and now I will worship him as a\ngod. I will pray to him, I will sing songs of praise to him, I will\nbring birds and animals and burn sacrifices to him; and so I will win\nhis favor, and get him to produce these wonderful results for me.\"\nSuppose he should so seek his results, and pay no attention to the\ncharacter of the soil, to the kind of seed he planted, or to proper\ncultivation: would that make no difference?\n\nDo you not see that theory may be of immense practical importance in\ncertain contingencies? Whether he has any knowledge of the sun or not,\nif he complies with the laws, the conditions, if he is fortunately\nobedient, then his results will be produced. But, if his ignorance, his\nsuperstition, lead him to neglect the natural forces with which he\ndeals, then it may make all the difference in the world. So, as I study\nthe history and development of religious thought, I see everywhere that\nmen and women, through their ignorance in regard to the real nature of\nthe universe and of God and of their own souls, are going astray,\nwasting time, wasting thought, wasting effort, misdirecting all these\ninstead of complying with the real natural universal conditions on\nwhich these noblest and highest results which they desire depend.\n\nIf a man, for example, believes that he is to please God by a\nsacrifice, by an offering, by swinging incense, by going through a\ncertain ceremony, instead of being righteous and true, does it make no\ndifference? Carry out the idea as far as you please, I think I have\nmade plain the thought I had in mind.\n\nSo it does make a difference what our thoughts, our theories, may be;\nand, therefore, there is good in this work of investigation which\nproposes to sift and test and try things, and find out the real nature\nof the forces which confront us and with which we have to deal.\n\nNow, then, I come to the positive answering of our question. Are there\nsome things that doubt cannot touch? And are these things the most\nimportant ones, the ones that we need to feel solid under our feet?\nWhat do we need? We do not need to be able to unravel all the mysteries\nof the universe. Any quantity of the questions we ask are not practical\nones. We do not need to wait for an answer to them. Any number of the\nthings that are in doubt are of no practical consequence; and we need\nnot wait for their settlement before we begin to live and to help our\nfellowmen and to do what we can to bring in the coming kingdom of our\nFather.\n\nI wish to note now a few of the things that seem to me very stable\nthings, that doubt cannot disturb. And first I will say that which I\nmean when I use the word \"God.\" I wish you to learn to separate between\nthe word and the reality. Sometimes people are quarrelling over a label\ninstead of the reality that is back of all. I care very little for a\nname. I care for things, for the eternal truths of the universe. May we\nthen feel that modern doubt does not touch our belief in God? I ask you\nto consider a moment, and see. As we wake up, assuming nothing, and\nlook abroad, what do we find? We find ourselves in the presence of a\nPower that is not ourselves, another Power, a Power that was here\nbefore we were born, a Power that will be here after we have died, a\nPower that has produced us, and so is our father and mother on any\ntheory you choose to hold of it, a Power out of which we have come. Now\nsuppose we look abroad, and try to find something in regard to the\nnature of this Power. We can conceive no beginning: we can conceive no\nend. And let me say right here that, as the result of all his lifelong\nstudy and thinking as an evolutionist, Mr. Herbert Spencer has said\nthat the existence of this infinite and eternal Power, of which all the\nphenomenal universe is only a partial and passing manifestation, is the\none item of human knowledge of which we are most certain of all.\n\nAn Infinite Power, then, an eternal Power, shall I say an intelligent\nPower? At any rate, just as far as our intelligence can reach, we find\nthat the universe matches that intelligence, responds to it, so that we\nmust think of it, it seems to me, as intelligent. Out of that Power, as\nI have said, we have come; and who are we? Persons, persons that think,\npersons that feel, persons that love, persons that hope; and we are the\nchildren of this Power, and, according to one of the fundamental\nprinciples of science, nothing can be evolved which was not first\ninvolved, the stream cannot rise higher than its source, that which is\nproduced must be equal to that which produces it.\n\nThis Power, then, eternal, infinite, intelligent, must be as much as\nwhat we mean by person, by thought, by love, by hope, by all that makes\nus what we are. Shall we call a Power like this God? Shall we call it\nNature? Shall we call it Law? Shall we call it Force? It seems to me\nthat, if we take any name less and lower than God, we are indulging in\na huge assumption, and a negative assumption at that. Suppose that,\nlooking at one of you, I should call you body instead of calling you\nman. I should be assuming that you are only body, which I have no right\nto do. If I call this Infinite Power, then, Nature, Force, Law, Matter,\nI am indulging in a negative assumption which is scientifically\nunwarranted. As a reasonable being, then, I think I am scientifically\nwarranted in saying that belief in God is something that all\ninvestigation only affirms, and affirms over and over again, and with\nstill greater and greater force.\n\nI have not time to go into this at any further length this morning; but\nI believe that we are scientifically right in saying that all the\ndoubt, all the investigation, all the questioning of the world, have\nonly given us a stronger and more solid assurance that we have a divine\nPower around us, and that we are the children of that Power.\n\nIn the next place, to carry the idea a little farther, we want, if we\nmay, to believe that this Infinite and eternal Power manifested in the\nuniverse is a good Power. If it be not, we are hopeless. I hear\nreformers sometimes in their zeal picturing the dreadful condition of\naffairs socially or industrially or politically, and saying that the\nworld is getting worse and worse, that the rich are getting richer, and\nthe poor are getting poorer, and the republic is becoming more corrupt\nweek by week and year by year, giving the impression that the world in\ngeneral is on the down grade. If I believed that, I should give it up,\nI should see no reason for struggle and effort. If an Infinite Power is\nagainst me in my efforts to do good, what is the use of my making the\neffort?\n\nWe want to know, then, as to whether a belief in the goodness of this\nInfinite Power is a thing that doubt and investigation have not touched\nand cannot disturb. Let us consider just a moment one or two thoughts\nbearing upon it.\n\nThe pessimist tells us that the universe is bad all the way through,\nthat this is the worst possible kind of world. When a man makes a\nstatement like that, I always wish to ask him a question which it seems\nto me absolutely overturns his position, how did he happen to find it\nout? If the universe is bad all through, essentially bad, where did he\nget his moral ideal in the light of which to judge and condemn it? How\ndoes this bad universe produce an amount of justice and truth and love\nto be used as a measuring-rod in order to find out whether it will\ncorrespond with these ideals or not? That one question seems to me\nenough to turn pessimism into nonsense.\n\nLet us look at it in another way. As we look back, as far as we can\ntowards the beginning of things, we find this fact: when man appeared\non the earth, conscience was born, as I told you the other day, a sense\nof right came with him, and since that day he has been struggling to\nattain and realize an ever and ever enlarging and heightening ideal.\nThis, then, the conscience, the sense of right, the ideal, must be a\npart of the nature of the universe that has produced them. And we\nnotice that these have been growing with the advance of the ages.\nBefore dwelling on that a little farther, let me touch another\nconsideration which is germane to it.\n\nIf you look over the face of human society, you get proof positive,\nscientific demonstration unquestionable, that good is in the majority,\nlove is the majority power of the world. How do I know? You draw up a\nlist of all those things that you call evil, and you will note, as you\nanalyze them, that they are the things that tend to disintegrate, to\nseparate, to tear down; and you draw up a list of those things that you\ncall good, and you will find that they are the things that tend to\nbuild up, that bind human society together, and help on life and growth\nand happiness.\n\nNow the simple fact that human society exists proves that the things\nthat tend to bind together are more powerful than the things that tend\nto disintegrate and tear down. Just as, for instance, if you see a\nplanet swinging in the blue to-night, you will know that the\ncentripetal power is stronger than the centrifugal, or there would be\nno planet there. That which tends to hold it together is mightier than\nthat which tends to disintegrate and fling its particles away from each\nother. So the simple fact that human society exists proves that good is\nin the majority.\n\nAnd then, as we trace the development of human society from the far-off\nbeginning, we find that justice, truth, tenderness, pity, love,\nhelpfulness, all these qualities have been on the increase, and are\ngrowing; and, since the Power that has wrought in lifting up and\nleading on mankind is unspent, we believe that that Infinite Power of\nwhich we have been speaking is underneath this lifting, is behind this\nprogress, and that the end may reasonably be expected to issue in that\nperfection of which we dream and whose outlines we dimly see afar off.\n\nAn infinite power, then, a power that is good, a power that we may\nstudy, partially understand, at any rate, and co-operate with. We can\nhelp on this progress instead of hindering it. We can do something to\nmake the world better. Here are two things then, God and goodness, that\nno doubt, no investigation, have ever been able to touch or destroy.\n\nA third thing. We want to believe that there is a meaning in these\nlittle individual lives of ours. Sometimes, when we read of pestilences\nor the great wars of the world, when we think of children born and\ndying so soon almost as they are born, when we note the brevity of even\nthe longest life and take into account the sweep of the ages, we\nsometimes find ourselves depressed with the thought that these human\nlives of ours mean so little. It sometimes seems as though nature cared\nnothing for us, and swept us away as the first cold and the frost sweep\naway the millions of flies that had been buzzing their little hour of\nsunshine.\n\nWe need to feel, then, if we are to live manly, womanly lives, that\nthere is some plan, or may be some purpose in our being born, in our\nlittle struggle of a few years, in our being thwarted, in our\nsucceeding, in our being sick or well, in our being rich or poor, in\nour being learned or ignorant. Does it make any difference how we live\nthese lives of ours? Is there significance in them, any purpose, any\nplan, any outcome, to make it worth while for us to struggle and\nstrive? We need to know this; and what do the investigation and the\ndoubt and the struggle of the world say to us concerning these? If\nthere is anything which science teaches us, it is that the infinite\nGod, the Power, whatever we name it, that is the thought and life of\nthis universe, is expressed just as perfectly in the tiniest atom as in\nthe most magnificent galaxy. There is no such thing as an imperfect\natom in this universe. The infinitesimal atoms below us, and the tiny\norbits through which these atoms and molecules sweep, are as much in\nthe grasp of the Eternal Law as the movements of the stars over our\nheads.\n\nThings are not lost in this universe out of the eternal purpose because\nthey are little. So our apparent littleness, the weakness, feebleness\nof our lives, need not disturb the grandeur of our trust in this\ndirection.\n\nThen as we study ourselves, as we see the good that has been growing\nthrough the ages, and as we note the fact that I hinted at a moment\nago, that we can plant ourselves in the way, and hinder the working of\nthe Divine, so far as our tiny strength goes, or that we can study the\nconditions of this growth and co-operate and help it on, and so be just\nas truly a builder of the highest and finest humanity of the future as\nGod is himself, as we note this, are not our little lives raised into\ndignity and touched with glory? And why should I cringe and humiliate\nmyself in the presence of a planet a thousand times larger than our\nearth, or a sun a million and a half times larger than the planet that\nshakes to its centre as I stamp my tiny foot? I, or one like me, has\nmeasured the sun, weighed it as an apothecary can weigh a gram in his\nscales. I have untangled the rays of his light, and am able to tell the\nsubstances that are burning those ninety millions of miles away, in\norder to send down that ray of light to our earth. I have untangled the\nmysteries of the heavens, and find these only aggregations of matter\nlike those of which my body is composed; but I deal with all these and\novertop them, speeding with my thought with the rapidity that leaves\nthe lightning behind. And I know that, because I can think God and can\ntrace his thoughts after him as he goes through his creative processes,\nso I am more than these,-- a child of the Creator. I may feel as a\nlittle boy feels who stands beside his father who is the captain of\nsome mighty ship. The ship may be a million times greater than he; but\nthe captain's intelligence and hand made it, shaped it, rules it, turns\nit whithersoever he will. And I am the captain's child, like him, and\ncapable of matching his masterly achievement.\n\nAnd so I may believe that I, as a child of the infinite Father, am of\ninfinite importance to him in this universe of his; and I can live a\ngrand and noble life. Nobody can harm me but myself. Place an obstacle\nin my path, and, whether it be insurmountable or not, I may show myself\na coward or a hero as I face it. Tell me I have made a mistake, I can\nrepair it. Tell me I have committed some moral error, am guilty of sin,\nI confess it. But I can make all these mistakes and sins stairways up\nwhich I can climb nearer and nearer to God. You may test me with\nsorrows, affliction, take away my property, take away my health, take\naway my friends; and the way in which I receive these may either make\nme nobler or poorer and meaner, as I will. The sun shines upon the\nearth. It turns one clod hard, makes it incapable of producing\nanything. It softens and sweetens another, the same sun: the difference\nis in the way in which it is received. So these influences may touch\nme, may make me hard and bitter and mean and rebellious, or I may stand\nall, and say, as the old Stoics used to, \"Even if the gods are not\njust, I w ill be just, and shame the gods.\"\n\nSo man may say, Whatever comes upon me, I will meet it like a man, and\nlike a child of the Highest, and so make my life significant, a part of\nthe divine plan, something glorious and real.\n\nOne thought more. When we have got through with this life, and stand on\nthe shore of a sea whose wavelets lap the sands at our feet, and the\nships of those that depart go out into the mist, and we wonder whither,\nwhat has doubt done, what has investigation done, touching this great\nhope of ours, as we face that which we speak of as the Unknown? So far\nas the old-time and traditional belief is concerned, I hold that doubt\nhas been of infinite and unspeakable service. Certainly, I could rather\nhave no belief at all than the old belief. Certainly, I would rather\nsink into unconsciousness and eternal sleep than wake to watch over the\nbattlements of heaven the ascent of the smoke of the torment that goeth\nup forever and ever. But is there any rational ground for hope still? I\ncannot stop this morning even to suggest to you the grounds for the\nassertion that I am about to make. I believe that, if we have not\nalready demonstrated eternal life, we are on the eve of such\ndemonstration. I believe that another continent is to be discovered as\nveritably as Columbus discovered this New World. As he, as he neared\nthe shore, saw floating tokens upon the waters that indicated to him\nthat land was not far away, so I believe that tokens are all about us\nof this other country, which is not a future, but only a present,\nunseen and unknown to the most of us.\n\nBut grant, if you will, that that is not to be attained, modern\ninvestigation and doubt have done nothing to touch the grounds of the\ngreat human hope that springs forever in the breast, that hope which is\nborn of love, born of trust, born of our dreams, born of our yearning\ntowards the land whither our dear ones have departed.\n\nLet me read you just a few lines of challenge to those that would raise\na question as to the reality of this belief:\n\nWhat is this mystic, wondrous hope in me, That, when no star from out\nthe darkness bore Gives promise of the coming of the morn, When all\nlife seems a pathless mystery Through which tear-blinded eyes no way\ncan see; When illness comes, and life grows most forlorn, Still dares\nto laugh the last dread threat to scorn, And proudly cries, Death is\nnot, shall not be? I wonder at myself! Tell me, O Death, If that thou\nrul'st the earth, if \"dust to dust\" Shall be the end of love and hope\nand strife, From what rare land is blown this living breath That shapes\nitself to whispers of strong trust, And tells the lie, if 'tis a lie,\nof life? Where did this wondrous dream come from? How does it grow as\nthe world grows?\n\nIt must be a whisper of this eternal Being to our hearts; and so, in\nspite of all the advance of knowledge, all the criticism, it remains\nuntouched, brightening and growing. And so there is reason, as we gaze\nout on the future, why we should look with contempt, if you will, upon\nthe conditions that trouble us in this life, the burdens, the sorrows,\nthe illnesses, when all that life means at its highest is that out of\nthe conditions, whatever they are, I should shape a manhood, cultivate\na soul, make myself worth living, fitting myself for that which gleams\nthrough the mist a promise, if you will, of something there beyond.\n\nNow I wish simply to call your attention to the fact that doubt does\nnot touch this eternal Power, does not touch the fact that this is a\ngood Power, and that it is on the side of goodness, does not touch the\nfact that we are the children of that Power and may co-operate with it\nfor good and share its ultimate triumph, does not touch the great hope\nthat makes it worth while for us to suffer, to bear, to dare all\nthings. And these great trusts, are they not all we need to be men, to\nbe women, to conquer the conditions of life and prove ourselves\nchildren of the Highest?\n\nEVOLUTION LOSES NOTHING OF VALUE TO MAN.\n\nI TAKE two texts, one of them from the New Testament. It may be found\nin the fifth chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew, the\nseventeenth verse, \"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the\nprophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.\" The other text is from\nEmerson: \"One accent of the Holy Ghost The heedless world hath never\nlost.\"\n\nThe theory of evolution to-day, in the minds of all competent students,\nis quite as firmly established as is the law of gravity or the\nCopernican theory in astronomy. But, when it was first propounded in\nits modern form by Herbert Spencer, when he issued his first book, and\nwhen Darwin's \"Origin of Species\" was published, there was an outcry,\nespecially throughout the religious world. There was a great fear\nshuddered through the hearts of men. They felt as though the dearest\nthings on earth were threatened and were likely to be destroyed.\nEssayists declared that this theory undermined the foundations of\nmorals. They said that it took away, not only the Bible, but God and\nall rational religion. They told us that, in tracing the ancestry of\nman back and down to the animals, humanity was being desecrated, and\nthat the essential feature of man as a child of God was being taken\naway.\n\nIf I believed that any of these things were true, I might not be an\nenemy of evolution, if indeed it be established; for there is very\nlittle reason in a man's setting himself against an established truth.\nBut I should certainly be very sad, and should wish that we might hold\nsome other theory of things. But I believe that it will appear, as we\nstudy the matter a little while carefully, that not only are these\ncharges that have been brought against the theory baseless, but that\nright here is to be found not only the real progress of the world, but\nthe true conservatism. Evolution is the most conservative theory that\nhas ever been held. It keeps everything that has been found serviceable\nto man. It may transform it. It may lift it to some higher level, on to\nsome loftier range of life; but it keeps and carries forward everything\nthat helps. This inevitably and in the nature of things.\n\nThere are two great tendencies which are characteristic of that method\nof progress or growth which we call by the name of evolution. One is\nthe hereditary tendency, and the other is the tendency to variation.\nOne, if it were in full force, would merely, forever and forever,\nrepeat the past: the other, if it were in full force, would blot out\nall the past, and forever be creating something new. It is in the\nbalance of these two tendencies that we discover the orderly growth of\nthe world; and this orderly growth it is which constitutes evolution.\nLet me illustrate: Here is a tree, for example. The tendency that we\ncall heredity would simply constantly repeat the past: the tendency to\nvary would vary the tree out of existence. The ideal is that it shall\nkeep its form, for example, as an oak, but that, in the process of\ngrowth, the bark shall expand freely and sufficiently to make room for\nthe manifestation of the new life. Now, if the bark had power to refuse\nexpansion, of course, you know, the tree would die. If there were not\npower enough to maintain the form, then, again, the tree would cease to\nexist. This you may take as a type and illustration of the method of\nall life and all progress everywhere.\n\nThose people who naturally represent the heredity tendency  what we\ncall the conservative people of the world are the ones who are always\nafraid of any change. They deprecate the utterance of new ideas. They\nhesitate to accept any new-fangled notions, as perhaps they call them.\nThey are afraid that something precious, something sweet, something\ndear, that belonged to the past, may be lost.\n\nThis manifests itself in all departments of life. I suppose that there\nnever was an improvement proposed in the world that somebody did not\nobject to it in the interests of the established order. And yet, if\nthese people that do not want any changes made had had control of the\nworld ten thousand years ago, where should we be to-day? We should\nstill be barbarians in the jungles. For it is because these people have\nnot been able to keep the world still that we have advanced here and\nthere in the direction of what we are pleased to call civilization. You\nremember, for example, as illustrating this opposition, how the\nworkingmen, the laborers of the time, a few years ago, in England,\nfought against the introduction of machinery. They said machinery was\ngoing to take their work away, it was going to break down the old\nindustrial order of the world, it was going to make it impossible for\nthe laborer to get his living. A few machines were to do the world's\nwork; and the great multitude were to be idle, and, not having anything\nto do, were to receive no pay for labor, and consequently were to\nstarve. This was the cry. The outcome has been that there has been\ninfinitely more done, a much larger number of laborers employed,\nemployed less hours in the day, paid higher wages; and in every\ndirection the condition of the industrial world has been improved. I\nspeak of this simply as an illustration of this tendency.\n\nWhen we come to religion, it is perfectly natural that the opposition\nhere should be bitterer than anywhere else in the world; and it always\nhas been. If you think of it just a little, if you read the history of\nthe world a little, you will find that the last thing on earth that\npeople have been willing to improve has been their religion. And this,\nI say, is perfectly natural. Why? Because men have instinctively felt\nand rightly felt, as I believe that religion was the most important\nthing in human life. They felt that it was the most sacred thing, that\non it depended higher and more permanent interests than on anything\nelse; and they have naturally been timid, naturally shrunk from change,\nwith the fear that changing the theories and the practices and the\nthoughts was going to endanger the thing itself. They have said, We\nwill hold on, at any rate, to these reverences, these worships, these\nprecious trusts, these hopes; and we will hold on to the vessels in\nwhich we have carried them, because how do we know, if the vessels are\nchanged or taken away, that we may not lose the precious contents\nthemselves? This, I say, has been the feeling; and it has been a\nperfectly natural feeling.\n\nI wish then, this morning, for a little while to review with you some\nof the steps in evolution that the world has taken, and let you see how\nit has worked in different departments of human thought and human life,\nso that you may become convinced if possible, as I am that evolution\nhas never thrown away, has never lost, anything precious in any\ndepartment of the world since human life began. If I believed it did, I\nwould fight against it. For instance, here is a devout Catholic\nservant-girl. She believes in her saints. She counts her beads and\nrecites her Ave Marias. She goes to the cathedral on Sunday morning.\nAnd this is her world of poetry and romance. Here is a source of\ncomfort. This throws a halo around the drudgery of the kitchen, the\nservice of the house in which she is an employee. Would I take away\nthis trust, this poetry, this romance, untrue as I believe it to be in\nform, inadequate as I believe it to be? Would I take it away, and leave\nher mind bare, her heart empty, leave her without the comfort, without\nthe inspiration? Not for one moment. I would take it away only if, in\nthe process, I could supply her with something just a little better, a\nlittle more nearly true, something that would give her comfort,\nsomething that would be an inspiration to her, something that would\nbuoy her up as a hope, something that would help her to be faithful and\ntrue in the work of her daily life. This is what evolution means. It\nmeans taking away the old, and, in the process, substituting therefore\nsomething a little bit better. I would not take away the idol of the\nlowest barbarian unless I could help him to take a step a little\nhigher, so that he should see the intellectual and spiritual thing that\nthe idol stood for, and so enable him to walk his pathway of life as\nfirmly, as faithfully, as hopefully, as he did before.\n\nI have been watching the work that has been going on in our streets\nduring the last months. You, too, have seen how they will replace the\ntrack on an entire line of railway without stopping the running of the\ncars. They take away the old and worn and poorer, but constantly\nsubstitute something better for it; and human life moves right on.\nEverything is better; the change has come; but that change is; an\nimprovement. This is what evolution does; for evolution is nothing new\nin the world. It is only the name for the method of God, which is as\nold as the universe itself, new to us because we have just discovered\nit; but as old as the light of a star that has been travelling for\ntwenty-five thousand years, and has just come into the field of the\nastronomer's telescope, so that he announces it as a new discovery..\nThis is what it means.\n\nNow let me call your attention to the fact that in the world below us\nthe world of the trees and the shrubs and the flowers and the plants\nthis evolutionary force is working after precisely the same method that\nI have just been indicating. All the fair, the beautiful things have\nbeen developed under this process, in accordance with this method, out\nof the first bare and rough and crude manifestations of vegetable life.\nNothing has been thrown away that was of any value. Take it, for\nexample, in regard to the wild weeds which have become the oats and the\nwheat and the barley and the rye of the world. All the old that was of\nvalue has been kept and has been developed into something higher and\nfiner and sweeter. The aboriginal crab-apple has become a thousand\nluscious kinds of fruits; and the flowers all their beauty, all their\nfragrance, all their color and form? are the result of the working of\nthis method of God's power that we have called evolution. Nothing of\nany value is left behind in the uncounted ages of the past. All that is\nof worth to-day has been transformed and lifted to some higher level\nand made a part of the wondrous life that is all around us.\n\nSo, when you come to the animal life, you find the same thing. The\nswift foot, the flashing wing, the beauty of color, all the wonders of\nanimal life have simply been developed in accordance with this method\nand under this impelling force which we call evolution, which is only a\nname for the working of God.\n\nWhen we come up to the level of man, what do we find? Man as an animal\nis not the equal of a good many of the other animals in the world. He\nis not as swift as the deer, he is not as strong as the lion, he cannot\nfly in the air like a bird, he cannot live in the sea like the fishes.\nHe is restricted to the comparatively contracted area of the surface of\nthe land. He is not as perfect as an animal; but what has evolution\ndone? It has given him power of conquest over all these, because the\nevolutionary force has left the bodily structure, we need expect no\nmore marked changes there, and has gone to brain. So this feeblest of\nall the animals physically speaking he would be no match for a hundred\ndifferent kinds of animals that are about us is able to outwit them\nall, that is, to outknow, he has become the ruler of the earth. And not\nonly has this evolutionary force gone to brain, it has gone to heart;\nand man has become a being whose primest characteristic is love. The\none thing that we think of as most perfect, that we dream of as\ncharacterizing his future development, is summed up in his affectional\nnature. Then, too, he has become a moral being.\n\nThere are times, like the present, when it seems as though the animal\nwere at the top, and the affectional nature suppressed, and the\nconscience were ruled out of court; and yet you study the methods of\nmodern warfare as compared with those of the past, you see how pity and\ntenderness and care walk by the side of every gun, hide in the rear of\nevery battlefield to attend to the wounded and suffering. And you know\nwhat talk there has been of pity for the hungry, the desire of the\nworld to feed those that need; and the one dominant note in the\ndiscussion of the war all over the world has been the question as to\nits being right. No matter how we may have decided, whether the\ndecision be correct or not, the civilized world bows itself in the\npresence of its ideal of right, and demands that no war shall be fought\nthe issue of which is not to be a better condition of mankind.\n\nEvolution, then, tends to the development of brain, heart, conscience,\nand the spiritual nature of man. It has left nothing behind that is of\nany value to us. It has transformed or sublimed or lifted all up into\nthe higher range of the life that we are living to-day, and contains\nwithin itself a promise of the higher and the grander life that we\nreach forward to to-morrow.\n\nI wish now, for a moment, to illustrate the working of this in regard\nto some of the institutions of the world. If I had time, I could show\nyou that the same law is apparent in the development of the arts,\nsculpture, painting, poetry. I must pass them by, however. As\nillustrating what I mean, let me take the one art of music. From the\nvery beginning man has been interested in making some sort of sounds\nwhich, I suppose, have been regarded as music by him. Most of those\nthat are associated with the barbaric man would be anything but music\nto us. The music, for example, that they give in connection with a play\nin a Chinese theatre would not be acceptable to the cultivated ear of\nAmericans. We have left behind much that the world called music. We\nhave left behind any number of musical instruments. We do not now have\nthose that the Psalmist makes so much of, the old-time harp, the\nsackbut, the psaltery. I do not know, though you may, what kind of\ninstruments they were. The world has completely forgotten them, and\nleft them out of sight. And yet no musical note, no musical chord, no\nmusical thought, no musical feeling, has been forgotten or dropped\nalong the advancing pathway of the world's progress; and in our organs\nall the attempts at instruments of that kind from the beginning of the\nworld are preserved, transformed and glorified. In our magnificent\norchestras all the first feeble beginnings are developed until we have\na conception of music to-day such as would have been utterly\nincomprehensible to the primeval man. What I wish you to note is and\nthis is the use of my illustration that the advancing growth of the\nmusic of the world has forgotten nothing that it was worth while to\nkeep.\n\nLet me give you one more illustration. Take it in the line of\ngovernment. The first tribes were governed by two forces, brute force\nand superstitious fear. These were the two things that kept the primal\ntribes of the world in order, such order as was maintained in those\nfar-off times. The world has gone on developing different types of\ngovernment, different types of social order. I need not stop to outline\nthem for you this morning: you know what they are; and I only wish you\nto catch the thought I have in mind. I suppose that every time one of\nthe old types was about to pass away the adherents of that type have\nbeen in a panic lest anarchy was threatening the world. Believers in\nthese types have said that it was absolutely necessary to keep them, in\norder to preserve social order. Take the attitude of the monarchy\nto-day, for example, as towards the republic. When we attempted to\nestablish our republic here in this western world, it was freely said\nby the adherents of the old political idea in Europe that it would of\nnecessity be a failure, that there was no possibility of a stable human\norder without a hierarchy of nobles with a king at the top; and I\nsuppose they believed it. But we have proved beyond question that we\ncan have a strong government, an orderly government, without either\nnobility or king. There is less government in the United States here\nto-day than in almost any other country of the world, a nearer approach\nto what the philosopher would call anarchy. Anarchy does not mean\ndisorder, when a philosopher is talking: it means merely the absence of\nexternal government. And that is the ideal that we are approaching.\n\nPaul says, you know, that the law was made for wicked people, for the\ndisobedient and the disorderly, not for good people. How many people\nare there in New York to-day, for example, who are honest, who pay\ntheir debts, who did not commit a burglary last night, who do not\npropose to be false to wife and home, on account of the law, the\nexistence of courts and police? The great majority of the citizens of\nAmerica to-day would go right on being honest and kind and loving and\nhelpful, whether there were any laws or not. They are not kept to these\ncourses of conduct by the law. They have learned that these are the\nfitting ways of life that these are the things for a man to do; and\nthey despise themselves if they are less than man. In other words, this\ngovernmental order, which exists as an outside force, at last gets\nwritten in the heart and becomes a law of life.\n\nNow precisely the same process is going on in other departments of the\nworld: it is going on in religion. And now let me come to religion, and\nillustrate the working of the law here. The old types of religious\nthought and life and practice, the first ones that the world knew, are\nlong since outgrown. We regard them as barbaric, as cruel.\n\nWe have learned that there are not a million gods of whom we need stand\nin awe. We have learned that God is no partial God. We have learned\nthat God does not want us, as universal man once believed, to sacrifice\nthe dearest object of our love. We have learned that he does not want\nus to sacrifice our first-born child, as the old Hebrews used to, and\nthe remains of which custom are plainly visible throughout the Old\nTestament everywhere. We have left behind these old types of religious\nthought and life; but the world has lost nothing in the process. The\nworld has not left religion behind. The whole process of growth and\ndevelopment in the sphere of the religious life and the development of\nman has been one of outgrowing crude and partial and inadequate\nthoughts and feelings about the universe and God and man and duty and\ndestiny.\n\nWe do not care so much about ceremony as the world did once. The most\ncivilized people in the world are not so given to these things in their\nreligious development. We do not care so much about creed as they did a\nthousand or five hundred years ago. We do not believe that God is going\nto judge us by our intellectual conceptions of him and of our fellow-\nmen. And I suppose it is true, always has been true as it is to-day,\nthat the adherent of any particular form or theory of the religious\nlife has the feeling that, when that is threatened, religion is\nthreatened; and he defends it passionately, fights for it, perhaps\nbitterly, feels justified in opposing, perhaps hating, those he regards\nas the enemies of God and his great and sacred and religious hopes. And\nyet we know, as we study the past, whether we can quite appreciate it\nas true in regard to the theories which I am voicing to-day, that the\ntruth has never been in any danger, and the highest and finest and\nsweetest things in the religious life have never been in any danger,\nare not in any danger to-day.\n\nLet me indicate in two or three directions. There has been a class of\nthinkers, which has done a good deal of talking and writing in this\ndirection, who are telling us that the poetry, the romance, the wonder,\nthe mystery, of the world  those things that tend to bring a man to his\nknees and to lift his eyes in awe and reverence are passing away; that\nscience is going to explore everything; that there is going to be no\nmore unknown; and that, when we have completed this process, one of the\ngreat essentials of religious thought and feeling and life will have\nperished from among men. I venture to say to you that there has never\nbeen a time in the history of the world when there was so much of\nmystery, so much of wonder, so much of reverence, so much of awe, as\nthere is to-day. We are apt to fool ourselves in our thinking, and,\nwhen we have observed a fact, and labelled it, to think we know it.\n\nFor example, here is this mysterious force that we call electricity,\nwhich is flashing such light in our homes and through our streets as\nthe world has never known before. The cars, loaded, are speeding along\nour highways with no visible means of propulsion. We step up to a\nlittle box, and put a shell to our ear, and speak and listen, and\nconverse with a friend in Boston or Chicago, recognizing the voice\nperfectly, as though this friend were by our side. We send a message\nover a wire, under the deep, and talk to London and all round the\nglobe; and we have labelled this force electricity. And, instead of\ngetting down on our knees in reverence, we get impatient if our\ncommunication is delayed two minutes or three. We fool ourselves with\nthe thought that, because we have called it electricity, we know it, we\nhave taken the mystery out of the fact. Why, friends, do you know\nanything about electricity? Do you know what it is? Do you know why it\nworks as it does? I do not; and I do not know of anybody on the face of\nthe earth who does. The wonder of the \"Arabian Nights\" is cheap and\ntame and theatrical compared to the wonder of this everyday workaday\nworld of ours, in the midst of which and by means of which we are\ncarrying on our business and our daily avocations. The wonder of the\ncarpet that would carry the person through the air who sat upon it and\nwished is nothing compared with the power of electricity, steam, any\none of these invisible, intangible powers that are thrilling through\nthe world to-day. There never was so much room for mystery, for awe,\nfor poetry, for romance, as there is in the midst of our commercial\nlife in this nineteenth century.\n\nThis element of religion, then, is in no danger. We know nothing\nultimately. Who can tell me what a particle of matter is? Who can tell\nme what a ray of light is, as it comes from a star? Who can tell me how\nthe movements in the particles of air striking my eye run up into nerve\nand brain, and become translated into thought, into light, into form,\ninto motion, into all this wondrous universe that surrounds us on every\nhand?\n\nThen take the element of trust. People used to think they could trust\nin their gods. Rebecca, for example, stole her father's gods, and hid\nthem in the trappings of her camel, and sat on them. She thought, then,\nthat she had a god near her who would care for her. The old Hebrew,\nwith an ox-team, carried his God, in a box that he called the ark, into\nbattle, and supposed that he had a very present help in time of need.\nBut we have the eternal stability and order of the universe, a God that\nnever forgets, a God on whom we can lean, in whom we can trust, who is\nnot away off in heaven, but here, closer to us than the air we breathe,\na God in whom we live and move and have our being.\n\nAnd has this evolution of the religious life of the world threatened\nthe stability of truth? There never was a time on earth when there was\nsuch a passion for truth as there is today. What means all this intense\nactivity of the scientific world? these men that devote their lives to\nsome little fraction of the universe which they study through their\nmicroscope, not for pay, to find one little fragment of the truth of\nGod; these critics that are rummaging the dust-heaps of the ages in\nthe hope that they may find one little, bright-glittering particle of\ntruth in the midst of the rubbish? There never was such a passion for\ntruth as there is here and now.\n\nAre we going to lose the sense of righteousness which is the very heart\nof religion? There never was a time since the world began when the\naverage man cared so much for righteousness, when he laid so much\nemphasis on human conduct, on kindness, on help, on all those things\nthat make this life of ours desirable and sweet. The ideal of character\nand behavior has risen step by step from the beginning, and is higher\nto-day than it ever was before. Not because men fear a whipping, not\nbecause they are threatened with hell in another world, not because a\nGod of vengeance is preached to them, because they have grown to see\nthe beauty of righteousness, because they know that obedience to the\nlaws of God means health, means sanity, means peace, means prosperity,\nmeans well-being, means all high and good and noble things. This\nrighteousness is not driven into one by blows from outside: it blossoms\nout from the intellect and the conscience and the heart, as the\nrecognized law of all fine and desirable and human living.\n\nWhat are we losing, then, as the result of this growth of the world in\naccordance with the law of evolution? Are we losing our hope of the\nfuture? The form of that hope is passing away. We no longer believe in\nan underground world of the dead, as the Hebrews did. We no longer\nbelieve in a heaven just above the blue, as Christendom has believed\nfor so long. We no longer believe in a heaven where all struggle and\nthought and study and growth are left out, where there is to be only a\nmonotonous enjoyment that would pall upon any living rational soul. The\nform of it is passing away; but there never was a time when there was\nsuch a great and inspiring hope, not simply for myself and my friends,\nnot simply for my neighbors, not simply for my particular church. There\nnever was a time when there was such a great hope, including humanity\nfor this world and for the next, as that which inspires us now.\n\nNothing, then, in religion that is of any worth has the world forgotten\nor is it likely to forget. All the old reverences and loves and trusts\nand inspirations and hopes and tendernesses are here intermingled. They\nare in the highest and noblest people; and they are being carried on\nand refined and purified and glorified as the world goes on.\n\nAnd now let me suggest one thought more that may be of comfort to some.\nA great many people have been accustomed to associate so much of their\nreligion with the forms of their religious expression that they fancy\nthat the world's outgrowing these means that religion is being\noutgrown. I said, you remember, when touching upon government as an\nillustration of the working of the law of evolution, that governmental\nforms were being outgrown just as fast as the world was becoming\ncivilized. If this world ever becomes perfect, government will cease to\nbe, in the sense of these external forms, simply because there will be\nno need of it; just as you take down a staging when you have completed\na house. So I look forward to less and less care for the external forms\nof the religious life. I believe they will remain, and they ought to\nremain, just as long as they are any practical help to anybody; but,\nbecause a person ceases to need them, you must not think that he has\nceased to be religious. When the world gets to be perfectly religious,\nthere will be no need of any churches, there will be no need any more\nof preachers, there will be no need of any of the external ceremony of\nreligion.\n\nYou remember what the old seer says in the book of Revelation, as he\nlooks forward to the perfect condition of things. He is picturing that\nideal city which he saw in his vision coming down from God out of\nheaven. This was his poetical way of setting forth his idea of the\nperfected condition of humanity; and he said, speaking of that city,\n\"And I saw no temple therein, for the Lord God was the temple of it.\"\n\nThe external forms pass away when the life needs them no more. Take,\nfor example, the condition of things when Jesus came to Jerusalem. You\nknow how they put him to death. And what did they put him to death for?\nThey put him to death because he preached of a time when there would be\nno need of any temple, no need of any priesthood, no need of any of the\nexternal things that they regarded as essential to religious life. They\nthought he was blaspheming, they thought he was an enemy of God and of\nhis fellowmen, because he talked that way. He said to the woman of\nSamaria, You think you must worship God on this mountain, Gerizim, and\nthe Jews think they must worship him on Mount Moriah; but God is\nspirit, and the time will come when you will not care whether you are\nin this place or that, but will worship him in spirit and in truth.\n\nYou see it was just along these lines that Jesus was preaching and\nworking in his day. So, when humanity becomes perfected, external\nforms, that have helped mould and shape man into his perfection, will\nbe needed no more. They will fall off, pass away, and be forgotten; but\nthat will not mean that humanity has forgotten or left behind any great\nessential to the religious life. It will mean simply that he has taken\nthem up into his own heart, absorbed them into his life. He naturally\ndrops them when he is no longer in need of external supports.\n\nThis law of evolution, then, is simply the method of God's progress\nfrom the beginning, the same method which was to be found in the\nlowest, the method which has lifted us to where we are, the method\nwhich looks out with promise towards the better things which are to\ncome.\n\nThe one life thrilled the star-dust through,\nIn nebulous masses whirled,\nUntil, globed like a drop of dew,\nShone out a new-made world.\nThe one life on the ocean shore,\nThrough primal ooze and slime,\nCrept slowly on from less to more\nAlong the ways of time.\nThe one life in the jungles old,\nFrom lowly creeping things,\nDid ever some new form unfold,\nSwift feet or soaring wings.\nThe one life all the ages through\nPursued its wondrous plant\nTill, as the tree of promise grew,\nIt blossomed into man.\nThe one life reacheth onward still;\nAs yet no eye may see\nThe far-off fact, man's dream fulfill?\nThe glory yet to be.\n\nWHY ARE NOT ALL EDUCATED PEOPLE UNITARIANS?\n\nTHE religious opinions of the average person in any community do not\ncount for much, if any one is studying them with the endeavor to find\nout their bearing on what is true or what is false. This is true not\nonly of popular religious opinions, but of any other set of opinions\nwhatever; and for the simple reason that most people do not hold their\nopinions as the result of any study, of any investigation, because they\nhave seriously tried to find out what is true, and have become\nconvinced that this, and not that, represents the reality of things.\n\nLet us note for a moment and I do this rather to clear the way than\nbecause I consider it of any very great importance  how it is that the\ngreat majority of people come by the religious opinions which they\nhappen to hold. I suppose it is true in thousands of cases that a man\nor a woman is in this church rather than that merely as the result of\ninheritance and childhood training. People inherit their religious\nideas. They are taught certain things in their childhood, they have\naccepted them perhaps without any sort of question; and so they are\nwhere they happen to be to-day. If you stop and think of it for just a\nmoment, you will see that this may be all right as a starting-point,\nbut is not quite an adequate reason why we should hold permanently, and\nthroughout our lives, a particular set of ideas. If all of us were to\naccept opinions in this sort of fashion, and never put them behind us\nor make any change, where would the growth of the world be? How would\nit be possible for one generation to make a little advance on that\nwhich preceded it, so that we could speak of the progress of mankind?\nThen, when persons do make up their minds to change, to leave one\nchurch and go to another, it is not an uncommon thing for them simply\nto select a particular place of worship or a special organization for\nno better reason than that they happen to like it, to be attracted to\nit for some superficial cause. How many people who do leave one church\nfor another do it as the result of any earnest study, or real endeavor\nto find the truth? And yet, if you will give the matter a moment's\nserious consideration, you will see that we have no sort of right to\nchoose one theory rather than another, one set of ideas rather than\nanother, because we happen to like one thing, and not something else.\nLiking or disliking, a superficial preference or aversion, is an\nimpertinence when dealing with these great, high, and deep questions of\nGod and the soul, of the true or the false.\n\nThen I have known a great many people in my life who went to a\nparticular church for no better reason than mere convenience. It was\neasily accessible, it was just around the corner, they did not have to\nmake any long journey, and did not have to put themselves out any to\nget up a little earlier on Sunday morning, which they would otherwise\nneed to do. A mere matter of convenience! And this is so many times\nallowed to settle some great question of right or wrong. Then you will\nfind those who select a particular church or a particular church\norganization, become identified with it, merely because on a casual\nvisit to the place they were taken with the minister, happened to like\nhis appearance, his method of speaking, the way he presented his ideas.\nOr perhaps they were attracted by the music. There are persons who\ndecide these great questions of God and truth and the soul for no more\nimportant a reason than the organization and the capacity of the church\nchoir.\n\nIt is not an uncommon thing for people to attend some particular church\nbecause it promises to be socially advantageous to them. It is\nfashionable in a particular town. I have a friend, I still call him\nfriend, a Boston lawyer, who told me in conversation about this subject\none day that he deliberately went to the largest church he could find,\nand that, if in the particular city in which he was residing the Roman\nCatholic Church was in the majority, he should attend that. There are\nthousands of persons who wish to be in the swim, and who are diverted\nthis way or that by what seems to them socially profitable. Think of\nit, claiming to be followers of the Nazarene, who was outcast, spit\nupon, treated with contempt, on whom the scribes and Pharisees of his\nday looked down with bitterness and scorn, and who led the world for\nthe sake of his love for God out into a larger truth, who made himself\nof no reputation, claim to be followers of him, and let a matter of\nfashion decide whether they will go this way or walk in some other path\nI Think of the irony of a situation like that!\n\nThen, again, there are those who attach themselves to some one church\nrather than to another because, after looking over the ground, they\nmade up their minds that it would be to their business advantage. They\nwill become associated with a set of people who can help them on in the\nworld. It is all very well, if there be no higher consideration, for a\nperson to be governed in his action by motives like these; but is it\nquite right to decide a question of truth or falsehood, of God or duty,\nof the consecration of the human soul, of the service of one's fellow-\nmen, on the basis of supposed financial advantage? There is hardly a\nyear goes by that persons do not come to me, considering the question\nas to whether they will attend my church. I can see in a few minutes'\nconversation with them that they have some purpose to gain. They wish\nto be helped on in the prosecution of some scheme for their own\nadvancement. If they succeed, they are devout Unitarians and loyal\nfollowers of mine. If not, within a few weeks I hear of them as devoted\nattendants somewhere else, where they have been able to make their\npersonal plans a success.\n\nThese are some of the reasons there are worthier ones than these which\ninfluence the crowd. There are, I say, worthier ones. Let me hint one\nor two. I do not think it is any sacrilege, or betrayal of confidence,\nfor me to speak a name. The late Frances E. Willard, one of the ablest,\ntruest, most devoted women I have ever known, frankly confessed to me\nin personal conversation that she was more in sympathy with my\nreligious ideas than of those of the Church with which she was\nconnected, but her love, her tender love and reverence for her mother\nand the memory of her mother's religion were such that she could not\nfind it in her heart to break away. She loved the services her mother\nloved, she loved the hymns her mother sung, she loved the associations\nconnected with her mother's life. All sweet, beautiful, noble; but, if\nnobody from the beginning of the world had ever advanced beyond\nmothers' ideas where should we be to-day? Is it not, after all, the\ntruest reverence for mother, in the spirit of consecration she showed\nto follow the truth as you see it to-day, as she followed it as she saw\nit yesterday?\n\nSo much to justify the statement I made, that the average popular\nbelief on any subject is not a reliable guide to a person who is\nearnestly desiring to find the simple truth.\n\nNow let us come to the answer of the specific question which I have\npropounded. Why are not all educated people Unitarians? I ask this\nquestion, not because I originated it, but because it has been put to\nme, I suppose, a hundred times. People say, You claim to have studied\nthese matters very carefully, you have tried to find the truth, you\nthink you have found it. You have followed what you regard as the true\nmethod of search. If you have found the truth, and if other people,\nusing this same method and being as unbiased as you, could also find\nit, how does it happen that Unitarians are in the minority? Why do not\nall persons who study and who are educated accept the Unitarian faith?\nThis question, I say, has been asked me a great many times; and it is a\nquestion that deserves a fair, an earnest and sympathetic answer. Such\nan answer I am now to try to give.\n\nIn the first place, let me make a few assertions. I have not time to\nprove them this morning; but they are capable of proof. The advantage\nof a scientific statement is that, though you do not stop to prove it,\nyou know it can be proved any time, whenever a person chooses to take\nthe time or trouble. For example, if I state the truth of the\nCopernican system, or that the earth revolves around the sun, and you\nchallenge me to prove it in two minutes, I may not be able to; it may\ntake longer than that; but I know it can be demonstrated to-morrow or\nnext week or any time, because it has been demonstrated over and over\nagain.\n\nI wish now to assert the truth of certain fundamental principles; and\nthese principles, you note, are those which constitute the peculiarity\nof the Unitarian people as a body of theological believers. For\nexample, that this which is all around us and of which we are a part is\na universe is demonstrated beyond question. It is one, the unity of the\nuniverse. The unity of force, the unity of substance or matter, the\nunity of law, the unity of life, the unity of humanity, the unity of\nthe fundamental principles of ethics, the unity of the religious life\nand aspiration of the world, these, I say, are demonstrated. And do you\nnot see that demonstrating these carries along with it the\nunquestioned, the absolute demonstration of the unity of the power that\nis in the universe and manifests itself through it? The unity of God?\nThe Lord our God is one! And this is no question of speculation, it is\ndemonstrated truth. Now, as to any speculative or metaphysical division\nof God's nature into three parts or personalities, there is not, and\nthere cannot be, in the nature of things, one slightest particle of\nproof. The unity is demonstrated: anything else is incapable of\ndemonstration.\n\nNext, the Unitarian contention I say Unitarian, not because we\noriginated it by any means, but simply because we first and chiefly\namong religious bodies have accepted it as to the origin and nature of\nman as science has unfolded it to us, thus precluding the possibility\nof the truth of any doctrine of any fall. This is not speculation, it\nis not whim. It is not something picked up by the way, that a man\nchooses because he likes it, and because he does not like something\nelse. This is demonstrated truth, as clearly and fully demonstrated as\nis the law of gravity or the fact that water will freeze at a certain\ntemperature. Then the question of the Bible. The Unitarian position in\nregard to the origin, the method of composition, the authenticity and\nthe authority of Biblical books, is a commonplace of scholarship. There\nis no rational question in regard to it any more. Next, the question of\nthe origin and nature of Jesus the Christ. The naturalness of his\nbirth, the naturalness of his death, his pure humanity, are made\nclearer and surer by every new step which investigation takes; and\nthere is nothing in the nature of proof that is conceivable in regard\nto any other theory. If any one chooses to accept it, well; but nobody\nclaims, or can claim, to prove it, to settle it, to demonstrate it as\ntrue. It becomes an article of faith, a question of voluntary belief;\nbut there is no possibility of holding it in any other way. So as to\nthe nature of salvation. It is a matter of character; a man is saved\nwhen he is right. And that he cannot be saved in any other way is\ndemonstrable and demonstrated truth.\n\nNow, these are the main principles which constitute the beliefs of\nUnitarians; and in any court of reason they are able to make good their\nclaim against any corner. And, if there be no other motive at work\nexcept the one clear-eyed, simple desire to find the truth, there can\nbe no two opinions concerning any of them.\n\nWhy, then, are not all thoughtful, educated people Unitarians? Well may\nthe listener ask, in wonder, if the statements I have just been making\nare true. Now I propose to offer some suggestions, showing what are\nsome of the influences at work which determine belief, and which have\nvery little to do with the question as to whether the beliefs are\ncapable of establishing themselves as true or not.\n\nIn the first place, let us raise the question as to what is generally\nmeant by education. We assume that all educated people ought to agree\non all great questions; and they ought, note now what I am saying, they\nought, if they are really and truly educated, and if with a clear and\nsingle eye they are seeking simply the truth. But, in order to\nunderstand the situation, we need to note a good many other things that\nenter into this matter of determining the religious path in which\npeople will walk. Now what do we mean by education? Popularly, if a man\nhas been to school, particularly if he is a college graduate, if he can\nread a little Latin and speak French, and knows something of music, if\nhe has graduated anywhere, he is spoken of as educated. But is that a\ncorrect use of language? Are we sure that a man is educated merely\nbecause he knows a lot of things or has been through a particular\ncourse of study? What does a human education mean? Does it not mean the\nunfolding, the development of our faculties in such a way that in the\nintellectual sphere we can come into contact with and possession of the\nreality of things, the truth? Intellectually, is there any other object\nof education than to fit a man to find the truth? And yet let me give\nyou a case. Here is a man, I take it as an illustration simply, not\nbecause I have anything particular against the Catholic Church any more\nthan against any other body of believers, who has been through a\nCatholic college, has made himself master of Catholic doctrine, become\nfamiliar with theological and ecclesiastical literature; suppose he\nknows all the languages, or a dozen of them, having them at his\nfingers' ends. Do you not see that as a truth-seeker in a free world he\nmay not be educated at all? He may be educated, as we say, or trained\nis the better word, into acceptance of a certain system of traditional\nthought, that can give no good reason for itself; for his prejudices,\nhis loves and hates may be called into play. He may be trained into the\nearnest conviction that it is his highest duty to be loyal to a\nparticular set of ideas.\n\nTake the way I was educated. I grew up reading the denominational\nreviews, and the denominational newspapers. I was taught that it was\ndangerous and wicked to doubt. I must not think freely: that was the\none thing I was not permitted to do. I went to a theological school,\nand had drilled into me year after year that such beliefs, about God\nand man and Jesus and the Bible and the future world, were\nunquestionably true, and that I must not look at anything that would\nthrow a doubt upon them. And I was sent out into the world graduated,\nnot as a truth-seeker, but to fight for my system, as a West Point\ngraduate is taught that he must fight for his country without asking\nany questions.\n\nDo you not see that this, which goes under the name of education,\ninstead of fitting a man to find the truth, may distinctly and\ndefinitely unfit him, make it harder for him to find any truth except\nthat which is contained in the system which has been drilled into him\nfrom his childhood up and year after year? Education, in order to fit a\nman to be a truth-seeker, must be something different from this merely\nteaching a man a certain system, a certain set of ideas, and drilling\nhim into the belief that he must defend these ideas against all\ncorners.\n\nA good many people, then, who are called educated, are not educated at\nall. I have had this question asked me repeatedly: If your position is\ntrue, here is a college graduate, and here is another; and here is a\nminister of such a denomination, or a priest of the Catholic Church;\nwhy do they not accept your ideas? Do you not see, however, that this\nso-called education may stand squarely in the way?\n\nNow, in the second place, I want to dwell a little on the difficulty of\npeople's getting rid of a theory which possesses their minds, and\nsubstituting for it another theory. And I wish you to note that it is\nnot a religious difficulty nor a theological difficulty nor a Baptist\ndifficulty nor a Presbyterian difficulty: it is a human difficulty.\nThere is no body of people on the face of the earth that is large\nenough to contain all the world's bigotry. It overflows all fences and\ngets into all enclosures. Discussing the subject a little while ago, by\ncorrespondence with a prominent scientific man in New England, I got\nfrom him the illustrations which I hold in my hand, tending to set\nforth how difficult it is for scientific men themselves to get rid of a\ntheory which they have been working for and trying to prove, and\nsubstitute for it another theory. I imagine that there may be a\nphysiological basis for the difficulty. I suggest it, at any rate. We\nsay that the mind tends to run in grooves of thought. That means, I\nsuppose, that there is something in the molecular movements of the\nbrain that comes to correspond to a well-trodden pathway. It is easy to\nwalk that path, and it is not easy to get out of it. Let it rain on the\ntop of a hill; and, if you watch the water, you will see that it seeks\nlittle grooves that have been worn there by the falling of past rains,\nand that the little streams obey the scientific law and follow the\nlines of least resistance. There comes a big shower, a heavy downfall;\nand perhaps it will wash away the surface and change the beds of these\nold watercourses, create new ones. So, then, when there comes a deluge\nof new truth, it washes away the ruts along which people have been\naccustomed to think; and they are able to reconstruct their theories.\nNow let me give you some of these scientific illustrations. First, that\nheat is a mode of motion was proved by Sir Humphry Davy and Count\nRumford before 1820. In 1842 Joule, of Manchester, England, proved the\nquantitative relation between mechanical energy and heat. In 1863 note\nthe dates  Tyndall gave a course of lectures on heat as a mode of\nmotion, and was even then sneered at by some scientific men for his\ntemerity. Tait, of Glasgow, was particularly obstreperous. To-day\nnobody questions it; and we go back to Sir Humphry Davy and Count\nRumford for our proofs, too. It was proved scientifically proved then;\nbut it took the world all these years, even the scientific world, to\nget rid of its prejudices in favor of some other theory, and see the\nforce of the proof.\n\nNow, in the second place, it was held originally that light was a\nseries of corpuscles that flew off from a heated surface; but Thomas\nYoung, about the year 1804, demonstrated the present accepted theory of\nlight. But it was fought for years. Only after a long time did the\nscientific world give up its prejudice in favor of the theory that was\npropounded by Newton. But to-day we go back to Young, and see that he\ndemonstrated it beyond question.\n\nIn the third place, take another fact. Between 1830 and 1845 Faraday\nworked out a theory of electrical and magnetic phenomena. It was proved\nto be correct. Maxwell, a famous chemist in London, looked over the\nmatter, and persuaded himself that Faraday was right; but nobody paid\nmuch attention to either of them; until after a while the scientific\nworld, through the work of its younger men, those least wedded to the\nold-time beliefs, conceded that it must be true.\n\nThe Nebular Theory was proved and worked out by Kant more than a\nhundred and thirty years ago. In 1799 Laplace worked it out again; but\nit was a long time before it was accepted. And now we go back to Kant\nand Laplace for our demonstration.\n\nDarwin's \"Origin of Species\" was published in 1859. But it was\nattacked by scientists as well as theologians on every hand. Huxley\neven looked at it with a good deal of hesitancy before he accepted it.\nTo-day, however, everybody goes back to the \"Origin of Species,\" and\nfinds the whole thing there, demonstration and all.\n\nLyell published a book on the antiquity of man in 1863. It was twenty-\nfive years before all the scientific men of the world were ready to\ngive up the idea that man had been on the earth more than six or eight\nthousand years.\n\nSo we find that it is not theologians only; it is scientists, too, that\nfind it difficult to accept new ideas. I know scientific men among my\npersonal friends who are simply incapable of being hospitable to an\nidea that would compel them to reconstruct a theory that they have\nalready accepted. Why are not all educated men Unitarians? Why do not\nscientific men accept demonstrated truth when it is first demonstrated\nas truth? It puts them to too much trouble. It touches their pride.\nThey do not like to feel that they have thrown away half their lives\nfollowing an hypothesis that is not capable of being substantiated.\n\nThen, in the third place, there are men, and educated men as the world\ngoes, who deliberately decline to study new truth; and they are men in\nthe scientific field and in the religious field. They purposely refuse\nto look at anything which would tend to disturb their present accepted\nbelief. In my boyhood I used to hear Dr. John O. Fiske, a famous\npreacher in Maine. He told a friend of mine, in his old age, that he\nsimply refused to read any book that would tend to disturb his beliefs.\nProfessor William G. T. Shedd, one of the most distinguished\ntheologians of this country, a leading Presbyterian divine, published\nso I am not slandering him by saying it a statement that he did not\nconsider any book written since the seventeenth century worth his\nreading. And yet we have a new world since the seventeenth century, a\nnew revelation of God and of man. To follow the teaching of the\nseventeenth century would be to go wrong in almost every conceivable\ndirection. What is the use of paying any attention to the theological\nor religious opinions of a man who avows an attitude like that?\n\nFaraday, to come now to a scientific illustration, so that you will not\nthink I am too hard on theologians, Faraday belonged to one of the most\northodox sects in England; and he used to say deliberately that he kept\nhis religion and his science apart. He says, \"When I go into my closet,\nI lock the door of my laboratory; and, when I go into my laboratory, I\nlock the door of my closet.\" He did very wisely to keep them apart;\nfor, if they had got together, there would certainly have been an\nexplosion.\n\nAnother scientific illustration is Agassiz. Agassiz unconsciously\nwrought out and developed some of the most wondrous and beautiful\nproofs of evolution that the world has ever known; and yet he fought\nevolution to the last day of his life, simply because he had accepted\nthe other theory. And he got it into his head that there was something\nabout evolution that tended to injure religion and degrade man, not a\nrational objection, not a scientific objection, but a feeling, a\nprejudice.\n\nThere is another class of people that I must refer to. Institutions and\norganizations come into being, created, in the first place, as the\nembodiment and expression of new and grand truths; and after a Arile\ntheir momentum becomes such that the persons who are connected with\nthem cannot control their movements, and these persons become victims\nof the organizations and institutions to which they belong. So, when a\nnew truth appears, the old organization rolls on like a Juggernaut car,\nand crushes the life, so far as it is possible, out of everything in\nits way. Take, for example, and note what a power it is and what an\nunconscious bribe it is to those who belong to it, the great Anglican\nChurch. A man's ambitions, if he has learning, power, ability, tell him\nthat there is the Archbishopric of Canterbury ahead of him as a\npossibility. His hopes, the chances of promotion and power, are with\nthe institution. And, then, it is such a tremendous social influence.\nIt is no wonder, then, that men who are not over-strong, who have not\nthe stuff in them out of which heroes are made, should cling to the\ninstitution and remain loyal to it, even while they are false to the\ntruth that used to animate it and for which alone any institution ought\nto exist.\n\nLet me give you another illustration. Edward Temple, late Bishop of\nLondon, and who is now the Archbishop of Canterbury, had a priest of\nthe established Church come to him and make a confession of holding\ncertain beliefs which he knew were heretical. The archbishop said to\nhim frankly: As Edward Temple, I believe them, I am in sympathy with\nyour views. As the head of the English Church, I must be opposed to\nthem; and the opinions which you hold cannot be tolerated. That is what\nthe influence of a great organization may come to.\n\nLet me give you another concrete illustration. Here is our American\nBible Society, which publishes and circulates millions of Bibles all\nover the world. It is obliged, as at present organized, to print and\ndistribute the King James version of the Bible; but there is not a\nscholar or a minister connected with the organization anywhere who does\nnot know at least, since the revision at any rate that in many\nimportant respects the King James version is not an accurate\ntranslation of the original, even if that is conceded to be infallible.\nSo that this organization stands to-day in the position of being\nobliged to circulate all over the world for God's truth any number of\nteachings that are simply blunders of the translator, of the copyist,\nor interpolated passages that have come down from the past.\n\nSo men in every direction become persuaded that they must be loyal to\nthe organization. I know cases where a minister in conversation with a\nfriend has said: So long as I remain a member of this Church, I have\ngot a great institution back of me, and I can accomplish so much\nsocially and in every way on account of it. I know I do not believe\nhalf of the creed, but any number of other ministers are in the same\nbox. And so they stay true to the organization, while truth to the\ntruth is sacrificed.\n\nOne other influence that keeps so many of these old ideas alive or\nprolongs their existence beyond the natural term  is right in here. Any\nnumber of men, educated, strong, prominent men, give their countenance\nand influence to the support of old-time religious organizations\nbecause they believe that somehow or other they are serviceable as a\npolice force in the world, they keep people quiet, they help preserve\nsocial order. I have had people over and over again say that they\nbelieved it would be a great calamity to disturb the Roman Catholic\nChurch, because it keeps so many people quiet. Do you know, friends, I\nregard this as the worst infidelity that I know of on the face of the\nearth. It is doubt of God, his ability to lead and manage his world\nwithout cheating it. It is doubt of truth, as to whether it is safe for\nanybody except very wise people, like a few of us! It is doubt of\nhumanity, its capacity to find the truth, and believe in it and live on\nit. Do you believe that God has made this universe so that it is\nhealthier for the masses to live on a lie than it is for them to live\non the truth? Is that your confidence in God? Is that the kind of God\nyou worship? It is not the kind I worship. There is no danger of the\nignorant masses of the world getting wise too fast, judging by the\nexperience of the past up to the present time. There is only one thing\nthat is safe; and that is truth. Do you know what the trouble was at\nthe time of the French Revolution? It was not that the people began to\nreason and think, and lost their faith, as so frequently said by\nsuperficial historians: it was that they waked up at last to the idea\nthat the aristocracy and the priesthood had not only been fleecing them\nfinancially and keeping them down socially, but had been fooling them\nreligiously, until at last they broke away, having no confidence left\nin God or priest or educated people or nobility or anything. No wonder\nthey made havoc. If you want to make a river dangerous, dam it up, keep\nthe waters back, until by and by the pressure from the hills and the\nmountains becomes so great that it can be restricted no longer; and it\nnot only breaks through the dam, but bursts all barriers, floods the\ncountry, sweeps away homes, farms, cattle, human beings, towns, cities,\nleaving ruin in its path. Let rivers flow as God meant them to; and\nthey will be safe.\n\nSo let the world learn,-- learn gradually, and adapt itself to new\ntruth as it learns, and there will be an even and orderly march of\nhuman progress. The danger is in our setting ourselves up as being\nwiser than God, wiser than the universe, and doling out to the\nmultitude the little fragments of truth that we think are fitted for\ntheir digestion. The impertinence of it, and the impiety of it!\n\nI must not stop to deal with other reasons which lie in my mind this\nmorning. You can think along other channels for yourselves. I have\nsimply wished to suggest that, in the kind of world we are living in,\nyou may not be sure, at any particular age in history, that a set of\nideas is going to be accepted by the multitude merely because they are\ntrue; and, because they are not accepted at once, you are not,\ntherefore, to come to the conclusion that they are not true. There\nnever has been a time in the history of the world when the truth was\nnot in the minority. Go back to the time of Jesus: do you not remember\nhow the people asked whether any of the scribes or the Pharisees\nbelieved on him? They were ready to accept him if they could go with\nthe crowd; but it never occurred to them to raise the question as to\nwhether it was their duty to go with him while he was alone, as to\nwhether two or three might not represent some higher conception of God,\nsome forward step on the part of humanity. Consider for just a moment,\nlet it be in literature, in art, in government, in ethics, anywhere,\nfind out where the crowd is, and you will find where the truth is not.\nDisraeli made a very profound remark when he said that a popular\nopinion was always the opinion which was about to pass away. By the\ntime a notion gets accepted by the crowd, the deeper students are\nseeing some higher and finer truth towards which they are reaching.\n\nThe pioneers are always in the minority. The vanguard of an army is\nnever so large as the main body that comes along behind after the way\nhas been laid out for it.\n\n\"Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her wretched crust.\"\n\nThat is Lowell's suggestion, in that famous poem of his. If we care for\ntruth, we shall not wait until it becomes popular. The truth in any\ndirection to-day, if we had the judgment of the world, would be voted\ndown. Christianity would be voted down among the religions;\nProtestantism would be voted down in Christianity; and the highest and\nfinest thinkers in the Protestant churches would be voted down by the\nmajority of the members.\n\nDo not be disturbed, then, or troubled, because you have not the crowd\nand the shouting accompanying you on your onward march; and remember\nthat there must be something of heroism in this consecration to truth.\nI wish to quote to you, as bearing on this truth, a wonderfully fine\nword which I have just come across in a recent number of the\nCosmopolitan Magazine, the word of the Hon. Thomas B. Reed, the Speaker\nof the House of Representatives. He says, \"One with God may be a\nmajority; but crucifixion and the fagot may antedate the counting of\nthe votes.\" But, if it means crucifixion and the fagot, and we claim to\nbe followers of the Nazarene and worthy of him, even for that we shall\nnot shrink. It is our business simply to raise the question, and try to\nanswer it or ourselves, Which way must I go to follow the truth? And\nthat way I must tread, whether it means life or death, whatever the\nconsequences; for the truth-seeker is the only God-seeker.\n\nWHERE IS THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH?\n\nAs you are aware, there are certain churches that have taken the name\nof Evangelical, thereby, of course, putting forth the claim that in\nsome special or peculiar way they have the gospel in keeping. For\n\"Evangel\" is the word translated \"gospel,\" \"Evangelist\" is a \"preacher of\nthe gospel,\" \"Evangelical\" is the appropriate name for the church whose\nministers preach the gospel. And the word \"gospel,\" as you know,\ntranslated, means good news. It is the proclamation of hope, of\nsomething that the world has been groping in darkness for, a message\nthat should lift the burden off the human heart, make men stronger to\nendure, fill them with cheer in the midst of life's difficulties and\ndangers, and give them a trust with which to walk out into the darkness\nthat lies at the end.\n\nA certain section, I say, of the Christian Church has appropriated this\nname; and by common consent it has been conceded to it. And as usage\nmakes language, and the dictionaries only record the results of popular\nusage, why, of course, we must confess that this use of words is right.\nRight in that sense, I say. But I wish to go back of this popular usage\nthis morning, and raise the question as to whether these churches that\nclaim the title are the ones to whom it peculiarly or exclusively\nbelongs. I wish to put forward the claim that we, though the idea is\nentirely against popular thought, are really the ones who are preaching\nthe gospel of God, and that the liberals of the world come nearer today\nto proclaiming the actual original gospel of Jesus the Christ than do\nany other body of Christians in the world. I wish to do this, not in\nany spirit of antagonism, but simply by way of clear definition, and\nthat we may understand where we are, and may unfalteringly and\ntrustingly and loyally and hopefully go on to do the highest work that\nwas ever committed to human hands.\n\nAt the outset, though it will necessitate my saying certain things\nwhich I have said to you before, I must outline briefly that body of\ndoctrine which goes by the name of \"Evangelical.\" I will not go back\ntwo or three hundred years to include in it such dogmas as\nForeordination, Election, the Damnation of non-Elect or non-Baptized\nInfants, though these doctrines still remain in the creeds. I will take\nwhat must be considered the simpler and fairer course of confining\nmyself to setting forth those beliefs which are generally accepted, and\nwhich are made a part of the creed of the so-called \"Evangelical\nAlliance\" that is, an organization including representatives of all the\ngreat so-called Evangelical Churches. These beliefs, in brief, are that\nGod created the world perfect in the first place, but that in a very\nshort time it was invaded by the evil powers, and mankind rebelled\nagainst the Creator, and became the subjects of the devil as the god of\nthis world. Then man, by thus rebelling against God, lost his\nintellectual power to discern truth, became mentally unable to discover\nspiritual truth, to find the divine way in which he ought to walk; and\nthat he became morally incapable, so that, even when the truth was\npresented to him, he felt an aversion towards it, and was disinclined\nto accept it. The next point is this being the condition of things that\nGod began to reveal himself to the world, first, by angel messengers,\nby prophets, by inspired men, and that then at last, through certain\nchosen mediums, he wrote a book telling men the truth about their\ncondition, about his feeling towards them, about what they ought to do,\nand the destiny involved in the kind of life they should live here.\nAfter the world had been in existence about four thousand years,\naccording to this teaching, and very little headway had been made even\namong the chosen people, the few that had been selected from the great\noutside and wandering nations, God himself comes down to earth, by\nmeans of a woman specially prepared to be his mother he is born without\na human father. He lives, he suffers, he dies. This, after one theory\nor another, I need not go into them, to make it possible for God to\nforgive, and to enable him to save those who should accept the terms\nwhich he should offer.\n\nThen, after his withdrawal from the earth, his Church is organized\nunder the special guidance of the Holy Spirit. Its mission is to\nproclaim the gospel among all nations. That proclamation has gone on;\nbut after two thousand years not a third of the world has heard the\ngospel, not a third of the people who walk the planet knows anything\nabout the book that has been written. But they still stumble along in\ndarkness, worshipping anything except the one only and true God. So\nthat this effort up to the present time would strike us, if we judged\nit as a human device, as being a sad and lamentable failure.\n\nThe upshot of this, according to the Evangelical creed, is that the\ngreat majority of the world is to be permanently lost. Only a few,\nthose who are converted or those becoming members of the true Church,\nconnected with it sacramentally or in some way, only the few are to be\nsaved, and the great majority outcast forever.\n\nThis, in substance, makes up what has been called the gospel; and those\nwho claim that they are preaching the gospel are preaching these things\nas true. I am well aware  and I would not have anybody suppose that I\noverlooked it  that this creed is undergoing very striking and marked\nchanges, and that a great many of those things which some of us look\nupon as more objectionable are being left out of sight, and not\npreached, as they used to be, though they still remain in the creeds.\n\nI am aware, for example, that what it is to be orthodox or evangelical\nhas been reduced to very low terms as compared with those which I have\njust set forth; that is to say, reduced to very low terms in certain\nquarters. For instance, Dr. Lyman Abbott, of Brooklyn, tells us that we\nneed not believe in the infallibility of the Bible any more; that we\nneed not believe in the old-time Trinity; that we need not believe that\nJesus was essentially different from a man; we need not believe in the\nvirgin birth, unless we find it easy to accept it. But the two things\nwhich he tells us we must believe in order to be orthodox, or\nevangelical, are that in some way, though he does not define how, the\nBible contains a special message from God to the world, and that in\nsome way Jesus particularly and specially represents God, and that he\nreveals him to men, so that, when he speaks, he speaks with authority,\nas representing divine truth. Everlasting Damnation eliminated,\nForeordination not referred to, the Trinity transformed, Infallibility\nno longer insisted on, the humanity of Jesus granted, to be orthodox,\naccording to Dr. Abbott, has become a comparatively simple thing.\n\nIn my conversations with clergymen of other churches during the past\nwinter I have discovered that there, too, among certain men, the\nconditions of being orthodox are a great deal simpler than they were a\nhundred years ago. An Episcopalian tells me it is only necessary to\naccept the Nicene and the Apostles' Creeds, and that even then one is\nat liberty to interpret them as he pleases; that this is what\nconstitutes Orthodoxy and makes one evangelical.\n\nBut this process of eliminating the hard doctrines has not gone on in\nany authoritative way on the part of the Church itself. There has been\nno proclamation of any such liberty allowed; and I am not aware that\nthe most of these men have made any public statement in their own\nchurches of these positions. It may be known through personal\nconversations that they hold these views; and, if they are rendering\ngood service, they may not be disturbed by the church authorities in\ntheir positions.\n\nSo much, then, for a statement as to what constitutes the Evangelical\nChurch, as to what must be the message of the minister who is to preach\n\"the gospel of Christ.\"\n\nNow I wish to call your attention for a moment to another way of\nlooking at these doctrines. I am not to question their truth. I simply\nwish to ask you to note as to whether, considering them true, we should\nbe inclined to speak of them as good news. Are they a gospel? Can we\nwith gladness proclaim them to men? For example, suppose God, after\ncreating the world, loses control of it, an evil power comes in, his\nenemy, takes possession of his fair earth, alienates from him the\nhearts of the only two of his children who are in existence here, and\nwho are to be the parents of a countless race. Suppose that is true. Is\nit something we would like to believe? Is it good news? Can we call it\nan integral part of a gospel?\n\nSuppose, again, that God writes a book, an infallible book, and gives\nit to whom? To a few people, to the little company of Jews who lived on\nthat little narrow strip of land on the eastern shore of the\nMediterranean. He does not give it to anybody else. He has given,\nindeed, according to this theory, the Old Testament and the New to\nChristendom since that day. But think a moment.\n\nAccording to what we know to be true now, man was on this planet for\ntwo or three hundred thousand years before God revealed himself at all;\nand the race went stumbling on and falling in darkness, no light, no\nhand stretched out to help, no voice speaking out of the silent\nheavens, the world, apparently, absolutely forgotten, so far as God's\ntruth was concerned. Suppose that, after two or three hundred thousand\nyears, God did give an infallible book to the world. As I had occasion\nto say a moment ago, comparatively a very small part of his children\nhave heard anything about it. And, then, what is very striking, the\nproofs of its having come from him are so weak that most of the wisest,\nthe best, the noblest of the world, cannot accept any such claim on its\nbehalf. Is this, if it be true, good news? Would we speak of it as a\ngospel, something of which to be glad, something to proclaim to mankind\nas a cheer, a message from on high?\n\nOnce more, suppose, after the world had been in existence for two or\nthree hundred thousand years, God comes down, incarnates himself, wears\na human body, and does what he can to save men. If it is true, in the\neconomy of the divine government, that human souls could be saved in no\nother way, is that good news? Would we think of it as a gospel to\nproclaim to mankind, that God himself must suffer, must be outcast, be\nspit upon, be reviled, be put to death, and that only so could he\nforgive one of his wandering children, and bring him back to himself?\n\nThen, once more, suppose all this to be true, and suppose that, as the\noutcome of it all, the countless millions of men and women and children\nthat have walked the earth during the last three hundred thousand\nyears, until the Jews received their first light from heaven, suppose\nthat they have been lost: that is a part of this gospel. Suppose that\nsince that time all the nations outside of Christendom have been lost:\nthat is a part of this gospel. Suppose that not only this be true, but\nthat all people in Christendom who have not been members of churches\nhave been lost. Suppose even, as I used to hear it preached when I was\na boy, that large numbers of those who were church members were not\nreally children of God, and would be lost. Suppose this most horrible\ndoctrine be true. Is it good news? Could we proclaim it with any heart\nof courage as a part of the gospel of God?\n\nIt seems to me, then, that I am bringing no railing accusation when I\nsay that those Churches that claim to be Evangelical are not\nproclaiming a gospel to the world. But, though this be literally true,\nthey may claim that they are delivering the message of Jesus the\nChrist, and that, from their point of view, this is relatively a piece\nof good news, good news, at any rate, to the few who are going to be\nsaved. So I ask you now to turn, while I examine with you for a few\nmoments the essence of the gospel which Jesus proclaimed. Note its\nterms. Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of\nGod, and saying: \"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at\nhand: repent ye, and believe the gospel;\" that is, this proclamation of\ngood news, the coming of God's kingdom. Was this the essential thing in\nthe gospel of Christ?\n\nLet me ask you now to look with me for a few moments. You are perfectly\nwell aware of the fact that the Jews cherished a belief in the coming\nof a Messiah and the establishment of God's kingdom here on earth and\namong men. You are not so well aware, perhaps, unless you have made a\nstudy of it, that a belief like this has not been confined to the Jews.\nIn many other nations a similar expectation has been cherished. We find\nit, for example, among some of the tribes of our North American\nIndians. It is world-wide, in other words, in its range. It is no\npeculiarity of the Jews. But let us confine ourselves a moment to their\nparticular hope. It is a perfectly natural belief. It required no\nrevelation in order for it to grow up. They believed that the God of\nthe world, of the universe, was their God; that they were his chosen\npeople. Do you not see what a necessary corollary would be a belief in\ntheir ultimate prosperity and triumph? God would certainly bless and\ngive the kingdom to that people which he had specially selected for his\nown. And so, as the coming of the kingdom was postponed, they believed\nthat it was because they had not complied with the divine conditions,\nthey had not kept the law or they had not been good, they had not\nobeyed him. Somehow, they had done wrong; and that was the reason the\nkingdom so long delayed.\n\nRemember another thing. We have come, in this modern time, to place the\nkingdom away off in another world after the close of this life. The\nJews had no such belief about it. They expected it to come right here\non this poor little planet of ours; and they expected that a kingdom\nwas to be set up which was not only to place them at the head of\nhumanity, but through them was to bless all mankind. Different thinkers\namong them held different views, but this in substance was the belief;\nand they were constantly looking for signs of this imminent revolution\nwhich was to make the kingdoms of this world the kingdoms of our God\nand of his Christ, that is, his Anointed One.\n\nJohn the Baptist preached that this kingdom was coming. But he was\nimprisoned and beheaded, having come into conflict with the civil\nauthority. Jesus, then, having come from Nazareth, where he had studied\nand thought and brooded over the divine will, takes up this broken work\nof John, and begins a proclamation of the gospel; and the one thing\nwhich constituted that gospel was: The kingdom of God is at hand,\nrepent and believe; accept this statement. And note that \"repent\" on\nthe lips of Jesus did not mean what we have been accustomed to\nassociate with it. The New Testament word translated \"repent\" means\nchange your purpose, change your method of life. You have not been in\naccord with the truth, you have not been obedient to God; turn about,\ncome into accord with the divine law, become obedient to the divine\nmessage.\n\nJesus taught no kingdom in any other world. He believed that the\nkingdom was to be here. For, even after he had disappeared from the\nsight of men, and this reflects in the clearest possible way the burden\nof his message, his disciples expected, not that they were to be\ntransferred to some other planet or into an invisible world to find the\nkingdom, but that Jesus was to come back, to return in the clouds of\nheaven, and establish the kingdom here.\n\nThe kingdom, then, that Jesus preached was a kingdom of righteousness\nhere on this earth, among just the kind of people that we are. And,\nnote, he said, This kingdom of God does not come by observation. You\nare not to say, Lo here, Lo there, look for wonders. He says, The\nkingdom of God is within you, or among you. It is translated both ways;\nand, I suppose, nobody knows which way it ought to be. I believe both.\nThe kingdom of God that Jesus preached is essentially in us. It is\nalso, after it is in a few of us, among us, right here already, so far\nas it extends, and reaching out its limits and growing as rapidly as\nmen discern it and become obedient to its laws.\n\nNow I have been asked a great many times how I can be sure, or\npractically sure, as to what sayings in the Gospels are really those of\nJesus and what are traditional in their authority, what are doubtfully\nhis. I cannot go into a long explanation this morning; but I want to\nsuggest one line of thought. And I do this because I wish it to be the\nbasis of a statement that Jesus has not made any of these things that\nare to-day labelled \"Evangelical\" any essential part of his gospel at\nall. Jesus, for example, does not preach any Garden of Eden or any Fall\nof Man. Jesus says nothing about any infallible book. Jesus says not a\nword about any Trinity. He nowhere makes any claim to be God. His\ndoctrine concerning the future is doubtful. But one thing which I wish\nto insist upon is perfectly clear: the conditions of citizenship in the\nkingdom of God are the simplest conceivable. He says, Not those that\nsay, Lord, Lord, not those that multiply their services and ceremonies,\nbut those that do the will of my Father shall enter the kingdom. The\nonly condition that Jesus ever established for membership in the\nkingdom of heaven is simple human goodness, never anything else.\n\nI am perfectly well aware that somebody may quote to me, \"He that\nbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not\nshall be damned.\" But the reply to that would be, The acknowledged\nstatement to-day on the part of all competent scholars is that Jesus\nnever uttered those words. They are left out of the Revised Version of\nthe New Testament: they are no authentic part of the story of his life\nor his teaching.\n\nHow can we find his words? In the first place there are the great\ncentral, luminous truths which Jesus uttered, the fatherhood of God,\nthe brotherhood of men, goodness as the condition of acceptance on the\npart of God. And, on the theory that he did not contradict himself, we\nare at liberty to waive one side those statements which grew up under\nthe influence of later tradition, popish or ecclesiastical, and which\nplainly contradict these. But the main point I have in mind is one\nwhich scholars have wrought out under the name of the Triple Tradition.\nIt takes for its central thought, \"In the mouth of two or three\nwitnesses every word shall be established.\" We know that the Gospels\ngrew up through a long process of accretion after a good many years.\nThey were not written or planned by any one person; and, so far as we\nknow, they may not have been written by anybody whose name is\ntraditionally connected with them to-day. If, however, we find that\nthree of the four witnesses agree in reporting that he said or did a\ncertain thing, we feel surer about it than when only one witness\nreports it. And if two report, why, even then we feel a little more\ncertain than we do when the report is from only one. And yet, of\ncourse, the three may have omitted that which only one has recorded,\nand which is true. But scholars have wrought out along this line what\nis called the Triple Tradition; that is, they have constructed a\ncomplete story of the life and the teaching and the death of Jesus out\nof the words which are common to three of the gospel writers. All of\nthem tell this same story; and this story of the Triple Tradition has\nno miraculous conception, it has no resurrection of the body, no\nascension into heaven. The miracles are reduced to the very lowest\nterms, becoming almost natural and easy to be accounted for. In this\nstory Jesus teaches none of the things of which I have been speaking.\n\nI say, then, that along the lines of the very best critical\nscholarship, coming as near to the teaching of Jesus as we possibly can\nto-day, we are warranted in saying that this which has usurped the name\nof the gospel of Christ is not only not good news, but it is not the\nnews which Jesus brought and preached. As has been said a good many\ntimes, it is a gospel about Christ instead of being the gospel of\nChrist.\n\nI am ready now to make the claim that we liberals of the modern world\nare the ones who come nearer to preaching the gospel of Christ than any\nother part of the so-called Christian Church. For what is it that we\npreach? We preach that the kingdom of God is at hand. We preach that\nthere is not a spot on the face of the earth where we are not at the\nfoot of a ladder like that which Jacob saw in his dream, and which\nleads up to the very throne of the Almighty. Jesus taught that the\nkingdom of God might begin anywhere and at any time in any human heart.\nNote what Matthew Arnold has called the secret and the method of Jesus.\nHe says, The secret of Jesus is that he who selfishly seeks his life\nshall lose it: he who throws it away for good and God finds it. Do we\nneed to go very deeply into human life to discover the profound truth\nof that saying? Seek all over the world for good and happiness, and\nforget to look within, and you do not find it. The kingdom of heaven is\nwithin. It is in the spirit, the temper of the heart, the disposition,\nthe life. And the secret of it is in cultivating love and truth and\ntenderness and care, those things which bring us into intimate\nconnection with which we mean when we say, Be unselfish, and that in\ndoing this we find our own souls. For the man who gives out of himself\nlove and tenderness and care, of necessity cultivates the qualities of\nlove and tenderness and care; and those are the ones which are the\nessence of all soul-building. And he who looks outside for the greatest\nthings of life misses them; while he who looks within, and cultivates\nthe spirit, finds God and happiness and truth.\n\nThis gospel, then, that the kingdom of God is at hand, is always ready\nto come, is the gospel which we proclaim. And now I wish to extend that\nidea a little. The form in which Jesus held his dream of human good has\nchanged in the process of the centuries. We no longer expect a\nmiraculous revelation of a kingdom coming out of the heavens to abide\non earth. The form of it is changed; but the essence of it we hold\nstill, the same perfect condition of men here on earth and in the\nfuture which Jesus held and proclaimed.\n\nNow let me hint to you a few of the elements that make up this hope for\nman which we liberals proclaim everywhere as the gospel, the good news\nof the coming kingdom of God.\n\nIn the first place, we proclaim the possibility of human conquest over\nthis earth. What do I mean by that? I mean that man is able and he is\nshowing that ability ultimately to control the forces of this planet,\nand make them his servants. Within the last seventy-five years this\nincreasing conquest has changed the face of the planet. We now use\nwater power not only, but steam, electricity, magnetism. All these\nsecret forces that thrill from planet to planet and sun to sun we use\nas our household and factory drudges, our every-day servants. And it\nneeds only a little imagination, looking along the lines of past\nprogress, to see the day when man shall stand king of the earth. He\nshall make all these forces serve him. I believe that we have only just\nbegun this conquest. Already the wonders about us eclipse the wonders\nof novelist and dreamer; and yet we have only begun to develop them.\nWhat follows from this? When we have completed the conquest of the\nearth, when we have discovered God's laws of matter and force and are\nable to keep them, it means the abolition of all unnecessary pain,\nunnecessary pain, I say; for all that pain which is not beneficent,\nwhich is not inherent in the nature of things, is remedial. And we\npreach the gospel, the coming of God's kingdom when pain shall be\nabolished, and shall pass away.\n\nAnother step: We preach the gospel of the abolition of disease. We have\nalready, in the few civilized centres of the world, made the old\nepidemics simply impossible. They are easily controlled. Nearly every\none of those that rise to threaten Europe and America to-day come from\nthe religious, ignorant, wild fanaticism of Asia, beyond the range of\nour civilized control. The conditions of disease are discoverable; and\nthe day will come when, barring accidents here and there, well-born\npeople may calmly expect to live out their natural term of years. We\npreach this gospel, then, of the kingdom of God in which disease shall\nno more exist.\n\nWe preach a gospel that promises a time when war shall be no more. At\npresent wars are now and then inevitable; but they are brutal, they are\nunspeakably horrible. And how any one who uses the sympathetic\nimagination can rejoice, not over the victory, but over the destruction\nof life and property which the victory entails, I cannot understand. We\nhave reached a time when civilized man no longer thinks he must right\nhis wrong with his fists or a club or a knife or a pistol. On the part\nof individuals we call this a reversion to barbarism. The time will\ncome, and we are advancing towards it, when it will be considered just\nas much a reversion to barbarism on the part of families, states,\nnations, and when we shall substitute hearts and brains for bruises and\nbullets in the settlement of the world's misunderstandings. We preach,\nthen, a gospel of the coming of the kingdom in which there shall be no\nmore war. And then life under the fair heavens will be sweet.\n\nThere shall be no more hunger in that kingdom. To-day see what\nconfronts us, bread riots in Spain and in Italy, thousands of people\nhungry for food. And yet, if we would give ourselves to the development\nof the resources of this planet instead of to their destruction, this\nfair earth could support a hundred times its present population in\nplenty and in peace. There shall be no more famine in that kingdom the\ngospel of which we preach.\n\nThen, when men have lived out their lives, learned their lessons, and\nstand where the shadow grows thicker, so that we try in vain to see\nbeyond, what then? We preach a gospel of life, of an eternal hope. We\nbelieve that death, instead of being the end, is only a transition, the\nbeginning really of the higher and the grander life. We cannot look\nthrough the gateway of the shadow; but we catch a gleam of light beyond\nthat means an eternal day, when the sun shall no more go down. This we\nbelieve.\n\nAnd we do not partition that world off into two parts, the immense\nmajority down where the smoke of their torment ascendeth forever, and\nonly a few in a city gold-paved and filled with the light of peace.\nRather we believe it is a human life there just as here, that we are\nunder the law of cause and effect, that salvation is not a magical\nthing, that we are saved only in so far as we come into accord with the\ndivine law and the divine life. And, if anybody says we preach an easy\ngospel because we eliminate an arbitrary hell, let him remember we\npreach a harder gospel, a more difficult salvation, not a salvation\nthat can be purchased by a wave of emotion or by the touch of priestly\nfingers, a salvation that must be wrought out through co-working with\nGod in the building of human character, a salvation that is being\nright.\n\nThis is our gospel; but it is a gospel of eternal and universal hope,\nbecause we believe that every single soul is under doom to be saved\nsometime, somewhere. We preach the inevitable results of law-breaking,\nare they to last one year, five, a hundred, a thousand, a million, ten\nmillions? There is no possibility of heaven except as people are in\nperfect accord with the divine law and the divine life; for that is\nwhat heaven means. You can no more get heaven out of a disordered\ncharacter than you can get music out of a disordered piano. This\nsalvation which we preach is the constituent element of life. You\ncannot have a circle if you break the conditions of a circle. You\ncannot have a river if you break the conditions the very existence of\nwhich constitutes a river. So of anything in God's natural world. There\nare certain essential things that go to make these what they are. So\nheaven, righteousness, happiness, the constituent elements of these are\nright thinking, right feeling, right acting, obedience to the laws of\nGod, which make them possible.\n\nWe believe that God, through pain, through suffering, down through the\nwinding ways of darkness and ignorance, one year, a million years, must\npursue the soul of any one of his children until that child learns that\nsuffering follows wrong, and must follow it, and that God himself\ncannot help it, and so, learning the lesson, by and by turns, comes\nback, and says: Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee,\nand am not worthy to be thy son: make me at least as one of thy hired\nservants. And then the love that has pursued all the way, that has been\nin the light and that has been in the dark, shall go out to meet him,\nand fall on his neck in loving embrace, and rejoice that he who was\ndead is alive again, and he who was lost is found.\n\nThis is the gospel we preach, a gospel of God's eternal, boundless\nlove, the good news that every human being is God's child; that here on\nearth, co-operating with God and discovering his laws, we may begin the\ncreation of his kingdom now; that we may broaden and enlarge it until\nit encloses the world; and that it reaches out into the limitless ages\nof the future. And this, as I said, is the gospel of the Christ,\nchanged in its form, if you please, but one in its essence; for he\ncame, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying: The time\nis fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Change your purpose,\naccept the message, and come into accord with the divine life. This is\nthe gospel that the Christ preached: this is the gospel we preach\nto-day.\n\nDo I make, then, an extraordinary claim when I say that we are the\nEvangelical Church, that the church which preaches the gospel is here?","title":"Our Unitarian Gospel","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":89888}