{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_27500/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_27500","id":"gutenberg_27500","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27500","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Theology, Doctrinal"],"text":"Produced by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's note: the plus (+) symbol is used in this etext to\nindicate bolded text.]\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE NEW THEOLOGY\n\n\nBY\n\nR. J. CAMPBELL, M.A.\n\n\nMINISTER OF THE CITY TEMPLE, LONDON\n\n\n\n\nNew York\n\nTHE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n\n1907\n\n\n_All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\nCOPYRIGHT, 1907,\n\nBY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.\n\n\nSet up and electrotyped.  Published March, 1907.\n\nReprinted April, 1907.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nThis book has been undertaken at the request of a number of my friends\nwho feel that recent criticisms of what has come to be called the New\nTheology ought to be dealt with in some comprehensive and systematic\nway.  With this suggestion my own judgment concurs, but only so far as\nmy own pulpit teaching is concerned.  I cannot pretend to speak for\nanyone else, and therefore this monograph must not be understood as an\nauthoritative exposition of the views held and expounded by other\npreachers who may be in sympathy with the New Theology.  From its very\nnature, as I hope the following pages will show, the New Theology\ncannot be a creed, but its adherents have a common standpoint.  My only\nreason for calling this book by that title is that a considerable\nsection of the public at present persists in regarding me as in a\nspecial way the exponent of it; indeed from the correspondence which\nhas been proceeding in the press it is evident that many people credit\nme with having invented both the name and the thing.  It is of little\nuse objecting to the name, for to all appearance it has come to stay\nand is gradually acquiring a marked and definite content.  So long as\nit is clearly understood that this book is but an outline statement of\nmy own personal views, the title will do no harm.  The controversy\nwhich is not yet over has been fruitful in misunderstandings of all\nkinds, and a great many of the criticisms passed upon my teaching have\nbeen wholly due to a mistaken notion of what it really is.  In so far\nas any of those criticisms have been directed against me personally, I\nhave nothing to say; I hope I can leave my vindication to the judgment\nof whatever public may feel an interest in my work.  The best rejoinder\nthat could be made to the various criticisms of the teaching itself\nwould be to publish them side by side, for they neutralise one another\nmost effectually.  But a better and more useful thing to do is to let\nthe public know just what the teaching is and leave it to the test of\ntime.  I do not greatly object to having it described as \"new.\"   The\nfundamental principle of the New Theology is as old as religion, but I\nam quite willing to admit that in its all-round application to the\nconditions of modern life it is new.  I do not see why a man should be\nashamed of confessing that he does his own thinking instead of letting\nother people do it for him.\n\nThis book, then, is not the author's _Apologia pro Vita Sua_.  It is\nintended as a concise statement of the outlines of the teaching given\nfrom the City Temple pulpit.  It is neither a reply to separate\ncriticisms nor an _ex cathedra_ utterance.  I think I am usually able\nto say what I mean, and in the following pages my object is to say what\nI mean in such a way that everyone can understand.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER\n\n    I.  THE NAME AND THE SITUATION\n   II.  GOD AND THE UNIVERSE\n  III.  MAN IN RELATION TO GOD\n   IV.  THE NATURE OF EVIL\n   VI.  THE ETERNAL CHRIST\n  VII.  THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD\n VIII.  THE ATONEMENT.--I. ASSOCIATION OF THE DOCTRINE WITH JESUS\n   IX.  THE ATONEMENT.--II. SEMITIC IDEAS OF ATONEMENT\n    X.  THE ATONEMENT.--III. THE DOCTRINE IN CHRISTIAN HISTORY\n                             AND EXPERIENCE\n   XI.  THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE\n  XII.  SALVATION, JUDGMENT, AND THE LIFE TO COME\n XIII.  THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD\n  XIV.  CONCLUSION\n\n\n\n\nTHE NEW THEOLOGY\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE NAME AND THE SITUATION\n\n+Religion and Theology.+--Religion is one thing and theology another,\nbut religion is never found apart from a theology of some kind, for\ntheology is the intellectual articulation of religious experience.\nEvery man who has anything worthy to be called a religious experience\nhas also a theology; he cannot help it.  No sooner does he attempt to\nunderstand or express his experience of the relations of God and the\nsoul than he finds himself in possession of a theology.  The religious\nexperience may be a very good one and the theology a very bad one, but\nstill religion and theology are necessary to each other, and it is a\nman's duty to try to make his theology as nearly as possible an\nadequate and worthy expression of his religion.  He will never succeed\nin doing this in a permanent fashion, for the content of religious\nexperience is, or should be, greater than any form of statement.  But\ntheology is everyone's business.  We cannot afford to leave it to\nexperts or refrain from forming our own judgment upon the\npronouncements of experts.  To speak of theology as though it had an\nesoteric and an exoteric side, one for the man in the study and the\nother for the man in the world, is a practical heresy of a most\ndangerous kind.  Neither should theology be confounded with\necclesiasticism.  It is my conviction that the battle with\necclesiasticism has long since been decided, and civilisation has\nnothing to fear from the official priest.  Those who spend their time\nin protesting against sacerdotal pretensions are only beating the\nair--\"We shall never go to Canossa,\" as Bismarck said.  No, the real\ndanger to spiritual religion, and therefore to the immediate future of\nmankind in every department of thought and action, arises from\npractical materialism on the one hand and an antiquated dogmatic\ntheology on the other.  I hope it will be understood by readers of\nthese pages that in any references I may make to dogmatic theology I am\npassing no reflection upon the scientific theologian whose work is\nbeing done in the field of historical criticism or archaeology or any\nof the departments of scientific research into the subject-matter of\nreligion.  Most of my readers will understand quite well what I mean.\nEveryone knows that, broadly speaking, certain ways of stating\nChristian truth are taken for granted both in pulpit and pew; the\npopular or generally accepted theology of all the churches of\nChristendom, Catholic and Protestant alike, is fundamentally the same,\nand somehow the modern mind has come to distrust it.  There is a\ncurious want of harmony between our ordinary views of life and our\nconventional religious beliefs.  We live our lives upon one set of\nassumptions during six days of the week and a quite different set on\nSunday and in church.  The average man feels this without perhaps quite\nrealising what is the matter.  All he knows is that the propositions he\nhas been taught to regard as a full and perfect statement of\nChristianity have little or nothing to do with his everyday experience;\nthey seem to belong to a different world.  He does not know how\ncomparatively modern this popular presentation of Christianity is.\nWhat is wanted therefore is a restatement of the essential truth of the\nChristian religion in terms of the modern mind.\n\n_The New Theology and the Immanence of God._--Where or when the name\nNew Theology arose I do not know, but it has been in existence for at\nleast one generation.  It is neither of my invention nor of my choice.\nIt has long been in use both in this country and in America to indicate\nthe attitude of those who believe that the fundamentals of the\nChristian faith need to be rearticulated in terms of the immanence of\nGod.  Those who take this view do not hold that there is any need for a\nnew religion, but that the forms in which the religion of Jesus is\ncommonly presented are inadequate and misleading.  What is wanted is\nfreshness and simplicity of statement.  The New Theology is not new\nexcept in the sense that it seeks to substitute simplicity for\ncomplexity and to get down to moral values in its use of religious\nterms.  Our objection is not so much to the venerable creeds of\nChristendom as to the ordinary interpretations of those creeds.  And,\ncreeds or no creeds, we hold that the religious experience which came\nto the world in Jesus of Nazareth is enough for all our needs, and only\nrequires to be freed from limiting statements in order to lay firm hold\nonce more upon the civilised world.\n\nThe New Theology is an untrammelled return to the Christian sources in\nthe light of modern thought.  Its starting point is a re-emphasis of\nthe Christian belief in the divine immanence in the universe and in\nmankind.  This doctrine is certainly not new, but it requires to be\nplaced effectively in the foreground of Christian preaching.  In the\nimmediate past the doctrine of the divine transcendence--that is, the\nobvious truth that the infinite being of God must transcend the\ninfinite universe--has been presented in such a way as to amount to a\npractical dualism, and to lead men to think of God as above and apart\nfrom His world instead of expressing Himself through His world.  I\nrepeat that this dualism is practical, not theoretical, but that it\nexists is plain enough from such statements as that of the present-day\ntheologian who speaks of God's \"eternal eminence, and His descent on a\ncreated world.\"  This kind of theologising leads straight to the\nconclusion that God is to all intents and purposes quite distinct from\nHis creation, although He possesses a full and accurate knowledge of\nall that goes on in it and reserves to Himself the right to interfere.\nIn what sense language like this leaves room for the divine immanence\nit is difficult to see.  The New Theology holds that we know nothing\nand can know nothing of the Infinite Cause whence all things proceed\nexcept as we read Him in His universe and in our own souls.  It is the\nimmanent God with whom we have to do, and if this obvious fact is once\nfirmly grasped it will simplify all our religious conceptions and give\nus a working faith.\n\n+The decline of organised Christianity.+--For a generation or more in\nevery part of Christendom there has been a steady drift away from\norganised religion as represented by the churches, and the question is\nbeing seriously asked whether Christianity can much longer hold its\nown.  Protestant controversialists frequently draw attention to the\ndecline of church-going in Latin countries as evidence of the decay of\nsacerdotalism, particularly in the church of Rome.  But outside Latin\ncountries it is not one whit more noticeable in the church of Rome than\nin any other church.  The masses of the people on the one hand and the\ncultured classes on the other are becoming increasingly alienated from\nthe religion of the churches.  A London daily paper made a religious\ncensus some years ago and demonstrated that about one-fifth of the\npopulation of the metropolis attended public worship, and this was a\ngenerous estimate.  Women, who are more emotional, more reverent, and\nmore amenable to external authority than men, usually form the majority\nof the worshippers at an ordinary service.  Mr. Charles Booth in his\ngreat work on the \"Life and Labour of the People in London\" asserts\nthat the churches are practically without influence of any kind on the\ncommunal life.  This I believe to be an exaggeration, but it will\nhardly be denied that the average working, business, or professional\nman looks upon the churches almost with indifference.  In many cases\nthis indifference passes into hostility or contempt.  Intelligent men\ntake little notice of preachers and sermons, and the\ntheologically-minded layman is such a rarity as to be noteworthy.  Most\nsignificant of all, perhaps, is the fact that much of the moral\nearnestness of the nation and of social redemptive effort exists\noutside the churches altogether.  I am well aware that there is a great\ndeal of snarling criticism of the churches which springs from selfish\nmaterialism, and I gladly recognise that in almost any ordinary church\nto-day brave and self-denying work is being done for the common good,\nbut this does not invalidate my general statement.  The plain, bald\nfact remains that the churches as such are counting for less and less\nin civilisation in general and our own nation in particular.  One of\nthe ablest of our rising young members of Parliament, a man of strong\nreligious convictions and social sympathies, recently declared that we\nwere witnessing the melancholy spectacle of a whole civilisation\nbreaking away from the faith out of which it grew.  To be sure, the\nsame thing has been said before and has proved to be wrong.  It was\nsaid in the eighteenth century when men with something of the prophet's\nfire in them preached the gospel of the Rights of Man, declaring at the\nsame time that institutional religion was at an end, utterly\ndiscredited, and impossible of acceptance by any intelligent being.  In\nFrance during the Revolution the populace turned frantically upon the\nestablished faith, tore it to shreds, burlesqued it, and set up the\nworship of the Goddess of Reason, as they called it, typified by a\nParisian harlot.  In England a devitalised Deism laid its chilly hand\nnot only upon the world of scholars and men of letters, but even upon\nthe church.  An English king is reported to have said that half his\nbishops were atheists.  And yet, somehow, religion reasserted itself\nall over the civilised world.  Napoleon with shrewd insight realised\nthat the people could not do without it, and so effected the Concordat\nwith Rome which has now been dissolved; Wesley began the movement in\nEngland which has since created the largest Protestant denomination in\nthe world; Germany produced a succession of great preachers and\nscholars the like of whom had hardly ever been known in Europe before.\n\n+Will religious faith regain its power?+--Will this happen again?  For\nassuredly Christianity has for the moment lost its hold.  Can it\nrecover it?  I am sure it can, if only because the moral movements of\nthe age, such as the great labour movement, are in reality the\nexpression of the Christian spirit, and only need to recognise\nthemselves as such in order to become irresistible.  The waggon of\nsocialism needs to be hitched to the star of religious faith.  But have\nthe churches spiritual energy enough to recover their lost position?\nThat depends upon themselves.  If they consent to be bound by dogmatic\nstatements inherited from the past, they are doomed.  The world is not\nlistening to theologians to-day.  They have no message for it.  They\nare on the periphery, not at the centre of things.  The great rolling\nriver of thought and action is passing them by.  Scientific scholarship\napplied to the study of Christian origins is extremely valuable, but\nthe defender of systems of belief couched in the language of a by-gone\nage is an anachronism and the sooner we shake ourselves free of him the\nbetter.  The greatest of all the causes of the drift from the churches\nis the fact that Christian truth has become associated in the popular\nmind with certain forms of statement which thoughtful men find it\nimpossible to accept not only on intellectual but even on moral\ngrounds.  Certain dogmatic beliefs, for example, about the Fall, the\nscriptural basis of revelation, the blood-atonement, the meaning of\nsalvation, the punishment of sin, heaven and hell, are not only\nmisleading but unethical.  What sensible man really believes in these\nnotions as popularly assumed and presented, and what have they to do\nwith Christianity?  They do not square with the facts of life, much\nless do they interpret life.  They go straight in the teeth of the\nscientific method, which, even where the Christian facts are concerned,\nis the only method which carries weight with the modern mind.  The\nconsequence is that religion has come to be thought of as something\napart from ordinary everyday life, a matter of churches, creeds, and\nBible readings, instead of what it really is,--the coordinating\nprinciple of all our activities.  To put the matter in a\nnutshell,--popular Christianity (or rather pulpit and theological\ncollege Christianity) does _not_ interpret life.  Consequently the\ngreat world of thought and action is ceasing to trouble about it.\n\n+Theologians and preachers rarely realise the situation.+--One would\nthink that the men whose business it is to teach religious truth would\nsee this and ask themselves the reason why.  To an extent they do see\nit, but they never seem to think of blaming themselves for it except in\na perfunctory kind of way.  They talk about religious indifference, the\nneed for better and more effective methods, and so on.  The\nprofessional theologian rarely does even as much as this.  He takes\nhimself very seriously; sniffs and sneers at any suggestion of\ndeviation from the accepted standards; mounts some denominational chair\nor other and thunders forth his view of the urgent necessity for\nrehabilitating truth in the grave-clothes of long-buried formulas.  I\nmean that the language he habitually uses implies some kind of belief\nin formulas he no longer holds.  He hardly dares to disinter the\nformulas themselves,--that would not be convenient even for him,--but\nhe goes on flapping the shroud as energetically as ever, and the world\ndoes not even take the trouble to laugh.  Wherever and whenever\nreligious agencies succeed it is rarely because of the driving power of\nwhat is preached, but because the preacher's gospel is glossed over or\nput in the background.  We have popular services by the million in\nwhich devices are used to attract the public which ought not to be\nnecessary if their framers had any real message to declare.  But they\nhave not.  Popular pulpit addresses rarely or never deal with the\nfundamental problems of life.  The last thing one ever expects to hear\nin such addresses is a real living representation of the beliefs the\npreacher professes to hold.  He makes passing allusions to them, of\ncourse, such as appeals to come to the cross, and such like, but they\ngenerally sound unreal, and the pill has to be sweetly sugared.  The\nordinary way of preaching the gospel is to avoid saying much about what\nthe preacher believes the gospel to be.\n\nTo be sure there are many social activities in connection with\nChristian churches.  If it were not for these the churches would have\nto be shut up.  They are quite admirable in their way, and often\nproduce excellent results, but they imply another gospel than the one\nsupposed to be preached from the pulpits.  They ignore dogmatic\nbeliefs, and assume the salvability of the whole race and the\npossibility of realising the kingdom of God on earth.  Wherever the\nchurches are alive to-day, and not merely struggling to keep their\nheads above water, it is not their doctrine but their non-theological\nhuman sympathy that is doing it.\n\nThis, then, is the situation.  The main stream of modern life is\npassing organised religion by.  Where is the remedy to be found?\n\n+We seek to save religion rather than the Churches.+--Let me say\nplainly that I do not think our object should be to find a remedy which\nwill save the churches.  That would be putting the cart before the\nhorse.  What is wanted is a driving force which will enable the\nchurches to fulfil their true mission of saving the world, or, to put\nit better still, will serve to bring mankind back to real living faith\nin God and the spiritual meaning of life.  Hardly anyone would\nseriously deny that the world is waiting for this.  Men are not\nirreligious.  On the contrary there is no subject of such general\ninterest as religion; it takes precedence of all other subjects just\nbecause all other subjects are implied in it.  Religion is man's\nresponse to the call of the universe; it is the soul turning towards\nits source and goal.  How could it fail to be of absorbing interest?\nWhat is wanted is a message charged with spiritual power, \"Where there\nis no vision the people perish.\"  Mere dogmatic assertions will not do.\nThe word of God is to be known from the fact that it illuminates life\nand appeals to the deepest and truest in the soul of man.  That message\nis here now.  It is being preached, not by one man only, but the wide\nworld over.  God has spoken, and woe betide the churches if they will\nnot hear.  Religion is necessary to mankind, but churches are not.\nFrom every quarter of Christendom a new spirit of hope and confidence\nis rising, born of a conviction that all that is human is the evidence\nof God, and that Jesus held the key to the riddle of existence.\nAlthough this comes to us as with the freshness of a new revelation, it\nis not really new.  It is the spirit which has been the inspiration of\nevery great religious awakening since the world began.  In this country\nand in other parts of the English-speaking world that spirit is\nbecoming associated with the name the New Theology.  To associate it\nwith any one personality is to belittle the subject and to obscure its\nreal significance.  There are many brave and good men in the churches\nand outside the churches to-day, men of true prophetic spirit, who\nwould reject utterly the name New Theology, but who are thoroughly\nimbued with this new-old spirit and are leading mankind toward the\nlight.  In the church of Rome the movement is typified by men like\nFather Tyrrell, whose teaching has led to his expulsion from the Jesuit\norder, but not, so far, from the priesthood.  The present condition of\nthe church of Rome is not unhopeful to those who believe as I do that\nthat venerable church has been used of God to great ends in the past\nand that her spiritual vitality is by no means exhausted.  Father\nTyrrell and such as he are nearer in spirit to the New Theology men\nthan are the latter to those Protestants who pin their faith to\nexternal standards of belief.  It is a curious but indisputable fact\nthat the most extreme anti-Romanist Protestants are themselves in the\nsame boat with Rome: they insist on the absolute necessity for external\nauthority in matters of belief and are unwilling to trust the\nindividual soul to recognise truth as it comes.  In all the churches\nthose who believe in the religion of the Spirit should recognise one\nanother as brothers.  In the church of England a large and increasing\nband of men are looking in this direction and are making their\ninfluence felt.  Of these perhaps the most outstanding is Archdeacon\nWilberforce, but he is by no means alone.  A movement has begun in the\nLutheran church.  It has existed for a long time in French\nProtestantism as represented by the late Auguste Sabatier and his\nfriend Reville.  In the congregational and other evangelical churches\nof England and America the same attitude is being taken by many who are\nnot even aware that the name New Theology is being applied to it.  In\nthis country the movement in the free churches is typified by men like\nthe Rev. T. Rhondda Williams of Bradford.  There are many Unitarians\nwho are preaching it; indeed, there are some who would assert that the\nNew Theology is only Unitarianism under another name.  But, as I shall\nhope to show, this is very far from being the case.  It may or may not\nbe professed by exponents of Unitarianism, but it is not a surrender to\nUnitarianism.\n\n+The New Theology is spiritual socialism.+--The great social movement\nwhich is now taking place in every country of the civilised world\ntoward universal peace and brotherhood and a better and fairer\ndistribution of wealth is really the same movement as that which in the\nmore distinctively religious sphere is coming to be called the New\nTheology.  This fact needs to be realised and brought out.  The New\nTheology is the gospel of the kingdom of God.  Neither socialism nor\nany other economic system will permanently save and lift mankind\nwithout definitely recognised spiritual sanctions, that is, it must be\na religion.  The New Theology is but the religious articulation of the\nsocial movement.  The word \"theology\" is almost a misnomer; it is\nessentially a moral and spiritual movement, the recognition that we are\nat the beginning of a great religious and ethical awakening, the\nultimate results of which no man can completely foresee.\n\n+And also the religion of science.+--Again, the New Theology is the\nreligion of science.  It is the denial that there is, or ever has been,\nor ever can be, any dissonance between science and religion; it is the\nrecognition that upon the foundations laid by modern science a vaster\nand nobler fabric of faith is rising than that world has ever before\nknown.  Science is supplying the facts which the New Theology is\nweaving into the texture of religious experience.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nGOD AND THE UNIVERSE\n\n+What religion is.+--All religion begins in cosmic emotion.  It is the\nrecognition of an essential relationship between the human soul and the\ngreat whole of things of which it is the outcome and expression.  The\nmysterious universe is always calling, and, in some form or other, we\nare always answering.  The artist answers by trying to express his\nfeeling of its beauty; the scientist answers by recognising its laws\nand unfolding its wonders; the social reformer answers by his\nself-denying labours for the common good.  In each and every case there\nis in the background of experience a conviction that the unit is the\ninstrument of the All; religion is implied in these as in all other\nactivities in which man aims at a higher-than-self.  But religion,\nproperly so-called, begins when the soul consciously enters upon\ncommunion with this higher-than-self as with an all-comprehending\nintelligence; it is the soul instinctively turning toward its source\nand goal.  Religion may assume a great many different and even\nrepellent forms, but at bottom this is what it always is: it is the\nsoul reaching forth to the great mysterious whole of things, the\nhigher-than-self, and seeking for closer and ever closer communion\ntherewith.  The savage with his totem and the Christian saint before\nthe altar have this in common: they are reaching through the things\nthat are seen to the reality beyond.\n\n+What the word \"God\" means.+--But what name are we to give to this\nhigher-than-self whose presence is so unescapable?  The name matters\ncomparatively little, but it includes all that the ordinary Christian\nmeans by God.  The word \"God\" stands for many things, but to\npresent-day thought it must stand for the un-caused Cause of all\nexistence, the unitary principle implied in all multiplicity.  Everyone\nof necessity believes in this.  It is impossible to define the term\ncompletely, for to define is necessarily to limit, and we are thinking\nof the illimitable.  But we ought to understand clearly that to\ndisbelieve in God is an impossibility; everyone believes in God if he\nbelieves in his own existence.  The blankest materialist that ever\nlived, whoever he may have been, must have affirmed God even in the act\nof denying Him.  Professor Haeckel declares his belief in God on every\npage of his \"Riddle of the Universe,\" the famous book in which he says\nthat God, Freedom, and Immortality are the three great buttresses of\nsuperstition, which science must make it her business to destroy.  So\nfar science has only succeeded in giving us a vaster, grander\nconception of God by giving us a vaster, grander conception of the\nuniverse in which we live.  When I say God, I mean the mysterious Power\nwhich is finding expression in the universe, and which is present in\nevery tiniest atom of the wondrous whole.  I find that this Power is\nthe one reality I cannot get away from, for, whatever else it may be,\nit is myself.  Theologians will tell me that I have taken a prodigious\nleap in saying this, but I cannot help it.  How can there be anything\nin the universe outside of God?  Whatever distinctions of being there\nmay be within the universe it is surely clear that they must all be\ntranscended and comprehended within infinity.  There cannot be two\ninfinities, nor can there be an infinite and also a finite beyond it.\nWhat infinity may be we have no means of knowing.  Here the most devout\nChristian is just as much of an agnostic as Professor Huxley; we can\npredicate nothing with confidence concerning the all-comprehending\nunity wherein we live and move and have our being, save and except as\nwe see it manifested in that part of our universe which lies open to\nus.  One would think that this were so obvious as to need no\ndemonstration.  But how do ordinary church-going Christians talk about\nGod?  They talk as though He were (practically) a finite being\nstationed somewhere above and beyond the universe, watching and\nworrying over other and lesser finite beings, to wit, ourselves.\nAccording to the received phraseology this God is greatly bothered and\nthwarted by what men have been doing throughout the few millenniums of\nhuman existence.  He takes the whole thing very seriously, and thinks\nabout little else than getting wayward humanity into line again.  To\nthis end He has adopted various expedients, the chief of which was the\nsending of His only begotten Son to suffer and die in order that He\nmight be free to forgive the trouble we had caused Him.  I hope no\nreader of these words will think I am making light of a sacred subject;\nI never was more serious in my life.  What I am trying to show is that,\nreduced to its simplest terms, the accepted theology of the churches\nto-day is pitiably inadequate as an explanation of our relationship to\nthis great and mysterious universe.  There is a beautiful spiritual\ntruth underneath every venerable article of the Christian faith, but as\npopularly presented this truth has become so distorted as to be\nfalsehood.  It narrows religion and belittles God.  It is dishonouring\nto human nature, and is absolutely ludicrous as an interpretation of\nthe cosmic process.  Of course, the dogmatic theologian will maintain\nthat this is a caricature of the way in which the relationship of God\nto the world is set forth in religious treatises and from the Christian\npulpit.  But is it?  I think I can appeal with confidence to the\nthoughtful man who has given up going to church as to whether it is or\nnot.  The God of the ordinary church-goer, and of the man who is\nsupposed to teach him from study and pulpit, is an antiquated\nTheologian who made His universe so badly that it went wrong in spite\nof Him and has remained wrong ever since.  Why He should ever have\ncreated it is not clear.  Why He should be the injured party in all the\nmiseries that have ensued is still less clear.  The poor crippled child\nwho has been maimed by a falling rock, and the white-faced match-box\nmaker who works eighteen hours out of the twenty-four to keep body and\nsoul together have surely some sort of a claim upon God apart from\nbeing miserable sinners who must account themselves fortunate to be\nforgiven for Christ's sake.  Faugh! it is all so unreal and so stupid.\nThis kind of God is no God at all.  The theologian may call Him\ninfinite, but in practice He is finite.  He may call Him a God of love,\nbut in practice He is spiteful and silly.  I shall have something to\nsay presently about the twin problems of pain and evil; but what\nso-called orthodoxy has to say is not only no solution of them, it is\ndemonstrably false to the religion of Jesus.\n\n+Every man believes in God.+--For the moment what I want to make clear\nis this.  No man should refuse to assert his belief in God because he\ncannot bring himself to believe in the God of the typical theologian.\nRemember that the real God is the God expressed in the universe and in\nyourself.  The question is not whether you _shall_ believe in God, but\nhow much you _can_ believe about Him.  You may think with Haeckel that\nthe universe is the outcome of the fortuitous interaction of material\nforces without consciousness and definite purpose behind them, or you\nmay believe that the cosmos is the product of intelligence and \"means\nintensely and means good,\" but you cannot help believing in God, the\nPower revealed in it.  As I write these words I am seated before a\nwindow overlooking the heaving waste of waters on a rock-bound Cornish\ncoast.  It is a stormy day.  The sky is overcast toward the western\nhorizon; on the east shafts of blue and saffron have pierced the pall\nof darkness and flung their radiance over the spreading sea.  The total\neffect is strangely solemnising.  The suggestion of titanic forces\nconveyed in the rush of wind and wave upon the unyielding cliffs,\nconjoined to the majestic march of the storm-clouds across the heaven\nfrom the west, is somehow elevated and composed by the mystic light\nthat streams from the east.  I have never seen anything quite like it\nbefore.  It tells me of a beneficent stillness, an eternal strength,\nfar above and beyond these finite tossings.  It whispers the word\nimpossible to utter, the word that explains everything, the deep that\ncalleth unto deep.  So my God calls always to my deeper soul, and tells\nme I must read Him by mine own highest and best, and by the highest and\nbest that the universe has yet produced.  Thus the last word about God\nbecomes the last word about man: it is Jesus.  Materialists may tell me\nthat the universe does not know what it is doing, that it goes on\nclanking and banging, age after age, without end or aim, but I shall\ncontinue to feel compelled to believe that the Power which produced\nJesus must at least be equal to Jesus.  So Jesus becomes my gateway to\nthe innermost of God.  When I look at Him I say to myself, God is\n_that_, and, if I can only get down to the truth about myself, I shall\nfind I am that too.\n\n+What does the universe mean?+--But why is there a universe at all?\nWhy has the unlimited become limited?  What was the need for the long\ncosmic struggle, the ignorance and pain, the apparently prodigal waste\nof life and beauty?  Why does a perfect form appear only to be\nshattered and superseded by another?  What can it all mean, if indeed\nit has a meaning?  This is what thinkers have been asking themselves\nsince thought began, and I have really nothing new to say about it.\nWhat I have to say leads back through Hegelianism to the old Greek\nthinkers, and beyond them again to the wise men who lived and taught in\nthe East ages before Jesus was born.  It is that this finite universe\nof ours is one means to the self-realisation of the infinite.\nSupposing God to be the infinite consciousness, there are still\npossibilities to that consciousness which it can only know as it\nbecomes limited.  Any of my readers to whom this thought is unfamiliar\nhave only to look at their own experience in order to see how\nreasonable it is.  You may know yourself to be a brave man, but you\nwill know it in a higher way if you are a soldier facing the cannon's\nmouth; you will know it in a still different way if you have to face\nthe hostility and prejudice of a whole community for standing by\nsomething which you believe to be right.  Perhaps you have a manly\nlittle son; he, like you, may believe in his sterling good qualities.\nBut wait till he has gone out to fight his way in life; then you will\nrealise what he is worth, and so will he.  It is one thing to know that\nyou are a lover of truth; it is another thing to realise it when your\nimmediate interest and your immediate safety would bid you hedge and\nlie.  Do not these facts of human nature and experience tell us\nsomething about God?  To all eternity God is what He is and never can\nbe other, but it will take Him to all eternity to live out all that He\nis.  In order to manifest even to Himself the possibilities of His\nbeing God must limit that being.  There is no other way in which the\nfullest self-realisation can be attained.  Thus we get two modes of\nGod,--the infinite, perfect, unconditioned, primordial being; and the\nfinite, imperfect, conditioned, and limited being of which we are\nourselves expressions.  And yet these two are one, and the former is\nthe guarantee that the latter shall not fail in the purpose for which\nit became limited.  Thus to the question, Why a finite universe?  I\nshould answer, Because God wants to express what He is.  His\nachievement here is only one of an infinite number of possibilities.\n\n  \"God is the perfect poet\n  Who in creation acts His own conceptions.\"\n\n\nThis is an end worthy alike of God and man.  The act of creation is\neternal, although the cosmos is changing every moment, for God is\nceaselessly uttering Himself through higher and ever higher forms of\nexistence.  We are helping Him to do it when we are true to ourselves;\nor rather, which is the same thing, He is doing it in us: \"The Father\nabiding in me doeth His works.\"  No part of the universe has value in\nand for itself alone; it has value only as it expresses God.  To see\none form break up and another take its place is no calamity, however\nterrible it may seem, for it only means that the life contained in that\nform has gone back to the universal life, and will express itself again\nin some higher and better form.  To think of God in this way is an\ninspiration and a help in the doing of the humblest tasks.  It redeems\nlife from the dominion of the sordid and commonplace.  It supplies an\nincentive to endeavour, and fills the heart with hope and confidence.\nTo put it in homely, everyday phraseology, God is getting at something\nand we must help Him.  We must be His eyes and hands and feet; we must\nbe labourers together with Him.  This fits in with what science has to\nsay about the very constitution of the universe; it is all of a piece;\nthere are no gaps anywhere.  It is a divine experiment without risk of\nfailure, and we must interpret it in terms of our own highest.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nMAN IN RELATION TO GOD\n\n+What is man?+--So far we have seen that the universe, including\nourselves, is one instrument or vehicle of the self-expression of God.\nGod is All; He is the universe and infinitely more, but it is only as\nwe read Him in the universe that we can know anything about Him.  We\nhave seen, too, that it is by means of the universe and His\nself-limitation therein that He expresses Himself to Himself.  Now what\nis our relation to this process?  What are we to think about ourselves?\nWho or what are we?\n\nA witty Frenchman once sardonically remarked, \"In the beginning God\ncreated man in His own image, and man has ever since been returning the\ncompliment by creating God in his.\"  But what else can we do?  It\nfollows from what has already been said that we know nothing and can\nknow nothing of God except as we read Him in the universe, and we can\nonly interpret the universe in terms of our own consciousness.  In\nother words, man is a microcosm of the universe.  What the universe may\nbe in reality we do not know,--though I am not so sure as some people\nseem to be that appearance and reality do not correspond,--we can only\nknow it in so far as it produces sense images on our brain and enters\ninto our individual consciousness.  The limits of my subject forbid\nthat I should enter into a discussion of philosophic idealism, but I\nthink I ought to confess at once that I can only think of existence in\nterms of consciousness: nothing exists except in and for mind.  The\nmind that thinks the universe must be immeasurably greater than my own,\nbut in so far as I too am able to think the universe, mine is one with\nit.  All thinking starts with a paradox, even the famous saying of\nDescartes, \"I think, therefore I am\"; and my paradox seems at least as\nreasonable as any other, and has fewer difficulties to encounter than\nmost.  I start then with the assumption that the universe is God's\nthought about Himself, and that in so far as I am able to think it\nalong with Him, \"I and my Father (even metaphysically speaking) are\none.\"  It cannot be demonstrated beyond dispute that any two human\nbeings think the same universe.  Strictly speaking, it is certain that\nthey do not in every detail.  But the common dominator of our\nexperience, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, is the assumption that\nin the main the universe is pretty much the same for one man as it is\nfor another.  When I speak of the rolling sea, my neighbour does not\nunderstand me to mean the waving trees, but I cannot prove that he does\nnot.  If he is consistent in seeing water as trees and trees as water,\nhis mind must be constituted differently from mine and yet I may never\nknow it.  So, by an almost unperceived act of faith, we have to take\nfor granted that our separate individualities meet and become one to\nsome extent in our common experience of this great universe, which is\nat that same time the expression of God.  The real universe must be\ninfinitely greater and more complex than the one which is apparent to\nour physical senses.  This becomes probable, even on material grounds,\nthe moment we begin to examine into the nature of sense perception.\nThe ear is constituted to hear just so many sounds; beyond that limit\nat either end of the scale we can hear nothing, but that does not prove\nthat there are no more sounds to hear.  Similarly the eye can\ndistinguish five or seven primary colours and their various\ncombinations; beyond that limit we are colour-blind.  But suppose we\nwere endowed to hear and see sounds and colours a million times greater\nin number than those of which we have at present any cognizance!  What\nkind of a universe would it be then?  But that universe exists now; it\nis around and within us; it is God's thought about Himself, infinite\nand eternal.  It is only finite to a finite mind, and it is more than\nprobable that spiritual beings exist with a range of consciousness far\ngreater than our own, to whom the universe of which we form a part must\nseem far more beautiful and fuller of meaning than it seems to us.\nImagine a man who could only see grey hues and could only hear the note\nA on the keyboard.  His experience would be quite as real as ours, and\nindeed the same up to a point, but how little he would know of the\nworld as we know it.  The glory of the sunset sky would be hidden from\nhim; for him the melting power of the human voice, or of a grand\ncathedral organ, would not exist.  So, no doubt, it is in a different\ndegree with us all.  The so-called material world is our consciousness\nof reality exercising itself along a strictly limited plane.  We can\nknow just as much as we are constituted to know, and no more.  But it\nis all a question of consciousness.  The larger and fuller a\nconsciousness becomes, the more it can grasp and hold of the\nconsciousness of God, the fundamental reality of our being as of\neverything else.\n\n+The subconscious mind.+--Of late years the comparatively new science\nof psychology has begun to throw an amount of valuable light upon the\nmystery of human personality.  As the result of numerous experiments\nand investigations into the normal and abnormal working of the human\nmind, psychologists have discovered that a great deal of our ordinary\nmental action goes on without our being aware of it.  This unconscious\ncerebration, as it is called, can hardly be seriously disputed, for\nevery new addition to our psychological knowledge goes to confirm it.\nHence we are hearing a great deal about the subconscious mind, or\nsubliminal consciousness as some prefer to call it.  Now that our\nattention has been directed to it, we are coming to see, as is usual\nwith every new discovery, that after a fashion we knew it all along.\nThe subconscious mind seems to be the seat of inspiration and\nintuition.  Genius, according to the late F. W. H. Myers, is \"an\nup-rush of subliminal faculty.\"  We have all heard of the distinguished\nlady novelist who declares that when she has chosen her theme she is in\nthe habit of committing it to her subconscious mind and letting it\nalone for a while.  She is not aware of any mental process which goes\non, but sooner or later she finds that the theme is ripe for treatment;\nshe knows what she thinks about it, and the work of stating it can\nprofitably begin.  Poets, preachers, and musicians can bear testimony\nof a somewhat similar kind.  The thoughts which are most valuable are\nthose which come unbidden, rising to the surface of consciousness from\nunknown depths.  The best scientific discoveries are made in much the\nsame way; the investigator has an intuition and forthwith sets to work\nto justify it.  Reason, by which we ordinarily mean the conscious\nexercise of the mental faculties, plods along as if on four feet;\nintuition soars on wings.  Truly astonishing things are frequently done\nby the subconscious mind superseding and controlling the conscious mind\nin exceptional states of emotion, especially in the case of people who\nare not quite normal; but there is no one, however stolid and\ncommonplace, who does not owe far more to his subliminal consciousness\nthan he does to what he calls his reason; indeed reason has\ncomparatively little to do with the way in which people ordinarily\nconduct themselves, although we may like to think otherwise.\n\nNow what is this subconscious mind whose importance is so great and of\nwhose nature we know so little?  That is a question upon which\npsychology has not yet pronounced, but there are not a few who regard\nit as the real personality.  Evidently it is not only deeper but larger\nthan the surface mind which we call reason.  Our discovery of its\nexistence has taught us that our ordinary consciousness is but a tiny\ncorner of our personality.  It has been well described as an\nilluminated disc on a vast ocean of being; it is like an island in the\nPacific which is really the summit of a mountain whose base is miles\nbelow the surface.  Summit and base are one, and yet no one realises\nwhen standing on the little island that he is perched at the very top\nof a mountain peak.  So it is with our everyday consciousness of\nourselves; we find it rather difficult to realise that this\nconsciousness is not all there is of us.  And yet, when we come to\nexamine into the facts, the conclusion seems irresistible, that of our\ntruer, deeper being we are quite unconscious.\n\n+The higher self.+--Several important inferences follow from this\nposition.  The first is that our surface consciousness is somewhat\nillusory and does not possess the sharpness and definiteness of outline\nwhich we are accustomed to take for granted when thinking of ourselves.\nTo ordinary common sense nothing seems more obvious than that we know\nmost that is to be known about our friend John Smith, with whom we used\nto go to school and who has since developed into a stolid British man\nof business with few ideas and a tendency toward conservatism.  John is\na stalwart, honest, commonplace kind of person, of whom brilliant\nthings were never prophesied and who has never been guilty of any.  His\nwife and children go to church on Sundays.  John seldom goes himself\nbecause it bores him, but he likes to know that religion is being\nattended to, and he does not want to hear that his clergyman is\nattempting any daring flights.  He has a good-natured contempt for\nclergymen in general because he feels somehow that, like women, they\nhave to be treated with half-fictitious reverence, but that they do not\ncount for much in the ordinary affairs of life; they are a sort of\nthird sex.  But, according to the newer psychology, this matter-of-fact\nEnglishman is not what he seems even to himself.  His true being is\nvastly greater than he knows, and vastly greater than the world will\never know.  It belongs not to the material plane of existence but to\nthe plane of eternal reality.  This larger self is in all probability a\nperfect and eternal spiritual being integral to the being of God.  His\nsurface self, his Philistine self, is the incarnation of some portion\nof that true eternal self which is one with God.  The dividing line\nbetween the surface self and the other self is not the definite\ndemarcation it appears to be.  To the higher self it does not exist.\nTo us it must seem that to all intents and purposes the two selves in a\nman are two separate beings, but that is not so; they are one, although\nthe lower, owing to its limitations, cannot realise the fact.  If my\nreaders want to know whether I think that the higher self is conscious\nof the lower, I can only answer, Yes, I do, but I cannot prove it;\nprobabilities point that way.  What I want to insist upon here is that\nwe are greater than we seem, that we have a higher self, and that our\nlimited consciousness does not involve a separate individuality.\n\n  Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;\n  The soul that rises with us, our life's star,\n  Hath had elsewhere its setting,\n  And cometh from afar.\n  Not in entire forgetfulness,\n  And not in utter nakedness,\n  But trailing clouds of glory do we come\n  From God who is our home.\n\n\nThe great poets are the best theologians after all, for they see the\nfarthest.  The true being is consciousness; the universe, visible and\ninvisible, is consciousness.  The higher self of the individual man\ninfolds more of the consciousness of God than the lower, but lower and\nhigher are the same thing.  This may be a difficult thought to grasp,\nbut the time is rapidly approaching when it will be more generally\naccepted than it is now.\n\n+The unity of humanity.+--Another inference from the theory of the\nsubconscious mind is that of the fundamental unity of the whole human\nrace.  Indeed all life is fundamentally one, but there is a kinship of\nman with man which precedes that of man with any other order of being.\nHere again the spiritual truth cuts across what seem to be the dictates\nof common sense.  Common sense assumes that I and Thou are eternally\ndistinct, and that by no possibility can the territories of our\nrespective beings ever become one.  But even now, and on mere everyday\ngrounds, we are finding reason to think otherwise.  You are about to\nmake an observation at table and some member of your family makes it\nbefore you; you are thinking of a certain tune and someone begins to\nhum it; you have a certain purpose in mind and, lo, the same thought\nfinds expression in someone else, despite all probabilities.  Oh, you\nmay remark, This is only thought transference.  Precisely, but what are\nyou except your thought?  All being, remember, is conscious of being.\nThe infinite consciousness sees itself as a whole; the finite\nconsciousness sees the same whole in part.  Ultimately your being and\nmine are one and we shall come to know it.  Individuality only has\nmeaning in relation to the whole, and individual consciousness can only\nbe fulfilled by expanding until it embraces the whole.  Nothing that\nexists in your consciousness now and constitutes your self-knowledge\nwill ever be obliterated or ever can be, but in a higher state of\nexistence you will realise it to be a part of the universal stock.  I\nshall not cease to be I, nor you to be you; but there must be a region\nof experience where we shall find that you and I are one.\n\n+The Self is God.+--A third inference, already hinted at and presumed\nin all that has gone before, is that the highest of all selves, the\nultimate Self of the universe, is God.  The New Testament speaks of man\nas body, soul, and spirit.  The body is the thought-form through which\nthe individuality finds expression on our present limited plane; the\nsoul is a man's consciousness of himself as apart from all the rest of\nexistence and even from God--it is the bay seeing itself as the bay and\nnot as the ocean; the spirit is the true being thus limited and\nexpressed--it is the deathless divine within us.  The soul therefore is\nwhat we make it; the spirit we can neither make nor mar, for it is at\nonce our being and God's.  What we are here to do is to grow the soul,\nthat is to manifest the true nature of the spirit, to build up that\nself-realisation which is God's objective with the universe as a whole\nand with every self-conscious unit in particular.\n\nWhere, then, someone will say, is the dividing line between our being\nand God's?  There is no dividing line except from our side.  The ocean\nof consciousness knows that the bay has never been separate from\nitself, although the bay is only conscious of the ocean on the outer\nside of its own being.  But, the reader may protest, This is Pantheism.\nNo, it is not.  Pantheism is a technical term in philosophic parlance\nand means something quite different from this.  It stands for a\nFate-God, a God imprisoned in His universe, a God who cannot help\nHimself and does not even know what He is about, a blind force which\nhere breaks out into a rock and there into Ruskin and is equally\nindifferent to either.  But that is not my God.  My God is my deeper\nSelf and yours too; He is the Self of the universe and knows all about\nit.  He is never baffled and cannot be baffled; the whole cosmic\nprocess is one long incarnation and uprising of the being of God from\nitself to itself.  With Tennyson you can call this doctrine the Higher\nPantheism if you like, but it is the very antithesis of the Pantheism\nwhich has played such a part in the history of thought.\n\n+Its relation to free will.+--But then, another will remonstrate, it\ndoes away with the freedom of the will.  Well, here is a slippery\nsubject sure enough, and one upon which more nonsense has been talked\nprobably than any other within the range of philosophical or\ntheological discussion.  Have I anything new to say about it?  Probably\nnot, but I think I can focus the issue and show what we must recognise\nin order to have a rational grasp of the subject.  Thinkers have talked\ntoo much in the past about the separate faculties of human nature as\nthough they could be divided into Reason, Feeling, Action, and so on.\nBut they are beginning to talk differently now.  They are coming to see\nthat a human being cannot be cut up like that.  The Reason is the whole\nman thinking, judging, comparing.  Feeling accompanies Reason and is\nnever found apart from it, for reason implies consciousness, and\nwithout consciousness nothing that can properly be called Feeling\nexists.  The will is simply the whole man acting.\n\nNow I will frankly confess that in strict logic I can find no place for\nthe freedom of the will.  I will defy anyone to do so if he knows much\nabout the laws of thought.  But, as the late Mr. Lecky said in his \"Map\nof Life,\" and Mr. Mallock has since pointed out in \"The Reconstruction\nof Belief,\" we are compelled to overleap logic when considering this\nmatter.  No argument will convince us that we have not some power of\nindividual self-direction and self-control.  The most thoroughgoing\ndeterminist that ever lived forgets his determinism even while he\nargues about it.  It must be amusing even to himself to see how he\nenjoys scoring off his opponent, thus taking for granted in the heat of\ncontroversy the very freedom he sets out to deny.  The assumption at\nthe bottom of every vigorous argument is that the other party might\nhave held other views, and ought to have held other views than those\nassailed.  The position of the determinist in effect is this: You must\nbelieve you have no freedom to choose anything, otherwise you are to\nblame for choosing wrongly.  Of course the consistent determinist would\nevade this _reductio ad absurdum_ by saying that he is as much\nnecessitated in blaming his opponent for holding wrong views as the\nopponent is for refusing to give them up.  He might also tell me that I\nam arguing for free will in an obscurantist fashion by admitting at the\noutset that in strict logic I can find no place for it.  But I am not\narguing for free will at all.  I am simply showing that by the very\nconstitution of our minds we cannot avoid taking some measure of free\nwill for granted.  Even the determinist who scouts this view and calls\nit absurd is by his own action a convincing demonstration of its truth.\n\n+Only the Infinite has perfect freedom.+--But this contention is\nsomething more than mere logic chopping.  It points to a truth too high\nfor a finite mind to grasp, namely, that whatever our moral freedom may\nbe, it must consist with the all-directing universal will.  There is no\nsuch thing as perfect freedom in a finite being.  Perfect freedom\nbelongs only to infinity; finiteness implies limitations.  Popular\ntheology usually assumes, or appears to assume, that every individual\nis a perfectly free agent able at all times to distinguish and to\nchoose between the higher and the lower, and as liable to choose the\none as the other.  There is another kind of theologising, of course,\nwhich speaks of the weakened or corrupted will due to our fallen\nnature, that I must let alone for the present.  What I want to point\nout is that there is not, and never has been, an act of the will in\nwhich a man, without bias in either direction, has deliberately chosen\nevil in the presence of good.  Under such circumstances no being in his\nsober senses would ever choose evil; enlightened self-interest alone\nwould forbid the possibility of such a choice.  Freedom of the will in\nthis sense has never existed.  The truth is that we should not be\nconscious of the possession of a will but for the conflict between\ndesire and duty, or the necessity of choosing between one impulse and\nanother.  After all, the moral choices of life are but few in number.\nThe things we go on doing day by day are the things that for the most\npart we know we must do, and we scarcely reflect upon the matter.  When\nsome question emerges which demands a moral choice we know it at once\nby the fact that we have to take our limitations into account.\nSomething has to be overcome if the higher is chosen, and, without that\novercoming, there is no real assertion of the will.  It is no heroism\nin me to avoid getting drunk, but it may mean a tremendous assertion of\nthe moral reserves in some poor fellow who knows the power of the drink\ncraving.  The same observation holds good of all human life.  My weak\npoints are not my neighbour's, and his are not mine.  Neither of us is\nin a position to estimate the other's strength of will, but we both\nknow that in our own case an absolutely unfettered moral choice has\nnever been made.  But for our limitations and imperfections we should\nknow nothing whatever of the choice between right and wrong.  Free\nwill, in the sense of unlimited freedom of choice, does not exist.  The\nonly freedom we possess is like that of a bird in a cage; we can choose\nbetween the higher and the lower standing ground, a choice called for\nby the very fact that we are in prison, but we cannot choose where the\ncage shall go.\n\nNo doubt these considerations will meet with the disapproval of some\npeople who think themselves orthodox.  They will object to being told\nthat every man has a higher self than that of which he is immediately\nconscious; that fundamentally the individual is one with the whole race\nand with God; that no one possesses absolute free will.  To them it may\nseem an absurdity to maintain these positions.  But if they say so,\nthey will convict themselves of absurdity, for, with the exception of\nthe last, Christian doctrine already affirms them all of Jesus.\nAccording to the received theology, Jesus was God, and yet He did not\npossess the all-controlling consciousness of the universe.  He was also\nman, and yet He was before all ages.  All creation proceeds from and\ncentres in Him, and yet He was able to limit Himself in such a degree\nas to be ignorant of much that was going on in His own universe.  If\nso-called orthodoxy finds it no difficulty to assert these things as\nbeing true of Jesus, it will not find it easy to show good reason why\nthe same should not be true of all humanity.  For the moment I neither\nassert nor deny the uniqueness of Jesus.  All I am concerned to show is\nthat if it is not intellectually _impossible_ to affirm certain things\nabout the consciousness of Jesus and the limitation of His true being\nin His earthly life, it is not impossible to affirm them of mankind.\n\nSome of my critics have contended that this view of the relationship of\nman to God hails not from Palestine but from Oxford and is an outcome\nof the philosophy of T. H. Green.  But I think it can be shown that its\npedigree is considerably longer than that.  Whether it hails from\nPalestine or not, it is explicitly stated in the fourth gospel: \"He\nthat hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew\nus the Father?  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the\nFather in me?  The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself:\nbut the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works.  Believe me\nthat I am in the Father, and the Father in me.\"  Those who object to my\nstatement of the fundamental identity of God and man will have to\nexplain away such passages as this, and there are plenty of them.  But,\nit may be urged, this is meant to apply only to Jesus.  That I do not\nbelieve; I think the exceedingly able writer of the fourth gospel knew\nbetter; but for the moment I will not contest the point.  Granted that\nit does apply only to Jesus, what then?  The very things which the\ncritics declare to be impossible of personality in general in relation\nto God, they are affirming already of at least one personality, that of\nJesus.  If Jesus was God and yet prayed to God, if His consciousness\nwas finite and yet one with the infinite, it is clear that in this one\ninstance the seemingly impossible was not impossible.  Those who insist\nupon the fundamental distinction between human personality and the\nbeing of God are thus on the horns of a dilemma.  Present-day orthodoxy\ncannot consistently attack this position.  The only telling criticism\nthat can be directed against it is that which proceeds from the side of\nscientific monism.  A thoroughgoing monist might reasonably contend\nthat up to a certain point I have been arguing for a monistic view of\nthe universe, in company with practically the whole scientific world,\nand have then given the case away by admitting a certain amount of\nindividual freedom.  I confess it looks like it; I have had to face the\nantinomy.  I see that there is no escape from the assertion of the\nfundamental unity of all existence, and yet by the very constitution of\nthe human mind we are compelled to take for granted a certain amount of\nindividual initiative and self-direction.  I think of the human will\nmuch as I do about the mariner's compass.  It is well known that the\nneedle does not always point steadily and consistently to the pole; its\ntiny aberrations have to be taken into account.  But these are no real\nhindrance to the sailing of the ship, and the compass itself cannot run\naway.\n\nAgain, some of my friends have been pointing out that, while the New\nTheology regards all mankind as \"Being of one substance with the\nFather,\" our consciousness of that being is our own.  I freely admit\nthis while maintaining that there is no substance but consciousness.\nWhat other kind of substance can there be?  Therefore I hold that when\nour finite consciousness ceases to be finite there will be no\ndistinction whatever between ours and God's.  The distinction between\nfinite and infinite is not eternal.  The being of God is a complex\nunity, containing within itself and harmonising every form of\nself-consciousness that can possibly exist.  No one need be afraid that\nin believing this he is assenting to the final obliteration of his own\npersonality; if such obliteration were possible, our present\npersonality could possess no permanent value even for God.  No form of\nself-consciousness can ever perish.  It completes itself in becoming\ninfinite, but it cannot be destroyed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE NATURE OF EVIL\n\n+The problem not insoluble.+--Before going on to say more about human\npersonality, especially the personality of Jesus, it is requisite that\nwe should determine our attitude toward a great question which in\nmanifold forms has beset the human intellect ever since the dawn of\nhistory, namely, the problem of evil.  It is still the fashion to\ndeclare this problem insoluble, but I have the audacity to believe that\nit is not so; mystery there may be, but it is not chiefly mystery.  I\nwill even go so far as to assert that the problem had been solved in\nhuman thought before Christianity began.  What I have to say about it\nnow is ancient thinking confirmed by present-day experience.\n\nEvil is a negative, not a positive term.  It denotes the absence rather\nthan the presence of something.  It is the perceived privation of good,\nthe shadow where the light ought to be.  \"The devil is a vacuum,\" as a\nfriend of mine once remarked to the no small bewilderment of a group of\nlisteners in whose imagination the devil was anything but a vacuum.\nEvil is not an intruder in an otherwise perfect universe; finiteness\npresumes it.  A thing is only seen to be evil when the capacity for\ngood is present and unsatisfied.  Evil is not a principle at war with\ngood.  Good is being and evil is not-being.  When consciousness of\nbeing seeks further expression and finds itself hindered by its\nlimitations, it becomes aware of evil.\n\nA little reflection ought to convince anyone that this is the true way\nto look at the question of evil.  Instead of asking how evil came to be\nin the universe, we should recognise that nothing finite can exist\nwithout it.  Infinity alone can know nothing of evil because its\nresources are illimitable and--if I may be permitted the\nexpression--every need is supplied before it can be felt.  Evil and\ngood are not like two armies in deadly conflict with each other for the\npossession of the city of God.  We ought not to say that when one is in\nthe other is out, but rather when one _is_ the other is _not_.  The\nvery word \"good\" implies evil.  One is positive and the other negative.\nGood only emerges in our experience in contrast with evil, and the\nideal existence must be that in which good and evil are both\ntranscended in the life eternal, when struggle and conflict are no\nmore.  In our present state of existence evil is necessary in order\nthat we may know that there is such a thing as good, and therefore that\nwe may realise the true nature of the life eternal.  Look at that\nshadow on the pavement cast by the row of houses between your vision\nand the rising sun.  Until the sun made his presence felt, you did not\neven know there was a shadow.  Presently as the light giver climbs\nbeyond and above this temporary barrier you will watch the shadow\nshrink and disappear.  Where has it gone?  If it were an entity in\nitself, it would have moved off somewhere else, but you are well aware\nthat it has not done so, for it never had any real existence; real as\nit seemed, so real that you were able to give it a name, it never did\nmore than show the place that needed to be filled with light.  When the\nlight came the shadow was swallowed up.  So it is with every kind of\nevil, no matter what.  Your perception of evil is the concomitant of\nyour expanding finite consciousness of good.  The moment you see a\nthing to be wrong you have affirmed that you know, however vaguely,\nwhat is required to put it right.  Even when evil comes in the form of\na calamity that lessens and diminishes your previous experience of\ngood, as in an earthquake or a pestilence, this statement as to its\ntrue nature is in no way invalidated.  It is not a thing in itself, it\nis only the perceived privation of what you know to be good, and which\nyou know to be good because of the very presence of limitation,\nhindrance, and imperfection.\n\n+The relation of evil and pain.+--But to most minds evil is almost\nsynonymous with pain, at any rate in our experience it is associated\nwith pain.  When men begin questioning the goodness of God because of\nthe evil of the world, they usually mean the pain of the world.\nPerhaps their thought about sin is to some extent an exception; sin and\npain are not necessarily immediately associated in the theological\nmind.  But what is pain?  Properly speaking it is not in itself evil,\nbut rather the evidence of evil, and also in a different way the\nevidence of good.  Pain is life asserting itself against death, the\nhigher struggling with the lower, the true with the false, the real\nwith the unreal.  When a baby cries for food he does so in unconscious\nobedience to the law of life; a stone does not cry for food.  When a\nstrong man suffers in the grip of a fell disease, the life within him\nis fighting for expression against something that seems to be\nextinguishing it.  The suffering is caused by the effort of the life to\nretain its hold on the form, and yet if the disease succeeds in\nbreaking the form it has only released the life to find expression in\nsome higher form.  When a guilty man suffers the tortures of remorse,\nit means that the truth within him is declaring itself against the\nfalsehood, although it does not follow that it will immediately\nconquer.  This is what pain is: it is life pressing upon death, and\ndeath resisting life.  If a traveller falls asleep in the snow, or a\nsailor is nearly drowned, the process of recovery is always painful\nbecause the returning life has to overcome death.  Carry the same\nprinciple through the whole range of human experience, physical,\nmental, and moral, and it will indicate the real significance of all\nthe pain which has ever been endured or ever will be endured by mankind.\n\nStill this would not satisfy everyone who feels compassion for cosmic\nsuffering.  Professor Huxley has told us that there is no sadder story\nthan the story of sentient life upon this planet, and in so saying he\nhas the testimony of modern science behind him.  A vast amount of\nattention has been directed to this phase of the subject within the\npast fifty years.  We seem to be more sensitive to the presence of pain\nas well as more sympathetic than our fathers were, and this tendency\nshows itself in a recognition of the solidarity of humanity with the\nlower creation.  Theology has had practically nothing to say about the\nsuffering or even about the significance of the myriad forms of life\nwhich exist below the human scale.  But why ought they to be ignored?\nIndeed, how can they be ignored?  The theology that has nothing to say\nabout my clever and loyal four-footed companion, with his magnanimity,\nhis sensitive spirit, and even his moral qualities, omits something of\nconsiderable importance to a thorough and consistent world-view.  \"Not\na sparrow falleth to the ground without your Father,\" said one who\nspake as never man spake.  I think it was Schopenhauer who once\nremarked, \"The more I see of human nature the more I respect my dog.\"\nNow the New Theology finds no difficulty in recognising the importance\nof the brute creation, for it believes in a practical recognition of\nthe solidarity of all existence.  There is no life that is not of God,\nand therefore no life can ever perish, whatever may become of the form.\nIf we can explain human suffering, the same explanation covers the\nsuffering of all sub-human life.\n\n+The true extent of the problem of pain.+--But the problem is not so\nlarge as it looks.  When we hear of a terrible event like the Jamaica\ndisaster, we are apt to jump to the conclusion that the amount of\nsuffering in the world is specially and enormously greater because of\nit.  But that is not so.  Our standard of measurement is a false one.\nThe amount of pain endured depends upon the consciousness enduring it\nand upon its capacity for looking before and after.  Besides we only\nsuffer individually, and therefore all the pain of the world is\ncomprised within the experience of the being who suffers most, whoever\nthat may be.  We ought to estimate the actual amount of cosmic\nsuffering by the intensity of the suffering borne by any one individual\nat any one time.  We are not immediately conscious of all the woe of\nthe universe; we are each of us conscious of our own, even though it\nmay be caused by sympathy with others; and the world's woe taken as a\nwhole is not greater than the amount borne by him whose consciousness\nof it is greatest.  This is what we may call the intensive as\ncontrasted with the extensive observation of the problem of pain.  It\nis a kind of barometrical measurement.  We do not gauge the weather by\nadding together the figures of all the storm-glasses in the world; the\nrise or fall of the mercury in any one of them, especially the best one\namong them, comprehends the whole.  Here is the problem of pain in a\nnutshell.  The whole appalling tale of cosmic suffering can be\ncompressed within the limits of the individual consciousness which has\nendured the most.\n\n+The purpose of pain.+--Nor is there the slightest need to be afraid of\nit.  Theologians may tell us that we should never have known anything\nabout it but for man's first disobedience, and humanists may maintain\nthat it is impossible to reconcile it with belief in the goodness of\nGod; but they are both wrong.  There are some things impossible even to\nomnipotence, and one of them is the realisation of a love which has\nnever known pain.  If creation is the self-expression of God, pain was\ninevitable from the first.  For what is the nature of God?  According\nto the Christian religion it is love.  And what is love?  Here is\nanother slippery word which has had some contradictory connotations in\nthe course of its history.  Some time ago Mr. G. Bernard Shaw delivered\na lecture at the City Temple on the \"Religion of the British Empire,\"\nin the course of which he said that, if I knew as much about\nstage-plays as he did, I should distrust the word \"love,\" for it was\nbound up with an amount of false and gusty sentiment.  He himself\npreferred the word \"life\" to express what I meant by the word \"love.\"\nBut love is too good a word to be given over to the sentimentalists,\nalthough Mr. Shaw was perfectly right as to the way in which it has\nbeen misused.  Love _is_ life, the life eternal, the life of God.\nJesus and His New Testament followers used both terms as expressive of\nthe innermost of God.  The life of God is such that in the presence of\nneed it must give itself just as water will run down hill; this is the\nlaw of its being.  Where no need exists, that is, where life is\ninfinite, love finds no expression.  To realise itself for what it is,\nsacrifice, that is self-limitation, becomes necessary.  Love is\nessentially self-giving.  It is the living of the individual life in\nterms of the whole.  In a finite world this cannot but mean pain, but\nit is also self-fulfilment.  \"Whosoever shall save his life shall lose\nit, but whosoever will lose his life shall find it.\"  This profound\nsaying of Jesus is older even than Jesus; it is the law of God's own\nbeing, the law of love, the means to the realisation of the life\neternal.  It is so plain and simple, and withal so sublime, that we\ncannot but see it to be true, and can do no other than bow before it.\nThe law of the universe is the law of sacrifice in order to\nself-manifestation.  In this age-long process all sentient life has its\npart, for it is of the infinite, and to the infinite it will return.\nWhen, therefore, you feel compassion for the rabbit which is being\nkilled by the weasel, or the stag that falls before the hounds, you can\nremember at the same time that this is not meaningless cruelty, but the\noperation of the same law that governs the highest activities of your\nown soul.  You are right to feel the compassion; you were meant to feel\nit; and there is good reason why you should, for the suffering is real\nenough to awaken it.  But do not forget that the suffering is not quite\nwhat it appears to you; it is only yours as it enters into your own\nconsciousness and you suffer along with the actual victim.  Compassion\nin such a case is the initial impulse toward self-offering, the desire\nto take the victim's place.  But the suffering of the rabbit or the\nstag is to be measured by the consciousness of the rabbit or the stag,\nnot by yours.  In the slaughter nothing perishes but the form, the life\nreturns to the Soul of the universe.\n\n+The nature of sin.+--What, then, is sin?  In the light of the\nforegoing considerations that question should not be difficult to\nanswer.  Some of my recent critics have been declaring that I deny the\nexistence of sin, and am teaching that as there is no sin there is no\nneed for Atonement.  This looks like wilful misrepresentation, for my\nwords on the subject have been clear enough and I have nothing to\nun-say, but perhaps it would be better to allow that the critics have\nmade the mistake of rushing into print without carefully examining the\nutterances which they denounce.  Let me say, then, that sin is the\nopposite of love.  All possible activities of the soul are between two\npoles,--self on the one hand and the common life on the other.\nEverything we can think or say or do is in one or other of these\ndirections; we are either living for the self at the expense of the\nwhole, or we are fulfilling the self by serving the whole.  Sin is\ntherefore selfishness.  If the true life is the life which is lived in\nterms of the whole, then the sinful life is the life which is lived for\nself alone.  No man, however depraved, succeeds in living the selfish\nlife all the time; if he did he would sink below the level of the\nbrutes.  Sin makes for death; love makes for life.  Sin is self-ward;\nlove is All-ward.  Sin is always a blunder; in the long run it becomes\nits own punishment, for it is the soul imposing fetters upon itself,\nwhich fetters must be broken by the reassertion of the universal life.\nSin is actually a quest for life, but a quest which is pursued in the\nwrong way.  The man who is living a selfish life must think, if he\nthinks about it at all, that he can gratify himself in that way, that\nis, he can get more abundant life.  But in this he is mistaken; he is\ntrying to cut himself off from the source of life.  He is like a man\nseated on the branch of a tree and sawing it off from the trunk.  But\nwhen theologians talk of the wrath of God against sin, and the wrong\nwhich sin has inflicted upon God, they employ figures of speech which\nare distinctly misleading.  In fact, they do not seem to have a clear\nidea as to what sin really is.  They use vague language about it as\nthough it were some kind of corporate offence against God of which the\nwhole race has been guilty without being able to help it, and which no\nindividual can escape although he is as much to blame as if he could.\nBut sin has never injured God except through man.  It is the God within\nwho is injured by it rather than the God without.  It is time we had\ndone with the unreal language about the Judge on the great white\nthrone, whose justice must be satisfied before His mercy can operate.\nThe figure contains a truth which everyone knows well enough, but it is\nnot easy to recognise it under this form.\n\n+The Fall.+--The theological muddle is largely caused by the inability\nof many people to free themselves from archaic notions which have\nreally nothing to do with Christianity, although they have been\nimported into it.  The principal of these, in relation to the question\nof sin, is the doctrine of the Fall.  This doctrine has played a\nmischievous part in Christian thought, more especially perhaps since\nthe Reformation.  In broad outline it is as follows: Man was created\noriginally innocent and pure,--for what reason is not quite clear, but\nit is said to be for the glory of God,--but by an act of disobedience\nto a divine command he fell from his high estate and in his fall\ndragged down the whole creation and blighted posterity.  Things have\nbeen wrong ever since, and God has been angry not only with the\noriginal transgressor but with all his descendants.  God is a God of\nrighteousness and therefore in a future world He will torture every\nhuman being who dies without availing himself of a certain \"plan of\nsalvation\" designed to give him a chance of escape.  This is a queer\nsort of righteousness!  The plan of salvation consists in sending His\nown Son--a Son who has existed eternally, which the rest of us have\nnot--to live a few years on earth and go through a certain programme\nending with a violent death.  In consideration of this death, God\nundertakes to forgive His erring children, who could not help being\nsinners, and yet are just as much to blame as if they could, but only\non consideration that they \"believe\" in time to flee from the wrath to\ncome.  If they happen to die half a minute too late, repentance will be\nof no avail.\n\nDogmatic theologians must really excuse me for paraphrasing their words\nin this way.  I know they do not put the case with such irritating\nclearness, but this is what they mean.  Their forefathers used to put\nit plainly enough.  Turn up John Knox's \"Confession of Faith,\" for\ninstance, and it will be found that my statement of the case is\nmildness itself compared to his; John saw no necessity for mincing\nmatters.  It may be contended that no orthodox theologian of any repute\nnow believes in an actual historical fall of the race.  Perhaps not,\nbut theological writers go on using language which implies it and so do\npreachers of the gospel.  I do not mean that they are dishonest, but\nthey cannot get their perspective right.  They think that by giving up\nbelief in a historical fall of the race they would have to give up a\ngreat deal more.  Without the Fall they do not know what to say about\nsin, salvation, the Atonement, etc.  They are mistaken in this\nsupposition, as I trust I have already shown to some extent when\ndiscussing the question of sin, and as I shall hope to show more\nclearly still when we come to deal with the Atonement.  What I now wish\nto insist upon is that it is absolutely impossible for any intelligent\nman to continue to believe in the Fall as it is literally understood\nand taught.\n\n+The Genesis account.+--It is popularly supposed that the doctrine is\nderived from the book of Genesis, but that is hardly the case.  No\ndoubt the Genesis myth about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden forms\nthe background of it, but it is not consonant with the doctrine itself.\nThe Genesis narrative says nothing about the ruined creation or the\ncurse upon posterity.  There is no hint of individual immortality, much\nless of heaven and hell; no Christ, no cross, no future judgment, no\nvicarious Atonement.  It is a composite primitive story.  A careful\nexamination of its constituents will show that more than one account of\nthe event has been drawn upon to supply materials for the narrative as\nit now stands.  The legend was in existence as oral tradition ages\nbefore it became literature.  How old it may be we have no means of\nknowing with certainty, but the parallel stories in other Semitic\nreligions are of great antiquity and had originally no ethical\nsignificance whatever.  The Genesis story of the Fall exercised no\ninfluence upon Old Testament religion; it is scarcely alluded to in the\nbest Old Testament writings, some of them earlier probably than the\nGenesis account itself.  It was not until after the great captivity\nthat it showed any tendency toward becoming an article of faith.  At\nthe time when Jesus was born it had passed into the popular Jewish\nreligion.  There is a psychological reason for the gradual\ntransformation of a primitive legend into a religious dogma.  The\nJewish nation has fallen upon evil days.  For generations after the\ngreat captivity they had been ground under the heel of a succession of\nforeign masters.  Under the cruel rule of Antiochus Epiphanes, about\nthe middle of the second century B.C., their very religion seemed\nlikely to be crushed out by merciless persecution.  It was no wonder\nthat the serious minds of the day became inclined to look upon the\npresent as being but the ruin of the past, the sorry remainder of what\nhad once been an ideal world.  This tendency showed itself in various\nways, the chief of which was a looking back to the great days of David\nand Solomon as the period of Israel's brightest splendour and\nprosperity.  Of this I must say a little more presently when we come to\nconsider the genesis of the idea of the kingdom of God.  Another way in\nwhich the same tendency showed itself was that of taking the legend of\nthe Fall more or less literally.  A suffering generation could hardly\nhelp thinking of their woes as being the result of some primitive act\nof transgression.  This is the way in which the rabbis came to speak of\nthe Fall as being an actual fact of religious and ethical importance.\n\n+The doctrine transferred to Christianity.+--A similar set of political\nand social conditions carried the doctrine over into Christianity,\nchiefly through the influence of the apostle Paul who had received a\nrabbinical training.  Not only Hebrews but Greeks had begun to feel\nthat the world was decaying and perhaps nearing the end.  They\nidealised the past and contrasted it with the present.  All\ncivilisation lay under the dominion of Rome, and Rome herself was\nsubject to a military dictator.  The heart of the world-wide empire was\na hotbed of corruption where every form of vice took root and\nflourished.  The Greek thinkers and scholars despised their masters,\nbut their own heroic days were gone and they were helpless to cast off\nthe yoke.  They had no Pericles now, no Leonidas, no Miltiades.  Gone\nwere the men of Thermopylae, Marathon, and Salamis.  These were lesser,\ndarker days.  With a sure instinct men were ceasing to feel any\nconfidence in the future of this pagan civilisation.  It had its great\nelements, but the signs of disruption were already apparent and no one\ncould foresee what would take its place.  The mood of the time is\nreflected in the pages of Tacitus and Juvenal.  Into this atmosphere\ncame Christianity with its doctrine of the holy love of God and its\nadoring faith in Jesus.  But both Judaism and Hellenism had already the\ntendency to look back toward a better and happier time and to think of\nthe present as a fall from it.  Paul felt this like everyone else, and\nforthwith took some kind of a fall for granted when unfolding his\nsystem of thought.  It is doubtful whether he took the Genesis story\nliterally or not, and he certainly made Adam the type of the unideal or\nearthly man who had become estranged from God.  He was too great a man\nto be pinned down to mere literalism in a question of this kind, so in\nhis use of the terms supplied by the rabbinical version of the legend\nhe glides easily into the statement of the obvious truth that the Adam,\nor lower man, or earthly principle in every human being, needs to be\ntransformed by the uprising of the Christ or ideal man, within the\nsoul.  \"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made\nalive.\"  \"The first man is of the earth earthy: the second man is the\nLord from heaven.\"\n\nHere, then, we have the origins of the doctrine of the Fall.  Right\nthrough Christian history the tendency has run to look upon the world\nas the ruins of a divine plan marred by man's perversity and self-will.\nIt is time we got rid of it, for it has had a blighting, deadening\ninfluence upon hopeful endeavour for the good of the race.  It is not\nintegral to Christianity, for Jesus never said a word about it and did\nnot even allude to it indirectly.  It implies a view of the nature and\ndealings of God with men which is unethical and untrue.  Surely, if God\nknew beforehand that the world would go wrong, the blame for\ncatastrophe was not all man's.  If He were so baffled and\nhorror-stricken by the results as the dogmatic theologian makes out, He\nought to have been more careful about the way He did His work at the\nbeginning; a world which went wrong so early and so easily was anything\nbut \"very good,\" although He pronounced it to be so according to the\nGenesis writer.  Besides, why should a trivial act of transgression\nhave sent it all wrong?  We take leave of our common sense when we talk\n\n  Of man's first disobedience and the fruit\n  Of that forbidden tree.\n\nTo be sure Milton did not believe it himself when he wrote that line,\nbut his Puritan associates and Catholic ancestors did, and orthodoxy\nprofesses to do so still, though it does not know quite how to put it\nwithout falling into absurdity.  Again, why should God feel Himself so\nmuch aggrieved by Adam's peccadillo?  If it were not for the\ntheological atmosphere which surrounds the question, we should see at\nonce that it was ridiculous.  Why should the consequences continue\nthrough countless generations?  Remember this was supposed to be the\nvery start of humanity's career.  What a dreary, hopeless outlook was\nleft to it!  The notion is incredible, and most of the clear-headed men\nwho hold it would scout it without discussion if they heard of it now\nfor the first time.  As it is, however, they go on talking of the\n\"awful holiness\" of God, the offence against the divine majesty, and so\non.  But what is this divine holiness?  I can well remember that as a\nchild I used to tremble at the thought of it, for somehow, like a good\nmany other people, I had been taught to think of the divine holiness as\nsynonymous with merciless inflexibility.  But holiness, righteousness,\njustice, mercy, love, are but different expressions of the same\nspiritual reality.  One might go on multiplying these considerations\nfor ever, but there is no need to do so.  Sufficient has been said to\ndemonstrate the fact that the doctrine of the Fall is an absurdity from\nthe point of view both of ethical consistency and common sense.\n\n+Science and the Fall.+--After this it is almost superfluous to point\nout that modern science knows nothing of it and can find no trace of\nsuch a cataclysm in human history.  On the contrary, it asserts that\nthere has been a gradual and unmistakable rise; the law of evolution\ngoverns human affairs just as it does every other part of the cosmic\nprocess.  This statement is quite consistent with the admission that\nthere have been periods of retrogression as well as of advance, and\nthat the advance itself has not been steady and uniform from first to\nlast; there have been long stretches of history during which humanity\nhas seemed to mark time and then a sudden outburst of intellectual\nactivity and moral achievement.  It could hardly be maintained, for\ninstance, that the Athens of Socrates was not superior to the France of\nFulk the black of Anjou, or that the Assyria of Asshur-bani-pal was not\nquite as civilised as the Germany of the ninth century A.D.  Alfred\nRussel Wallace has shown in his popular book, \"The Wonderful Century,\"\nthat the latter half of the nineteenth century witnessed a greater\nadvance in man's power over nature than the fifteen hundred years\npreceding it.  There are some people who maintain that while the\nmaterial advance is unquestionable, the intellectual advance is on the\nwhole more doubtful, and that, morally speaking, human nature is no\ndifferent from what it ever was.  But I do not think any serious\nhistorian would say this.  Intellectually, the average man may still be\ninferior to Plato,--though even Plato did not understand the need for\nexact thought as modern philosophers do,--but civilisation as a whole\nhas produced a higher level of intellectual attainment than had been\nreached by Plato's world.  A civilisation in which four-fifths of the\npeople were helots kept in ignorance in order that an aristocratic few\nmight enjoy the benefits of culture was not equal to ours, great and\nglaring as the defects of ours may be.  Again, while it is only too\nsadly true that modern civilisation contains plenty of callous\nselfishness, gross injustice, and abominable cruelty, it can hardly be\ndenied that these relics of our brute ancestry are universally\ndeplored, and that society recognises them to be inimical to its\nwell-being and seeks to get rid of them.  Thank God, as Anthony\nTrollope said, that bad as men are to-day they are not as men were in\nthe days of the Caesars.\n\nIf the New Theology controversy had arisen a few hundred years ago,\ntheological disputants would not have wasted time in writing newspaper\narticles; they would have met in solemn conclave and condemned the\nheretic to be flayed alive or hung over a slow fire or treated in some\nsimilarly convincing manner.  Of course it is remotely possible that\nsome of them would like to do it now, but public opinion would not let\nthem; things have changed, and the change is in the direction of a\nhigher general morality.  If any man feels pessimistic about the\npresent, let him study the past and he will feel reassured.  Those who\nmaintain that society is not morally better but only more sentimental,\nbeg the question.  What they call sentimentalism is greater\nsensibility, greater sympathy, a keener sense of justice.  What is the\nmoral ideal but love?  Every advance in the direction of universal love\nand brotherhood is a moral advance.  The sternness of Stoicism or\nPuritanism was an imperfect morality.  The grandeur and impressiveness\nof it were due to the fact that Stoics and Puritans for the most part\ntook their ideal seriously; they aimed at something high and dedicated\ntheir lives to it.  This dedication of the life to something higher\nthan self-interest is of the very essence of true morality, and its\nhighest reach is perfect love.  We are a long way from that yet,\nalthough the ideal was manifested two thousand years ago.  The average\nman to-day is certainly not nobler than the apostle Paul, nor does he\nsee more deeply into the true meaning of life than did John the divine,\nbut the general level is higher.  Slowly, very slowly, with every now\nand then a depressing set-back, the race is climbing the steep ascent\ntoward the ideal of universal brotherhood.\n\nIt is sometimes maintained by thinkers who account themselves\nprogressive that the law of evolution holds good of mankind so far as\nour physical constitution is concerned, but that a special act of\ncreation took place as soon as the physical frame was sufficiently\ndeveloped to become the receptacle of a higher principle, and that\nthen, and not till then, \"man became a living soul.\"  But it is\nimpossible to square the circle in this way, and to contrive to get the\ndoctrine of the Fall in by the back door, so to speak.  The idea in the\nminds of those who hold this view appears to be that the tenant of the\nbody which had been so long in preparation was a simple but intelligent\nand morally innocent personality who forthwith proceeded to do all that\nAdam is credited with and therefore spoiled what would otherwise have\nbeen a harmonious and orderly development; what we now see is not\nevolution as God meant it, but evolution perverted by human\nwrong-headedness.  But this theory contains more difficulties than the\nolder one it aims to replace.  It makes God even more incompetent then\nthe traditional view does.  For untold ages, apparently, He has been\npreparing the world for the advent of humanity, only to find that the\nmoment humanity enters it the whole scheme is spoiled.  But we need not\nseriously consider this view; the facts are overwhelmingly against it.\nThe history, even of the most recent civilisations, is, comparatively\nspeaking, only as old as yesterday, whereas the presence of human life\non this planet is traceable into the almost illimitable past.  But the\nfarther we go back in our investigation of human origins the less\npossible does it appear that the primitive man of theological tradition\nhas ever existed.  The Adam of the dogmatic theologian is like the\neconomic man of the older school of writers on political science, the\nman who always wants to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the\ndearest, and whose one consistent endeavour is to seek pleasure and\navoid pain; he has never existed.\n\n+Divine immanence and its Fall.+--Besides, we do not want him to exist.\nThe Fall theory is not only impossible in face of the findings of\nmodern science; it is a real hindrance to religion.  So far from having\nto give it up because science would have nothing to say to it, the\ndifficulty would be to retain it and yet have anything like a rational\nview of the relation of God and the world.  It has already been stated\nthat the starting-point of the New Theology is a recognition of the\ntruth that God is expressing Himself through His world.  This truth\noccupied a place in religious thought ages before modern science was\nthought of; science has confirmed it, but has not compelled us to think\nit; if science had never existed, it would still remain the only\nreasonable ground for an adequate explanation of the relation of man to\nthe universe.  It simplifies all our questionings and coordinates all\nour activities.  There is not a single one in the whole vast range of\nhuman interests which it does not cover.  There is nothing which\nhumanity can do or seek to do which is not immediately dependent upon\nit.  The grandest task and the lowliest are both implied in it.  It\ndeclares the common basis of religion and morality.  Religion is the\nresponse of human nature to the whole of things considered as an order;\nmorality is the living of the individual life in such a way as to be\nand do the most for humanity as a whole; it is making the most of one's\nself for the sake of the whole.  Morality is not self-immolation.  To\njump off London Bridge would be self-immolation, but it would not be an\nact conducive to the welfare of the community; it might indeed be a\nvery selfish and cowardly act.  True morality involves the duty of\nself-formation and the exercise of judgment and self-discipline in\norder that the individual life may become as great a gift as possible\nto the common life.  It will therefore be seen at once that there is a\nvital relation between morality and religion; the one implies the other\neven though the fact may not always be recognised, and both are based\nupon the immanence of God.\n\n+The truth beneath the doctrine of the Fall.+--But never yet has a\nparticular doctrine or mode of stating truth held its own for any\nlength of time in human history unless there was some genuine truth\nbeneath it, and the doctrine of the Fall is no exception.  It does\ncontain a truth, a truth which can be stated in a few words, and which\nmight be inferred from what has already been said about the\nrelationship of man and God.  The coming of a finite creation into\nbeing is itself of the nature of a fall, a coming down from perfection\nto imperfection.  We have seen the reason for that coming down; it is\nthat the universal life may realise its own nature by attenuating or\nlimiting its perfection.  If I want to understand the composition of\nthe ordinary pure white ray, I take a prism and break it up into its\nconstituents.  This is just what God has been doing in creation.  Our\npresent consciousness of ourselves and of the world can reasonably be\naccounted a fall, for we came from the infinite and unto the infinite\nperfection we shall in the end return.  I do not mean that our present\nconsciousness of ourselves is eternal; I only assert that our true\nbeing is eternally one with the being of God and that to be separated\nfrom a full knowledge of that truth is to have undergone a fall.  But\nthis fall has no sinister antecedents; its purpose is good, and there\nis nothing to mourn over except our own slowness at getting into line\nwith the cosmic purpose.  Another way of describing it would be to call\nit the incarnation of God in nature and man, a subject about which I\nmust say more in another chapter.  This view of the meaning and\nsignificance of the Fall can be traced in all great religious\nliterature.  Perhaps one of the best statements of it that has ever\nbeen made is the one set forth by Paul of Tarsus in the eighth chapter\nof his letter to the Romans: \"For I reckon that the sufferings of this\npresent time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall\nbe revealed in us.  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth\nfor the manifestation of the sons of God.  For the creature was made\nsubject to vanity, not willingly, but by the reason of him who hath\nsubjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be\ndelivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of\nthe children of God.  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and\ntravaileth in pain together until now.\"  Passages like this make it\nimpossible to believe that Paul was ever really tied down to the\nliteral rabbinical view of Adam's transgression and its consequences;\nand these words are a clear statement of the truth that the\nimperfection of the finite Creation is not man's fault but God's will,\nand is a means toward a great end.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nJESUS THE DIVINE MAN\n\n+The centrality of Jesus.+--All that has been said hitherto is but a\npreparation for the discussion of the greatest subject that at present\noccupies the field of faith and morals, that of the personality of\nJesus and His significance for mankind.  It has been repeatedly pointed\nout both by friends and foes of the New Theology that the ultimate\nquestion for the Christian religion is that of the place occupied by\nits Founder.  Who or what was Jesus?  How much can we really know about\nHim?  What value does He possess for the religious consciousness\nto-day?  All other questions about the Christian religion are of minor\nimportance compared with these, and if we are prepared with an answer\nto these we have by implication answered all the rest.  Christianity is\nin a special sense immediately dependent upon its Founder.  No other\nreligion has ever regarded its founder as Christians regard their\nMaster.  Christianity draws its sustenance from the belief that Jesus\nis still alive and impacting Himself upon the world through His\nfollowers.  Other great religions trace their origin to the teaching\nand example of some exceptional person; Christianity does the same, but\nwith the added conviction that Jesus is as much in the world as ever\nand that His presence is realised in the mystic union between Himself\nand those who know and love Him.  If this be true, it is a fact of the\nvery highest importance and one which can neither be passed over nor\nrelegated to a subordinate position.  Christianity without Jesus is the\nworld without the sun.  If, as I readily admit, the great question for\nreligion in the immediate future is that of the person of Jesus, the\nsooner we address ourselves to it the better.\n\nBefore discussing what theology has to say of Him let us note in\ngeneral terms what the civilised world is saying, theology or no\ntheology.  I suppose the most out-and-out materialist would admit that\nin the western world the name of Jesus exercises an influence to which\nno other is even remotely comparable.  Perhaps he would even go so far\nas to admit that there is no name anywhere which means so much to those\nwho hear it.  It is not merely that the strongest civilisation on earth\nreverences that name, but that there is no other civilisation which can\nproduce a parallel to it.  The nearest approach to it is that of\nGautama, and I think it would be generally admitted that the influence\neven of this mighty and beautiful spirit has never possessed the\nimmediacy, intensity, and personal value which distinguish that of\nJesus.  It might be maintained with some show of reason that the\ncivilisation of Christendom, although it is now being copied by\nnon-Christian communities such as Japan, is not necessarily the highest\nbecause it happens to be the strongest, and that it is even regarded\nwith contempt by the best representatives of some more ancient faiths.\nStill that is not quite the point.  The point is that the name of\nJesus, which stands for a moral ideal which is the very negation of\nmaterialism, commands a reverence, and indeed a worship, the like of\nwhich no other has ever received in the history of mankind.  It is no\nuse trying to place Jesus in a row along with other religious masters.\nHe is first and the rest nowhere; we have no category for Him.  I am\nnot trying to prove the impossible, namely, that Christianity is the\nonly true religion and the rest are all false.  We shall get on better\nwhen that kind of nonsense ceases to be spoken.  All I am concerned to\nemphasise is that somehow Jesus seems to sum up and focus the religious\nideal for mankind.  His influence for good is greater than that of all\nthe masters of men put together, and still goes on increasing.  It is a\nnotable fact that although churches and creeds are losing their hold\nupon the modern mind, the name of Jesus is held in greater regard than\never.  We have heard of a meeting of workmen cheering Jesus and hissing\nthe churches.  In our day most people are agreed that in Jesus we have\nthe most perfect life ever exhibited to humanity.  It is not only\nChristians who take this view; everyone, or nearly everyone, does so.\nSome years ago a book was published which bore on the title-page the\nquestion, \"What would Jesus do?\"  The book was not very well written,\nand I do not think the writer would have claimed that it contained\nanything original, but it had an enormous sale simply because of its\nattempt to answer the question on the covers.  The most unlikely people\nbought and read it, people who never went to church and would not dream\nof doing so.  From indications such as these one is justified in\nasserting that our western civilisation has accepted as true that, no\nmatter who Jesus was, His character represents the highest standard for\nhuman attainment.  In seeking moral excellence the individual and the\nrace are thus moving toward an ideal already manifested in history.\nThe most effective taunt that can be levelled at inconsistent\nChristians is that they are unlike their Master.  Criticisms of the\ncharacter of Jesus are now few in number, and usually take the form of\ndeclaring that it is impracticable or impossible, not that it is\nundesirable or imperfect.  Some, no doubt, would maintain that perhaps\nthe real Jesus did not answer to the ideal which Christians have formed\nof Him, but that is another question.  Here we are now face to face\nwith the unescapable fact that the greatest moral and religious force\nin the world is embodied in the name of Jesus, and this by general\nconsent.\n\n+The Jesus of traditional theology.+--But what has traditional\nChristian theology to say about Jesus?  Here we enter a region in which\nthe ordinary man of the world does not live and is never likely to\nlive, but we cannot afford to ignore it.  According to the received\ntheology, Jesus was and is God and man in a sense in which no one else\never has been or ever will be.  As the shorter catechism has it,\nfollowing the language of the ancient creeds, \"There are three persons\nin one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory,\" and Jesus\nis the second of the three.  This kind of statement cannot but be\nconfusing to the ordinary mind of to-day if only because the word\n\"person\" does not mean to us quite the same thing that it meant to the\nframers of the ancient creeds.  Strange as it may seem to some of my\nreaders, I believe what the creeds say about the person of Jesus, but I\nbelieve it in a way that puts no gulf between Him and the rest of the\nhuman race.  This, I trust, will become clearer as we proceed; it seems\nto me to be implied in any real belief concerning the immanence of God.\nI think even the Athanasian creed is a magnificent piece of work if\nonly the churches would consent to understand it in terms of the oldest\ntheology of all!  But, according to conventional theology, the second\nperson in the Trinity, who was coequal and coeternal with God the\nFather, laid aside His glory, became incarnate for our salvation, was\nborn of a virgin, lived a brief suffering life, wrought many miracles,\ndied a shameful death, rose again from the tomb on the second morning\nafter He had been laid in it, and ascended into heaven in full view of\nHis wondering disciples.  In fulfilment of a promise made by Him\nshortly before the crucifixion, and repeated before the ascension, He\nand the Father conjointly sent the third person in the Trinity to endue\nwith power from on high the simple men whose duty it now became to\nproclaim the gospel of salvation to the world.  Jesus is now on the\nthrone of His glory, but sooner or later He will come again to wind up\nthe present dispensation and to be the Judge of the quick and the dead\nat a grand assize.\n\nThere is a sense in which all this is true, but it is commonly\nexpressed in such a way that the truth is lost sight of.  Literally\nunderstood it is incredible.  The only way to get at the truth in every\none of these venerable articles of the Christian faith will be to shed\nthe husk, and that we must do without hesitation or compromise.  A more\naccurate historic perspective would save us from the crudities so often\npreached from the pulpits in the name of Christian truth, crudities\nwhich repel so many intelligent men from the benefits of public\nworship.  There never has been the slightest need for any man of\nthoughtful mind and reverent spirit to recoil from the fundamentals of\nthe Christian creed.  Rightly understood they are the fundamentals of\nhuman nature itself.\n\n+Godhead and manhood.+--The first in order of thought is that of the\nGodhead of Jesus.  As regards this tenet I think it should be easily\npossible to show that the most convinced adherent of the traditional\ntheology does not believe and never has believed what he professes to\nhold.  The terms with which we have to deal are Deity, divinity, and\nhumanity.  A good deal of confusion exists concerning the interrelation\nof these three.  It is supposed that humanity and divinity are mutually\nexclusive, and that divinity and Deity must necessarily mean exactly\nthe same thing.  But this is not so.  It follows from the first\nprinciple of the New Theology that all the three are fundamentally and\nessentially one, but in scope and extent they are different.  By the\nDeity we mean--and I suppose everyone means--the all-controlling\nconsciousness of the universe as well as the infinite, unfathomable,\nand unknowable abyss of being beyond.  By divinity we mean the essence\nof the nature of the immanent God, the innermost and all-determining\nquality of that nature; we have already seen that according to the\nChristian religion the innermost quality of the divine nature is\nperfect love.  Show us perfect love and you have shown us the divinest\nthing the universe can produce, whether it knows itself to be\nimmediately directed and controlled by the infinite consciousness of\nDeity or whether it does not.  It is clear, then, that although Deity\nand divinity are essentially one, the latter is the lesser term and is\ndependent for its validity upon the former.  Humanity is a lesser term\nstill.  It stands for that expression of the divine nature which we\nassociate with our limited human consciousness.  Strictly speaking, the\nhuman and divine are two categories which shade into and imply each\nother; humanity is divinity viewed from below, divinity is humanity\nviewed from above.  If any human being could succeed in living a life\nof perfect love, that is a life whose energies were directed toward\nimpersonal ends, and which was lived in such a way as to be and do the\nutmost for the whole, he would show himself divine, for he would have\nrevealed the innermost of God.\n\nNow let us apply these definitions to the personality of Jesus.\nGranted that the devotion of Christians has been right in recognising\nin Him the one perfect human life, that is, the one life which\nconsistently and from first to last was lived in terms of the whole,\nwhat are we to call it except divine?  In a sense, of course,\neverything that exists is divine, because the whole universe is an\nexpression of the being of God.  But it can hardly be seriously\ncontended that a crocodile is as much an expression of God as General\nBooth.  It is wise and right, therefore, to restrict the word \"divine\"\nto the kind of consciousness which knows itself to be, and rejoices to\nbe, the expression of a love which is a consistent self-giving to the\nuniversal life.  \"God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in\nGod and God in him.\"  General Booth is divine in so far as this is the\ngoverning principle of his life.  Jesus was divine simply and solely\nbecause His life was never governed by any other principle.  We do not\nneed to talk of two natures in Him, or to think of a mysterious\ndividing line on one side of which He was human and on the other\ndivine.  In Him humanity was divinity and divinity, humanity.  Does\nanyone think that this brings Jesus down to our level?  Assuredly it\ndoes not; we are far too prone to be ruled by names.  To the ordinary\nChristian this explanation of the divinity of Jesus may seem equivalent\nto the denial of His uniqueness, but it is nothing of the kind.  I have\nalready devoted some little space to emphasising the obvious fact that\nit is impossible to deny the uniqueness of Jesus; history has settled\nthat question for us.  If all the theologians and materialists put\ntogether were to set to work to-morrow to try to show that Jesus was\njust like other people, they would not succeed, for the civilised world\nhas already made up its mind on that point, and by a right instinct\nrecognises Jesus as the unique standard of human excellence.  But this\nis not to say that we shall never reach that standard too; quite the\ncontrary.  We must reach it in order to fulfil our destiny and to crown\nand complete His work.  To stop short of manifesting the perfect love\nof God would be to fail of the object for which we are here and to\nrender the advent of Jesus useless.  Christendom already knows this\nperfectly well, although it has not always succeeded in expressing it\nwith perfect clearness.  \"Beloved, now are we sons of God, and it doth\nnot yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He (or rather\nit) shall appear, we shall be like Him.\"  In our practical religion we\nall, even the most reactionary of us, regard the divinity of Jesus just\nin this way.  It has no other value.  We talk of imitating Him,\nconforming to His likeness, showing His spirit, and so on.  When we\nwant a model for courage, fidelity, gentleness, humility,\nunselfishness, we promptly turn to Jesus.  Even in our relations with\nGod we try to follow His lead; instinctively we range ourselves with\nHim when we address the universal Father; until we come to creed-making\nwe never think of putting Him on the God side of things and ourselves\non another.  Catholic or Protestant, orthodox or unorthodox, Unitarian\nor Trinitarian, we all accept in practice the identity of the divine\nand human in Jesus and potentially in ourselves.  But you make Him only\na man!  No, reader, I do not.  I make Him the only Man--and there is a\ndifference.  We have only seen perfect manhood once and that was the\nmanhood of Jesus.  The rest of us have got to get there.\n\n+Jesus and Deity.+--This brings us to the further question of the Deity\nof Jesus.  As a matter of fact, as I have already indicated, this\nquestion, too, has long been settled in practice.  If by the Deity of\nJesus is meant that He possessed the all-controlling consciousness of\nthe universe, then assuredly He was not the Deity for He did not\npossess that consciousness.  He prayed to His Father, sometimes with\nagony and dread; He wondered, suffered, wept, and grew weary.  He\nconfessed His ignorance of some things and declared Himself to have no\nconcern with others; it is even doubtful how far He was prepared to\nreceive the homage of those about Him.  If there be one thing which\nbecomes indisputable from the reading of the gospel narratives it is\nthat Jesus possessed a true human consciousness, limited like our own,\nand, like our own, subject to the ordinary ills of life.  Once again\neverybody knows this after a fashion.  The most determined of so-called\northodox controversialists would hardly try to maintain that the\nconsciousness of Jesus was at once limited and unlimited.  To do so\nwould be an impossible feat; if Jesus was the Deity, He certainly was\nnot the _whole_ of the Deity during His residence on earth, whatever He\nmay be now.  But, it may be objected, in His earthly life He was the\nDeity self-limited: \"He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,\"\netc.  Quite so, but see where this statement leads.  The New Theology\ncan consistently make it, but it is difficult to see how that newer\ntheology which calls itself orthodoxy manages to do so.  Does the\nself-limitation of Jesus mean that the Deity was lessened in any way\nduring the incarnation?  Why, of course not, we should all say; the\nDeity continued with infinite fulness unimpaired above and beyond the\nconsciousness of Jesus.  Then are we to understand that this\nself-limitation of Jesus meant that the eternal Son, or second person\nin the Trinity, the Word by whom the worlds were made, quitted the\nthrone of His glory and lived for thirty-three years as a Jewish\npeasant?  I think the dogmatic theologian would have some hesitation in\ngiving an unqualified affirmative to this question, for the\ndifficulties implied in it are practically insurmountable.  Was the\nfull consciousness of the eternal Word present in the babe of\nBethlehem, for instance?  If not, where was it?  Questions like these\ncannot be answered on the lines of the conventional Christology.  The\nplain and simple answer to all of them is to admit that the Jesus of\nhistory did not possess the consciousness of Deity during His life on\nearth.  His consciousness was as purely human as our own.  Any special\ninsight which He possessed into the true relations of God and man was\ndue to the moral perfection of His nature and not to His metaphysical\nstatus.  He was God manifest in the flesh because His life was a\nconsistent expression of divine love and not otherwise.  But He was not\nGod manifest in the flesh in any way which would cut Him off from the\nrest of human kind.  According to the received theology, Jesus and\nJesus only, out of all the beings who have ever trodden the road which\nhumanity has to travel, existed before all ages.  We live our\nthreescore years and ten and then pass on into eternity; He was eternal\nto begin with.  He comes to earth with a hoary antiquity behind Him, a\ntimeless life to look back upon; we have just fluttered into existence.\nSurely any ordinary intelligence can see that this kind of theologising\nputs an impassable gulf at once between Jesus and every other person\nwho has ever been born of an earthly mother.  Certainly it does, the\ntheologian may declare, and rightly so, for that gulf exists; He\nassumed human nature, but He was eternally divine before He did so, and\nwe are not.  I do not need to refute this argument; the trend of modern\nthought is already doing so most effectually.  It is a gratuitous\nassumption without a shred of evidence to support it.  Besides,\nunfortunately for this kind of statement, the scientific investigation\nof Christian origins, and the application of the scientific method to\nthe history of Christian doctrine have shown us how the dogma of the\nDeity of Jesus grew up.  It was a comparatively late development in\nChristianity, and its practical implications never have been accepted,\nalthough at one time there was a danger that the winsome figure of\nJesus would be removed altogether from the field of human interest and\nregard.  The Jesus of Michael Angelo's \"Last Judgment\" is a terrifying\nfigure without a trace of the lowly Nazarene about Him, and yet this\nwas the Jesus of the conventional Christianity of the time.  It was\nthrough this dehumanising of Jesus in Christian thought and experience\nthat Mariolatry arose in the Roman church.  Could anything be more\ngrotesque than the suggestion that the mother of Jesus should need to\nplead with her son to be merciful with frail humanity?  And yet this is\nwhat it came to; the figure of Mary was introduced in order to preserve\na real humanity in our relations with the Godhead.  All honour to those\nwho have called us back to the real Jesus, the Jesus of Galilee and\nJerusalem, the Jesus with the prophet's fire, the Jesus who was so\ngentle with little children and erring women, and yet before whom\ncanting hypocrites and truculent ecclesiastics slunk away abashed.\nUpon this recovered Jesus the world has now fixed its adoring gaze, and\nit will not readily let Him go again.\n\n+Divine manhood and Unitarianism.+--But then, someone will protest,\nthis is sheer Unitarianism after all; you do not believe in the Jesus\nwho is the object of the faith of Christendom, but in one who was only\na man among men; you do not think of Him as very God of very God.  Not\nso fast; we are busy with names again.  Most of us have a tendency to\nthink that if we can get a doctrine labelled and pigeonholed, we know\nall about it, but we are generally mistaken.  This is not Unitarianism,\nand I do believe that Jesus was very God, as I have already shown.  We\nhave to get rid of the dualism which will insist on putting humanity\nand Deity into two separate categories.  I say it is not Unitarianism,\nfor historic Unitarianism has been just as prone to this dualism as the\nextremest Trinitarianism has ever been.  Like Trinitarianism it has\noften tended to regard humanity as on one side of a gulf and Deity as\non the other; it has emphasised too much the transcendence of God.  The\nsentence quoted above from an orthodox Trinitarian divine about \"God's\neternal eminence and His descent on a created world\" might just as well\nhave been employed by an out-and-out Unitarian.  Modern Unitarianism is\nin part the descendant of eighteenth-century Deism which insisted upon\nthe transcendence of God almost to the exclusion of His immanence; it\nthought of God as away somewhere above the universe, watching it but\nleaving the machine pretty much to itself.  Unitarianism in the course\nof its history from the first century downward has passed through a\ngood many phases.  Present-day Unitarianism is preaching with fervour\nand clearness the foundation truth of the New Theology, the fundamental\nunity of God and man.  But it does not belong to it exclusively, and I\ndecline to be labelled Unitarian because I preach it too.  The New\nTheology is not a victory for Unitarianism.  If ever the\nEnglish-speaking communities of the world should come to be united\nunder a single flag, would it be just and wise to call them all\nAmericans?  No doubt some of our American cousins would like to think\nso, but there is enough of virility and solid worth on the British side\nof the question to make that description impossible.  The title would\nbe a misnomer, and in fact an absurdity.  The case in regard to the\nconnection of the New Theology with Unitarianism is not dissimilar.  It\nis only sectarian Unitarians who would try to claim it for their own\ndenomination; the best and most outstanding exponents of Unitarianism\nwould not wish to do anything of the kind, for they know well enough\nthat historically speaking they have not consistently stood for it any\nmore than any other denomination.  The New Theology does not belong to\nany one church but to all.  For my own part I would not even take the\ntrouble to try to turn a Roman Catholic into a Protestant.  Let every\nman stay in the church whose spiritual atmosphere and modes of worship\nbest accord with his temperament, but let him recognise the deeper\nunity that lies below the formal creeds.  The old issue between\nUnitarianism and Trinitarianism vanishes in the New Theology; the\nbottom is knocked out of the controversy.  Unitarianism used to declare\nthat Jesus was man _not_ God; Trinitarianism maintained that He was God\n_and_ man; the oldest Christian thought, as well as the youngest,\nregards Him as God _in_ man--God manifest in the flesh.  But here\nemerges a great point of difference between the New Theology on the one\nhand and traditional orthodoxy on the other.  The latter would restrict\nthe description \"God manifest in the flesh\" to Jesus alone; the New\nTheology would extend it in a lesser degree to all humanity, and would\nmaintain that in the end it will be as true of every individual soul as\never it was of Jesus.  Indeed, it is this belief that gives value and\nsignificance to the earthly mission of Jesus; He came to show us what\nwe potentially are.  This is a great and important issue, which\nrequires to be treated in a separate chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE ETERNAL CHRIST\n\nIn the course of Christian history a good deal of time has been\noccupied in the discussion of the metaphysical question of the complex\nunity of the divine nature; and the result has been the doctrine of the\nTrinity, a conception which, it has been claimed, at once satisfies and\ntranscends the operations of the human intellect.  Most non-theological\nmodern minds are, however, somewhat suspicious of the doctrine of the\nTrinity; it seems rather too speculative and too remote from ordinary\nways of thinking to possess much real value.  But this is quite a\nmistake.  We cannot dispense with the doctrine of the Trinity, for it,\nor something like it, is implied in the very structure of the mind.  It\nbelongs to philosophy even more than to religion, and to the sphere of\nethics not less.  I daresay even the man in the street knows, quite as\ncertainly as the man in the schools, that a metaphysical proposition\nunderlies the doing of every moral act, even though it may never be\nexpressed.  All thinking starts with an assumption of some kind, and\nwithout an assumption thought is impossible.  This is just as true of\nthe strictest scientific processes as it is of deductive reasoning, and\nindeed it is interesting to watch the way in which within recent years\nidealistic philosophy and empirical science have joined hands.  Does\nphysical science, then, imply the doctrine of the Trinity?  Yes,\nunquestionably it does, after a fashion, for it starts with an\nassumption which takes it for granted.  Perhaps this would be news to\nProfessor Ray Lankester, and such as he, but I think I could convince\nthem that I am right if I had them face to face.  To use the mind at\nall we have to assume this doctrine even though we may not actually\nformulate it.  Christianity did not invent it; it clarified and defined\nit, but in principle it is as old as the exercise of human reason.\n\n+The basal assumption of thought.+--After making a comprehensive\nassertion of this kind I suppose I am bound to justify it, and I do not\nshrink from the task.  I say that all thinking starts with an\nassumption of some kind, and exact thought requires that that\nassumption shall be the simplest possible, the irreducible minimum\nbeneath which we cannot get.  Now when we start thinking about\nexistence as a whole and ourselves in particular, we are compelled to\nassume the infinite, the finite, and the activity of the former within\nthe latter.  In other words we have to postulate God, the universe, and\nGod's operation within the universe.  Look at these three conceptions\nfor a moment and it will be seen that every one of them implies the\nrest; they are a Trinity in unity.  The primordial being must be\ninfinite, for there cannot be a finite without something still beyond\nit.  We know, too, that to our experience the universe is finite; we\ncan measure, weigh, and analyse it--an impossible thing to do with an\ninfinite substance.  And yet if we think of infinite and finite as two\nentirely distinct and unrelated modes of existence, we find ourselves\nin an impossible position, for the infinite must be that outside of\nwhich nothing exists or can exist; so of course we are compelled to\nthink of the infinite as ever active within the finite, the source of\nchange and motion, the exhaustless power which makes possible the very\nidea of development from simplicity to complexity.  If the universe\nwere complete in itself, change would not occur, and a cosmic process,\nevolutionary or otherwise, would be inconceivable.  Here, then, we have\nthe basal factors of any true theology, philosophy, or science.\nReaders of Haeckel's \"Riddle of the Universe\" will note that that\neminent materialist, who professes to do away with the very idea of\nGod, takes these factors for granted; and yet I suppose he would object\nto being told that he believes in the doctrine of the Trinity.  But he\ndoes, for he begins by assuming infinite space filled to the farthest\nwith matter ponderable and imponderable, and forthwith proceeds to\nweigh, measure, and divide the latter as though it were finite!  Here\nare two terms of the doctrine of the Trinity at once.  We get the third\nas soon as Professor Haeckel sets to work to explain the cosmic\nprocess, for as he does so he is all the while taking for granted that\nthe infinite is pressing in and up through the finite, evolving beauty\nand order, light and life.\n\n+The moral basis of the doctrine.+--But it may be contended that these\nbare bones of the doctrine of the Trinity are not the doctrine as it\nenters into spiritual experience.  I admit the fact while asserting\nstrongly that but for this framework of intellectual necessity the\ndoctrine would be unknown to faith and morals.  It is sometimes stated\nthat the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in order to account for\nJesus, but that is only incidentally true.  Its framers took the\nmaterials for it over from Greek thought, and even Greek thought\nprobably inherited it from an older civilisation still, if indeed there\nwere any necessity to inherit it.  I contend that if we had never heard\nof the doctrine in connection with Jesus, we should have to invent it\nnow in order to account for ourselves and the wondrous universe in\nwhich we live.\n\nUnquestionably, however, it is from the point of view of religion and\nmorals that the doctrine has most significance, and therefore has\nbecome indissolubly associated with the personality of Jesus; and it is\neasy to see how this has come about.  Thinkers have always been\ncompelled to construe the universe in terms of the highest known to\nman, namely, his own moral nature.  It was natural, therefore, that\nwhile they thought of the universe as an expression of God, they should\nthink of it as the expression of that side of His being which can only\nbe described as the ideal or archetypal manhood.  The infinite being of\nGod is utterly incomprehensible to a finite mind, and in regard to it\nthe most devout saint is as much an agnostic as the most convinced\nmaterialist.  But we are justified in holding that whatever else He may\nbe God is essentially man, that is, He is the fount of humanity.  There\nmust be one side, so to speak, of the infinitely complex being of God\nin which humanity is eternally contained and which finds expression in\nthe finite universe.  Humanity is not a vague term; we have already\nseen something of what it is.  We ought not to interpret it in terms of\nthe primeval savage, or even of average human nature to-day, but in\nterms of what we have come to feel is its highest expression, and that\nis Jesus.  If we think therefore of the archetypal eternal divine Man,\nthe source and sustenance of the universe, and yet transcending the\nuniverse, we cannot do better than think of Him in terms of Jesus;\nJesus is the fullest expression of that eternal divine Man on the field\nof human history.  Here, then, we have the first and second factors in\nthe doctrine of the Trinity morally and spiritually construed.\n\n+The divine Man.+--The idea of a divine Man, the emanation of the\ninfinite, the soul of the universe, the source and goal of all\nhumanity, is ages older than Christian theology.  It can be traced in\nBabylonian religious literature, for instance, at a period older even\nthan the Old Testament.  It played a not unimportant part in Greek\nthought, and Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus, works it out\nin some detail in his religio-philosophic system, which aimed to\ncombine the wide outlook of Greek culture with the high seriousness of\nHebrew religion.  It is a true, indeed an inevitable, conception, if we\nhold anything like a consistent view of the immanence of God in His\nuniverse.  With what God have we to do except the God who is eternally\nman?  This aspect of the nature of God has been variously described in\nthe course of its history.  It has been called the Word, the Son, and,\nas we have seen, the second person in the Trinity.  For various reasons\nI prefer to call it--or rather Him--the eternal Christ.  I do this\nbecause, for one thing, the word \"Christ\" is a living word with a\nclearly marked ethical content and a great religious value.\nOriginally, of course, it was but the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew\nMessiah, and meant the \"anointed one,\" the person chosen for a special\ndivine work.  But in the New Testament, especially the writings of St.\nPaul, as well as all Christian history through, it is associated on the\none hand with the personality of Jesus, and, on the other, with the\nfontal or ideal Man who contains and is expressed in all human kind.\nAccording to the New Testament writers, Jesus was and is the Christ,\nbut in His earthly life His consciousness of the fact was limited.\nBut, as we have come forth from this fontal manhood, we too must be to\nsome extent expressions of this eternal Christ; and it is in virtue of\nthat fact that we stand related to Jesus, and that the personality of\nJesus has anything to do with us.  Here is where the value of our\nbelief in the interaction of the higher and the lower self comes in.\nFundamentally our being is already one with that of the eternal Christ,\nand faith in Jesus is faith in Him.  Jesus is not one being and the\nChrist another; the two are one, and Jesus seems to have known it\nduring His earthly ministry.  He lived His life in such a way as to\nreveal the very essence of the Christ nature.  He is therefore central\nfor us, and we are complete in Him.  Here is the goal of all moral\neffort--Christ.  Here, too, is the highest reach of the religious\nideal--Christ.  \"For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and\nbear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the\nFather, and was manifested unto us.\"\n\n+The Christ of St. Paul.+--I am persuaded that we have here the key to\nthe Christology of that great thinker and preacher, the apostle Paul.\nIt is this ideal or eternal Christ who is the object of his faith and\ndevotion.  He even goes so far as to warn his readers not to dwell too\nmuch upon the limited earthly Jesus, but upon His true being in the\neternal reality: \"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh;\nyea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth\nknow we Him no more.\"  He does not say, \"To me to live is Jesus,\" but,\n\"To me to live is _Christ_.\"  If ever there was a Christian who really\nloved Jesus with passionate and whole-hearted devotion, it was the\napostle Paul, but he says almost nothing about the earthly ministry of\nhis Lord.  He seems to have had a vivid impression as to what the\ncharacter of Jesus was really like, and he gave himself up to the\nworship of this with all his heart; but he does not draw for us any of\nthe beautiful gospel pictures of the Jesus in the peasant's dress who\ntaught on the hillsides of Galilee, went about doing good, was a\nwelcome guest in the home at Bethany, lived a true human life, and died\na shameful death.  Paul always thought of Him, and truly, as the Lord\nwho came down from heaven, but he does _not_ draw a sharp line of\ndistinction between Him and the rest of humanity.  He calls Jesus \"the\nfirst-born among many brethren.\"  He speaks of the summing up of all\nthings in Christ, and of the final consummation when God shall be all\nin all.  Here is the New Theology with a vengeance.  Paul requires to\nbe rescued from the inadequate and distorting interpretations his\nthought has received in the course of its history.  He brought this\nconception of the eternal Christ into Christianity from pre-Christian\nthought, saw it ideally revealed in Jesus, and then bade mankind\nrespond to it and realise it to be the true explanation of our own\nbeing.  Sometimes he appears to deviate from this view, and to say\nthings inconsistent with it, but that we need not mind; he saw it, and\nthat is enough.  It forms the foundation of his gospel.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD\n\n+Jesus all that Christian devotion has believed Him to be.+--So far we\nhave seen that the personality of Jesus is central for Christian faith.\nWe deny nothing about Him that Christian devotion has ever affirmed,\nbut we affirm the same things of humanity as a whole in a differing\ndegree.  The practical dualism which regards Jesus as coming into\nhumanity from something that beforehand was not humanity we declare to\nbe misleading.  Our view of the subject does not belittle Jesus but it\nexalts human nature.  Let this be clearly understood and most of the\nobjections to it will vanish.  Briefly summed up, the position is as\nfollows: Jesus was God, but so are we.  He was God because His life was\nthe expression of divine love; we too are one with God in so far as our\nlives express the same thing.  Jesus was not God in the sense that He\npossessed an infinite consciousness; no more are we.  Jesus expressed\nfully and completely, in so far as a finite consciousness ever could,\nthat aspect of the nature of God which we have called the eternal Son,\nor Christ, or ideal Man who is the Soul of the universe, and \"the light\nthat lighteth every man that cometh into the world;\" we are expressions\nof the same primordial being.  Fundamentally we are all one in this\neternal Christ.  This is the most difficult statement of all to make\nclear, for the average westerner cannot grasp it; it is different from\nhis ordinary way of looking at things.  The best way of demonstrating\nit, as I have already shown, is to draw attention to the fact that\nChristian orthodoxy has all along been affirming the mystic union\nbetween Christ and the soul, and that the limited earthly consciousness\nof Jesus did not prevent Him from being really and truly God.  Why\nshould we not speak in a similar way about any other human\nconsciousness?  If we could only get men to do so habitually and\nsincerely, it would be the greatest gain to religion that could\npossibly be imagined.  In the third chapter I have pointed out that\npsychological science is doing much to help us toward this realisation.\nWe are beginning to see, however hard it may be to understand it, that\nour limited individual consciousness is no barrier to the true\nidentification of the lesser with the larger self.  What Christian\ndoctrine, therefore, has been affirming of Jesus for hundreds of years\npast is receiving impressive confirmation from modern science and is\nbeing seen to be true of every human being--that is, the lesser and the\nlarger are one, however little the earthly consciousness may be able to\ngrasp the fact.  To me this is a most helpful and inspiring truth, one\nof the most important that has ever found a place in Christian thought;\nit elucidates much that would otherwise be obscure.  It enables us to\nsee how the human and divine were blended in Jesus without making Him\nessentially different from the rest of the human race; it enables us to\nrealise our own true origin and to believe in the salvability of every\nsoul that has ever come to moral consciousness.  If this truth will not\nlift a man toward the higher life, I do not know one that will.  It is\nthe truth implied in all redemptive effort that has ever been made, and\nin every message that has ever gripped conscience and heart; it is, as\nthe Nicene creed has it, \"the taking of the manhood into God.\"\n\n+The preeminence of Jesus.+--Lest anyone should think that this\nposition involves in the slightest degree the diminution of the\nreligious value and the moral preeminence of Jesus, let me say that it\ndoes the very opposite.  Nothing can be higher than the highest, and\nthe life of Jesus was the undimmed revelation of the highest.  Faith to\nbe effective must centre on a living person, and the highest objective\nit has ever found is Jesus.  He is no abstraction but a spiritual\nreality, an ever-present friend and guide, our brother and our Lord.\nNo one will ever compete with Jesus for this position in human hearts.\nWhen I speak of the eternal Christ, I do not mean someone different\nfrom Jesus, although I certainly do mean the basal principle of all\nhuman goodness; Jesus was and is that Christ, and we can only\nunderstand what the Christ is because we have seen Him.  Whole-hearted\nfaith in Him has proved itself to be the most effective means to the\nmanifestation of our own Christhood.\n\n+Jesus and the incarnation.+--This thought at once opens up another\ngreat question to which we have already alluded, that of the\nincarnation of this eternal Christ or Son of God in the finite\nuniverse.  According to the received theology the incarnation of God in\nhuman life was limited to the life of Jesus only, and through Him to\nmankind.  I purposely say popular theology because the best Christian\nthought has always known better.  Popular theology has it that Jesus,\nthe only-begotten eternal Son of God, took human flesh and a human\nnature, was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of a virgin, and\nwas born into the world in a wholly miraculous way--a way which stamps\nHim as different from all that were ever born of woman before or since.\nIt seems strange that belief in the virgin birth of Jesus should ever\nhave been held to be a cardinal article of the Christian faith, but it\nis so even to-day.  There is not much need to combat it, for most\nreputable theologians have now given it up, but it is still a\nstumbling-block to many minds.  Perhaps, therefore, a brief examination\nof the subject may not be altogether out of place.\n\n+The virgin birth not demonstrable from Scripture.+--The virgin birth\nof Jesus was apparently unknown to the primitive church, for the\nearliest New Testament writings make no mention of it.  Paul's letters\ndo not allude to it, neither does the gospel of St. Mark.  \"In the\nfulness of time,\" says the great apostle, \"God sent forth His Son born\nof a woman.\"  He was \"of the seed of David according to the flesh,\" but\nnowhere does Paul give us so much as a hint of anything supernatural\nattending the mode of His entry into the world.  Mark does not even\ntell us anything about the childhood of the Master; his account begins\nwith the baptism of Jesus in Jordan.  The fourth gospel, although\nwritten much later, ignores the belief in the virgin birth, and even\nseems to do so of set purpose as belittling and materialising the\ntruth.  The supposed Old Testament prophecies of the event have nothing\nwhatever to do with it.  The famous passage, \"Behold a virgin shall\nconceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel,\" is a\nreference to contemporary events, and the word translated \"virgin\"\nsimply means a young woman.  It is a prophecy of the birth of a prince\nwhose work it should be to put right for Judah what the reigning king\nAhaz had been putting wrong.  The story in the seventh of Isaiah is as\nfollows: Ahaz, a rather weak ruler, was greatly concerned by the news\nthat Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of northern Israel, had\nformed an alliance against him and were marching on Jerusalem.  In his\nextremity this monarch of a petty state turned toward the mighty ruler\nof Assyria, the greatest military power in the world, and asked his\nhelp against the combination.  Isaiah, statesman as well as prophet,\nsaw that this was a wrong move.  Assyria was aspiring to universal\ndominion, and to form an alliance with the military master of that\nmighty state would be to supply him with an excuse for further\ninterference.  The policy of Ahaz was therefore as suicidal as that of\nJohn Balliol when he called in Edward the First to adjudicate on his\nclaim to the crown of Scotland, or the policy of Spain when she called\nin Napoleon.  Sargon, king of Assyria, was overturning thrones in all\ndirections, profiting by the divisions and jealousies of his foes.  The\ngreat empires of Egypt and Babylonia went down before him as well as\nthe smaller states.  The condition of things in this ancient world was\njust like that of Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century\nwhen the star of Napoleon was in the ascendant.  For Ahaz to turn for\nhelp to Sargon was to court disaster in the end.  Isaiah saw this and\nwent out to meet Ahaz one day \"at the end of the conduit of the upper\npool in the highway of the fuller's field\"--a vivid descriptive touch.\nThe king was apparently preparing to stand a siege in his capital and\nwas making sure of the water supply.  Isaiah's remonstrance was in\nsubstance: You need not take so much trouble with your preparations;\nSyria and Israel will have more than enough to do presently to defend\ntheir own borders from Sargon.  Besides, men like Rezin and Pekah are\nnot men to be afraid of in any case; they have neither strength nor\nskill.  But do not for heaven's sake call in Sargon; if you do you will\nsupply him with an excuse for meddling and we shall never get rid of\nhim.  This was good counsel, but Ahaz was too short-sighted and\npanic-stricken to take much notice of it, so in oriental fashion Isaiah\ngoes on to paint a picture of future disaster.  The land, he says, will\nsoon be laid waste, and future generations will rue the policy now\nbeing determined upon.  In the end, of course, things will come all\nright, for God will not abandon His people.  A better and wiser prince\nshall arise who shall restore prosperity to Judah.  That prince is not\nyet born, but when he is, his name shall be called Immanuel,--God with\nus.  In another place he describes him as Wonderful Counsellor, Divine\nHero, Father Everlasting, Prince of Peace.  \"Butter and honey shall he\neat,\" because there will be nothing else left after Assyria has swept\nover the country, but the discipline may have good results in the end,\nand will serve to bring Judah to her senses.\n\nThere is something strikingly modern about all this, and it is a good\nexample of the way in which the same conditions arise over and over\nagain in the course of human history.  It is plain to be seen that the\nprophecy here indicated was only the shrewd common sense of a wise and\npatriotic man who loved his country and believed in God.  But what on\nearth have his words to do with the birth of Jesus?  It is only by a\nvery long stretch of the pious imagination that they can be held to\napply to Christianity at all.  They have an interest of their own, and\na very considerable interest, too, even from the point of view of\nreligion; but Isaiah would have been considerably astonished to be told\nthat they would have to wait seven hundred years for fulfilment.  To a\ncertain extent they were fulfilled soon afterward in the advent of the\nwell-meaning but not very brilliant king Hezekiah.  I have dwelt upon\nthis passage at some length because it is a fair example of the way in\nwhich Old Testament literature has been pressed into the service of\nChristian dogma.  What I am now saying, as I need hardly point out, is\nnot my _ipse dixit_; expert biblical scholarship has been saying it for\na long time, but somehow or other its bearing upon generally accepted\ndogmas is not popularly realised.  It can hardly be maintained that\nChristian preachers who know the truth about these matters and refrain\nfrom stating it plainly are doing their duty to their congregations.\nNo Old Testament passage whatever is directly or indirectly a prophecy\nof the virgin birth of Jesus.  To insist upon this may seem to many\nlike beating a man of straw, but if so the man of straw still retains a\ngood deal of vitality.\n\n+The virgin birth in the gospels.+--The only two gospels in which the\nvirgin birth is alluded to are Matthew and Luke, and the nativity\nstories contained in these are very beautiful, especially those\npeculiar to Luke.  But the two gospels are mutually contradictory in\ntheir account of the circumstances attending the miraculous birth.\nEach contains a genealogy which professes to be that of Joseph, not of\nMary, and these are inconsistent with each other.  What has the\ngenealogy of Joseph got to do with the birth of Jesus if Jesus were not\nhis own son?  The conclusion seems probable that in the earlier\nversions of these gospels the miraculous conception did not find a\nplace, or else that two inconsistent sources have been drawn upon\nwithout sufficient care being taken to reconcile them.  But this is not\nthe only discrepancy.  Matthew gives Bethlehem as the native place of\nJoseph and Mary, Luke says Nazareth.  Matthew says not a word about the\ncensus of Cyrenius as the motive for the journey to Bethlehem, but\nleads us to suppose that the holy family were already in residence\nthere.  Then again he tells us of the coming of the wise men from the\nEast, their public inquiry as to the whereabouts of the holy child, the\njealousy of Herod, the massacre of the innocents, and the flight into\nEgypt.  Luke says nothing about these things, but gives us an entirely\ndifferent set of wonders, including the attendance of an angelic host\nand the annunciation to the shepherds.  So far from recording any\nmassacre, or any hasty flight, he tells us that some time after His\nbirth the babe was taken to the Temple at Jerusalem to be presented to\nthe Lord, and that afterwards He and His parents \"returned into Galilee\nto their own city Nazareth.\"  According to Matthew Nazareth was an\nafterthought and only became the residence of the holy family after the\nreturn from Egypt.  These accounts do not tally, and no ingenuity can\nreconcile them.  The nativity stories belong to the poetry of religion,\nnot to history.  To regard them as narrations of actual fact is to\nmisunderstand them.  They are better than that; they take us into the\nregion of exalted feeling and give us a vision of truth too great for\nprosaic statement.  Christianity would be poorer by the loss of them,\nbut they are not indigenous to Christianity.  They have their parallels\nin other religions, some of them much older than the advent of Jesus.\nThe beautiful legends surrounding the infancy of Gautama, for example,\nare startlingly similar to those contained in the first and third\ngospels.  Like Jesus, the Buddhist messiah is stated to have been of\nroyal descent and was born of a virgin mother.  At his birth a\nsupernatural radiance illuminated the whole district, and a troop of\nheavenly beings sang the praises of the holy child.  Later on a wise\nman, guided by special portents, recognised him as the long-expected\nand divinely appointed light-bringer and life-giver of mankind.  When\nbut a youth he was lost for a time and was found by his father in the\nmidst of a circle of holy men, sunk in rapt contemplation of the great\nmystery of existence.  The parallel between these legends and the\nChristian version of the marvels attending the birth of Jesus is so\nclose as to preclude the possibility of its being altogether\naccidental.  There must have been a connection somewhere, and indeed\nthere is no need to think otherwise, for nothing is to be gained or\nlost by admitting it.\n\n+Christianity not dependent on a virgin birth.+--But why hesitate about\nthe question?  The greatness of Jesus and the value of His revelation\nto mankind are in no way either assisted or diminished by the manner of\nHis entry into the world.  Every birth is just as wonderful as a virgin\nbirth could possibly be, and just as much a direct act of God.  A\nsupernatural conception bears no relation whatever to the moral and\nspiritual worth of the person who is supposed to enter the world in\nthis abnormal way.  The credibility and significance of Christianity\nare in no way affected by the doctrine of the virgin birth otherwise\nthan that the belief tends to put a barrier between Jesus and the race\nand to make Him something which cannot properly be called human.  Those\nwho insist on the doctrine will find themselves in danger of proving\ntoo much, for, pressed to its logical conclusion, it removes Jesus\naltogether from the category of humanity in any real sense.  Like many\nothers, I used to take the position that acceptance or non-acceptance\nof the doctrine of the virgin birth was immaterial because Christianity\nwas quite independent of it, but later reflection has convinced me that\nin point of fact it operates as a hindrance to spiritual religion and a\nreal living faith in Jesus.  The simple and natural conclusion is that\nJesus was the child of Joseph and Mary and had an uneventful childhood.\n\n+The truth in the doctrine of the virgin birth.+--And yet, as with\nevery tenet which has held a place in human thought for any\nconsiderable length of time, there is a great truth contained in the\nidea of a virgin birth.  It is the truth that the emergence of anything\ngreat and beautiful in human character and achievement is the work of\nthe divine spirit operating within human limitations.  This idea is\nvery ancient, and there is no great religion which does not contain it\nin some form or other.  One form of it, for example, can be discerned\nin the Babylonian creation myth with its parallel in the book of\nGenesis.  The home of the primitive Chaldeans, the stock whence\nIsraelites, Babylonians, Assyrians, and other Semitic communities\nsprang, was in the low-lying territory surrounding the Persian gulf.\nDuring the rainy seasons these lands were flooded by the overflow of\nthe great rivers.  The sun of springtime, rising upon this mass of\nwaters which stretched in every direction as far as the eye could see,\ndrew forth from their bosom the life and beauty of summer flowers and\nfruit.  From observation of this regularly recurring phenomenon the\nprimitive Semites constructed their creation myth, one version of which\nappeared in the first chapter of the book of Genesis, a version much\nlater than the Babylonian, but an outgrowth of the same idea.  They\nthought of a primeval waste of water covering everything.  As the\nwriter of the Genesis account has it: \"The earth was without form and\nvoid, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.\"  In the Babylonian\nversion this primeval water was personified as a woman--Tiamat.  They\nthought of the sun of heaven as impregnating this virgin matrix with\nthe seeds of cosmic life--quite an accurate conception from the modern\npoint of view.  Later on this idea became spiritualised in a much\nhigher degree.  The religious mind came to regard the physical,\nmundane, or distinctively human principle as the matrix upon which the\nspirit of God brooded, bringing to the birth a divine idea.  And this\nis perfectly true too, as anyone can see.  Nothing great and noble in\nhuman experience can be accounted for merely in terms of atoms and\nmolecules.  That is where materialism always comes to grief, for on its\nown premises it cannot account for the emergence of intelligence and\nall the higher qualities of human nature.  A divine element, a\nspiritual quickening, is required for the evolution of anything Godlike\nin our mundane sphere; it is a virgin birth.  Lower acting upon lower\ncan never produce a higher.  It is the downpouring and incoming of the\nhigher to the lower which produces through the lower the divine manhood\nwhich leaves the brute behind.  This is the sense in which it is true\nthat Jesus was of divine as well as human parentage.  We do not account\nfor Him merely by saying that He was the son of Joseph and Mary and the\ndescendant of a long line of prophets, priests, and kings; we have to\nrecognise that His true greatness came from above.\n\n+True of all higher human experience.+--The same thing holds good in a\nlesser degree of everything worthy of Jesus in human experience.  We do\nnot account for any man's goodness or greatness by pointing to his\nancestry.  Heredity may account for a great deal, but it is inadequate\nas an explanation of genius or high moral achievement.  If we go back\nfar enough, we shall find that our ancestry was barbarous, and, judging\nfrom its tendencies, not at all likely to produce the Christ-man of\nfuture ages.  Wherever the Christ-man appears, we have to acknowledge\nthat the principal factor in his evolution is the incoming of the\ndivine spirit.  It is only another way of stating what has already been\nstated above, that the true man or higher self is divine and eternal,\nintegral to the being of God, and that this divine manhood is gradually\nbut surely manifesting on the physical plane.  The lower cannot produce\nthe higher, but the higher is shaping and transforming the lower; every\nmoral and spiritual advance is therefore of the nature of a virgin\nbirth--a quickening from above.  The spiritual birth described in the\nconversation between our Lord and Nicodemus as given in the third of\nJohn is, properly speaking, a virgin birth.  \"That which is born of the\nflesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.\"  \"Ye\nmust be born anew,\" or, literally, \"quickened from above.\"  Every man\nwho deliberately faces towards the highest, and feels himself\nreenforced by the Spirit of God in so doing, is quickened from above;\nthe divinely human Christ is born in him, the Word has become flesh and\nis manifested to the world.\n\n+Human history one long incarnation.+--If now we can turn our thoughts\naway for a moment from the individual to the race and think of humanity\nas one being, or the expression of one being, we shall read this truth\non a larger scale.  All human history represents the incarnation or\nmanifesting of the eternal Son or Christ of God.  The incarnation\ncannot be limited to one life only, however great that life may be.  It\nis quite a false idea to think of Jesus and no one else as the Son of\nGod incarnate.  It is easy to understand the loving reverence for Jesus\nwhich would lead men to regard Him as being and expressing something to\nwhich none of the rest of us can ever attain, but in affirming this we\nactually rob Him of a glory He ought to receive.  We make Him unreal,\nreduce His earthly life to a sort of drama, and effect a drastic\ndistinction in kind between Him and ourselves.  If He came from the\nfarther side of the gulf and we only from the hither; if we are\nhumanity without divinity, and He divinity that has only assumed\nhumanity,--perfect fellowship between Him and ourselves is impossible.\nBut it is untrue to say that any such distinction exists.  Let us go on\nthinking of Jesus as Christ, the very Christ of glory, but let us\nrealise that that same Christ is seeking expression through every human\nsoul.  He is incarnate in the race in order that by means of limitation\nHe may manifest the innermost of God, the life and love eternal.  To\nsay this does not dethrone Jesus; it lends significance to His life and\nwork.  He is on the throne and the sceptre is in His hand.  We can rise\ntoward Him by trusting, loving, and serving Him; and by so doing we\nshall demonstrate that we too are Christ the eternal Son.\n\nTo think of all human life as a manifestation of the eternal Son,\nrenders it sacred.  Our very struggles and sufferings become full of\nmeaning.  Sin is but the failure to realise it; it is being false to\nourselves and our divine origin; it is the centrifugal tendency in\nhuman nature just as love is the centripetal.  There is no life,\nhowever depraved, which does not occasionally emit some sign of its\nkinship to Jesus and its eternal sonship to God.  Wherever you see\nself-sacrifice at work you see the very spirit of Jesus, the spirit of\nthe Christ incarnate.  I find it everywhere, and it interprets life for\nme as nothing else can.  Take up any work of fiction, no matter what,\nand you will find the author instinctively preaching this truth.  Look\ninto any commonplace, everyday life, no matter whose, and you will find\nit exemplified.  Many a selfish bad man has one tender spot in his\nnature, his affection for his child, and for the sake of that child he\nwill deny himself as he has never dreamed of doing for anything else;\nso far as that one influence is concerned he actually reverses the\nprinciple which governs the rest of his life.  I have read of an\nAfrican negress who on one occasion was beaten nearly to death by the\nbrute to whom she was slave and paramour.  Her murderer, for such he\nwas, was arrested and placed on trial for his misdemeanour, in\naccordance with the rough justice of the white man in his dealings with\nthe native.  In the night the poor dying woman crawled painfully to the\ntree against which the ruffian lay bound, cut his cords, and set him\nfree.  It was her last act in this life; in the morning she was found\nlying dead on the spot whence the prisoner had fled.  This particular\nstory may or may not be true, but the same kind of thing has been true\na million times in human history.  What was the spirit in this\nbenighted woman of the African wilds but the Christ spirit, the\nself-giving spirit seen with such unique sublimity in the life of Jesus?\n\nLook abroad all through the world, look back upon the slow, upward\nprogress of humanity to its home in God, and you will read the story of\nthe incarnation of the eternal Son.  Never has there been an hour so\ndark but that some gleams of this eternal light have pierced the murky\npall of human ignorance and sin; never have bitter hate and fiendish\ncruelty gone altogether unrelieved by the human tenderness and\nself-devotion that testify of God.  Indeed without the limitation, the\nstruggle, and the pain, how would this Christ spirit ever have known\nitself?  Granted that self-surrender had never been called for by the\nconditions of life, granted that our resources had always known\nthemselves infinite, and that which is worthiest and sublimest in the\nnature of God and man alike could never have been revealed.  This is\nwhy the eternal Son has become incarnate; this is what we are here to\ndo, and upon the faithful doing of it depends our experience of the joy\nthat the world can neither give nor take away.  The life and death of\nJesus are the central expression and ideal embodiment of this age-long\nprocess, a process the consummation of which will be the glorious\nreturn and triumphant ingathering of a redeemed and perfectly unified\nhumanity to God.  \"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then\nshall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things\nunder him, that God may be all in all.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE ATONEMENT\n\n\n+I.  Association of the Doctrine with Jesus+\n\n+Importance of the subject.+--This brings us to a subject, which, more\nthan any other, with the exception of that of the person of Jesus, has\ncome under discussion at the present time.  In the course of Christian\nhistory it has created a more extensive literature than probably any\nother doctrine.  I mean the subject variously known as Salvation,\nRedemption, Atonement, and with which the terms Forgiveness, Expiation,\nReconciliation, Ransom, Justification, Propitiation, Satisfaction,\nSanctification, and such like have been commonly associated.  The\nChristian doctrine of Atonement, as we may call it for convenience,\nbulks so large in Christian thought that all others may be held to be\ndependent upon it, even that of the person of Jesus; for, according to\nthe received theology, Jesus became incarnate for our redemption, and\nthat redemption can only be accomplished by one who is very God.\n\n+The need for an adequate explanation.+--But there is no subject upon\nwhich modern Christian thought is less coherent than this.  We are\nconstantly hearing the statement that a rational theory of the\nAtonement is badly wanted, or that it is our duty to preach the fact\nwithout a theory, or that the Atonement is such a mystery that no\ntheory is possible and we must just accept it on faith.  This\nconfession of helplessness shows that there is something seriously\nwrong with the conventional presentation of the doctrine.  But I do not\nthink the Atonement is such a very great mystery after all, and it\nought to be possible to get at the heart of it without stultifying the\nintellect.  Anyhow, let us try.\n\n+The usual theological method of expounding it.+--As a rule treatises\non the Atonement begin with an examination of the Scripture passages\nwhich are supposed to have a bearing upon it.  Then follows a careful\nexamination and criticism of the various theories of it which have\nsuccessively held the field during its history; the author concludes by\ngiving us his own.  I do not propose to follow that method, for it does\nnot possess a living interest for the mind of to-day; the psychological\nshould take precedence of the historical.  I do not feel called upon to\ntake the doctrine of Atonement for granted and then proceed to try to\nfind a place for it in Christian experience.  On the contrary, I prefer\nto take human nature for granted and inquire whether it needs anything\nlike a doctrine of Atonement.  If it does not, let the doctrine go; if\nit does, let us see that the doctrine is presented in a reasonable\nfashion.  If it cannot be presented reasonably, it is not wanted.  But\nI think it is wanted, and more than wanted; it is already taken for\ngranted by everyone who thinks seriously about life, whether it is\ncalled by its theological name or not.\n\n+Outline of present-day accepted belief in regard to it.+--Before I\nproceed to attempt to justify these statements let me ask my readers to\ncall to mind the outline of what they have been taught in reference to\nthis great fundamental of the Christian faith.  Part of it has already\nbeen indicated, for it was hardly possible to avoid it when considering\nsuch a subject as that of the nature of evil or the divinity of Jesus.\nRoughly stated it is as follows: Our fallen humanity is separated from\nand under the displeasure of God.  God longs to save us from our sin,\nbut justice demands that He must punish us.  The world is already an\nunhappy place because of sin, but what we endure here is nothing to\nwhat we shall have to endure presently when we cross the river of\ndeath; we shall all go to hell, a place of never-ending torment, unless\nsome means can be found of justifying us before God ere we pass over.\nThis means has been found in the self-devotion of the second person in\nthe Trinity.  The sinless Son of God took upon Himself the likeness of\nsinful humanity, was born into this world, lived here for a few years,\nsuffered a violent death, and then reascended to His Father to make\nunceasing intercession for mankind.  It was the dying of the death that\nwas the all-important thing.  It was in consideration of this death\nthat God agreed to pardon sin.  Jesus was put to death because God had\narranged that He should be put to death, and because Jesus was willing\nto be put to death, in order that a satisfactory offering might be made\nto divine justice for the sins of the world.  God had to punish someone\nbefore he could be free to forgive His erring children, and therefore\nwith the consent of Jesus He punished Him.  The whole scheme was\nprearranged in heaven, cross and all, and therefore Jesus was not taken\nby surprise when the end came; He was, in fact, a party to it, and His\nmurderers were in a sense only the instruments of a beneficent,\nforeordained plan.  God accepts this sacrifice as a full and complete\nequivalent for all that humanity deserves, but we must individually\nappropriate it by faith or it will not avail for us; we shall go to\nhell all the same.  If on the other hand we do claim the benefit of\nthis finished work, the merits of the Redeemer are imputed to us; we\nare held to be justified before God, and are gradually sanctified by\nthe Holy Spirit operating within our souls and fashioning us into the\nmoral likeness of our Lord.\n\n+Conventional view both true and false.+--To say that these statements\nare wholly untrue is impossible, for they everyone contain a truth of\nconsiderable value, but as popularly stated they are misleading.  This\nview of the Atonement is unethical, and, in my judgment and that of\nmany others, has wrought a good deal of mischief in the past and\nbewilderment in the present.  Some readers of these pages will no doubt\nfind fault with me for stating it so baldly, and will maintain that no\nfront-rank theologian or preacher would enunciate it in these terms\nto-day.  Once again I can only repeat that they use language which\nimplies it, and it seems impossible to resist the conclusion that they\nare driven to use the vaguer language because of their own feeling that\nthe balder statement, which their predecessors made without hesitation,\nis intellectually and morally impossible, and yet they do not know what\nto put in its place.  They are reluctant to give up the belief that in\nsome way or other the death of Jesus on Calvary actually effected\nsomething in the unseen by making God propitious toward us and removing\nthe barrier which prevented Him from freely forgiving human sin.  Of\ncourse they add other and valuable elements in their discussion of the\ntheme, but this is their central idea and they seldom get away from it.\nThe typical theologian never seems to think of looking at the death of\nJesus from the purely human point of view, and yet surely this is the\nonly legitimate thing to do when trying to get at the heart of the\nsubject.  It is what we should do in any other case of a like kind; we\nshould never dream of doing anything else.  We have no business to\nbegin speculating upon transcendental questions until we have examined\nthe purely human causes of such an event as the crucifixion of Jesus.\nWhen an adherent of the so-called orthodox view of the doctrine of the\nAtonement is pressed to say just what he supposes the death of Jesus to\nhave effected in the mind of God so as to free humanity from its curse,\nhe usually takes refuge in phrases about the \"mystery of the cross,\"\nand so on.  He does not say in plain language exactly what he means,\nfor the truth is he does not know; he only believes what he has been\ntold, and has persuaded himself that it is of the utmost value to\nChristian experience, which it is not and never was.  The doctrine as\npopularly held is not only not true but it ought not to be true; it is\na serious hindrance to spiritual religion.  Why in the world should God\nrequire such a sacrifice before feeling Himself free to forgive His\nerring children?  And why should it be regarded as in any real sense a\nsubstitute for what is due from us or any equivalent for what we should\notherwise have to bear?  Once more, perhaps, the dogmatic theologian\nwill pull me up sharply and say that I am misrepresenting him, but I\nthink I am on fairly safe ground in declaring that this is what the\nordinary man in the pew as well as the man in the street understands by\nthe saving work of Jesus, and he does so because of the language of the\npulpit backed by the theological college preceptor.  If this is the\nAtonement, there is little wonder that thoughtful minds will have\nnothing to say to it and that so many good people are puzzled to know\nwhat to think about it.\n\n+The human causes of the crucifixion of Jesus.+--If the death of Jesus\ntook place under similar circumstances to-day, we should be in no doubt\nas to what to call it.  It was a barbarous and wicked murder instigated\nby base and unscrupulous men who wanted to get rid of a dangerous\nteacher.  We do not need to search far in order to find reasons for the\ntragedy.  There were reasons enough in the antagonism which had long\nexisted between Jesus and the ecclesiastical rulers of Judea.  Jesus\nheld and taught a certain ideal concerning human life and its relation\nto God.  At the beginning of His brief public ministry He seems to have\nthought that His invitation to men to realise their divine sonship\nwould meet with a ready response, and that therefore the kingdom of God\nwould without great difficulty be established upon earth through the\nworking of the spirit of love in human hearts.  At first He gained an\nextensive hearing because the Jewish people were willing and ready to\nlisten to any teacher who would hold out to them some hope of a better\nand happier day.  Consequently He was for a time extremely popular, and\neven the Pharisees deliberated as to whether He might prove to be the\nlong-expected leader who should restore the kingdom to Israel.  But\nthis attitude soon changed.  People and rulers alike became\ndisappointed with Jesus.  They were looking for a kingdom which should\ncome by force, and Jesus for one which should come by love.  They\nwanted material benefits forthwith, while to Jesus these were\naltogether a secondary matter.  Then, too, He became an inconvenience.\nHis standard of rectitude was exacting.  He saw through the hypocrisies\nand villanies of many of those who posed as the guides and directors of\nthe nation, and He was not silent about them.  He spoke out without\nfear or hesitation.  What other people had been thinking and dared not\nsay He said without pausing to consider what the consequences might be.\nNo wonder the ecclesiastics came to feel that He must be silenced at\nany cost.  It can hardly be supposed that people in general were\noffended by His plain language concerning those in high places, but\nthen they wanted Him to do something besides talk.  They wanted to see\nHim drive out the Roman without delay and inaugurate the era of power\nand plenty.  Jesus saw well enough what the end of all this must be.\nHe must either temporise a little, or go away and hide, or go straight\non doing His work until the night came and He could work no more.  He\ndecided for the last-named course, leaving the results to God.  It was\nin the line of His duty to go up to Jerusalem for the feast of the\nPassover, so to Jerusalem He went.  He could hardly have been under any\ndelusion as to what awaited Him there.  The crowds in the capital were\nvery excited about Him; His name was on every lip, and there were many\nwho would have declared for Him at once if He had only offered Himself\nas the national champion against the foreigner.  But by this time\npriests, Pharisees, and scribes understood that, in their sense of the\nword, a national champion He would never be.  The crisis was reached at\nthe cleansing of the Temple.  The moral greatness, the tremendous\nimpressiveness, of the personality of Jesus were never more clearly\ndemonstrated than on this occasion.  There was no earthly reason why\ndove-sellers, money-changers, priests, and Temple officials should be\ndriven pell-mell out of precincts they had come to look upon as their\nown, except that they were overawed by the stern majesty of this\nwonderful Galilean.  For a brief hour Jesus was master of the\nsituation; the next day He was arrested.  The thing had to be done\nsecretly and quickly, but those who planned it calculated rightly.  No\nsooner was Jesus made a prisoner than the populace turned against Him\nand clamoured for His destruction.  Those who know something of mob\npsychology will readily understand this.  Human passion easily swings\nfrom adoration to hate, as history has shown over and over again.  If a\nstrong man fails in a conflict of forces in a time of great public\nexcitement, he is rarely allowed to sink quietly into oblivion; the mob\nturns upon him with the savagery of a wild beast.  Napoleon was one day\ndriving through the streets of Paris amid cheering crowds.  One of his\nsuite remarked to him that it must be gratifying to see how his\nsubjects loved him.  \"Bah!\" said the Emperor, \"The same rabble would\ncheer just as madly if I were going to the guillotine.\"  He was right.\nIt was just the same with this Jerusalem crowd.  The populace thought\nthat the Jesus who had seemed so strong was not so strong after all,\nand therefore their base fury vented itself upon Him just as priests\nand Pharisees had foreseen.\n\nThese were the immediate causes of the death of Jesus.  His execution\nwas a judicial murder done to gratify sacerdotal spite and popular\npassion, and the men who took part in it were guilty of what has proved\nto be the blackest deed in history.  The same type of man exists\nto-day, as he has existed in every age, and if Jesus came again without\nsaying who He was, history would repeat itself.  I do not suppose His\nenemies would nail Him on a wooden cross,--public opinion would forbid\nthat now, thanks to nineteen centuries of His gospel,--but they would\nfind some means of making Him suffer, and they would invoke His own\nname to justify them in doing it.\n\n+The reason why there was no supernatural interference.+--But is this\nall that can be said about the matter?  Where does God come in?  Why\nwas a crime of this sort ever permitted?  Why has the memory of it\nactually become a religious dogma?  Other people have been put to death\nquite as unjustly, and the results, though great, are not to be\ncompared with those which have followed from the death of Jesus.  Why\nis this?  As we have already seen, the popular view of the doctrine of\nAtonement presumes that this foul deed was in some way, as the\nscripture has it, by \"the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of\nGod.\"  Was it really so?  Was the whole dreadful drama merely a\nprogramme to be gone through in all its appointed stages, ending with\nthe cry of the victim, \"It is finished\"?\n\nThere is one sense, and only one, in which such a deed can be said to\nhave been by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, and that\nis that God did not interfere to save Jesus from the last dread ordeal.\nHe allowed wickedness to do its worst, and thereby made the\ndisinterested nobleness of the character of Jesus all the clearer.  In\nsuch a time as that in which Jesus lived such a life as His was sure to\nend on a Calvary of some kind, unless He ran away from it, or God\nsupernaturally intervened to save Him.  Neither event happened.  If\nJesus had shrunk from the full consequences of His actions; if He had\ntemporised, concealed Himself, tried to gain time, or adopted any other\nsubterfuge or expedient in order to save His life--that life would not\nhave the moral power it possesses or shine with such glorious lustre in\nthe world to-day.  Supernatural interference would have dimmed the\nmoral beauty of the faith, courage, and perfect self-devotion of Jesus.\nThe moral worth of any act of self-sacrifice, no matter on what scale\nit is performed, is dependent upon the fact that it is done without\nregard to consequences.  If we could see with absolute clearness the\nsure and certain result of any action, if we could know, as\nunquestionably as that two and two make four, that it would always pay\nto do the right thing, the very soul of goodness would have gone out of\nit.  It is just because we do not know, save with the deeper knowledge\nthat contradicts appearances,--the knowledge that is rightly termed\nfaith,--that an unselfish action is in accord with the general\nrightness of the universe, and therefore must prevail in the end, that\nthere is anything praiseworthy in it.  The determinate counsel and\nforeknowledge of God were that this should be fully demonstrated in the\nexperience of Jesus, as it has been in the experience of many a one of\nHis followers since.  Once more therefore we come to the last word of\nthe cosmos, manifestation by sacrifice; and the experience of Jesus is\nthe sum and centre of it all.  The reason why the name of Jesus has\nsuch power in the world to-day is because a perfectly noble and\nunselfish life was crowned by a perfectly sacrificial death.  Both were\nneeded; either without the other would have been incomplete.  Many a\nBritish soldier has died as brave a death as Jesus, but none have ever\nlived the life of Jesus.  The life and death together were a perfect\nself-offering, the offering of the unit to the whole, the individual to\nthe race, the Son to the Father, and therefore the greatest\nmanifestation of the innermost of God that has ever been made to the\nworld.  It makes the sacrifice unreal to speak of it as though Jesus\nknew the end from the beginning and foresaw every stage in the\nprogramme before He came to it.  He did not; He shrank from the\nshameful end just as we should have done, and prayed to God to save Him\nfrom it.  An immense amount of pious nonsense has been spoken and\nwritten about our Lord's agony in Gethsemane.  We have been told that\nin this dreadful hour the sorrow of Jesus bore no relation to his\nphysical death, but was caused by His mysterious self-identification\nwith all the sins of mankind, past, present, and to come.  To add to\nthe horror God the Father turned His face away from Him, treating Him\nas though He were indeed the embodiment of all the guilt of mankind,\nthe scapegoat driven into the wilderness.  I have never been able to\nread this kind of thing without an inner protest against the unreality\nof it; it precludes the possibility of understanding Jesus or entering\nsympathetically into an experience in which to a greater or less degree\nevery noble soul has sooner or later to share with Him.  The only way\nto explain Gethsemane is to approach it from the purely human point of\nview, as we have already done with the causes which led up to the\ncrucifixion.  Let us try to put ourselves in the sufferer's place, a\nperfectly legitimate and right thing to do.  How would any of us have\nfelt in the circumstances of Jesus?  Suppose that you had laboured\nconsistently and whole-heartedly, in season and out of season, to get\nmen to realise their divine sonship and live the life that is life\nindeed.  Suppose you had seen your hopes perish one by one, and that\nmaterialism, selfishness, and hypocrisy seemed to have become all the\nstronger for your protest.  Suppose you saw evil gathering head against\nyou, that you found yourself left utterly alone, and that even God\nseemed to be silent in this hour of tragic failure.  Here are your\nenemies triumphant at the gate, thirsting for your blood.  Beyond that\ngate, betrayal, torture, and public shame are waiting for you.  In the\nbackground of all stands the cruel gibbet to which your own countrymen,\nthe people you have loved with an all-absorbing love, shall presently\ncommit you.  Tell me what you would pray in like circumstances.  Your\nagony would be just as great as that of Jesus, though perhaps your\nprayer would lack His magnificent faith and ungrudging self-surrender.\nJesus went to His death having nothing to rely upon except His inner\nconviction that God and the cause of truth were one, and that somehow\nor other in the end that would be made plain to Himself and all the\nworld.  It would have been the same no matter what had been the\nparticular death that Jesus died.  His murderers might have taken His\nlife in any one of a thousand ways and the ultimate result would have\nbeen just as we see it now.  They might have hanged, drowned, or burnt\nHim, in which case the stake or the hangman's rope would have become\nthe symbol of the world's redemption, but, after the fashion of their\ntime, they crucified Him; it was the worst they could do, and they\nwanted to do the worst.  At Calvary perfect love joined issue with\nperfect hate, perfect goodness with perfect wickedness, and became\nvictorious by enduring the worst and remaining pure and unchanged to\nthe last.\n\n+The moral outcome.+--But it was not the last after all; the world had\nstill to reckon with God.  That life and death have become a moral\nforce, a spiritual dynamic greater than any before or since, just\nbecause of the completeness of the self-offering that culminated on\nCalvary's cross.  I must not anticipate what I have to say about the\nresurrection further than to remark that more came out of the tomb of\nJesus than ever went into it.  When all seemed lost this buried life\narose in power in other lives that up till then had never fully known\nits divine greatness and spiritual beauty.\n\nThis is the truth about the death of Jesus, and nothing needs to be\nadded to show how great an event in the dealings of God with men it\nmust have been.  It was both simple and sublime.  Theological\nword-spinning only serves to obscure its true significance.  Show to\nthe world the real Jesus; tell men how it came about that He had to\ndie, and they cannot help but love Him.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE ATONEMENT\n\n+II. Semitic Ideas of Atonement+\n\n+Atonement in history.+--What, then, has this death to do with the\nAtonement?  A great deal; but the best way to answer the question will\nbe to obtain a clear idea as to what the Atonement really means and\nalways has meant to Christian experience, notwithstanding the tortuous\nways in which the doctrine has been articulated.  I am convinced that\nunderneath every genuine attempt to explain the Atonement which has\never held the field for any length of time in Christian history the\nsame truth is always to be found.  It is so even with the statement of\nit which is supposed to be orthodox to-day, but which is quite modern\nafter all, and is practically discredited by all thoughtful minds.  The\nmental dialect changes from one generation to another, but truth does\nnot.  As a matter of fact, statements of truth are but conventional\nsymbols at the best, and possess only the ethical and emotional value\nassociated with them in our minds.  This is why venerable propositions\nwhich seem obscurantist to us originally possessed vital significance\nto their framers; the ethical and emotional content were greater than\nthe form of statement, as they always must be.  Every one of my readers\nis no doubt aware of the power possessed by some particular landscape\nor piece of music to awaken certain emotions in the heart or bring back\nthe memory of certain events to the mind.  The same scene or song might\nnot do this for anyone else because the associations are different.  It\nis much the same with the forms in which religious truth is stated from\nage to age.  The form is no more the truth than the landscape is the\nemotion or recollection it excites; it is only a symbol for the truth.\nTo grasp this clearly should not only make us more tolerant of archaic\nconfessions of faith, but should help us to realise that truth is one\neven under apparently contradictory forms of statement.  It is our duty\nin religion as in everything else to endeavour to express the content\nof spiritual experience in the forms which best accord with the mental\ndialect of our own day.  I repeat, therefore, that underneath every one\nof the principal forms of statement in which the doctrine of Atonement\nhas been presented in the past the same truth is to be found.  It is an\ninteresting historical and psychological study to try to find out what\nit is.\n\n+Atonement in the Old Testament.+--As I have already said above, it is\nusual for writers on the Atonement to begin by taking scripture for\ngranted and presenting an examination of the principal passages in\nwhich the Atonement is thought to be presumed or declared.  But if what\nI have just said be true, we have to get behind even the language of\nscripture and ask how the writers of the Old and New Testaments came to\nuse these particular symbols and what they originally meant.  The word\n\"atonement\" is not an exact translation of any one Old Testament term,\nbut connotes a group of related religious ideas.  In its Christian use\nother elements enter into it from Greek thought which are not to be\nfound in the Old Testament.  But the Old Testament source of the ideas\nas well as the term is much older than the Greek, and therefore we are\nright in looking to the Old Testament for the origin of the doctrine\nwhich has taken such an important place in Christianity.  But here\nagain modern research has opened up an enormous field of investigation.\nIsrael was a member of a vast family of nations all of which had sprung\nfrom one stock, and of which the Babylonians and Assyrians were the\nmost powerful representatives.  The Israelites were, politically\nspeaking, a comparatively insignificant folk surrounded by mighty\nempires which had attained a high degree of civilisation.  The\nexcavations which are now proceeding in oriental lands, especially the\nterritories occupied by ancient Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt, are\nbringing much valuable and interesting matter to light.  We find that\nthe civilisation of these peoples was much older than up to now\nscholars have believed.  The communities inhabiting the land of Canaan,\nfor example, had developed a complex political and commercial\norganisation long before the Israelitish invasion; Canaan was in fact\nthe highway along which passed the commerce of Egypt with the mighty\nnations to the north.  The painstaking efforts of expert explorers are\nbringing vast forgotten literatures to light and reconstituting for us\nthe religious ideas and modes of life of these people of the ancient\nworld.  One result of these researches has been to prove that Hebrew\nreligious ideas were closely allied to those of other Semitic peoples,\nand even the way in which they were expressed owed not a little to\nolder civilisations.  In nothing was this more clearly the case than\nwith the ideas included afterward in the doctrine of Atonement.  The\nword translated Atonement in our version of the Old Testament\nscriptures played an important part in the Old Testament sacrificial\nsystem, and this again was closely connected with Semitic modes of\nworship in general.\n\n+The Day of Atonement.+--There was one great day in the Jewish\nreligious year called the Day of Atonement, when a special ritual was\ngone through and special offerings made to God on account of the sins\nof the people as a whole.  The ceremonial was very elaborate and the\noccasion was observed with great solemnity by the whole nation.  As\ndescribed in the Old Testament the prescriptions for this Day of\nAtonement, the Good Friday of the Levitical system as it has been\ncalled, probably owe a good deal to Babylonian influences.  It should\nbe remembered that the outstanding event in later Jewish history was\nthe carrying away of the flower of the nation by Nebuchadnezzar into\nBabylon, where they remained for more than two generations.  It is\nquite likely that, in spite of their exclusiveness and their hatred of\ntheir conquerors, the Jews may have borrowed some of their religious\nritual from the Babylonians, but, whether they did or not, the ideas\nunderlying their respective modes of worship were much the same.\nPrimitive religious sacrifice among Semitic peoples appears to have\nbeen mainly of a joyous character; worship and sacrifice went hand in\nhand.  The worshippers were accustomed to offer to their gods\nsacrifices of everything which the votaries themselves valued,--the\nfruits of the earth, their material possessions, their flocks and\nherds, the prisoners they had taken in war, and occasionally even the\nchildren of their own body.  It was only on great and solemn occasions,\nsuch as the necessity for staying a pestilence, or averting defeat in\nwar, that the offering of the more terrible kinds of sacrifice was\nmade.  It would be instructive, therefore, for us to inquire what were\nthe underlying ideas assumed in Semitic religious sacrifice.\n\n+Underlying ideas in Semitic sacrifice.  1. The solidarity of man with\nGod.+--In the first place there was the idea of community of life\nbetween the worshipper and his god.  It is doubtful how far this can be\npressed, but it is clear that in the Semitic mind there was always a\nconviction that the deity of the clan or tribe was the giver as well as\nthe sustainer of its life.  This did not apply to the minor divinities,\nthe demons of wood and stream, but to the tribal deities, the Chemosh\nof Moab, the Dagon of the Philistines, the Jehovah of Israel.  Probably\nthe Philistines were not Semites, but no doubt ancient worship in\ngeneral took for granted this community of life between any particular\npeople and their deity.  In the offering of the best of their\npossessions to the god the worshippers thought they were rendering to\nhim of his own.  As he was at once the giver and the guardian of life,\nthey felt bound to render him the best of the fruits of life.  This was\na true thought, a principle essential to all true spiritual life, and\nimplied in all spiritual aspiration.  The reader will have already seen\nthat it is fundamental to the New Theology.  However crude and even\nrepellent some of its expressions may have been in ancient modes of\nworship, it is the same truth all ages through--the truth that God and\nman are essentially one.\n\n+2. The solidarity of the individual with the community.+--A further\nidea underlying primitive sacrifice was that of the solidarity of the\nindividual with the community as a whole.  In the Chaldean tribes out\nof which Israel arose personality as we know it had not even emerged.\nReaders of the Old Testament will not need to be reminded that in the\nearlier stages of Israel's existence as a people the whole nation was\nrepeatedly said to be punished for the behaviour of individuals, and\nfamilies perished for the transgression of a father, as in the case of\nAchan.  No particular attention was ever paid to the individual as\nsuch.  A man had no life of his own, and no value, apart from the life\nof the community.  He belonged to it, not to himself.  Hence, when any\ncommunal act of worship was performed, when any tribal sacrifice was\nmade to the deity, the organic unity of the individual with the whole\nwas specially emphasised.  Physically and spiritually the unit was held\nto belong to the whole, and to exist for the sake of the whole.  Here\nagain we have a great truth, the foundation truth of all morality, and\na truth which reaches its highest in the life of Jesus.  The deepening\nof individual self-consciousness, and the increased perception of\nindividual value, have neither weakened nor destroyed it, for it is\nwritten in the very constitution of the universe.  Mankind is\nfundamentally one; here is morality.  We are individually fulfilled in\nGod; here is religion.  These are the cognate ideas underlying all\nmodes of sacrificial worship, ancient or modern.  These are the ideas\nwhich find elaborate ceremonial expression in the Israelitish Day of\nAtonement as described in the Old Testament.  The main purpose of these\nobservances was the desire to assert as solemnly and emphatically as\npossible the essential oneness of the community with God, and of every\nindividual with all the rest.  Everything which tended to separate\nbetween Israel and her God was ceremonially put away on this great\noccasion.  From the religious point of view it was the beginning of a\nnew year.  The Babylonian new year began about the same time.  It was\nsupposed that a man's good or evil fortune was appointed on new year's\nday and settled past all possibility of revision on the tenth day\nafter.  The intervening nine days were therefore kept as a sort of\nLenten season; the tenth day was the grand occasion for the making sure\nof the harmonious relations of the community with the deity.  It will\nbe seen, therefore, that psychologically the idea of Atonement takes\nprecedence of the idea of sin.  Most westerners are accustomed to think\nexactly the reverse, and that is why the various theories of Atonement\nwhich have appeared and disappeared in the course of Christian history\nhave so generally obscured the truth.  The root principle of Atonement\nis not that of escaping punishment for transgression, but the assertion\nof the fundamental oneness of God and man.  This may or may not be\naccompanied by feelings of guilt and contrition, but it is the very\nmarrow of religion.  Atonement implies the acting-together of God and\nman, the subordination of the individual will to the universal will,\nthe fulfilment of the unit in the whole.\n\n+Sense of sin not originally essential to atonement.+--It ought to be\nrecognised that in Semitic modes of worship the idea of sin did not\noriginally hold the place it has since come to hold in the Christian\nconsciousness.  The Babylonian and the early Israelite were greatly\nafraid of offending God, but they do not seem to have thought of such a\ntransgression as being morally culpable.  The profound sense of sin\nwhich characterises so many of the psalms and prophetic writings of the\nOld Testament was a comparatively late development.  The primitive\nSemites had a markedly anthropomorphic idea of their deities.  They\nthought of any divine being as more or less like an ordinary man and\nliable to take umbrage at little things.  It was even possible to\noffend him without knowing it, and therefore to be left without\nprotection against the ills of life.  It was to make sure of smoothing\naway all possible misunderstandings that covering sacrifices were\noffered from time to time; but the offering of these sacrifices did not\nnecessarily mean that the worshipper thought he had done anything to be\nashamed of and which required to be put right.  He was simply treating\nhis god as he would have treated a powerful earthly patron or\npotentate, that is, he was apologising for anything he might have done\nto alienate his favour.  This notion of the necessity for placating God\nis to be found in close association with the worthier spiritual\ninstincts to which I have already referred, and it has not even yet\ndisappeared from our thinking.  Unbiassed readers of the Old Testament\nwill find abundant justification for this statement.  We are told\nrepeatedly therein that the anger of the Lord was kindled against\nIsrael or against this or that individual, and that the whole community\nhad in consequence to humble itself before Him in order to avert\nplague, or pestilence, or some other form of general calamity.  Not\nonly was Jehovah thought of as a kind of larger man who was at once\nprotector and tyrant to his people, he was but the God of Israel in\ncontradistinction to the gods of other nations, one God out of many.\nIt was only gradually, and after the lapse of ages, that Israelites\ncame to think of their God as the God of the whole earth and a being\nwho must be worshipped in righteousness.  Israel was fortunate in\npossessing what other nations had not in the same degree, a succession\nof specially inspired men, teachers of moral and spiritual truth called\nprophets.  The best of these--for no doubt the generality of them spoke\nonly the language of their time--earnestly protested against material\nideas of sacrifice and inadequate notions about God.  They declared\nthat God and the moral ideal were one and that the best way to serve\nthe former was to be true to the latter.  True sacrifice, they\nmaintained, was of a spiritual kind and ought never to be thought about\nin any other sense.  Thus in the fifty-first psalm the writer, one of\nthe prophetic school, thus contrasts mere ceremonialism with spiritual\nworship:\n\n\nThou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; Thou delightest not\nin burnt offering.  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.  A\nbroken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.\n\n\nOr take the prophet Micah, chapter vi., verse 6.  Here is a reference\nto human sacrifice, to which the Israelites were prone from time to\ntime, following the example of their neighbours:\n\n\nWherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the Most\nHigh God? shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of\na year old?  Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with\nten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my\ntransgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?\n\n\nAnd the answer of the prophet is:\n\n\nHe hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord\nrequire of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk\nhumbly with thy God?\n\n\nHere we have a declaration in unmistakable terms that the moral ideal\nand the religious ideal are one, and that to worship God properly the\nworshipper must treat his fellow-men properly.  We now get the idea\nthat sin against God is not something into which a man may fall without\nknowing it, but the living of a selfish life.\n\n+Atonement never an equivalent for penalty.+--We ought to recognise too\nthat the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement were never held to secure a\ncomplete amnesty for all kinds of sin.  If a man committed theft or\nmurder, he had to bear the appropriate penalty of his misdemeanour\nbecause he had been guilty of an action directed against the well-being\nof the community and the community had to take measures to protect\nitself; the Day of Atonement availed nothing in such a case.  Here is\nwhere many who see in the Old Testament sacrificial system a type and\nanticipation of the one perfect sacrifice of Jesus frequently go wide\nof the facts.  The Day of Atonement was a ceremonial and symbolical\nassertion of the willingness of the individual and the nation to fulfil\ntheir true destiny by being at one with God.  If some particular man\nhad been so living as to cut himself off from the communal well-being,\nhe had to suffer.\n\n+The significance of the blood.+--Many people seem to think that some\nactual saving efficacy was supposed to attach to the shedding of the\nblood of the victims offered on the altar of sacrifice, but that never\nwas so.  No doubt in the ignorant popular mind material sacrifices came\nto be looked upon as possessing some virtue in themselves, but the\nintelligence of the nation never regarded them in this way.  In the\noffering of a victim the worshipper symbolically offered himself.  The\nSemites thought that the life of any organism was in the blood.  Thus\nin Numbers we read, \"The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have\ngiven it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it\nis the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the soul (or life).\"\nWhen, therefore, a man offered the blood of a victim upon the altar, he\nwas symbolically declaring his recognition of the truth that the\nindividual life belongs to the whole and must give or pour itself out\nto the common life and to God the source of all.  Only in this way\ncould individuality realise itself; apart from the whole it was\nmeaningless and valueless.\n\n+The truth beneath all sacrifice, however barbarous.+--This helps us to\nsee how, even underneath the most horrible and repellent modes of\nancient religious sacrifice, there was something essentially great and\nnoble.  When a heathen mother passed her child through the fire to\nMoloch, did the sacrifice cost her nothing?  To be sure it did.  It\nmust have been much harder to give her baby than to give herself.  She\ndid it because she had been taught to believe that to give one's best\nand dearest possession for the life of the whole was an action\nacceptable to God and worthy of our relationship to Him.  We have\ndeepened and purified that ideal, but we have not lost it; we never\ncan.  As time went on men came to see that there was a higher way of\ngiving the self to the whole than that of immolating a physical life,\nand a better way of symbolising that offering than by shedding the\nblood of bulls and goats; but the essential truth beneath all the\nintricate sacrificial systems of ancient Israel and her neighbours is\none that can never perish.\n\nTo sum up.  Atonement is the assertion of the fundamental unity of all\nexistence, the unity of the individual with the race and the race with\nGod.  The individual can only realise that unity by sacrificing himself\nto it.  To fulfil the self we must give the self to the All.  This is\nthe truth presumed in all ancient ideas of Atonement.  The idea of\nplacating a manlike God for offences committed against his dignity has\nbeen a concomitant of this perception, even a hindrance to it, but it\nhas never wholly obscured the truth itself.  That truth is constant and\nessential to all religion and morality, and is the coordinating\nprinciple to all between them.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE ATONEMENT\n\n+III. The Doctrine in Christian History and Experience+\n\n+Antiquity of the essential truth.+--From what has now been said it\nwill, I hope, be clear that the roots of the Christian doctrine of\nAtonement lie far back in history, especially Semitic history mediated\nthrough the Old Testament, and that its fundamental truth is one with\nwhich the world can never dispense; it is both simple and sublime.\nNothing worth doing in human history has ever been done apart from it\nor ever will be.  It is no paradox to say that even a morally earnest\nagnostic believes in the Atonement; at any rate he believes in the\nall-essential truth without which there would never have been such a\nthing as a doctrine of Atonement.\n\n+No consistent theory in the New Testament.+--But now we come to the\nconsideration of this truth as it has passed over into Christianity.  I\ndo not propose to give an accurate and exhaustive analysis of the\nprincipal things that have been said about it, from the writings of St.\nPaul downwards; that would only be wearisome to my readers and lead to\nno particular result.  But if I have succeeded in making clear the\npsychological necessity for the existence of the idea of Atonement, it\nwill serve us as a guiding principle when we come to consider it in\nrelation to the sacrifice of Jesus.  Many exegetes have undertaken to\nshow that the various New Testament writers held one and the same\ntheory of the relation of the death of Jesus to the forgiveness of\nsins; never was a task more hopeless.  The Pauline, Petrine, and\nJohannine theories, and that of the writer of the epistle to the\nHebrews, are not mutually consistent, and Paul is not always consistent\nwith himself.  The principal thing they have in common is their belief\nthat the death of Jesus was of vital efficacy in the doing away of sin.\nThe symbolism in which they set forth this truth is borrowed mainly\nfrom the Old Testament, and we have already seen what underlay that\nsymbolism even in its earliest use.  Old Testament language about\nsacrifice supplies the mental dialect of the New, and now that we have\nthe key to it we need neither be puzzled nor misled by it.  Beneath all\nthat the New Testament writers have to say about the death of Jesus\nthere is the same grand old spiritual truth of Atonement which makes\nreligion possible.  Before we resume our examination of the connection\nbetween the death of Jesus and the doing away of sin, let us look for a\nmoment at what post-apostolic thought has had to say about it.\n\n+The Fathers.+--From the beginning of the second century onwards the\nFathers of the church and their theological successors attempted a\nvariety of explanations of the way in which the death of Jesus achieved\npotentially the redemption of mankind.  It is not easy to say just when\none period of Christian thought closes and another begins; but, broadly\nspeaking, we can for convenience classify them into the period of the\nFathers, the mediaeval period, the Reformation and afterwards up to the\neighteenth century, and the period of modern thought.  The Fathers may\nbe divided into two groups, the ante-Nicene and the post-Nicene\nwriters, and also into the Greek and Latin Fathers.  But as I am not\nwriting for theological students, I will not attempt any further\nanalysis of the various patristic schools.  Those who wrote previous to\n325 A.D. belong to the ante-Nicene group; those who wrote after that\ndate, to the post-Nicene group.  The ante-Nicene writers, generally\nspeaking, avoid giving any theory of the atonement at all; but two of\ntheir greatest thinkers, Origen and Irenaeus, held that mankind had\nfallen under the dominion of Satan, and that Jesus by His sufferings\npaid a ransom to Satan in order that we might be freed from his power.\nPost-Nicene Fathers for the most part adopted this view without\nattempting to justify it.  Amongst their statements we find the ideas\nthat the Atonement was a ransom to Satan and also a sacrifice to God,\nbut they offer no explanation of the necessity of either.  Later on\nAugustine anticipated subsequent Christian thought by maintaining that\nthe atoning work of Jesus was part of an eternal purpose.\n\n+Anselm and after.+--The scholasticism of the Middle Ages finds its\nfirst important expression in the illustrious Anselm, an acute thinker\nand a beautiful soul.  Anselm rejected the idea of a ransom to Satan,\ndeclaring that Satan had no rights over humanity; in place of this\nnotion he put forward the theory that Jesus made to God an infinite\nsatisfaction for an infinite debt.  According to this theory the\nmajesty of God had suffered indignity because of human sin, and yet man\nwas unable by himself to offer an adequate satisfaction for the\noffence.  Hence the eternal Son of God became man in order that He\nmight offer the only satisfaction that could be considered adequate.\nThis theory did not go unchallenged.  Abelard, for example, asked the\nvery reasonable question how the guilt of mankind could be atoned for\nby the greater guilt of those who put Jesus to death.  Abelard's famous\nopponent, Bernard of Clairvaux, also repudiated Anselm's main\ncontention and fell back upon the theory of a satisfaction to Satan.\n\n+Reformation theories.+--At the time of the Reformation the question of\nthe Atonement formed the subject of considerable controversy, and, on\nthe whole, the Reformers were less reasonable than the Catholics, as is\nthe case to some extent even to-day.  The Roman Catholic doctrine of\nAtonement is much nearer to the truth than conventional Protestant\nstatements about the \"finished work\" and so on.  One considerable\nsection of sixteenth-century Protestantism held and taught the doctrine\nof the total depravity of human nature, and insisted on the idea that\nJesus bore the actual penal sufferings of sinners.  Calvinists held\nthat these sufferings had value for the elect only.  Against these\nviews Socinianism arose as a protest, but tended to reduce the Passion\nof Jesus to a sort of drama enacted by God in the presence of humanity\nin order to excite men's contrition and win their love.\n\n+The modern lack of a theory.+--Modern evangelical thought has done\nvery little with all these theories except to make them impossible; it\nhas no consistent and reasonable explanation to put in their place.\nThe popular kind of evangelical phraseology is that which continues to\nrepresent Jesus as having borne the punishment due to human sin;\nsalvation is spoken of as though it meant deliverance from the\npost-mortem consequences of misdoing.\n\n+More about sin.+--In all these theories it is evident that the death\nof Jesus is closely connected with the forgiveness of sin and that the\nforgiveness of sin is the vital element in the Atonement.  In order to\nunderstand the truth about this let us return to what has already been\nsaid on the subject of sin and pursue it a little farther.  I have\nalready pointed out that sin is selfishness pure and simple, and that\nthat definition will cover all its manifestations.  There is no sin\nthat is not selfishness, there is no selfishness that is not sin.  All\npossible activities of the soul are between selfishness on the one hand\nand love on the other.  If people would only accept this simple\nexplanation of a great subject, it would get rid of most of the\nconfusion of thought that exists in regard to it.  The life of love is\nthe life lived for impersonal ends; the sinful life is the life lived\nfor self alone.  The life of love is the life which does the best with\nthe self for the sake of the whole; the sinful life is the life which\nis lived for the self at the expense of the whole.  The desire for\ngratification at some one else's cost, or at the cost of the common\nlife, is the root principle of sin.  Sin against God is simply an\noffence against the common life; it is attempting to draw away from\ninstead of ministering to the common good.  The sinful man thinks it\nwill pay him to be selfish; his impulse is to suppose that he can gain\nmore happiness, can drink more deeply of the cup of life, by doing it\nat the expense of other people.  We all do it more or less, and yet the\nworld might have learned by this time that selfishness does _not_ pay;\nthe thoroughly selfish man is an unhappy man, for he has not drawn upon\nthe source of abiding joy.  Like love, selfishness is a guest for life,\nbut whereas love obtains more abundant life by freely giving itself,\nsin loses hold on life by trying to grab and keep it.  Every man is\nseeking life and seeking it in one or other of these opposite ways; he\nis either fulfilling the self by serving the whole, or he is trying to\nfeed the self by robbing the whole.  But life is God, and there is no\nlife which is not God.  God is the life all-abundant, the life infinite\nand eternal, the life that never grows old, the life that is joy.\nEvery man, consciously or subconsciously, wants that life; he is\nwanting it all the time.  Why does the man of business spend so many\nhours in his office in the effort to make money?  It is because money\nrepresents power, power that can purchase \"more life and fuller.\"\nProbably he does not want it all for himself; he works for love of his\nfamily or love of the community, and his desire to serve them makes his\nwork gladder, so that already he has more abundant life than he would\notherwise possess.  Analyse human action, no matter what, and it will\nbe seen to point in one or other of these two directions, self-ward or\nall-ward.  If the former, it will shrivel the soul, it makes for death;\nif the latter, it will expand the soul, it makes for life.  This is a\nspiritual law which knows no exception; in the long run the loving deed\nbrings larger life and joy, the selfish deed brings pain and darkness.\n\"Be not deceived, God is not mocked; whatsoever a man soweth that shall\nhe also reap.  He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap\ncorruption, but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reap\neternal life.\"\n\nIt is evident from the foregoing that even the sinful life is a quest\nfor God, although it does not know itself to be such, for in seeking\nlife saint and sinner alike are seeking God, the all-embracing life.\nAnd the sinner _must_ learn that to seek life selfishly is to lose it;\nto seek it unselfishly is both to gain and to give it.  The good man\nand the bad man are seeking the same thing in opposite ways.\n\nDuring the recent New Theology controversy the editor of the _British\nWeekly_, in the course of an attack upon my teaching, printed a number\nof extracts from my sermons in order to convince his readers that that\nteaching was objectionable and false.  In every case the extract was\ncarefully removed from its context and therefore conveyed quite a\nmisleading impression to the mind of the reader.  One of these extracts\nwas from a sermon on \"More Abundant Life,\" preached in the City Temple\non Sunday morning, March 18, 1906.  As this extract has been widely\ncirculated, perhaps I may be pardoned for giving it here along with the\ncontext.  All that the editor chose to print was a part of the\nparagraph in which sin was described as a quest for God, and yet he\nmust have known perfectly well that to take that paragraph out of its\nsetting was to do an injustice both to the preacher and to the subject.\n\n\nObserve the sharp antithesis between the \"thief or the robber\" on the\none hand, and the \"Good Shepherd\" on the other.  These two stand for\ntwo opposing tendencies that have run through all nature and all human\nlife.  All nature through, all history through, two conflicting\ntendencies have been discernible.  These are ever at war, and they ever\nwill be until the whole world has been subdued to Christ, and is filled\nwith the fulness of the life of God.  These two tendencies we may\ndescribe as the deathward and the lifeward respectively.  The words are\nnot very satisfactory because the deathward tendency masquerades as the\nlifeward tendency, and the lifeward tendency, before fruition, looks\nlike the deathward one.  In nature, as Romans viii. tells us, \"We know\nthat the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until\nnow.\"  Nature is cruel, \"red in tooth and claw.\"  The deathward\ntendency is what I may call the self-ward tendency in the upward\nstruggle of all organic forms, that is, one organism only exists at the\nexpense of other organisms.  Yet at a certain stage in evolution this\nprinciple of the survival of the fittest at the expense of the rest\ngives way to a counter principle, that of the fitting of as many as\npossible to survive.  The thief tendency gives way to the shepherd\ntendency, self-love to mother-love, the struggle to survive to the\nstruggle for the life of others.  I do not pause at the moment to\naccount for these two antithetic tendencies, there they are; all\nthrough the history of this sad old world of ours these two tendencies\nhave been in sharp conflict.  Both are cosmic, both probably resolvable\nin that higher unity which is too mysterious for us to penetrate, but\nto our minds they are in flagrant opposition to each other.  The thief\ncometh to steal and to kill and to destroy; mother-love, Christ-love,\nthat it may give life, and that more abundantly.\n\nIn human history the antithesis is even more plainly marked.  From one\npoint of view, history is little else than the story of the crimes and\nfollies of mankind.  If it were entirely that, the study would be too\nsaddening to enter upon; but it is not all of that character, and yet\nit is sufficiently so to cast a shadow over the optimism of any man who\ninvestigates human evolution as told in song and story.  The principle\nthat \"they should take who have the power, and they should keep who\ncan\" has ruled in human concerns from the dawn of history until to-day.\nIt is strong enough in our midst even now.  Out industrial system is\nfounded upon it, and is essentially unchristian.  Commercialism is\nsaturated with it; all men suffer from it, but often they know not how\nto get free from it.  Ruskin has a grimly amusing paragraph on the\nparallel between an earlier civilisation and that of to-day, and the\nidentity in principle of the self-ward tendency in both.  In mediaeval\ntimes, as he would say, the robber baron was wont to possess himself of\na mountain fortress, whence he swooped down upon hapless passers-by to\nrob them of their possessions and their lives.  To-day the successful\nfinancial magnate does the same by effecting corners in corn and such\nlike.  The great writer adds, with characteristic irony, \"I prefer the\ncrag baron to the bag baron.\"  Yet with all this we see at work in\nhistory another tendency which we can recognise as plainly as the\nformer, but which fills us with great hope for the future of\nhumanity,--it is that which is summed up in the one word \"Christ.\"\nThat word stands all the world over for the things that make for more\nabundant life.  Just as in the text the word \"thief\" stands for\neverything that makes for separateness, selfhood, cruelty, so the word\n\"Christ\" stands for everything that makes for union, mutual\nhelpfulness, brotherly kindness.  The thief stands for the tendency to\ngrasp and draw inward, and the Christ stands for the tendency to give,\nand live outward.  The former tendency is what I call the\ndeathward--deathward for all else but itself; and the Christ is the\nlifeward, life for all else but itself.  Yet--curious inversion of\nearlier experience--the deathward tendency results in death to itself\nin the spiritual region, and the lifeward tendency results in life to\nhim who gives life.  \"I have power to lay it down, and I have power to\ntake it again.\"  I want you to realise here, then, that the Christ in\nhumanity is the life-giver of the soul.  They who are possessed of the\nChrist spirit are they who have and can give the more abundant life.\n\nWe have briefly examined the two tendencies of which I have spoken;\nhave you realised that in the things of the spirit the deathward\ntendency is what we call sin?  Sin is selfishness; it is the attempt to\nmisuse the energies of God; it is the expansion of individuality at the\nexpense of the race.  I do not know that you can arrive at a much more\nthorough explanation of the nature of sin than that.  Men blunderingly\nattempt to classify virtues, and think of sin as simply the failure to\nattain them.  It is not that, it is something deeper; sin is the\nattempt to minister to self at the expense of that which is outside\nself.  It lives by death to others, or seeks to do so.\n\nWhen I was away a few weeks ago I paid a visit to Monte Carlo to see\nwhat it was like, and went into the famous gambling saloon, and stood\nfor a while looking at the faces of the players.  I could not see\nanything very different from what I see now; the people who were\nengaged in that all-engrossing pursuit might have been in church, they\nwere so quiet, so orderly, and so apparently passionless.  Yet I\nfelt--it may have been a preacher's prejudice--that the moral\natmosphere of that place was one in which I did not want to remain;\nthere was something bad there, and I think I could discern what it was.\nThe gambler is essentially a man who is trying to get something for\nnothing; he is drawing to himself that which he supposes will give him\nmore satisfying and abundant life.  Let who will suffer; it is not his\nconcern.  What is lifeward for him may be deathward for them; he is\nwilling that it should be so--that is the sin.  Sin is always a\nmistake,--a soul's mistake; it is the carrying up into the spiritual\nregion of that stern and terrible law of the physical world, the\nsurvival of an organism at the expense of its fellow.  That law is\nreversed in the spiritual world; it is replaced by something else.  If\na soul is to gain more abundant life, it must rise above the desire to\ngrasp and hold.  The gambler is selling that beautiful thing which came\nfresh from the hand of God, and is at once God's life and his; he is\ndestroying the present possibility of attaining to that higher life\nwhich is the destiny of the soul.  The Christ in him can find no\nexpression.  And yet, my friends, realise this, however startling it\nmay seem, sin itself is a quest for God--a blundering quest, but a\nquest for all that.  The man who got dead drunk last night did so\nbecause of the impulse within him to break through the barriers of his\nlimitations, to express himself, and to realise more abundant life.\nHis self-indulgence just came to that; he wanted if only for a brief\nhour to live the larger life, to expand the soul, to enter untrodden\nregions, and gather to himself new experience.  That drunken debauch\nwas a quest for life, a quest for God.  Men in their sinful follies\nto-day, and their blank atheism, and their foul blasphemies, their\ntrampling upon things that are beautiful and good, are engaged in this\ndim, blundering quest for God, whom to know is life eternal.  The\n_roue_ you saw in Piccadilly last night, who went out to corrupt\ninnocence and to wallow in filthiness of the flesh, was engaged in his\nblundering quest for God.  He is looking for Him along the line of the\nwrong tendency; he has been gathering to himself what he took to be\nmore abundant life, \"but sin, when it hath conceived bringeth forth\ndeath\"--death to the sinner as well as to his victim, death of what is\ndeepest and truest in the soul.  Yet--I repeat it--all men are seeking\nlife, life more abundant, even in their selfishness and wrong-doing,\nseeking life by the deathward road.\n\n  \"Whatever crazy sorrow saith,\n  No life that breathes with human breath\n  Has ever truly longed for death.\n  'Tis life, whereof our nerves are scant,\n  O life, not death, for which we pant,\n  More life and fuller than I want.\"\n\n\nOn the following Sunday I preached a sermon entitled the \"Nature of\nSin,\" in which the same point was reemphasised with even greater\ndistinctness, as the following extract will show:--\n\n\nI think I startled some of you last Sunday morning when I happened to\nremark that sin was, after all, a quest for God--a mistaken quest, but\nnone the less a quest for God, for all that.  I want to explain to you\nto-night somewhat more in detail what I mean by this, because the more\nclearly we can see the truth the more clearly we can perceive sin to be\na soul's blunder.  There are two tendencies discernible throughout\nnature and in human history.  These two tendencies are essentially\nopposed, are ever in conflict, and ever will be until the whole world\nis subdued to Christ, and God is all in all.  I called them last Sunday\nmorning from the pulpit the deathward and the lifeward respectively.\nThe terms are not very satisfactory, because the deathward tendency\nusually masquerades as the lifeward, and the lifeward often looks like\nthe deathward.  That is why sin is ever possible.  A man thinks to get\nsomething by it, and though he finds out his mistake afterward, yet he\nsupposes it to be for him the lifeward road.  On the other hand, the\nutterly unselfish deed often looks as though it were a deed that would\nbring destruction upon the doer.  Not so.  Jesus Christ saw right to\nthe heart of things when He said, \"He that loveth his life shall lose\nit, and he that loseth his life for My sake the same shall find it.\"\nIf you substitute for the words \"for My sake,\" \"for truth's sake,\" or\n\"for life's sake,\" you will get just the same meaning,--\"he that keeps\nback his life shall lose it, and he that gives forth his life shall\nfind it.\"\n\nHere, then, are two tendencies sharply contrasted.  Now observe their\noperation in nature and in human experience.  You are all aware of, and\nfrequently have been saddened, no doubt, by what you regard as the\ncruelty of nature.  There is a tragedy under every rose leaf, there is\nunceasing conflict to the death going on in every hedgerow.  Nature is\nindeed cruel.  I have often watched, during this winter which is now\ndrawing to a close, the little birds feeding outside the window of my\nbreakfast room in the morning.  Like many of you, we put out a few\ncrumbs for these feathered friends who share the same garden with\nourselves, and I have always noticed that there is a battle royal\nfought round those crumbs.  There is enough for everyone, and yet the\ninstinct of these little creatures is to try and grab and keep all,\neach one for itself.  The instinct of the lower creation appears to be\nthat a form can only preserve itself, and only expand and express\nitself, at the expense of other forms.  It is a stern and terrible law,\nas you well know.  Forms, by a slow, upward progress in the unfolding\nof the purpose to which nature exists, have become what they are at the\nexpense of earlier and weaker forms.  There is a tendency to grasp and\nhold, a tendency to kill and to destroy, and this, to some minds,\nappears to be the strongest tendency in nature or in man.  I question\nit,--in fact, I deny it,--and I want that you and I should arrive at\nthe same conclusion respecting it.  For there is another tendency\nobservable working from the very earliest throughout the processes of\nnature, too.  It is that which Henry Drummond describes as the struggle\nfor the life of others.  If you like, we will call it mother-love.  I\nsaw it illustrated only yesterday.  A mother sheep, standing in her\nplace amongst the flock, was surprised with the rest at the incursion\nof a mongrel dog.  The flock fled instantly, but the ordinarily timid\nmother stood her ground.  The reason was not far to seek.  There was a\nlittle lamb cowering behind her, and she, overcoming her natural\ninstinct of self-preservation, turned her face to the dog to draw his\nattention, if possible, to herself and deflect it from her young one.\nNow, that instinct represents the tendency of which I speak, the\nantithetic tendency to the other already described.  It is the stronger\nof the two.  It indicates the goal toward which nature herself is\nmoving.  \"The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together\nuntil now,\" but mother-love is a prophecy of a higher yet to be.  It is\nthe forth-going instinct, the all-ward, lifeward tendency.\n\nNow turn to humanity.  I think you will agree with me that right\nthrough human history the same two tendencies are observable.  The\nfarther back we go, the stronger seems the self-ward tendency.  The\nnatural state of uncivilised man is a state of war.  Man in primitive\ncommunities only exists and flourishes by destroying other communities.\nA most curious thing it is, too, that apparently our domestic and civic\nvirtues have grown out of this state of war.  A man used to carry his\nwife off by main force.  She become his property.  He exerted his brute\nforce, he magnified his own personality, as it were, in crushing other\npersonalities.  His children were in his hands for life and death.  If\nhe afterwards learned to love them, it was in contradistinction to the\nchildren that were not his.  That which was his, so to speak, gratified\nhis egotism; and, although a more beautiful relationship grew out of\nit, such was the unpromising beginning.  To-day when you hear a man\nspeaking loudly about \"_my_ country,\" or \"_my_ family,\" or \"_my_\nsociety,\" as the case may be, you may be perfectly sure that he is\nprojecting himself into his patriotism, or into his loyalty to family\nor society; and indeed this was the lowly beginning of what has come to\nbe an excellent virtue.  We have had to learn benevolence by\nconcentrating unselfish attention upon the few rather than the many.\nThe farther back you go in history, the sterner does the operation of\nthat law appear, and the less promising the future of mankind.  If\npeople tell me the world is not getting better, I suggest that it might\nbe worth their while to read a chapter of mediaeval or primitive\nhistory.  In the \"Odyssey,\" for instance, Homer sketches for us the\ncareer of a strong and remarkable man.  His hero, supposed to be a\nparagon of virtue, is capable of things you would call scoundrelism\nto-day.  He and his band of storm-tossed companions land upon an island\nof the Grecian Archipelago and find a city there.  They promptly sack\nit and kill all the inhabitants--men, women, and children.  It seemed\nto be the proper thing to do, and found its way into verse, and they\nboasted about such heroic exploits.  It was brutal murder, and the men\nwho were capable of it were nothing more or less than pirates.  Yet\nthat stern, terrible tendency thus illustrated is just one with that\ninscrutable law under which nature herself has come to be what she is.\nIt is what I call the self-ward tendency, the desire to grasp and keep\nat the expense of other individualities other societies than our own.\n\nBut in history, and from those very earliest times down to our own,\nanother tendency has shown itself at work, a counter tendency.  The two\nhave been so intertwined frequently--as I have indicated in showing\nwhere patriotism comes from--that it has been difficult to dissociate\nthem; but they are quite distinct.  Take, for instance, the magnificent\ndevotion of Arnold von Winkelried on the field of Sempach.  Switzerland\nhas not existed as a political unit for many centuries, but during that\ntime her roll of heroes has been large.  In the formative hour of Swiss\nindependence, when that tiny folk were struggling for their liberty\nagainst the overweening power of Austria, it must have seemed a\nhopeless undertaking--this group of mountaineers against the chivalry\nof an empire.  The great battle of Sempach was fought.  The Swiss,\narmed with nothing but their battle-axes, hurled themselves in vain all\nday long against the serried ranks of Austrian mail-clad warriors,\narmed with spears, through which the shepherd men could make no way.\nThey fell before them, but could not pass through them, till Winkelried\ncalled to his countrymen, \"Provide for my wife and children and I will\nmake a way,\" and, rushing unarmed upon the spearmen of Austria, clasped\nin his embrace as many of them as he could and bore them to the earth.\nA dozen spears passed through his body, but through the gap his\ndevotion had made, his countrymen leaped to victory.  That one act made\npossible, humanly speaking, the Swiss independence, which is an\nobject-lesson for us to-day.  Such acts as these form part of the\ncherished lore of nations.  We feel they are the light-centres of the\nworld.  Something tells us that an act like that, the giving of a life\nfor the sake of an ideal, a cause, a country, was a great thing.  It\nrepresented the counter tendency to what was going on at that moment.\nIn that very battle Austria was trying to grasp and hold, Switzerland\nwas trying to get free and live her own life, and here was a man who,\nfor the sake of his country's ideal, gave all that he had--his life.\nWill you tell me where to look for the focus and centre of that ideal?\nI know what your answer would be.  It was at Calvary.  The one thing\nwhich, consciously or subconsciously, men have recognised in Jesus that\nhas given Him His supreme attraction for the world, is this--He was\nabsolutely disinterested.  It is the disinterestedness of Jesus, His\nutter nobleness, His power of projecting Himself into the experience of\nothers, and trying to lift humanity as a whole to His experience of\nGod, that gave Him His power with mankind.  Jesus not only proclaimed,\nbut lived, the counter tendency to the law of sin and death.\n\nNow, when we have brought the two together, you see the essential\ndistinction between working for self and its deathward look, and\nworking for all with its lifeward gaze.  These two are antithetic, and\nmust be in opposition until the latter absorbs the former, and God is\nall in all, and love reigneth world without end.\n\nWe are now able to see what sin is more plainly than before.  Sin is\nthe tendency to grasp and draw inward, and everything that feeds that\ntendency makes for death.  Sin is the expansion of the individuality at\nthe expense of the race; sin is acting on the belief that the soul can\nincrease at another's cost, can increase by destroying what is\nanother's good.  Apply that explanation or definition of sin to what\nyou know about life, and you will soon see when a man is facing the\ndeathward road, and how differently he acts when he is choosing the\nlifeward road.  There are men in this congregation who do not realise,\nas they should, that lifewardness is God-wardness; but so it is.  The\nsoul and the source of all things is God, and, consciously or\nunconsciously, all men are seeking God in that they are seeking\nself-expression, seeking life.  The man, for instance, who is trying to\nbecome rich is a man who is seeking to express himself, seeking power,\nseeking life, seeking to thrust through the barriers that surround the\nsoul.  They are all doing it; the veriest materialist among you is\nseeking by his daily activities more abundant life.  The young man here\nwho feels a burning ambition within his heart, a desire to exploit the\nworld and make a name for himself, to occupy a high station, is not\nconscious of anything essentially unworthy.  It all depends on what he\ndoes with the impulse.  What you are seeking, young man, is more\nabundant life, and that is equivalent to seeking God.  Life is God.\n\"Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from\nthe Father of lights.\"  And when the tendency goes round and works\nhavoc and ruin in the world, it still remains a quest for God, although\na blundering one.  It is a misuse of divine energy.  The man who got\ndrunk last night and gratified his lower nature in that delirious hour\nwould be surprised if you were to tell him when you see the result that\nhe was really seeking God, but so it is.  He wants life, and thinks he\ncan get it this way.  This is the reason why morbid excitement and the\ncraving for amusement have such power in human lives to-day.  Your\n_roue_ in Piccadilly who went out to destroy innocence was seeking life\nwhile spreading death.  It seems almost blasphemy to say it, but he was\nseeking God and thinking--O woful blunder!--that he would find Him by\ndestroying something that God has made beautiful and fair.  So with all\nacts of selfish gratification of which men are capable--they are the\nturning of the current of divine energy the wrong way, and seeking\nself-gratification at the expense of something else that God has made.\nIt is a failure to see that we only obtain life by giving life.  When\nan engine goes off the line there is a smash, as a rule, and the\ngreater the power that was driving the engine, the worse is the wreck\nwhen it leaves the line.  The lightning directed rightly becomes the\nluminant by which we look on each other's faces to-night.  That same\npower might have brought havoc and destruction if it had not been\nharnessed in the service of man.  And so with the power that God has\ngiven you; all desire for self-expression, all seeking of which you are\nconscious for larger and better and richer life, is God-given; but it\nmay mean ruin and destruction unless you see that it is yours, not that\nyou may draw inward, but that you may give outward, yours not to keep\nand hold, but yours wherewith to bless mankind.  Sin is the tendency to\nkeep for self that which was meant for the world.  \"The wages of sin is\ndeath,\" the death of soul.  He who is guilty of sin is guilty of soul\nmurder.  \"All they that hate Me love death,\" and he that spreads pain\nand ruin over other lives in the gratification of his own lower\ninstincts is using something which is God-given--yea, which is\nessentially God's own life--in the wrong way.  The only hope for him is\nto realise that no act of sin was ever yet worth while, that it does\npunish itself, must punish itself, for it shrivels and fetters the\nsoul.  No eleventh-hour repentance will ever save you, and no cowardly\ncry for relief will ever bring God's forgiveness into your soul, until\nyou have realised that sin and selfishness are one, and that what you\nhave failed to give forth of love and service represents the measure of\nyour soul poverty.\n\n\nEven at the risk of prolixity and repetition I have thought it right to\ninsert these lengthy extracts from sermons which have been animadverted\nupon.  My readers will be able to judge of the fairness of the\ncriticism which, by abstracting a few lines, strove to make it appear\nthat my teaching denied the reality of sin.  Here are the actual words\nseen in their proper setting.  If one were on the lookout for a good\nillustration of the sinfulness of sin, perhaps the controversial\nmethods of the editor of the _British Weekly_ might furnish it.  This\nkind of criticism is on a par with that of the gentleman who once\nstartled an audience by declaring, \"The Bible says there is no God.\"\nHe was right, of course, if it be legitimate to suppress the former\npart of the passage, \"The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.\"\n\nIt is time we had done with unreal talk about sin.  Sin is the murder\nspirit in human experience.  \"Whosoever hateth his brother is a\nmurderer.  If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a\nliar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he\nlove God whom he hath not seen?\"  Strong language, but I suppose the\nman who first used it must have known what he was talking about.\nPomposity is sin, because it is egoism; self-complacency and\ncontemptuousness are sin for the same reason.  Cupidity is sin whether\nin a burglar or a Doctor of Divinity.  A bitter, grasping, cruel,\nunsympathetic spirit is sin, no matter who shows it.  The scribe and\nthe Pharisee are too much with us, and the religious ideal needs to be\nrescued from their blighting grasp to-day as much as ever it did.  Of\nall forms of sin an arrogant, malignant, self-satisfied assumption of\nrighteousness is the worst and the hardest to eradicate, as Jesus found\nto His cost.  The terrible damning lie which is stifling religion\nto-day is the lie which crucified Jesus, the lie that spiritual pride\ncan ever interpret God to a needy world.  There is something grimly\namusing in the suggestion that prosperous people should pay for sending\ngospel missions to the poor.  If sin is selfishness, the poor had\nbetter missionise the rich.  Imagine how it would be if things were\nreversed in this way, and a mission band of earnest slum dwellers took\ntheir stand in Belgravia and began a house-to-house visitation, with\nall the theological terms carefully eliminated from the mission\nleaflets they thrust under the doors or handed to the powdered footmen.\nInstead of, \"Flee from the wrath to come,\" etc., they might have:\n\"Don't be selfish! it is hurting you and your neighbours and making you\nunhappy.  Don't pretend!  It is poor business in the end.  Try to do as\nmuch as you can for other people and you will know what God is.\"  The\nattempt would be startling and unwelcome, but it would be far less\nimpudent than the religious exhortations of the prosperous to the poor\ncommonly are.  For the truth is that if sin is selfishness,--and it is\nnothing else,--the degraded habits of people at the lower end of the\nsocial scale are no more sinful than the ordinary behaviour of most of\ntheir preceptors at the other end.  Most of the talk about sin is\nunreal; that is the trouble; so verily the publicans and harlots go\ninto the kingdom of heaven before us.  In church a man will profess\nhimself to be a miserable sinner, but if we were to address him in the\nsame way out of church he would sue us for libel--if he thought we\nmeant it.  For heaven's sake let us have done with the sham of it all\nand face the truth.  What mankind is suffering from is selfishness.\nGet rid of that and there would be little left to trouble about.\n\n+Atonement and sin.+--It should now be plain why the doctrine of\nAtonement has been so closely associated with the doing away of sin; it\nis because, as we have seen, the root idea of Atonement is the\nassertion of the fundamental oneness of man with man and all with God.\nSin is the divisive separating thing in our relations with one another,\nand with God the source of all, so the assertion of our oneness\ninvolves getting rid of sin.  If we ask how this is to be done, the\nanswer is simple enough: the only way to get rid of selfishness is by\nthe ministry of love.  What is it that is slowly winning the world from\nits selfishness to-day and lifting it gradually into the higher, purer\natmosphere of universal love?  There is but one thing that is doing it,\nand that is the spirit of self-sacrifice.  Wherever you see that, you\nsee the true Atonement at work.  There can be no doubt about the final\nissue, for behind the spirit of love is infinity, whereas the spirit of\nselfishness is essentially finite.  On the field of human history the\ndeath of Jesus is the focus and concentrated essence of this age-long\natoning process, whereby selfishness is being overcome and the whole\nrace lifted up to its home in God.  Until Jesus came no self-offering\nhad been so consistent and so complete.  No selfish desire could find\nlodgment in His pure soul.  He showed men the ideal life by living it\nHimself, the life which was perfectly at one with God and man.  In a\nselfish world that life was sure to end on a Calvary of some kind, but\nthe very fact that it did so demonstrated the completeness of its\nvictory over all considerations of self-interest.  Selfishness lost the\nbattle by seeming to gain it.  God was behind the life of Jesus just\nbecause it was the life of perfect love, the life which was a perfect\ngift to the whole, therefore that life immediately arose in power in\nother lives and has gone increasing its benevolent sway over human\nhearts ever since.  This is the Atonement and it is rightly associated\nwith the cross of Jesus in the minds of men, for the cross is the sum\nand centre of it all.\n\n+The increasing Atonement.+--But the Atonement to be effective has to\nbe repeated on the altar of human hearts, and so it is, to a far\ngreater extent than most people stop to think.  The same spirit that\nwas in Jesus and governed His whole career was the spirit of the true\nhumanity, \"The light that lighteth every man that cometh into the\nworld.\"  The spirit of Jesus was the spirit of Christ, the ideal or\ndivine manhood as it exists eternally in God.  But that ideal or divine\nmanhood, that Christ nature, is also potentially present in every human\nbeing.  What needs to be done is to get it manifested or brought forth\ninto conscious activity.  The immediate effect of the life and death of\nJesus upon His followers was to make them more or less like Him, and to\nfill them with a similar desire to get men to live the life of love\nwhich is the life of God.  They felt themselves inspired by the same\nspirit, the Holy Spirit of truth and love, and exalted above all fear\nfor their own safety and all desire to live for themselves alone.  They\nloved their Lord so much that their lives became one with His in the\nwork of saving the world.  They could see no difference between serving\ntheir Master and serving mankind.  This love force of theirs, this\nintense loyalty to Jesus, was, and still is, the redeeming thing in the\nlife of mankind.  There is not and never has been any other Atonement.\nThe divine power that is breaking down selfishness, and transforming\nhuman desires in accordance with the eternal truth of things, is the\nspirit of self-sacrificing love.  It is but a step from sinner to\nsaviour.  To cease to be a sinner is perforce to be a saviour.  To\nescape from the dominion of selfishness is forthwith to become a power\nin the hand of God for the uplifting and ingathering of mankind to\nHimself; this is the Atonement.\n\nAsk yourself whether this is not so.  What other force for good is\nthere in the world to-day than the spirit which governed the whole life\nof Jesus and rendered Him willing to brave the worst that evil could do\nin His desire to get men to realise the true life?  There is no other.\nIf you want to see the Atonement at work, go wherever love is\nministering to human necessity and you see the very same spirit which\nwas in Jesus, the spirit which heals and saves.  Dogma is doing nothing\nto save the world; the gospel of self-sacrifice is doing everything.\nShow me a Christlike life and I will show you a part of the Atonement\nof Christ.  Show me a noble deed and I will show you something worthy\nof Jesus.  His self-offering, and the love and devotion it awoke in\nhuman hearts, are a perpetual sacrifice, a cumulative assertion that in\nthe presence of need love can never do anything other than give itself\nuntil the need is supplied and love is all in all.  There is even a\npossibility of substitution here.  Vicarious suffering willingly\naccepted becomes irresistible in the long run as a means of lifting a\ntransgressor out of the mire of selfishness.  Many a noble wife has\nsaved her husband by remaining at his side and patiently accepting the\ndisabilities caused by his wrong-doing.  It is even possible in such a\ncase for the saviour to bear more than the sinner, and for the sinner\nto be relieved of some of the consequences of his sin; he would have to\nsuffer more if there were no loving helper to stand by him.  But to\nspeak of one as bearing another's punishment is untrue; such a thing\ncannot be.  All that love can do is to share to the uttermost in the\npainful consequences of sin and by so doing break their power  What\nother Atonement is needed than this?  It requires no defence, and a\nchild could understand it.  Everyone already believes in it, whether he\nstops to think about it or not.  While I am writing these words a\nfierce storm is raging outside.  This is the second day we have had of\nit, and there seems likely to be some loss of life on the dangerous\nrocks outside the bar which forms the entrance to the bay below.  A\nvisitor has just been telling me of a wilder storm in this same bay\nsome years ago, and of which he says to-day's gale reminds him.  On\nthat previous occasion three ships were wrecked together within a few\nyards of this house.  It must have been a dreadful, awe-inspiring\nscene.  No boat could live on the surf, so every survivor had to be\ndragged ashore with ropes fastened to the cliffs and hauled by willing\nhands.  Hundreds of townspeople and fisher folk came pouring over from\nSt. Ives and all the hamlets round about in order to take part in the\nwork of rescue.  According to my informant the scene was enough to stir\nany heart, and even grown men were crying with excitement and\ncompassion as some of the poor fellows in the rigging of the doomed\nvessels were washed away before they could be got ashore.  The few who\nwere actually snatched from the jaws of death found no lack of willing\nhelpers as one by one they were passed insensible into the kind keeping\nof the many who stood waiting for an opportunity to be of service.  No\none grudged anything; every home and every bed would have been\ncheerfully placed at the disposal of the shipwrecked mariners if they\nhad been wanted.  Brave women, the wives and daughters of men who were\nrisking their lives on the sea every day, willingly encouraged their\nhusbands and sons in battling against the tempest in the endeavour to\nsave other husbands and sons whom they had never seen or heard of until\nthat hour of distress and need.  And what a fight it was to be sure!\nNever was a braver.  Again and again these humble Cornish heroes dashed\ninto the raging billows to grasp and guide the ropes that bore a\nflickering human life, and every time they returned with their helpless\nburden a cheer went up from the watchers that drowned for a moment the\nviolence of the blast.  No one thought of enquiring into the theology\nof saviours or survivors.  No doubt there were some among the former\nwho were oftener to be found at the public-house bar than at church,\nbut no one could have distinguished them from the orthodox Christians\nwho fought the waves shoulder to shoulder beside them; they were there\nto save life, and in doing so their deeper manhood shone out with\ndivine splendour.  But the most of the rescuers were good sound,\nearnest Methodists who perhaps believed, or thought they believed, in\nthe eternal damnation of the unregenerate.  But what became of their\ndoctrine in the face of an urgent human need and the call for\nself-sacrifice to supply that need?  It was utterly forgotten.  There\nis both humour and pathos in the fact that these convinced believers\ntugged and tore at the ropes, and freely jeopardised their own lives in\na magnificent endeavour to save perishing bodies from temporal water.\nThere is the truth for you, the real Atonement.  The heart creed is\nusually better than the head creed, and in great moments buries the\nlatter out of sight.  Here was the spirit of Christ, the true and\neternal manhood, the spirit that seeks to save at its own cost.  Here\nwas the instinctive perception of the fundamental oneness of all life\nand the recognition that the godlike thing is to seek to deliver life\nfrom the clutch of death.\n\n+All men instinctively believe in the Atonement.+--This is the deepest\nand truest impulse of the human heart, as all men already know if they\nwould only trust their better nature to tell them what God wants from\nhis children.  Here is an explosion in a coal-mine, and forthwith every\nmother's son above ground volunteers to go down into the choke-damp to\nsnatch his buried comrades from the sleep of death.  A few months ago\none such disaster took place in a Durham colliery.  Most of my readers\nwill remember that in the newspaper reports of the incidents that took\nplace at the pit mouth were the following: A father who was brought to\nthe surface was asked whether he lost hope during the long hours of his\nimprisonment below without food or light.  \"No,\" was the reply, \"for I\nknew my boy would be in the rescue party, and that nothing would turn\nhim back until he found his father, dead or alive.\"  The suffragan\nbishop of the diocese, along with a number of other clergymen and\nnonconformist ministers, remained all night amid the scene of sorrow at\nthe pit mouth, doing his best to comfort the mourners as their loved\nones were brought up dead.  As morning broke he mounted a heap of\ncinders and, without making any attempt to conceal his emotion, spoke a\nfew manly words of brotherly exhortation and Christian love to his\ndeeply moved congregation of toilers and sufferers.  One poor woman,\nwith unconscious irony, exclaimed to the bystanders: \"He doesn't seem\nlike a bishop!  He is just like one of ourselves.\"  That servant of God\nhas never preached the Atonement more effectually in all his life--by\ngetting together of man and man, and man and God, through the spirit of\nself-sacrifice.  He stands in the true apostolic succession, the\nsuccession of men like Saul of Tarsus, the erstwhile persecutor, who,\nunder the inspiration of the love of Jesus, lived to say, \"Who is weak\nand I am not weak?  Who is offended and I burn not?\"\n\nGo into any home where the spirit of self-sacrificing love is trying to\ndo anything to supply a need or save a transgressor, and you see the\nAtonement.  Follow that Salvation lassie to the slums, and listen to\nher as she tries to persuade a drunken husband and father to give up\nthe soul-destroying habit which is such a curse to wife and child, and\nyou see the Atonement.  Go with J. Keir Hardie to the House of Commons\nand listen to his pleading for justice to his order and you see the\nAtonement.  Hear the prayer of mother-love for the erring, wandering\nson, and you have the Atonement.  See that grey-haired father patiently\npleading with selfish, hot-headed youth, or yielding up his own\nhard-won possessions to pay the gambler's debts and save the family\nname, and you have the Atonement.  Nothing can stir the human heart so\nmuch.  All the great deeds of history derived their inspiration from\nit; all the little heroisms of our common everyday life are the\ndeclaration of it.  There is not a single one of all our thoughts and\nactivities but has some relation to it; we are either living for\nourselves individually and separately or we are living for the whole.\nIf the former, we are the servants of sin; if the latter, our lives are\nalready part of the Atonement.\n\n+Jesus and the Atonement.+--It is easy to see how much the world owes\nto Jesus in this regard.  I cannot tell what the world might have been\nif there had never been a Jesus, but certain it is that the sacrificial\nlife and death of Jesus have meant the inpouring of a spirit into human\naffairs such as had never been known in the same degree before.  Here\nfor the first time men saw a perfect manifestation of the life that is\nlife indeed, the life that pleased not itself, the life that entered\ninto and shared human disabilities as though they were its very own,\nthe life that in the presence of selfishness must inevitably become\nsacrifice, the life of Atonement.  In a sinful world that life had to\ncome to a Calvary, but in so doing in refusing to shield and save\nitself it became the greatest moral power and the greatest revelation\nof God that the world has ever known.  What we succeed in doing some of\nthe time, Jesus did all the time; when all men are able to do it all\nthe time the Atonement will have become complete and love divine shall\nbe all in all.  \"Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!\" cried Julian the\napostate; and Christian faith can reverently add--\n\n  \"Jesus is worthy to receive\n  Honour and power divine;\n  And blessings more than we can give\n  Be, Lord, forever thine.\"\n\nFaith in Jesus is faith in the Atonement and faith in our own\nChristhood.  It means the upraising of the true life, the eternal life,\nwithin our own souls.  Until His spirit becomes our spirit, His\nAtonement has done nothing for us, and when it does we, like Him,\nbecome saviours of the race.  It must be so, for the spirit of love is\nthe same both in God and man; in the presence of need, no matter what\nthe need may be, that spirit must continue to give itself without stint\nuntil the need is supplied and all that would tend to separate between\nthe individual soul and the eternal perfect whole is done away.\n\nBut then, someone will say, what has the death of Jesus effected in the\nunseen so as to make it possible for God to forgive us?  Nothing\nwhatever, and nothing was ever needed.  God is not a fiend but a\nFather, the source and sustenance of our being and the goal of all our\naspirations.  Why should we require to be saved from Him?\n\n+Divine satisfaction in Atonement.+--But in what sense is the death of\nJesus a satisfaction to the Father?  In no sense at all, except that\nthe sacrifice of Jesus is the highest expression of the innermost of\nGod that has ever been made.  If it affords an artist satisfaction to\nexpress himself in a beautiful picture, or a great thinker to express\nhis noble thought in a book, surely the highest satisfaction that God\ncan know must be his self-expression in the self-sacrifice of his\nchildren.  At its best, the intensest joy that can be known is the joy\nof giving one's self for the good of the whole.  In everything grand\nand good in human thought and achievement God is doing just this.  It\nis the satisfaction he receives from the Atonement and the only one.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE\n\n+Atonement and New Testament language.+--It will have been observed\nthat in my examination of the subject of the Atonement I have said\nalmost nothing about the New Testament evidence for the doctrine.\nThis, I admit, is an entire departure from the method usually followed\nby those who write upon it, and may be thought by some to vitiate my\nwhole argument.  But the omission is of set purpose, for I am convinced\nthat New Testament language about the Atonement, especially the\nlanguage of St. Paul, has been, and still is, the prolific source of\nmost of the mischievous misinterpretations of it which exist in the\nreligious mind.  To an extent this is the same with the Old Testament,\nbut to a far less degree, for the language of the Old Testament is only\nliable to misapprehension when interpreted by the New.  In a previous\nchapter I have endeavoured to show the imperishable truths which\nunderlie Old Testament symbolism in regard to the Atonement, and I\ntrust I have shown that these truths are as fresh and indispensable\nto-day, and play as great a part in human affairs as they ever did.\nBut before I proceed to say anything about the New Testament symbolism,\nwhich has been largely derived from the Old, let us consider the\nquestion of the authority of scripture as a whole.\n\n+Tendency to bow to external authority.+--There is always a tendency in\nthe ordinary mind to rely upon some form of external authority in\nreligious as in other matters.  With one man it is the authority of an\ninfallible church; with another the authority of an infallible book;\nwith another the authority of some infallible statement of belief which\nought to hold good for all time, but never does.  At the best, external\nauthority is only a crutch, and at the worst it may become a rigid\nfetter upon the expanding soul.  The true seat of authority is within,\nnot without, the human soul.  We are so constituted as to be able to\nrecognise, little by little, the truth of God as it comes to us.  It\nmay come from any one of a thousand different quarters, but to be\nrecognised and felt as truth it must awaken an echo within the\nindividual soul.  If it does not awaken such a response, it is of no\neffect so far as the growth of the soul is concerned.  What is true in\nthis book will not be received as true by the readers merely because I\nsay it, but because they feel it to be true and cannot get away from\nit.  Why should we be afraid of trusting the human soul to recognise\nand respond to its own truth?  All truth is one, and all earnest\ntruth-seekers are converging upon one goal.  It is the divine self\nwithin everyone of us which enables us to discern the truth best fitted\nto our needs, and this divine self is, as has already been pointed out,\nfundamentally one with the source of all truth, which is God.\n\nIf men could only come to see this more clearly and to trust their own\ndivine nature to enable them to follow and express the truth as well as\nto receive it, they would not suffer themselves to be hampered by\nformal and literal statements of belief whether in the church, the\nBible, or anywhere else.  But this is what they seldom do.  Your devout\nAnglican or Roman Catholic will tell you that the church teaches this\nor the church teaches that: as though that fact ever permanently\nsettled anything.  One cannot really begin to appreciate the value of\nunited continuous church testimony until one is able to stand apart\nfrom it, so to speak, and ask whether it rings true to the reason and\nthe moral sense.  Suppose the Christian church enjoined or permitted\nrape and murder, would the devout Catholic believe and obey?  \"But it\nis inconceivable that the church could ever do that,\" he might answer.\nYes, but suppose it did, would he obey?  If not, why not?  He would not\nobey because he would know quite well that the higher law within his\nheart would forbid and render impossible any such obedience.  That is\nall the answer I want.  Why should we not apply it all the way round?\nThe real test of truth is to be found in the response it awakens within\nthe soul.\n\n+The supposed authority of the letter a great hindrance to truth.+--Now\none of the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of many devout and\nintelligent minds to-day is that of the supposed binding authority of\nthe letter of scripture.  When a good man hears some inspiring or\ncommon-sense statement of truth,--for instance, that of universal\nsalvation,--he often replies in some such way as the following: \"Yes, I\nknow it seems very plausible, and my heart desires to believe it; but\nthen, you know, it says in the scripture, 'These shall go away into\neverlasting punishment, but the righteousness into life eternal.'  I\ncannot get behind that.\"  He will go on stringing together, passage\nafter passage, often without the slightest suspicion that the original\nmeaning had nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion;\nas, for example, that well-known sentence in Ezekiel, \"The soul that\nsinneth, it shall die.\"  Whatever Ezekiel originally meant by that\nsaying,--and it is well worth examination,--he was not thinking of a\nmodern revival meeting.  The plain, average, level-headed business man\nof religious temperament will sometimes bother himself in this way\nuntil he thinks of giving up religion altogether.  The letter of\nscripture often seems to say one thing and the Christlike human heart\nanother.  Take, as one example out of many, that pungent passage in\nPsalm cxxxvii, \"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little\nones against the stones.\"  That passage does not breathe the spirit of\nJesus, nor is it true to the best in human nature; no follower of Jesus\nwants to see a little one dashed against a stone.  But even to do\njustice to a passage of this kind we have to get into intellectual and\nmoral sympathy with the man who wrote it.  It was written by one of the\npoor Jewish prisoners carried away captive into Babylon by\nNebuchadnezzar six centuries or more before Jesus was born.  Try and\npicture the scene.  Across eight hundred miles of desert that\nmelancholy procession winds its way, leaving the highland home behind\nand going into slavery in the cruel city of the plain.  One by one the\nweakest fall and die; and where a baby is left without a mother, or the\nmother cannot walk with the weight of the helpless child, the cruel\nBabylonian ruffians riding at the side will snatch it from the\nanguished bosom and dash its brains out against the rocks.  Should we\nbe likely to forget that if we had ever formed part of such a\nprocession of prisoners of war?  Hence when Psalm cxxxvii came to be\nwritten by some poor suffering father who had lost maybe both wife and\nchild, he gave vent to his feelings in one of the most plaintive\npatriotic songs ever sung:--\n\n\nBy the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down--yea, we wept when we\nremembered Zion.  We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst\nthereof, for there they that carried us away captive required of us a\nsong; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one\nof the songs of Zion.  How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange\nland?  If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her\ncunning....  O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy\nshall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.  Happy shall he\nbe that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones!\n\n\nOne can feel deep sympathy with this unknown poet and his suffering\npeople without adopting the absurd view that this passage represents\nGod's word to our souls.  It is a cry of suffering mingled with a\ndesire for vengeance, and that is all.  But when a preacher declares\nthat he takes his stand and bases his gospel on the infallible Book, he\nis either a fool or--a rhetorician.\n\n+Belief in the infallible Book impossible.+--There are many good people\nwho maintain that they believe the Bible from cover to cover, and they\nseem to think that this is something to be proud of.  But they credit\nthemselves with an impossible feat; no one can believe contradictions,\nin the sense of accepting them, whether intellectual or moral.  The\nvery same people who will read with unction the most sanguinary\nexhortations from scripture are usually people who themselves would not\nhurt a fly.  The Bible is not like a parliamentary blue book, an exact\nand literal statement of facts; it represents for the most part what\nearnest men belonging to a particular nationality in a bygone age\nthought about life in relation to God.  Many good people talk as though\nthe Bible were written by the finger of God Himself and let down from\nheaven; on the other hand there are those who think that when they have\nshown the inconsistencies of scripture, they have destroyed its value.\nBut they are both mistaken.  The Bible is not one book, but a\ncollection of books, a slow growth extending over centuries.  It has\ncome to be reverenced not because of any supernormal attestations of\nits authority, but because we have found it helps us more than any\nother book.  The fact that the best part of it was written by good and\nserious men, men who were living for the highest they were able to see,\ndoes not necessarily give binding authority to the opinions of these\nmen.  I question whether we should ever have heard of the Old Testament\nif it had not been for Jesus, and the New is only a statement of what\nsome good men thought about Jesus and his gospel at the beginning of\nChristian history.  Jesus knew and loved the Old Testament scriptures,\nbut whenever He found a statement therein that jarred upon His moral\nsense, He rejected it in the name of the higher truth declared by the\nSpirit of Truth within His own soul: \"Ye have heard that it was said by\nthem of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall\nbe in danger of the judgment.  But I say unto you that whosoever is\nangry with his brother without a cause\"--and even \"without a cause\"\nseems to have been interpolated in later days--\"shall be in danger of\nthe judgment.\"  \"Again ye have heard that it hath been said by them of\nold time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the\nLord thine oaths.  But I say unto you, Swear not at all, neither by the\nheavens, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is His\nfootstool.  Let your communication be Yea, yea, nay, nay; for\nwhatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.\"  \"Ye hath heard that it\nhath been said, Thou shalt love thine neighbour and hate thine enemy:\nbut I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do\ngood to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you\nand persecute you.\"  Jesus knew what He was doing.  In all these\ninstances He was quoting from the Old Testament, and deliberately\nsuperseding in the name of truth certain prescriptions of the very law\nwhich He said He had come to fulfil.  Everyone was taken by surprise at\nHis daring to do this.  Matthew vii. 28, 29, says, \"And it came to\npass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were\nastonished at His teaching; for He taught them as one having (in\nHimself) authority, and not as the scribes.\"  No doubt some people\nwould say to-day that this authority came from His Godhead.  But the\npeople on the hillsides of Galilee knew nothing about the Godhead of\nJesus.  To them He was a heaven-sent teacher, a great and inspiring\nmaster, whose words carried weight.  His authority, therefore, must\nhave been self-evident in contradistinction to that of the scribes, who\nalways began their discourses by saying, \"It is written.\"  They never\nseem to have thought of appealing to anything else than the authority\nof the letter.  But we see that Jesus, notwithstanding His reverence\nfor the scripture, handled it with perfect freedom.  His authority was\nthat of the Spirit of God speaking within His own soul, the only\nauthority that has ever mattered in the history of religious thought.\nHe did not deny the authority of Scripture, but He claimed to be able\nto see when it rang true to His own inner experience and when it did\nnot.\n\n+The true seat of authority.+--If we could grasp this principle clearly\nand strongly, it would give us a new and higher sense of freedom and of\nconfidence in the word of God as declared in the Bible and revealed in\nhuman hearts.  God has never stopped speaking to men.  He speaks\nthrough us collectively and individually.  \"The word is very nigh unto\nthee, in thy mouth and in thine heart, that thou mayest do it.\"  If we\nare only in earnest to listen for the divine voice and to trust it when\nwe hear it, we shall not listen in vain.  To realise that God is\nspeaking to us just as He spoke to earnest souls in the days of old\nwill send us to the sacred scriptures with an even greater appreciation\nand reverence for the men of whose experience they are the expression.\nBut they will no longer bind us; they can only help and encourage us.\nWe shall feel that these men of faith of an earlier day and a different\nrace were our brothers after all, men who lived a life much like our\nown, and who were trying to understand God as we are trying to\nunderstand Him.  The Bible is not infallible for the simple reason that\nthe human nature, even of wise and great men, is not infallible.  It\nhelps us because these men were struggling with the same problems as\nourselves, and therefore what they have to say about them is valuable.\nBut the best of them had their limitations and shortcomings.  They did\nnot know all the truth that was to be known, but they kept their faces\nto the light.  If we allow ourselves to be fettered by their actual\nwords, we shall be in danger of losing sympathy with them in the spirit\nwhich animated those words.  We are writing a Bible with our own lives\nto-day, a Bible which may never be read in its fulness by human eyes,\nbut every letter of which is known and read in heaven.  Every noble\nlife is a word of God to the world; every brave, unselfish deed is a\nray of eternal truth.  Our characters ought to become living epistles\nknown and read of all men while we strive to express the best that God\nhas given us to see; for the same eternal Spirit of Truth, the Spirit\nwho has been the teacher of all the Elijahs, Isaiahs, and Pauls of\nhistory is with us to-day as He was with them.\n\n+The unity of truth.+--But, someone will remonstrate, What then are we\nto believe?  For by speaking in this way you erect as many standards of\ntruth as there are individuals.  What the ordinary man wants is to be\ntold just what to believe, so that he can settle down and be at rest.\nIt is small comfort to tell him that every scripture statement may be\nmore or less fallible, and that he must trust to his own perception, or\nperhaps to his own fancies, as to what is true.  I know all that kind\nof argument.  It is as old as, or older than, Christianity itself.  It\nwas used in all sincerity against Jesus by some earnest people of His\ntime.  It was used again at the Reformation.  It is still used by\nsacerdotal controversialists, and looks very plausible on the face of\nit.  A devout and earnest Roman Catholic will tell you that in\nProtestantism there are a thousand different creeds, all claiming to be\nauthoritative, and that the principle of private judgment can only lead\nto intellectual and moral chaos.  Your Protestant literalist will tell\nyou that the Romanist criticism has a good deal in it, and that you\nmust have a final standard of authority, either the infallible church,\nthe infallible Book, or the infallible Confession of Faith.  But\nnotwithstanding the dogmatists the supposed infallible Confession of\nFaith is almost universally discredited, and common honesty is\ncompelling Protestants to abandon the theory of an infallible Book.\nThe supposed infallible church has by no means been invariably\nself-consistent.  Besides, the important point is this; no man really\nbelieves or can believe a thing until it becomes, so to speak, part of\nhimself.  Holding propositions is not necessarily believing them, no\nmatter how tenaciously they may be adhered to.  But all truth is really\none and the same.  I may be unable to take exactly my neighbour's point\nof view about some aspects of it, but if we are both in earnest and\nfaithful to what we have seen, we shall arrive in the end at the same\ngoal.  Religious thinkers and teachers are never really so far apart as\nseems to be the case.  It is in the expression of the truth that they\ndiffer, not in the truth itself.  Language is never more than\napproximately convenient expression of the reality it is meant to\ndeclare.  The man of the future will realise this better than the man\nof the present or the past.  He will replace all external authority by\nthe principle of spiritual autonomy.  He will no longer be afraid of\ntrusting the human spirit to recognise and respond to truth from\nwhatsoever source it may come, for he will know that that spirit is one\nwith the universal Spirit of all Truth, and needs not to look beyond\nitself for anything stronger or more divine.  He will know that the\nSpirit of Truth in himself is the Spirit of Truth in all men, and that\ntherefore in the end all men must know, and be, and do the Truth.\n\n+The New Testament and the Atonement.+--Now let us apply this principle\nto the New Testament writings about the redeeming work of Jesus.  The\nsame principle, of course, would apply to anything that the New\nTestament has to say about the gospel of Jesus, but perhaps the failure\nto recognise it has done more mischief in connection with the doctrine\nof Atonement than in anything else.  At present Paul's opinion on this\ngreat subject is by many people supposed to be decisive: Paul says\nthis, and Paul says that, and when Paul has spoken, there is no more to\nbe said.  But why should it be so?  Paul's opinion is simply Paul's\nopinion, and not necessarily a complete and adequate statement of\ntruth.  It is entitled to be considered weighty because it is the\nutterance of a great man, and a great seer of truth, as well as being\nthe earliest writing on the subject which we possess.  Any man of the\nmoral and intellectual eminence of Paul is entitled to reverence when\nhe speaks, whether his views are in the Bible or not.  It is one of the\nironies of history that the words of this Paul who strove so hard\nagainst literalism and legalism in his day have since come to be\nregarded as a sort of fixed and final authority for Christian thought.\nHe would be the first to denounce it.  To him the Spirit of Christ\noperating within the individual soul was the true guide in matters of\nfaith.  He even made a point of the fact that in thinking out the truth\nabout Jesus and His gospel he had \"conferred not with flesh and blood.\"\n\n+Inconsistency of New Testament writers with one another.+--Again, it\nis somehow taken for granted that Paul and all the other New Testament\nwriters agree together in their theology of the Atonement.  That is\nquite a mistake, and the curious thing is that people should have been\nso slow in finding it out.  It may be instructive to some to give a\nbrief survey of the main points in Paul's theory of the Atonement, and\ncompare them with some of the others.\n\n+The fundamental principle of its Atonement always the same.+--It would\nsimplify our acquaintance with Paul's modes of reasoning if we could\nrecognise that the truth of Atonement which he has to declare, and\nwhich he associates so closely with the life and death of Jesus, is in\nprinciple precisely the same as that which the writers of the Old\nTestament had in mind.  What that was we have already seen.  It was the\nassertion of the fundamental oneness of God and man, and the means to\nit was the principle of self-sacrifice.  This is just what St. Paul set\nhimself to proclaim to the world, and to him the whole process centred\nin Jesus, just as it does for Christian experience.  But to his\npresentation of the subject Paul almost of necessity had to bring the\nwhole apparatus of his rabbinical training.  This it was which supplied\nhim with the most of his figures, symbols, and illustrations; but his\ngospel was no more dependent upon these than--as I trust I have shown\nin a previous chapter--the ancient spiritual truth of Atonement\ndepended upon Semitic ritual sacrifices.  Paul's thought-forms were\nsupplied by the Old Testament and his Pharisaic education, just as the\nforms in which we ordinarily express our thoughts to-day belong to the\nmental atmosphere of our time.  Most of the allusions in a _Times_\nleading article, for example, would be lost upon an English reader five\nhundred years hence unless they were carefully explained.  To me one of\nthe most remarkable things about Jesus is the fact that He was able to\nescape so completely the mental environment of the time in which, and\nthe people among whom, He lived His earthly life.  How He managed to\ndeliver His peerless teaching while making so little allusion to\ncurrent Jewish modes of thought and worship is a mystery, and marks His\ngreatness as perhaps nothing else does.  It was utterly different with\nPaul; he spoke the language of his time, and never tried to do anything\nelse.  When, therefore, we want to get at what he meant about the death\nof Jesus, we have first of all to get behind the symbolism by which he\nillustrates it, and even when we have done this we have to make\nallowance for some limiting Pharisaic conceptions about justice and the\npunishment of sin.  Every now and then he breaks through these and\nrises into a rarer, purer region without troubling about consistency.\nPaul never dreamed that he was writing theological treatises which\nwould be numbered off into chapters and verses and lectured upon in\nclass rooms, or perhaps he would have been more careful about being\nexact.  How many of us could afford to have our letters, written at\ndifferent times and to different readers, analysed and dissected and\ntaken as a full and permanent statement of our thought upon any\nparticular subject or group of subjects?\n\n+Paul's view of the death of the Saviour and the forgiveness of\nsins.+--The first important thing to be noted in Paul's thought about\nsin and salvation is his view that there was a vital connection between\nthe death of the Messiah and God's forgiveness of sins.  But we should\nbe mightily mistaken if we were to understand this view to be the same\nas that of a modern evangelical who talks about the \"fountain filled\nwith blood,\" for it was quite different.  The modern evangelical, of\nso-called orthodox opinions, believes that Jesus died to save all men\nfrom hell; but this was not what Paul was thinking about at all.\nAccording to Paul, the wages of sin were actually and literally death.\nBut for sin there would have been no death, and to break the power of\nsin would also be to break the power of death.  But in this Paul was\nwrong, in company with a good many of his contemporaries, and there is\nno reason why we should not frankly say so, for, as we shall presently\nsee, the great apostle did not confine himself to the literal statement\nof this view, but gave it also a mystical form in which it becomes\nindisputably true.  In his thought the Messiah of Jewish national\nexpectation was the head and representative of the nation in its\nrelation to God.  For ages men had been dying because of sin--\"in Adam\nall die\"--and so when the Sinless One came into human conditions and in\nthe likeness of sinful flesh, He also had to pass through death.  But\nthere was a difference between His death and all other deaths in that,\nbeing sinless, death could not hold Him, and so He rose again from the\ntomb triumphant over it.  His triumph then becomes potentially the\ntriumph of humanity--\"in Christ shall all be made alive\"--if only we\nunite ourselves to Him by faith.  God will remit the death penalty to\nall who are \"in Christ\" and \"justified by faith\"; that is, we shall all\nrise from the dead as He rose.  Apparently Paul's belief was that no\none would ever have died but for the sin of Adam, a taint which has\naffected all Adam's descendants.  Death in his view was synonymous with\nannihilation.\n\nThe next thing to be noticed is the juridical nature of Paul's\nconception of the relationship of man and God.  God is a lawgiver and\nman a transgressor, a rebel against his sovereignty.  In accordance\nwith God's law of righteousness sin is punishable by the death of the\nwhole race.  \"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all\nungodliness and unrighteousness of men.\"  But when the eternal Son of\nGod, the head and representative of the race, submits to this penalty\nand in so doing acknowledges the righteousness of God, justice is\nsatisfied.  \"If one died for all, therefore all died.\"  Those who claim\nby faith the benefits of Messiah's submission to death on behalf of the\nrace are at peace with God.  Henceforth they are not to live to\nthemselves, but unto Him who died for them and rose again.\n\nAnyone who reads Paul's words without dogmatic prejudice will see that\nthis is not the present-day doctrine of Atonement.  It takes for\ngranted certain ideas which were current among the Jews of Paul's day,\nbut which have since sunk into the background of Christian thought or\nbeen abandoned altogether.  Paul's use of them in the framing of his\ntheology is ingenious but not convincing, and was not essential to his\ngospel; in fact the juridical and the ethical elements in Paul's\nteaching stand in irreconcilable contrast.  His theology is saved by\nhis mysticism, for no sooner has he enunciated these unbelievable\npropositions about the death penalty of sin, the judicial sovereignty\nof God, justification by faith, the imputed merits of the Redeemer, and\nsuch like, than he proceeds to use them as symbols to illustrate a\nsubjective change in the sinner and a mystical union between the soul\nand Christ.  He does this so beautifully that the reader can hardly\ndiscern where Paul quits the region of literalism and takes us into\nthat of mysticism.  Hence he talks about dying with Christ, being\ncrucified with Christ, dying to sin, and so on, evidently meaning that\nthe whole redeeming process has to take place within the soul of the\nsinner who seeks God.  Even the conception of the resurrection ceases\nto be literal and becomes the uprising of the divine man within the\nhuman soul by faith in the risen Lord.  \"If any man be in Christ there\nis a new creation; old things are passed away; behold all things are\nbecome new.\"  \"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are\nin Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.\"\nWe see from these expressions that in practice Paul transfers the whole\ndrama of redemption from without to within the individual soul.  What a\npity it is that his interpreters in Christian history have so seldom\nthought of doing the same!\n\n+The Hebrews theory.+--The epistle to the Hebrews belongs to quite a\ndifferent category from the writings of St. Paul.  The dominant thought\nin this epistle is that of salvation by sacrifice, a perfectly true and\nspiritual idea, as we have already seen.  The writer, like Paul,\nemploys Old Testament symbolism, but in quite a different way.\nProbably this is due to the fact that he was an Alexandrian Jew whose\nthinking was shaped under the influence of Philo, whereas that of Paul\nwas governed by the rabbinical schools of Palestinian Judaism.  At this\ntime Alexandria was the greatest intellectual centre in the world, a\nmeeting place for Greek thought and Hebrew religion as represented by\nPhilo.  The influence of Alexandria is plainly to be seen in the\nepistle to the Hebrews, which, possibly, was written by the learned and\ncourtly Apollos.  Like Paul, the writer thinks of salvation as getting\nright with God and living a holy life, but he omits all reference to a\njudicial penalty, or the necessity for escaping annihilation by faith\nin the substitutionary work of a sinless Redeemer.  In his view Christ\nis from first to last the priestly representative of the race, making a\nsacrifice to God after the Old Testament fashion, but in a more perfect\nway.  He regards the Old Testament sacrificial offerings as being but\nthe types and shadows of the one perfect and eternal offering which\nhumanity through Christ is making to God.  Most of my readers will at\nonce admit that this is not fanciful, although the language in which it\nis expressed is so different from our own; it is quite faithful to the\nspiritual meaning of Old Testament sacrifice.  When, therefore, this\nwriter refers to the offering of the blood of Christ, he is thinking\nnot only of Calvary, but of all that Calvary symbolises, the perfect\nspiritual offering of mankind to God, the sacramental realisation of\nour oneness with Him.  This view is not worked out with the moral\nintensity which characterises St. Paul's, but it is unassailably true\nonce we get the writer's point of view.  As a theory it is quite\ndifferent from Paul's, unless we are content to shed Paul's literalism,\nget rid of all thought of an angry God and a physical death penalty for\nsin, and betake ourselves instead to the inner spiritual region where\nself-sacrifice is realised to be the means of saving, not only the\nindividual, but the whole race, by uniting it to the source of all\nbeing.\n\n+The Johannine theory.+--There is a certain similarity between the view\nof Atonement set forth in the epistle to the Hebrews and that contained\nin the Johannine writings.  It is easy to understand why this is so\nwhen we recognise that both are dominated by Alexandrian modes of\nthinking.  These Johannine writings--the fourth gospel, the three\nepistles ascribed to St. John, and the book of Revelation--are all that\nhave come down to us of what was at one time, no doubt, a considerable\nliterature.  How much the apostle John had to do with it cannot be\ndetermined with any certainty, but it is clear enough that these\nwritings are not all from one hand, and that they are much later than\nthe work of St. Paul.  The all-important conception in the Johannine\nwritings is that salvation is secured by the union of the individual\nsoul with the eternal Christ, or Logos, or Divine Man of pre-Christian\nthought and experience.  Here again we have a perfectly true and\nnecessary idea, an idea implied in all spiritual experience worthy of\nthe name; but as the root factor in a presentation of the doctrine of\nAtonement, it differs widely from Paul's way of putting things.  When\nthe Johannine writers speak of the blood of Christ, they mean the\noutpoured, forthgiven life of the eternal Son of God, the ideal\nhumanity, perfectly and centrally expressed in Jesus of Nazareth.\nThere is not from beginning to end a hint or a suggestion in these\nwritings that a sinless being was tortured in order to appease the\nwrath of God against guilty ones, or that the penalty of sin in a world\nto come will be remitted to a penitent sinner in consideration of his\nfaith in such an arrangement.\n\n+Underlying unity.+--This is by no means an exhaustive examination of\nNew Testament teaching on the subject of Atonement, but it should be\nsufficient to show two things: first, that the theories of the New\nTestament writers concerning the redeeming works of Christ are not,\ntaken literally, mutually consistent; secondly, the truth implied in\nall the theories is precisely that truth of Atonement which we have\nalready seen to be implied in all religion.  The great thing which\nimpressed the primitive Christian consciousness in regard to the life\nand death of Jesus was that this life and death were the most complete\nand consistent self-offering of the individual to the whole that had\never been made.  In this self-offering was the one perfect\nmanifestation of the eternal Christ, the humanity which reveals the\ninnermost of God, the humanity which is love.  To partake of the\nbenefits of that Atonement we have to unite ourselves to it; that is,\nto employ the mystical language of St. Paul, we have to die to self\nwith Christ and rise with Him into the experience of larger, fuller\nlife, the life eternal.\n\nIt is just the same truth under every one of these different theories,\nbut if we persist in regarding them literally we shall miss it, for by\nno kind of ingenuity can we square the theory of St. Paul with that of\nthe other writers; the way of putting it is different.  But once we see\nwhat the essential truth of Atonement is, we are no longer bound by the\nintellectual symbolism of Paul or Hebrews or any other authority; we\ncan get beneath the symbol to the thing symbolised.  The Pauline\nprinciple of dying with Christ, the Hebrews idea of the eternal\nsacrifice manifested in time, the Johannine thought about the outpoured\nlife of the eternal Christ, are all one and the same.  Jesus did\nnothing for us which we are not also called upon to do for ourselves\nand one another in our degree.  Faith in His atoning work means death\nto self that we may live to God; as selfhood perishes on its Calvary,\nthe Christ, the true man, the divine reality, in whom we are one with\nall men, rises in power in our hearts and unites us to the source of\nall goodness and joy.  Institutional, forensic, external, the Atonement\nnever has been and never will be.  But vicarious suffering, willingly\naccepted, is the great redeeming force by which the world is gradually\nbeing won to its true life in God, for vicarious suffering is the\nexpression of the law that in a finite world the service of the whole\ninvolves pain, although it is also the deepest joy that the human heart\ncan know.  The sacrifice of Jesus is the central and ideal expression\nof this principle on the field of time, but it only possesses meaning\nand value as it is repeated in our lives; the Christ has to be offered\nperpetually on the altar of human hearts.  There is no justification\nexcept by becoming just, and no imputed righteousness which means\navailing ourselves of merits that are not ours.  We are \"justified by\nfaith,\" indeed, but only in the sense that no man can become good\nwithout believing in goodness, and no man can really believe in the\nChrist revealed in Jesus without gradually becoming like Him.  Here is\nAtonement, Justification, Sanctification, and all else that is needed\nto unite mankind to the life eternal which is to know God and Jesus\nChrist whom He has sent.\n\n+No Old Testament prophecy of Atonement of Jesus.+--It can hardly be\nnecessary to point out that there is therefore no direct reference in\nthe Old Testament to the atoning work of Jesus.  All the beautiful\npassages with which we are so familiar, and which have become the\nlanguage of devotion in reference to such sacred seasons as Christmas\nDay and Good Friday, can only be associated with Jesus in an ideal\nsense.  The noble fifty-third of Isaiah, for example, and all similar\npassages about the prophetic conception of the suffering servant of\nGod, have, literally understood, nothing whatever to do with Jesus.\nBut the striking thing about such passages is that the men who wrote\nthem were able to realise and express the very essence of the spiritual\nAtonement, the giving of the individual for the race.  The pathetic and\ninspiring description, \"He was despised and rejected of men, a man of\nsorrows and acquainted with grief, and we hid as it were our faces from\nhim, he was despised and we esteemed him not.  Surely he has borne our\ngriefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken,\nsmitten of God, and afflicted.  But he was wounded for our\ntransgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of\nour peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed,\" is perhaps\nthe grandest presentation of the atoning life, the Christ man, that\nexists in literature.  The ideal fulfilment of it was Jesus, as\nprimitive Christianity quickly saw; but had the original writer no\nspecific example in mind belonging to his own day when he wrote?  To be\nsure he had; the case of Jeremiah would furnish it if no other.  This\nbrave and faithful advocate of the moral ideal, after standing alone in\nhis resistance to the materialising tendencies of his time, was scorned\nand hated by his fellow-countrymen, flung into prison, beaten,\ntortured, and probably murdered in the end.  He shared the captivity of\nthe Jews under Nebuchadnezzar, a captivity against which he had warned\nthem in vain.  \"Despised and rejected of men,\" he died, but in later\ndays his name came to be reverenced as perhaps none had ever been\nbefore.  For centuries afterwards he was referred to by the returned\nexiles as _the_ prophet, in contradistinction to all other prophets.\nHe had lived the atoning life and died a sacrificial death.  It was not\nwonderful that the author of the fifty-third of Isaiah should have such\na noble example in mind when he penned his deathless words, but these\nwords were meant to have an impersonal meaning too.  They stand as a\ndescription of the ideal manhood, the true servant of God, the saviour\nof the race in any and every generation.  This kind of manhood, just\nbecause it is the true manhood, the eternal or divine manhood, must\ninevitably suffer in a selfish world, but these sufferings are never in\nvain; they are the Calvary from which the eternal Christ rises in\nredeeming might over the power of sin and death.  Let any man ask\nhimself what it is that is saving the world to-day, and gradually but\nsurely lifting it out of the mire of ignorance and wickedness, and he\ncannot find a better answer than the fifty-third of Isaiah.  It tells\nof Jesus, but it tells also of all the sons of God who in the spirit of\nJesus have ever given their lives in the service of love.\n\nWhen we go to the Bible in this common-sense way, entering with\nunderstanding and sympathy into the thoughts and aspirations of the men\nwho wrote it, it becomes a living book, and a real help in our\nendeavour to live our lives in union with Jesus Christ.  But to regard\nit as a sort of official document written by the finger of God, of\nequal authority in every part, and containing a full and complete\nstatement of the propositions we must accept in order to make sure of\nsalvation, is hampering and belittling to the soul.  God inspires men,\nnot books; and He will go on inspiring men to the end of time, whether\nthey write books or not.  I do not know anything which is such a\nserious hindrance and stumbling-block to spiritual religion to-day as\nthis supposed authority of the letter of scripture.  If only the\naverage Protestant could emancipate himself from this intellectual\nbondage, the gain to truth would be immeasurable.  I do not suppose\nthere is a single man who reads these words who would make light of the\nreligious opinions of a pious mother, but would he allow them to fetter\nhim in the exercise of his own mature judgment?  But surely your own\nmother stands as near to you as men who wrote centuries before she was\nborn.  If God spoke to the hearts of men centuries ago, He can and does\nspeak to them now.  If He spoke to Isaiah, He can and does speak to\nyou.  If your mother's way of stating truth is not necessarily yours,\nno more is Paul's.  The deeper unity of the spirit forbids this blind\nobedience to the letter.  Therefore, knowing quite well what use\nhostile reviewers will make of this sentence, I close by solemnly\nadding: Never mind what the Bible says if you are in search for truth,\nbut trust the voice of God within you.  The Bible will help you in your\nquest, just as any good man might be able to help you; but you must\njudge, test, and weigh the various statements it contains, just as you\nwould judge, test, and weigh the opinions of the best friend you ever\nhad.  Nothing can make up for this quiet and assured confidence in the\nSpirit of Truth within your own soul.  If God is not there, you will\nnot find Him in the Bible or anywhere else.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nSALVATION, JUDGMENT, AND THE LIFE TO COME\n\n+The inwardness of Salvation and Judgment.+--We come now to the\nconsideration of a group of subjects which are usually treated in quite\nseparate categories.  I mean the punishment of sin, the nature and\nscope of Salvation, Resurrection and Ascension, Death, Judgment, Heaven\nand Hell.  The reason why I feel that these subjects ought not to be\ntreated in separate categories is because they are all descriptions of\nstates of the soul and imply each other; they are inward, not outward,\nexperiences.  This statement will, I trust, become clearer as we\nproceed.\n\nSo far we have examined pretty thoroughly the nature of sin and its\neffects in the world, but have said very little as to its penal\nconsequences, and yet the consideration of these consequences has been\nthe determining factor in most of the theories of Atonement, ancient or\nmodern, which have occupied the field of human thought.  It is true, as\nI have said, that the idea of Atonement is not necessarily associated\nwith that of sin, and actually precedes it both historically and\npsychologically, but it cannot be gainsaid that in Christian thought\nthe desirability of finding some means of escaping or minimising the\npunishment of sin has tended to overshadow everything else in popular\npresentations of the Atonement.  But what is the punishment of sin, and\nwho administers it?  What is the Judgment and when does it take effect?\nHow does Salvation stand related to punishment and judgment?  What has\nDeath to do with the matter?  What are we to understand by Heaven and\nHell, and what is the bearing of either upon Salvation and Judgment?\nEveryone knows how popular evangelical theology would answer these\nquestions.  Sin, we are told, will be punished in a future life by the\ncommittal of the impenitent soul to everlasting torment.  Salvation is\nprimarily a means of escaping this, and secondarily being conformed\ngradually to the moral likeness of the Saviour.  Judgment is a grand\nassize, which will take place when the material world comes to an end;\nJesus Christ will be the Judge, and will apportion everlasting weal or\nwoe, according as the soul has or has not claimed the benefit of His\nredeeming work in time to profit by it.  Death is the dividing line\nbeyond which the destiny is fixed eternally whether we die old or\nyoung.  Heaven is the place into which the redeemed enter--whether\nafter death or after judgment has never been clearly settled--there to\npraise God eternally in perfect happiness; Hell is the place of never\nending torment to which unbelievers are to be consigned.\n\nNow it does not require a very profound intelligence to see that\npopular theology is a mass of contradictions in regard to these things.\nBy eternal the ordinary Christian usually means everlasting; why should\npunishment be everlasting?  The worst sin that was ever sinned does not\ndeserve everlasting punishment, and I have never yet met the Christian\nwho would really and truly be willing to see a fellow-creature undergo\nit.  There is no understandable sense in which justice could demand\nsuch a terrible sentence, even if it involved no more than everlasting\nunhappiness; how much more unthinkable it becomes if the punishment is\nto be everlasting, fiendish torment!  If Salvation is first and\nforemost deliverance from this punishment, how is it that it does not\ntake effect immediately?  Justice would suggest that it ought to do so,\nfor some sinners live a merry life until the eleventh hour, and then\ngive God \"the last snuff of the candle\" as Father Taylor put it,\nwhereas others repent early but never manage, all through a long life,\nto escape the suffering caused by their own deeds in youth.  In some\ncases, at any rate, on this side of the grave, Salvation does not\ninvolve the least remission of penalty, while in others apparently no\npenalty will ever be endured either on this side of death or on the\nother.  The poor drunkard who repents does not find that repentance\ngives him back his wrecked constitution, but the selfish, grasping,\ncruel-hearted wrecker of homes and lives may just be in time with his\ntrust in the \"finished work,\" and go right home to glory while his\nvictims struggle and suffer on amid the conditions he has made for them\non earth.  Curious justice this!\n\n+Christian thought never quite consistent about Death and\nafter.+--There is no need to labour the point; popular evangelical\nviews of the punishment of sin are incredible when looked at in a\ncommon-sense way.  But they are even more chaotic on the subject of\ndeath and whatever follows death.  It does not seem to be generally\nrecognised that Christian thought has never been really clear\nconcerning the Resurrection, especially in relation to future judgment.\nOne view has been that the deceased saint lies sleeping in the grave\nuntil the archangel's trump shall sound and bid all mankind awake for\nthe great assize.  Anyone who reads the New Testament without prejudice\nwill see that this was Paul's earlier view, although later on he\nchanged it for another.  There is a good deal of our current, everyday\nreligious phraseology which presumes it still--\n\n  \"Father, in thy gracious keeping\n  Leave we now thy servant sleeping.\"\n\nBut alongside this view another which is a flagrant contradiction of it\nhas come down to us, namely, that immediately after death the soul goes\nstraight to heaven or hell, as the case may be, without waiting for the\narchangel's trump and the grand assize.  On the whole this is the\ndominant theory of the situation in Protestant circles, and is much\nless reasonable than the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, however much\nthe latter may have been abused.  But under this view what is the exact\nsignificance of the Judgment Day and the physical Resurrection?  One\nwould think they might be accounted superfluous.  What is the good of\ntormenting a soul in hell for ages and then whirling it back to the\nbody in order to rise again and receive a solemn public condemnation?\nBetter leave it in the Inferno and save trouble, especially as the\nsolemn trial is meaningless, seeing that a part of the sentence has\nalready been undergone, and that there is no hope that any portion of\nit will ever be remitted.  Truly the tender mercies with which\ntheologians have credited the Almighty are cruel indeed!  It is\ndifficult to speak with patience of the solemn, non-committal way in\nwhich many present-day theological writers discuss everlasting\npunishment.  Many of them have an \"open mind\" on the subject, whatever\nthat may be, and warn the rest of us not to dogmatise on the great\nmystery.  It does not seem to occur to them that the Christian\nfundamental of the love of God renders the dogma of everlasting\npunishment impossible, for it implies that God will do the most for the\nbeing that needs the most, and surely that must be the most unhappy\nsinner.  Others speak of a \"larger hope,\" a second opportunity for\naccepting divine grace, and so on.  But these theories do not meet the\ncase at all.  While sin remains in the universe, God is defeated;\neverlasting punishment involves His everlasting failure.  How often we\nbear preachers speaking about the obdurate human will, which to all\neternity may go on resisting good.  There are not a few who defend the\nabstract possibility of everlasting punishment by insisting that it is\nimpossible to coerce the will, and therefore that to endless ages a\nsoul may go on choosing evil and rejecting good.  But this is an\nentirely new argument; it implies that a sinner _might_ choose the good\non the other side of death, and that if he does not he continues\neternally to pass sentence upon himself, God being helpless in the\nmatter.  This is not the way in which advocates of everlasting\npunishment used to talk.  It is a little more hopeful than the\nconventional dogma, for it makes the sinner to some extent his own\njudge and executioner, and places stress on the undoubted truth that if\na man keeps on doing wrong things he becomes hardened.  I have heard\nthis view defended in private by a bishop, who apparently never saw\nthat in adopting it he had given up entirely the orthodox Protestant\nview that there is no chance for a man after death, and that the thing\nwhich determines our post-mortem destiny is not our conduct, but our\nbelief.  Repentance at the eleventh hour, however bad the previous life\nmay have been, is, according to the theology of this particular bishop,\nenough to secure admission to heaven.  If, therefore, a power of\neternally choosing evil remains on the further side of the great\nchange, surely there is some hope that that power might not continue to\nbe exercised.  But if not, what becomes of the whole fabric of popular\nProtestant theology concerning the plan of salvation, the Judgment Day,\nand the atoning merits of the Redeemer?\n\nNo, this kind of incoherent theologising will not do.  No one really\nbelieves it, and the churches will have to give up professing to\nbelieve it.  In our ordinary everyday concerns we take quite a\ndifferent view for granted all the time, the view that \"Whatsoever a\nman soweth that shall he also reap.\"  The harvest may be long in\ncoming, but it comes at last.  Neither do we choose our friends on\naccount of their chances of heaven or hell.  We like or dislike a man\nbecause he deserves to be liked or disliked, and not because he\nbelieves something that will get him into heaven.  Neither, thank God,\ndo we want to see even the wicked left to the consequences of their\nwickedness; we want to see them helped to live differently, and it is\nhardly probable that this impulse of our better humanity will change\nafter death.  Love cannot be false to itself; in the presence of need\nit must of necessity keep on giving itself until the need is satisfied\nand the victory won.\n\nBut if popular theology concerning the last things is untrue, or at\nleast misleading and inadequate, what is the truth?  Do we want a\ndifferent set of terms or not?  I think not, but we want a different\nperspective.  These terms ought to be construed as states of the soul,\nrather than as external conditions.  Let me try to explain what I mean.\n\n+The true Salvation.+--In the first place if sin is selfishness,\nsalvation must consist in ceasing to be selfish, that is, it represents\nthe victory of love in the human heart.  This may be represented as the\nuprising of the deeper self, the true man, the Christ man in the\nexperience of the penitent.  We may even go so far as to say that this\ncan come about, and does come about, without any strongly marked\nfeelings of contrition or sudden change of attitude.  Wherever you see\na man trying to do something for the common good, you see the uprising\nof the spirit of Christ; what he is doing is a part of the Atonement.\nIn church or out of church, with or without a formal creed, this is the\ntrue way in which the redemption of the world is proceeding.  Every man\nwho is trying to live so as to make his life a blessing to the world is\nbeing saved himself in the process, saved by becoming a saviour.\nOrdinary observation ought to tell us that untold thousands of our\nfellow-beings, even among those who never dream of going to church, are\nbeing saved in this way.  This is the true way to look at the matter.\nThe Christ, the true Christ who was and is Jesus, but who is also the\ndeeper self of every human being, is saving individuals by filling them\nwith the unselfish desire to save the race.  It is this unselfish\ndesire to minister to the common good which is the true salvation.  I\ndo not mind what name is given to it so long as it is recognised for\nwhat it really is; there is no stopping-place between sinner and\nsaviour.  This is the way in which men like Robert Blatchford of the\n_Clarion_ are being saved while trying to save.  Conceive how\ndifferently such a man _might_ have lived his life.  He might have\nlived it so as to be of no use to anyone, or indeed in such a way as to\nbe a hindrance rather than a help to poor overburdened humanity.  It\nmatters comparatively little that this man should think he is\ndestroying supernaturalism and scoffs at the possibility of a future\nlife.  His moral earnestness is a mark of his Christhood and his work a\npart of the Atonement.  Not another Christ than Jesus, mind!  The very\nsame.  Mr. Blatchford may laugh at this and call his moral aspirations\nby quite a different name.  Well, let him; but I know the thing when I\nsee it.  This is Salvation.\n\n+Conversion.+--But in the history of mankind the change from\nselfishness to love, from darkness to light, from death to life, has\noften meant something much more pronounced than this.  A man may have\nbeen living a bad life, and become suddenly impressed by some appeal to\nhis better nature made in the name of God.  He may have felt humiliated\nand distressed by his new-found consciousness of sin.  He may have\nprayed earnestly for forgiveness, and felt that forgiveness has come\nand that the peace of God has entered into and possessed his soul.  He\nhas deliberately and solemnly consecrated his life to Jesus and feels\nthat henceforth he is, as it were, in a new world.  This change is\nrightly termed conversion, a turning round and going right.  Such a man\nmay be able to say with St. Paul, \"To me to live is Christ,\" and the\nwords would be literally and grandly true.  After this he may go on\nbelieving all kinds of things about verbal inspiration, the precious\nblood, the fate of the impenitent, and I know not what else, but the\nquality of the new life is always the same; it is dominated by the\nspirit of love instead of the spirit of selfishness; it is harmony with\nGod.  Often this change is very complete and beautiful, but in every\ncase it involves a long and slow ascent to the stature of the perfect\nman in Christ Jesus.  It is no delusion, either, that in the endeavour\nto live the new life divine help is forthcoming.  The Holy Spirit of\ntruth and love is ever present with a child of God to guide him to\nhigher and ever higher heights of spiritual attainment.  Without this\nblessed religious experience, the experience of those who are \"called\nto be saints,\" this world would be a poor place to live in.  I may\nperhaps be pardoned for adding that in my judgment even the earnest\nredemptive endeavours of men like the editor of the _Clarion_ have\nindirectly been made possible by it.  Take out of the world what\nChristian saints have owed to their fellowship with Jesus, and there\nwould be very little of hope and inspiration left.  Still, what I want\nto emphasise here is the fact that, however crude the various\ntheologies may have been in which this experience has clothed itself,\nit is always the same; it represents the victory of love in the human\nheart.\n\n+Salvation and penalty.+--But does this kind of salvation do away with\nthe penal consequences of past sin?  If not, what is its relation to\nthem?  To answer these questions we must look a little more closely\ninto the nature of such penal consequences.  Perhaps it would help to\nclear up the subject if I were to say frankly before going any farther\nthat there is no such thing as punishment, no far-off Judgment Day, no\ngreat white throne, and no Judge external to ourselves.  I say there is\nno punishment of sin in the sense in which the word \"punishment\" is\nusually employed.  We are accustomed to think of punishment as a\nsentence imposed by some authority from without and containing within\nitself some element of vengeance for wrong-doing.  But in the divine\ndealings with men such punishment has never existed and never will.\nWhat has already been said in a previous chapter on the subject of pain\nshould help to make this statement plain.  We have seen that pain is\nlife pressing upon death and death resisting life.  If there were no\nlife, there would be no pain.  We may say therefore that pain is life,\nor some finite expression of the universal life, seeking to burst\nthrough something that fetters and hinders it.  Apply this to the\nregion of morals and let us see how it works out.  If a man has been\nliving for self, he has been making a mistake and preparing for himself\na harvest of pain, for sooner or later the divine life within him, the\ntruer, deeper self, will assert itself against the decisive efforts of\nsin.  It is just as impossible for a man to go on eternally living\napart from the universal life as it is for a sand castle to shut out\nthe ocean; the returning tide would break down the puny barriers and\ndestroy everything that tends to separate between the soul and God.\nFor, after all, what is our life but God's?  To try to keep it for\nourselves is like trying to catch and imprison a sun ray by drawing the\nblinds.  To save the self we must serve the All.  When, therefore, we\nremember that the spirit of man and the spirit of God are one, we know\nof a surety that the infinite life behind the human spirit will assert\nitself irresistibly against the endeavours of sin to enclose that\nspirit within finite conditions.  The essence of sin is the\ndeclaration, \"Mine is not thine, and I shall live for mine alone.\"\nThis is trying to live for the finite; it is enclosing the soul within\nbarriers; those barriers must be broken if the soul is to be saved, and\nbroken they will be just because the deeper self of every man is\nalready one with God.  In the stable-yard of my house there was at one\ntime a tree, which was cut down and the place where it grew covered\nwith flagstones and a wall built round it.  But the roots of the tree\nwere not removed, and so that buried life has reasserted itself, the\nflagstones have been shattered, and now the wall is coming down.  Here\nis a figure of our moral experience.  A man may go on living for self\nall through a long career; he may bury his better nature deep\nunderneath the hard shell of materialism and self-indulgence, but it is\nall in vain; sooner or later, on this side of death or on the other,\nthat buried life shall rise in power and all barriers be swept away.\nThis uprising of the Christ in the individual soul, for such it is,\nmust inevitably mean pain to the man whose true life has been entombed\nin selfishness.  The pain may begin here or on the farther side of the\nchange called death, but it is itself not a mark of death, but of life.\nThe fact that a soul can suffer proves its salvability beyond dispute.\nAn everlasting hell is in the nature of things a contradiction, for the\nfinite cannot eternally bar the way of the infinite reality whose\nuprising is the cause of its pain; if it could, it would itself be\ninfinite, which is absurd.  Sin is essentially the endeavour to live\nfor the finite, the separative, the divisive, as opposed to the\ninfinite, the whole-ward, the All.  Which will win in this encounter?\n\n+The real judge.+--And who, pray, is the Judge?  Who but yourself?  The\ndeeper self is the judge, the self who is eternally one with God.  The\npain caused by sin arises from the soul, which is potentially infinite\nand cannot have its true nature denied.  If you go and live over a\nsewer, you will be ill.  Why?  Because you were never meant to live\nover a sewer.  The evil therein attacks you, and the life within you\nfights to overcome it, and in the process you have to suffer.  It is\njust the same with your spiritual nature.  You _cannot_ continue to\nlive apart from the whole, for the real you _is_ the whole, and, do\nwhat you will, it will overcome everything within you that makes for\nseparateness, and in the process you will have to suffer.  This is what\nthe punishment of sin means.  It is life battling with death, love\nstriving against selfishness, the deeper soul with the surface soul.\nIt is our own spiritual nature that compels us to suffer when we sin,\nand there is no escaping the sentence; if we sin we must suffer, for we\nare so constituted that what sin does, love with toil and pain must\nundo.  No eleventh-hour repentance can evade this issue; in fact, it\nmay be the beginning of it.  If we have been treading a wrong road,\nrepentance is turning round and taking the way back.  If we have been\nliving a false life, repentance is the beginning of the true, and just\nin proportion as the false has been accepted, so will the true find it\ndifficult to destroy the lie.  _You_ are the judge; you _in_ God.  If\nyou have failed to achieve that for which you are here, you will have\nto achieve it here or elsewhere, and the correction of your failure\nwill inevitably mean pain.\n\n  \"The tissues of the life to be,\n  We weave with colours all our own;\n  And in the field of destiny\n  We reap as we have sown.\"\n\n\nThere is nothing horrific about this law of the spirit.  In a true and\nreal sense it is our own law; _we_ make it.  Being what we are, we\ncannot let ourselves off.  Pain is at once the consequence of sin and\nthe token of our divine lineage.  But there is nothing individualistic\nabout this sinning and suffering.  All the love in the universe comes\nto the help of the soul that tries to rise.  It will even enter the\nprison house along with it and accept the cross in the endeavour to\nhasten the emancipation of the sinbound soul.  In fact, it must do so,\nfor as long as there is any sin to be done away, love cannot have its\nperfect work.  This it was which brought Jesus to earth, and this it is\nwhich turns every follower of Jesus into a saviour.  Love must strive\nand suffer with sin until God is all in all.\n\n+The spiritual resurrection.+--It follows from this that the true\nresurrection is spiritual, not material, and this is the sense in which\nthe word is most frequently employed in the New Testament.  In the\nfourth gospel Jesus is represented as saying, \"I am the resurrection,\nand the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall\nhe live: and he that liveth and believeth in me shall never die.\"  This\nis a great saying, and the writer of this particular gospel meant every\nword of it in the sense I have just indicated.  He makes the eternal\nChrist the speaking terms of the earthly Jesus and tells us that the\nuprising of this eternal Christ within the soul of the penitent sinner\nis the real resurrection.\n\n+The resurrection of Jesus.+--But this subject of the resurrection\ndemands a further examination.  We have already seen how inconsistent\npopular Christian doctrine is about the matter, and yet Christianity\nstarted with the belief in a resurrection of our Lord, a belief which\nhas continued down to the present day.  What are we to say about this?\n\nWe may as well admit at the outset that the gospel accounts of the\nphysical resurrection of Jesus are mutually inconsistent and that no\namount of ingenuity can reconcile them.  Matthew speaks of a Galilean\nappearance, and says nothing about the ascension.  Luke says a great\ndeal about the Jerusalem appearances, nothing about Galilee, and tells\nus that the ascension took place from Bethany.  The end of St. Mark's\ngospel has been lost, and the last few verses are a summary of the\naccounts in the other gospels concerning the post-resurrection\nappearances of the Lord.  John's version is, of course, less historical\nthan the synoptists, and puts the last appearance at the sea of\nTiberias.  A minute discussion of the problem thus raised would be\nunprofitable for our present purpose, but I hope we can take for\ngranted the broad fact that without a belief in a resurrection of some\nkind Christianity could not have made a start at all.  It is almost\nindisputable that in some way or other the disciples must have become\nconvinced that they had seen Jesus face to face after the world\nbelieved Him to be dead and buried.  The earliest apostolic utterance\non the subject in the New Testament is the familiar passage from 1 Cor.\nxv: \"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,\nhow that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that\nhe was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the\nscriptures: And that he was seen by Cephas, then of the twelve: After\nthat he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the\ngreater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.\nAfter that he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.  And last of\nall he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.\"  This\nstatement is clear enough and almost unquestionably authentic.  It\nplaces beyond doubt what the apostolic church thought of the\nresurrection of Jesus.  The little group of disciples must somehow have\nbecome convinced that their Master was not really dead, but alive and\nreigning in the world unseen, interested as much as ever in the work\nHis followers were doing, and spiritually present with them in the\ndoing of it.  This conviction had immediate and important spiritual\nresults.  It gave these simple men a new and greater confidence in\nJesus and in the power of the life He had lived.  They saw that this\nlife was, after all, the strongest thing in the universe.  They\nrealised that in the end nothing could stand against them; evil could\ndo it no real harm, for God was behind it.  Even before the crucifixion\nthey had looked upon Jesus as the Son of God in a higher and more\nspiritual sense than that title had been used before, but now\nhenceforth they thought of Him as such in a higher way still.\nAccording to Paul He was \"declared to be the Son of God with power by\nthe resurrection from the dead.\"  If we try to put ourselves in the\nplace of these first Christians, we shall realise better the effect of\nthe resurrection upon their feelings and behaviour.  Let us suppose\nthat we had known Jesus in the flesh, that we had learned to understand\na little of the moral and spiritual beauty of the ideal revealed in His\nlife, and that afterward we had seen Him die in blood and shame; I\nthink it would have taken a good deal to convince us that evil had not\ngained the day.  Now suppose after this we had absolute proof--I will\nnot say how--that our Master was still alive, and that His spirit was\nwith us and helping us, would it not make a very great difference to\nour outlook upon life and our confidence in God?  We could not but feel\nthe littleness of the power that had tried to destroy Jesus, and we\nshould not be afraid of it any more.  This is precisely what appears to\nhave happened in the experience of these Galileans.  Defeat and failure\nwere somehow turned into victory and success; they had seen Jesus again.\n\n+Theories of resurrection.+--But how are we to account for this\nnew-found confidence of theirs that they had really once more looked\nupon the face of Jesus?  The subject has been discussed so exhaustively\nthat no possible explanation of it has been left altogether untouched.\nSuch a unique event as the raising of a physical body from death is one\nwhich the average western mind of the present day would reject as\nincredible if we had never heard it before, consequently there exists a\nwidespread tendency among liberal Christians to try to account for\nprimitive Christian belief in the resurrection of our Lord in some\nother way.  Thus we have the hallucination theory, the apparition\ntheory, the swoon theory, and others of a similar character.  I should\nsuppose that most thinkers who take the point of view of the New\nTheology would hold one or other of these explanations or some\nmodification of them, but I confess I have never been able to do so.\nIt seems to me that no such explanation of the universally held\nChristian conviction that the physical body of Jesus actually rose from\nthe tomb is sufficient to account for it.  The passage already quoted\nfrom 1 Cor. xv is alone enough to illustrate this statement.  It is\nclear that the earliest Christians were absolutely certain that the\nbody of Jesus after the resurrection was the body of Jesus as they had\nknown it before, although apparently it possessed some new and\nmysterious attributes.  In my judgment, also, insistence upon the\nimpossibility of a physical resurrection presumes an essential\ndistinction between matter and spirit which I cannot admit.  The\nphilosophy underlying the New Theology as I understand it is monistic\nidealism, and monistic idealism recognises no fundamental distinction\nbetween matter and spirit.  The fundamental reality is consciousness.\nThe so-called material world is the product of consciousness exercising\nitself along a certain limited plane; the next stage of consciousness\nabove this is not an absolute break with it, although it is an\nexpansion of experience or readjustment of focus.  Admitting that\nindividual self-consciousness persists beyond the change called death,\nit only means that such consciousness is being exercised along another\nplane; from a three-dimensional it has entered a four-dimensional\nworld.  This new world is no less and no more material than the\npresent; it is all a question of the range of consciousness.  It is\nthis view, the view that matter exists only in and for mind, that leads\nme to believe that less than justice has been done by liberal thinkers\nto the theory of the physical resurrection of Jesus.  What is the\nphysical but the common denominator between one finite mind and\nanother?  It is a mode of language, an expression of thought as well as\na condition of thought.  Imagine a being free of a three-dimensional\nworld trying to converse with a being still limited to a\ntwo-dimensional world, and we have a clew to what I think may have\nhappened after the crucifixion of Jesus.  The three-dimensional body\nwould behave in a manner altogether unaccountable to the\ntwo-dimensional watcher.  The latter, knowing only length and breadth,\nand nothing of up or down, would see his three-dimensional friend as a\nline only.  The moment the three-dimensional solid rose above or sank\nbelow his line of vision, it would seem to have disappeared like an\napparition, although as really present as before.  To the\ntwo-dimensional mind it would seem as though the solid were a ghost.\nDoes this throw any light upon the mysterious appearances and\ndisappearances of the body of Jesus?  The all-important thing after\nCalvary was to make the disciples aware, beyond all dispute, that Jesus\nwas really alive, more alive than ever, and that His murderers had been\nhelpless to destroy Him.  When we remember that to the ordinary Jewish\nmind the thought of personal immortality was anything but clear, and\nthat to many of them death was synonymous with annihilation, we can see\nhow enormous was the change that had to be wrought in the mental\nattitude of those who had seen Jesus die a violent and bloody death.\nTo see Him return triumphant was the one thing required to counteract\ntheir feeling that all was lost, and the best means of demonstrating\nthis victory over death was to enable them to behold Him in the body\nwith which they were already familiar and which they loved so well.\nFor, after all, that body was but a thought-form, a kind of language, a\nmode of communication between mind and mind; it was no more and no less\na thought-form than an apparition would have been, and, from the point\nof view of monistic idealism, it is no more difficult to believe in the\nreanimation of a physical body than in the use of any other\nthought-form to express a fact of consciousness.  Here, then, we have a\nbeing whose consciousness belongs to the fourth-dimensional plane\nadjusting Himself to the capacity of those on a three-dimensional plane\nfor the sake of proving to them beyond dispute that--\n\n  \"Life is ever lord of death,\n  And love can never love its own.\"\n\nThis seems to me the most reasonable explanation of the\npost-resurrection appearances of Jesus, and the impression produced by\nthem on the minds of His disciples.  Most of my New Theology friends\nwill probably reject it at first sight, but at least it is consistent\nwith the philosophic position assumed throughout this book, and seems\nto me to present fewer difficulties than any other in face of the New\nTestament accounts.  But no theory of the resurrection of Jesus is\nabsolutely indispensable or of first-rate importance; the main thing to\nbe agreed upon is that Christianity started with the belief that its\nFounder had risen from the dead in order to demonstrate that death has\nno power to destroy anything worthy of God.  In consonance with this\nidealistic view of the subject the ascension becomes understandable; it\nsimply means that when Jesus had done what He wanted, the body was\ndissipated.  No doubt primitive Christian thought naively regarded\nheaven as a place above the sky to which the physical body actually\nwent, and Hades, or the under-world, as the place from which the spirit\nof Jesus returned to reanimate it before ascending to the abode of the\nFather.  Plainly enough this is what Paul thought about it, but such a\nconception is now impossible to anyone; it could only exist under a\ngeocentric view of the universe which has long since passed away.  But\nwhen Paul speaks even about the resurrection of the saints, this is\nwhat he means.  All the good who have died are waiting in the\nunder-world, the shadowy home of the departed, in a state of existence\nwhich is only a sort of dream or sleep compared with that which they\nhave left.  From this under-world Jesus returned, \"the first-fruits of\nthem that slept.\"  All who believe in Him will do the same sooner or\nlater, will resume their physical bodies, and, like Him, ascend to the\nworld above the sky.  But seeing this geocentric cosmogony has been\nimpossible for centuries past, why should we go on trying to squeeze\nPaul's language so as to mean something else than what it meant at\nfirst?  Granted that he was right in believing, in company with all the\nrest of the primitive church, that Jesus showed Himself to the\ndisciples after His crucifixion, what more do we need?  Paul's theory\nas to the resurrection of every physical body is just nonsense in the\nlight of our larger knowledge of the universe and its laws, and we may\nas well say so.\n\n+Paul's mystical view of resurrection.+--But we should do Paul an\ninjustice if we were to limit the value of his utterances by his views\nabout the resurrection of the human body.  I have already pointed out\nthat Paul employs physical symbols in a mystical way, and in nothing\nwas this more so than in his use of the idea of a resurrection.  With\nhim, as with the writer of the fourth gospel, the spiritual\nresurrection was the uprising, going-forward, issuing-forth, of the\nChrist or divine man within the soul.  When he speaks in this way he\nallows the thought of a physical resurrection to drop out of sight.\nThus he writes: \"If we have been planted together in the likeness of\nHis death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.\"\n\"That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the\nfellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death; if\nby any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.\"  \"If\nthen ye be risen with Christ seek the things which are above, where\nChrist sitteth on the right hand of God....  For ye died, and your life\nis hid with Christ in God.\"  Even if this last sentence is not Paul's\nown it has a distinctly Pauline ring.  In his maturer thought the great\napostle seems to have escaped the limitations of his early Pharisaism.\nHe ceases to speak of the sleep or the under-world, and begins to think\nof death as the gateway to the immediate presence of his dearly loved\nMaster.  \"For I long to depart and to be with Christ which is far\nbetter.\"  Here, surely, we are listening to the voice of Paul the aged.\n\nThe moment we succeed in disentangling ourselves from all literal and\nlimiting New Testament statements about the connection between sin and\nphysical death, the physical resurrection, the distant Judgment Day,\nand such-like, we find ourselves in a position to appreciate the\nbeautiful spiritual experience in which these very terms become symbols\nof inner realities of the soul.  Till we can do this, New Testament\nlanguage is sure to be a hindrance to any true apprehension of the\nmoral value of the gospel of Christ.  The only salvation we need\ntrouble about is the change from selfishness to love, \"We know that we\nhave passed from death unto life because we love.\"  This change is\nequivalent to a resurrection, the uprising of the eternal Christ within\nus.  It is also an ascension, the uplifting and uniting of the soul to\nthe eternal Father.  But such a resurrection and ascension may be\npreceded by a great deal of pain when the soul is shedding the husk of\nselfishness.  There is no dodging the consequences of sin; that is\nabsolutely impossible.  A saviour may suffer with and for the sinner,\nbut the sinner must suffer too.  The suffering is not a mark of God's\nanger, but of his love; so far from salvation being a means of\nscreening us from it, the pain is a means by which the salvation takes\neffect.  It is the true self asserting its dominion over the false.\nHeaven and hell are states of the soul, and the latter implies the\nformer.  It is life that suffers, not death.  When a guilty soul\nawakens to the truth, hell begins, but it is because heaven wants to\nbreak through.  The aim and object of salvation are not the getting of\na man into heaven, but the getting of heaven into him.  There is\nnothing horrifying about the law of retribution, although it is\ninexorable in its operation.  It is an evidence of our divine origin,\nour own true being asserting itself against the fetters of evil.  But\nit is the Christ that saves us, not the retribution; the retribution\nonly shows that the Christ is there, and that from the Calvary caused\nby sin, and from the tomb in which the true self lies buried, He will\nrise in glorious majesty in the soul and unite us in the bonds of love\nto the eternal divine humanity which is God.\n\n+Physical death of minor importance.+--It follows from what has now\nbeen said that all these familiar terms imply each other, and that\ndeath, judgment, heaven, and hell cannot properly be regarded as the\n\"Last Things.\"  They are all here now, here within the soul, just as\ninfinity and eternity are here now.  It is not a matter of hither and\nyonder, but of higher and lower.  Physical death is not the\nall-important event which theologians have usually made it out to be;\nit is only a bend in the road.  My own impression is that when we\nindividually pass through this crisis, we shall find the change to be\nvery slight.  It will mean the dropping of the scales from the eyes,\nand that is about all.  The things we have been living for on this side\nwill only profit us in so far as they have gone to the building up of a\nChristlike character.  If a man has been living for false and unworthy\nideals, he will quickly find it out; the only possession he can take to\nthe other side of death is what he is.  Belief in the atoning merits\nand the finished work of a Saviour will not compensate for wasted\nopportunities and selfish deeds; these latter will light the fires of\nretribution as the soul awakes to its true condition, and then, and not\ntill then perhaps, will the indwelling Christ obtain His opportunity.\nNor will the absence of a formal creed shut any good man out of heaven;\nit is impossible to shut a man out from what he is.  What we sow we\nreap, and we do so just because of what we fundamentally are.  Every\nroad to evil ends in a _cul-de-sac_.  Sooner or later every soul will\nhave to learn that it is no use kicking against the pricks; we must\nlearn by the consequences of our mistakes that, being what we are, the\nchildren of the Highest, we cannot permanently rest in anything less\nthan the love of God.  Salvation and Atonement are just as operative on\nthe other side of death as on this.  The blind soul goes on for a while\nin its blundering selfishness, and the Christ spirit, the spirit of\nuniversal love, goes on seeking to win it to the truth.  In the end the\ntruth must prevail if only because we shall have to learn that the lie\nis not worth while.\n\n+Evidence for immortality of the soul.+--No doubt there are some\nreaders of these pages who profess themselves agnostic or indifferent\nwith regard to the question of immortality, and I am not going to argue\nwith them.  It seems to me probable that before very long it will be\nimpossible to deny it.  The mass of evidence for the persistence of\nindividual self-consciousness after death is increasing rapidly and is\nbeing subjected to the strictest scientific investigation.  Men like\nSir William Crookes and Sir Oliver Lodge, men whose words are entitled\nto respect from the point of view of modern science, have publicly\nadmitted the importance of such evidence; before long the scientific\nworld in general will have to take it into consideration.  But to me\nsuch evidence does not greatly matter, and I know very little about it\nat first hand.  I build my belief in immortality on the conviction that\nthe fundamental reality of the universe is consciousness, and that no\nconsciousness can ever be extinguished, for it belongs to the whole and\nmust be fulfilled in the whole.  The one unthinkable supposition from\nthis point of view is that any kind of being which has ever become\naware of itself, that is, has ever contained a ray of the eternal\nconsciousness, can perish.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nTHE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM Of GOD\n\n+Order of the subject.+--From the consideration of the true\nsignificance of such terms as Salvation, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell, we\nnow turn to one which might be thought to occupy a relatively inferior\nposition and to precede them in order of time.  But if we have been\nright in holding that such terms as we have already examined represent\nstates of the soul beginning here and now, we have considered them in\ntheir rightful place, for now we have to see how these states of the\nsoul find expression in human institutions.  In a word, I wish to\ndevote some space to the consideration of the great subjects of the\nChurch and the Kingdom of God in relation to one another.  What is the\nChurch?  Where did the idea spring from?  What had Jesus to do with it\noriginally?  What is the Kingdom of God, and how do the various\nChristian societies which call themselves churches stand in regard to\nit to-day?  To answer any of these questions we must try to place\nourselves to some extent in the intellectual and moral atmosphere of\nthose amongst whom the ideas first arose.  Let us take the Kingdom\nfirst.\n\n+Origin of the idea of the Kingdom of God.+--At the time when Jesus\ncame every person of Jewish nationality was looking for the\nestablishment of what had come to be called the Kingdom of God.  For\nmany generations the Jews had been a subject race.  There had been one\nbrief period of national splendour and prosperity, namely, the reigns\nof David and Solomon.  After generations were inclined to idealise\nthese two reigns, especially the former, and to look upon them as a\nkind of golden age.  David they looked upon as an ideal monarch; they\ncalled him a \"man after God's own heart,\" and the imagination of poet\nand prophet loved to dwell upon his winsome personality.  They thought\nof him as in a special way the king chosen by God, and the Israel of\nhis time as a true kingdom of God, a kingdom of righteousness, peace,\nand plenty under the favour of the Most High.  The real Israel of\nDavid's day was far different from this, but compared with the days\nthat followed it was indeed a time of unexampled greatness.  A similar\ntendency to idealise the past is observable in nearly every nation\nwhich has entered upon a period of suffering or misfortune, as we can\nsee from the legends about King Olaf and Frederick Barbarossa.  But\nIsrael always looked upon herself as in a special way a theocratic\nkingdom, a chosen of God.  At its best this idea was a fine one, one,\nit led to the thought of a special spiritual vocation for the sake of\nthe other nations of the earth; at its worst it meant the assertion of\nnational privilege and contempt for everything which was not Jewish.\nAfter the great captivity in Babylon the Jews were never without a\nforeign master, and the northern kingdom of Israel disappeared from\nhistory.  But in quite a remarkable way Jewish poets and preachers\nunited to keep alive the popular belief that God would yet \"restore the\nkingdom to Israel.\"  Hence there grew up a firmly held conviction that\nGod would sometime raise up a prince born of David's line who with\nsupernatural help, and with a strong hand, would drive out the invader\nand establish a kingdom which should outshine even that of David\nhimself.  This was the root idea of the kingdom of God, as we meet it\nin the New Testament, and as it is described in some of the most\nbeautiful passages of the Old.\n\n+The Messiah of Jewish expectation.+--As time went on this idea was\ndeepened and clarified and became more and more associated in popular\nexpectation with the advent of the Messianic deliverer whose work it\nshould be to inaugurate it.  At the time when Jesus was born this\nexpectation had become very keen.  Everyone was thinking of it, from\nPharisees and Scribes downward.  At the moment the foreign master was\nthe Roman, whose rule, though milder than that of the Ptolemies, was\nquite severe enough; the people were impoverished and unhappy.  What\nthey were looking for was a Messiah, a transcendent but quite human\npersonality of royal descent, who should expel the Roman eagles and\ninaugurate suddenly and completely an era of peace and prosperity the\nlike of which had never been known before, a true kingdom of God.  One\nextension of this idea was that Israel should replace the Roman empire\nas the suzerain of all the other nations of the earth.  \"Arise, shine;\nfor thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.\nFor, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the\npeople: but the Lord shall rise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen\nupon thee.  And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the\nbrightness of thy rising....  And the sons of strangers shall build up\nthy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I\nsmote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee.  Therefore thy\ngates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night;\nthat men may bring unto thee forces of the Gentiles, and that their\nkings may be brought.  For the nation and kingdom that will not serve\nthee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted....  The\nsons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and\nall they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of\nthy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the Lord, The Zion of\nthe Holy One of Israel.\"  This fine passage shows pretty clearly what\nwas the general idea as to the nature of the anticipated kingdom of\nGod.  It meant that the Jewish Messiah was to take the place of Caesar\nand reign with undisputed sway from his capital of Jerusalem.\n\nBut we should do an injustice to the subject if we failed to allow for\nthe fact that according to the prophetic ideal this kingdom was to be a\nblessing to the world, and to abolish all violence and oppression; the\nkingdom of God was to be a kingdom of universal peace and joy, a\nkingdom of righteousness based on social justice.  It was because of\nthis widespread expectation that the austere preacher, John the\nBaptist, obtained his hearing in the wilderness of Judea.  All John had\nto preach about was the kingdom of God, which he declared to be near at\nhand.  He believed that he had been sent to herald the coming of the\nMessiah, and from his words we can gather what people thought about the\nMessiah: \"Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his\nfloor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the\nchaff with unquenchable fire.\"  According to the Baptist, the Messiah\nwould spare no kind of sham or hypocrisy; he would root out and utterly\ndestroy every kind of social evil, no matter what.  John insisted that\nit would be of no use for Jews to imagine that simply because they were\ndescendants of Abraham they would escape this general visitation; hence\nhis words to the Pharisees were particularly scathing: \"O generation of\nvipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?\"  It is\nclear, therefore, that, in the opinion of the man who has now come to\nbe regarded as the forerunner of Jesus, the kingdom of God was to be an\nearthly kingdom, was to come suddenly, and was to be inaugurated by a\nsort of general judgment or clean sweep of all the elements that made\nfor oppression, cruelty, foul living, and pretentiousness of every\nkind.  It had not the remotest reference to a world to come or a Divine\nRedeemer whose principal duty it should be to suffer and die in order\nto secure a blessed immortality for those who believed in Him.\n\n+Jesus' idea of the kingdom.+--How far Jesus shared these ideas at the\ncommencement of His own ministry it is impossible to say, but it seems\nclear that He was attracted by the moral earnestness of John and wished\nto associate Himself with those who were looking for a kingdom of God\nwhich should mean the establishment and realisation of the moral ideal\nin all human relations.  But at the baptism a purpose long forming in\nhis mind appears to have taken definite shape.  He felt Himself called\nto preach the good news of a kingdom which could begin at once in the\nheart of any man who was willing to become the instrument of divine\nlove and the expression of the ideal of human brotherhood.  He went\ninto the wilderness to think this out and then came back to teach it.\nI do not think He imagined that it could be realised quickly and\neasily, but it seems fairly obvious that at first He expected that men\nwould be so glad to hear about it that they would hasten to avail\nthemselves of it.  All through His ministry He spoke of little else,\nand it was because of what He had to say about the nature of the\nkingdom that His followers were attracted to Him.  Hence, too, we have\nthe deathless teaching preserved for us in the synoptical gospels:\n\"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of\nheaven....  Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.\"  The\nmeaning of Jesus is perfectly clear and perfectly simple.  It is that\nif a kingdom of universal brotherhood is ever to be realised on earth,\nit can only come by the operation of universal good will.  This has\nbeen much too simple for most of the theologians, and so they have\nendeavoured to twist and torture it out of all recognition.  As time\nwent on, however, Jesus came to see that it would not be realised as\nquickly as even He had thought.  Men could not or would not understand;\nthey were looking for a kingdom which should mean plenty to eat and\ndrink, and universal dominion for the sons of Abraham.  Even His most\nimmediate followers were unable to divest themselves of this notion,\nand it is plain enough that they went on hoping even to the end that\nJesus would head a revolt and establish a kingdom in which they\nthemselves would hold positions of dignity and importance: \"Grant that\nwe may sit, the one on thy right hand and the other on thy left in thy\nkingdom.\"  The striking rebuke which Jesus administered to these\npretensions, by setting a little child in the midst of the jealous men,\nwill never be forgotten while the world lasts.  Jesus _did_ believe in\nan earthly kingdom of righteousness, peace, and joy, but it is evident\nthat He would have nothing to say to violence as a means of realising\nit.  He even believed that the kingdom had already come in the heart of\nany man who was desirous of being at one with God and man and denied\nhimself in the effort to do it: \"And when he was demanded of the\nPharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and\nsaid, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall\nthey say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is\nwithin you.\"\n\n+Early Christian idea of the kingdom.+--An important fact, which I do\nnot think is generally recognised, is that the first Christians thought\nalmost precisely what the Jews did about the kingdom of God.  Most\npeople are accustomed to think of Christianity as having been from the\nfirst a religion which had principally to do with getting men ready for\nthe next world.  We can hardly think about it apart from ecclesiastical\nbuildings, choirs, baptisms, confirmations, prayers for the sick and\ndying, and so on.  So much have we been accustomed to think of it in\nthis way that the average man reads his New Testament with these\nassumptions in the background of his mind.  But this is certainly not\nNew Testament Christianity.  The apostles and their followers believed\nlike the Jews in the sudden establishment of an ideal commonwealth upon\nearth.  This was how they understood the Lord's prayer, \"Thy kingdom\ncome, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.\"  They did not even\nwish to separate from Judaism, and it is clear from Paul's letters that\nthere was at one time a great danger that the new faith might become a\nmere Jewish sect.  The Christians differed from the Jews, not in their\nideal concerning the kingdom, but in their greater moral intensity and\nenthusiasm, as well as in their profound conviction that the Lord Jesus\nwas God's chosen instrument for realising this kingdom, and that He\nwould presently return to earth and do it.  Any unbiassed reader of the\nNew Testament can see for himself that the primitive Christians lived\nin hourly expectation that this was what would happen.  Of course they\nalso believed in their Master's continual spiritual presence with them,\nbut the dominant thought in their minds was that of a dramatic second\ncoming and the inauguration of a reign of righteousness and universal\npeace, the making of a beautiful world, something like the Utopia of\nMr. H. G. Wells.  Nor was this altogether a delusion.  If it had been,\nChristianity would soon have died.  But, on the contrary, it lived and\ngrew because of the great truth behind this belief, namely, that the\nSpirit of Christ working in the hearts of men is gradually producing\nthis ideal kingdom in our midst.  If, with this view of the character\nof early Christianity in our minds, we go afresh to the gospels or to\nthe letters of Paul, we shall find it abundantly confirmed.  There is\nno getting away from it.  All the earnestness and enthusiasm of these\nfirst Christians were centred upon the belief in the near advent of a\ndivine kingdom upon earth with Jesus as its head.  This belief even\naffected the practice of these early Christians in regard to the\ndisposal of their property.  To understand this, let us put ourselves\nin their place and ask what we should do if we were possessed by the\nconviction that the whole existing social order might come to an end\nto-morrow morning or next week, and that after that no child of God\nwould ever want for anything.  I think we should be sure to feel that\nthe holding of personal property would not matter much.  If, in\naddition to this, our hearts were filled with a divine enthusiasm, an\novermastering love for Jesus and for all our brethren, we should not\nwant to keep anything back that could serve to make anyone happier for\nthe short time that intervened before the glorious coming of the Lord.\nThis was just how the primitive Christians felt.  They had no organised\neconomic system; no one was compelled to give anything, but under the\npressure of the new spirit they willingly gave everything.  What did it\nmatter? they thought; they were only like pilgrims within sight of\nhome, or watchers waiting for the morning.\n\n+Origin of the idea of the church.+--Where, then, did the idea of the\nchurch come from?  It is as plain as anything can be that the primary\ninterest of early Christianity was the kingdom of God.  It took the\nconception over from Judaism with a deeper moral content derived from\nthe preaching and the life of Jesus.  Its first adherents did not even\nknow that they had a new religion; they only thought they had found the\ntrue Messiah, although the Jewish nation as a whole had rejected Him.\nWhat they wanted above everything was to see the kingdom come upon\nearth, and we now know that they were mistaken in imagining that it\nwould be established speedily and suddenly by the visible second coming\nof Jesus on the clouds of heaven.  But seeing that they were thinking\nof it in this way, how did the church arise and why?\n\nIt is doubtful if Jesus ever used the word \"church,\" for the two verses\nin Matthew in which He is credited with it are probably of late date\nand point to a time when the ecclesiastical organisation was fairly\nwell established.  Still the word itself has an interest and a history\nof its own apart from its Christian use.  The _ecclesia_, as most of my\nreaders may be aware, was the assembly of the citizens of any Greek\ncity-state.  It was the custom for the whole body of the members of a\nGreek self-governing community to be called together from time to time\nfor the transaction of public business.  This assembly was the final\nauthority in matters affecting the communal welfare, and even after the\nvarious Greek states became absorbed in the Roman empire this custom\nwas allowed to continue.  It was the policy of the Romans to permit a\nlarge measure of self-government to their subjects of any alien race,\nand therefore the _ecclesia_ of any particular city-state continued to\nbe summoned as usual to decide upon matters of local importance.  There\nis a reference to this in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, where we\nread that the preaching of Christianity in Ephesus caused a riot which\nthe town clerk--a thoroughly typical town clerk!--succeeded in allaying\nby reminding the demonstrators that if they had any real cause for\ncomplaint, the matter ought to come before the regular _ecclesia_.\nThis properly constituted _ecclesia_ to which the level-headed town\nclerk referred was the general assembly of the citizens for the\ntransaction of public business.\n\nIt was quite natural that the primitive Christians should have come to\nadopt this word, and to an extent this very idea, as a convenient\ndescription of the new Christian community.  After the departure of\ntheir Master the Christians held together, and wherever their\nmissionaries went, new communities sprang up, animated by a spirit of\nloyalty to Jesus and a desire to realise His ideal for mankind.  It was\nquite natural, too, that the apostles should recognise all these\ncommunities as being in reality one community for fellowship of faith\nand love; it was the _ecclesia_, or assembly, or society of Jesus, the\nbeginning of the church of Christ, as it soon came to be called.  There\nwas no elaborate organisation; nothing could have been simpler.  Every\nChristian seems to have thought that as it would not be long before the\nMaster came again, the wise and right thing to do was for His followers\nto hold together and witness Him to the world, until that great event\ntook place.\n\n+Church only exists for the sake of the kingdom.+--But how far did\nJesus foresee and intend this?  It is difficult to say, but his choice\nof twelve apostles whom He carefully trained to continue His work is\nevidence that He contemplated the formation of some kind of society to\ngive effect to His teaching.  The number twelve points to the\nprobability that He thought of this society as a kind of new Israel, a\nspiritual Israel, which should do for the world what the older Israel\nhad failed to do, that is, bring about the kingdom of God.  I have\nalready pointed out that in my judgment Jesus did not believe, as His\ncontemporaries did, that that kingdom could be established suddenly\nfrom without, but held that it could only be achieved by spiritual\nforces working from within.  His _ecclesia_ has lived and grown.  It\nhas survived for nineteen centuries, and is likely to survive for many\ncenturies more.  It has played a leading part in the making of modern\ncivilisation.  But it is no longer a unity, and many different theories\nexist as to its meaning and worth.\n\n_The sacerdotal theory._--Broadly speaking, however, there are two\noutstanding views as to the scope and function of the _ecclesia_, or\nchurch of Jesus.  One is the sacerdotal, and the other is what, for\nwant of a better name, I may term the evangelical.  In outline the\nformer is as follows: before Jesus finally withdrew His bodily presence\nfrom His disciples He formally constituted a religious society to\nrepresent Him on earth.  This society was to be the ark of salvation,\nthe \"sphere of covenanted grace.\"  Its principal work was to call men\nout of a lost and ruined world and secure for them a blessed\nimmortality; those who were members of this church, and only they, were\ncertain of heaven.  Membership therein was clearly defined; the gateway\nwas baptism.  Those who were baptized in a proper way, even though they\nwere unconscious infants, were members of the church of Christ and all\nothers were outside.  Within this sacred society souls were to be\ntrained in rightness of living, and, to an extent, made fit for heaven.\nThe Holy Spirit abiding in this society would sanctify the individual\nmembers and guide them into all the truth.  It is even held that Jesus\ndefinitely appointed the way in which this church was to be governed.\nIts affairs were to be managed by a threefold order,--bishops, priests,\nand deacons.  But here a division has taken place amongst the\nsacerdotalists themselves owing to the necessity of finding some final\nauthority, some living voice, within this visible society to which\nappeal in the last resort could be made.  Romanists have found this in\nthe bishop of Rome whom they regard as the episcopal successor of the\napostle Peter.  Devout Anglicans take their stand upon the faith as\ndefined by the first four general Councils, while in administrative\nmatters they regard the bishop as independent.  The Greek church also\ninsists upon its autonomy.\n\nThis sacerdotal view has exercised enormous influence in Christian\nhistory, and I have sufficient of the historic imagination to be able\nto say that at certain times it has undoubtedly worked on the whole for\ngood.  But did Jesus really found a church of this kind?  I am quite\nsure He never thought of such a thing, and historical criticism of\nChristian origins does not leave the sacerdotalist much to stand on.\nJesus appointed neither bishop nor priest, and never ordained that any\nmerely mechanical ceremony should be the means of admission to the\nChristian society or be necessary to the eternal welfare of anyone.  In\nthe early church the bishop or elder was the president of the little\nChristian society meeting in any particular locality.  Primitive\nChristian organisation was anything but rigid and formal, and was as\nfar as possible from the sacerdotal model.  I do not say that the\nsacerdotal mode of organisation which gradually grew up was wholly\nmischievous, nor do I say that the primitive Christian organisation\nwould be the best under all circumstances.  All I maintain is that in\nfounding His new society Jesus did not ordain any particular form of\norganisation.\n\n+The evangelical theory.+--The other view of the meaning of the word\n\"church\" to which I have already referred, is that it is the totality\nof the followers of Jesus.  Under this view organisation is a secondary\nmatter.  There are many reasons why Christian societies should organise\nthemselves differently from one another.  Temperament plays a great\npart in the matter.  But theories of church government have ceased to\nbe the burning questions that they once were.  Most sensible men are\nnow satisfied that forms of government matter much less than the kind\nof life which flourishes in the society itself.\n\n+What the church exists for to-day.+--But what does the church exist\nfor, using the word in its primitive sense?  What ought it to exist for\nto-day?  What is the justification for all the vast number of Christian\norganisations which exist throughout the world?  This is a subject upon\nwhich a clear note needs to be sounded, for a great deal of mental\nconfusion exists in regard to it.  Two inconsistent views of the work\nof the church, as well as of the constitution of the church, have come\ndown the ages together and exist side by side in the world to-day.  The\nfirst is that the chief business of the church is to snatch men as\nbrands from the burning and get them ready for a future heaven.  The\nFall theory has had much to do with this.  The assumption behind it is,\nas we have seen, that the world is a City of Destruction, as Bunyan\ncalls it.  It is a ruined world, a world which has somehow baffled and\ndisappointed God, a failure of a world which, when the cup of its\niniquity is full, will be utterly destroyed as a general judgment.\nWhen that dreadful day comes it will be bad for all those who are\noutside the fellowship of Christ, for, like those who have died without\navailing themselves of the means of salvation, they will be relegated\nto everlasting torment in the world unseen.  This view of the fate of\nthe world as being at enmity with God, and of the duty of the church to\npersuade as many as possible to believe something or other in order to\nsecure salvation in a future and better world, has been held by\nsacerdotalists and non-sacerdotalists, Catholics and Protestants alike.\nIt is still implied in most of our preaching and in the hymns we sing.\nI admit that there is a certain truth in it, the truth that man is\nconstituted for immortality and ought not to live as if this world were\nall that mattered.  But on the whole, it has been thoroughly\nmischievous, and there is nothing which is acting as a greater\nhindrance to the spirituality and usefulness of the churches to-day.\nIt is based on an entirely false idea as to the relation of God and the\nworld.\n\n+To save the world.+--But alongside of this view a far higher and\nnobler one has been present to the minds of Christians in every\ncentury, namely, that the work of the church is to save the world and\nto believe that it is worth the saving.  If what I have already said be\ntrue, this is the idea which was in the mind of Jesus when He founded\nHis _ecclesia_.  To Him the purpose of the _ecclesia_ was to help to\nrealise the kingdom of God by preaching and living the fellowship of\nlove.  Ever since His day those who have been nearest to Him in spirit\nhave been going forth into the dark places of the earth trying to win\nmen to the realisation of the great ideal of a universal fellowship of\nlove based on a common relationship to the God and Father of us all.\nThis is what Augustine aimed at in his City of God.  It was what\nAmbrose had in mind when he excommunicated the emperor Theodosius for\nhaving ordered a cruel massacre of some of his rebellious subjects.  It\nwas the ideal of the mighty Hildebrand, grim and arrogant though he\nwas, when he compelled princes to bow their haughty necks and do\njustice to the weak.  It was what Bernard of Clairvaux meant to declare\nwhen he defied the cruel and sensual king of France to approach the\naltar of Christ.  Savonarola realised it for a brief moment in\nFlorence, Calvin in Geneva, the Covenanters in Scotland, the Puritans\nin England, the Pilgrim Fathers in America.  They all failed because\nthe world can never be saved by the imposition of ideal institutions\nfrom without and by force; it can only be by the spirit of Christ\nworking from within.  But to some extent they all succeeded, too, for\nthe world is a better place to live in because of the gradual and\ncumulative redemptive effort of the Christian _ecclesia_, the Church of\nJesus.  On the other side of the ledger we have to set many things that\necclesiasticism has done,--cruel persecutions, infamous tortures,\nburnings and massacres, devastating wars, and fierce religious hatreds.\nBut these things have never belonged to Jesus; they are the very\nnegation of His spirit.  The true church of Christ in any and every age\nconsists of those and those only who are trying like their Master to\nmake the world better and gladder and worthier of God.  The word\n\"church\" has become so hateful to many because of the admixture of\nother ideals with this that I sometimes wish something could be done\neither to get rid of it or to change it for another which shall fully\nand clearly express what Jesus really came to do.  I maintain that the\nchurch has nothing whatever to do with preparing men for a world to\ncome; the best way to prepare a man for the world beyond is to get him\nto live well and truly in this one.  The church exists to make the\nworld a kingdom of God, and to fill it with His love.  No greater\nmistake could be made than to estimate the church of Jesus by\necclesiastical squabbles and divisions, or even by Psalm-singing and\ngo-to-meeting talk.  Look for the spirit of Jesus at work, and you have\nfound the church too.\n\n+Modern industrialism and the church.+--Judged by this standard where\nare the churches to-day?  We have seen that the only gospel which Jesus\nhad to preach was the gospel of the kingdom of God; everything He ever\nsaid can be included under that head.  His Church, or Christian\nsociety, or whatever else we like to call it, has no meaning unless it\nexists for the realisation of the kingdom of God.  We cannot state this\ntoo strongly.  The whole of the other-worldism of the churches, the\nelaborate paraphernalia of doctrine and observance, is utterly useless\nand worse than useless unless it ministers to this end.  Unless it can\nbe shown that I am wrong in this supposition--and I think that will be\npretty hard to do--a fairly good case could be made out for burning\ndown most of the theological colleges in the land and sending the\nbright young fellows in them to do some serious work for the common\ngood.  For it must be confessed, as I said at the beginning, that the\nchurches are to a large extent a failure.  We cannot but recognise, for\none thing, that our modern civilisation, with all its boasted advance\non the past, is still un-Christian.  It puts a premium upon\nselfishness.  Modern industrialism is cruel and unjust and directly\nincites men to self-seeking.  The weak and unfortunate have to go to\nthe wall; little mercy is shown to the man who is not strong enough to\nfight his way and keep his footing in the struggle for existence.  We\nare all the time making war upon one another,--man against man,\nbusiness against business, class against class, nation against nation.\nWe talk of our freedom, but no man is really free, and the great\nmajority of us are slaves to some corporation, or capitalist, or\ncondition of things, which renders the greater part of life a\ncontinuous anxiety lest health or means should fail and we should prove\nunequal to the demands made upon us.  If a man goes under, his\nacquaintances will pity him for five minutes and then forget all about\nhim.  There is no help for it; they cannot do anything else, they have\ntheir own living to get.  They are like soldiers in the heat of battle;\nthey must not pause to mourn over a fallen comrade or they may soon be\nstretched beside him.  I do not mean, of course, to make the foolish\nstatement that present-day industrialism is unrestrainedly\nindividualistic: thank God it is not that.  But the principle of\ncompetition still exercises a sway so potent as to stamp modern social\norganisation as un-Christian.  We may just as well recognise that fact\nand state it plainly.  The glaringly unequal ownership of material\nwealth is anti-social; it is good neither for the rich man nor for the\npoor, for it is to the interest of every man that the body politic\nshould be healthy and happy.  That so large a number of our total\npopulation should have to exist upon the very margin of subsistence is\na moral wrong.  We have no business to have any slums, or sweating\ndens, or able-bodied unemployed, or paupers.  Poverty, dulness of\nbrain, and coarseness of habit are often found in close association.\nSome amount of material endowment is required even for the development\nof the intelligence and the training of the moral faculties.  Wealth\npossesses no value in itself; it only possesses value as a means to\nmore abundant life.  If there is one thing upon which Christianity\ninsists more than another, it is the duty of caring for the weak and\nsinful, but at present this duty is only recognised to a very limited\nextent.\n\n+Christianity and Collectivism.+--In what I am now saying I am well\naware that I have come to a phase of my subject which thousands of my\ncountrymen are stating so clearly and forcibly as to compel attention;\nbut what I want to show is that the present unideal condition of the\ncivilised world is an indictment of the churches and their conventional\ndoctrines.  We seem to have forgotten our origin.  I have long felt, as\nI suppose every Christian minister must feel, the antagonism between\nthe Christian standard of conduct and that required in ordinary\nbusiness life.  There is no blinking the fact that the standard of\nChrist and the standard of the commercial world are not the same.  Our\nwork is to make them the same, and to that end we must destroy the\nsocial system which makes selfishness the rule and compels a man to act\nupon his lower motives, and we must put a better in its place.  We must\nestablish a social order wherein a man can be free to be his best, and\nto give his best to the community without crushing or destroying anyone\nelse.  In a word we want Collectivism in the place of competition; we\nwant the kingdom of God.  Charity is no remedy for our social ills and\ntheir moral outcome; the only remedy is a new social organisation on a\nChristian basis.  I do not believe that any form of Collectivism, as a\nmere system superposed from without, can ever really make the world\nhappy; it must be the expression of the spirit of brotherhood working\nfrom within.  Neither do I feel much faith in any sudden and\ncataclysmic reformation of society.  The history of Christendom proves\nthat no institution can be much in advance of human nature and survive.\nCovenanters and Puritans found that out when they tried to make men\ngodly by Act of Parliament; Savonarola found it out when the wild\npassions of the Florentines, restrained for a brief hour, broke their\nchains and destroyed him; the Christians of New Testament times found\nit out when their beautiful experiment of social brotherhood came to an\nend in the horror and darkness of the break-up of Jewish national life.\nBut at least we can recognise the presence of the guiding Spirit of God\nin all our social concerns and work along with it for the realisation\nof the ideal of universal brotherhood.  We can show men what Jesus\nreally came to do, and, as His servants, we can help Him to do it.  We\ncan definitely recognise that the movement toward social regeneration\nis really and truly a spiritual movement, and that it must never be\ncaptured by materialism.  I deplore the fact that, for the moment, the\nmain current of the great Labour movement which, perhaps more than any\nother, represents the social application of the Christian ideal, should\nappear to be out of touch with organised religion.  This cannot\ncontinue, for I observe that the men who lead it are men of moral\npassion, and often men of simple religious faith.  It could hardly be\notherwise.  It seems to me in the nature of things impossible to\nsustain a belief in the moral ideal without some kind of belief in God,\nand assuredly God is with these men in the work they are doing and have\nyet to do.  In fact, the Labour Party is itself a Church, in the sense\nin which that word was originally used, for it represents the\ngetting-together of those who want to bring about the kingdom of God.\n\n+The New Theology and Collectivism.+--The New Theology, as I understand\nit, is the theology of this movement, whether the movement knows it or\nnot, for it is essentially the gospel of the kingdom of God.  No lesser\ntheology can consistently claim to be this; systems of belief which are\nweighted by dogmatic considerations have not and cannot have the same\npower of appeal.  This higher, wider truth, which sweeps away the\nmischievous accretions which have made religion distasteful to the\nmasses, is religious articulation of the movement toward an ideal\nsocial order.  This fact ought to be realised and brought home to the\nconsciousness of the earnest men who are labouring to redeem England\nand the world from the power of all that tortures and degrades humanity\nand stifles or destroys its best life.\n\nThis, then, is the mission of the New Theology.  It is to brighten and\nkeep burning the flame of the spiritual ideal in the midst of the\nmighty social movement which is now in progress.  It is ours to see God\nin it and help mankind to see Him too.  It is ours to show what the\ngospel really is and has been from the first.  We shall not suffer the\nworld any longer to believe that Christianity and dogma mean the same\nthing.  Our business is to show that the religion of Jesus is primarily\na gospel for this life and only secondarily for the life to come.  We\nhave to demonstrate that material things have spiritual meanings, and\nthat wealth has value only as it ministers to soul power.  We have to\nmake clear to the world that the reason why we want to lift any man up\nand give him a chance of a better and happier life here is because he\nhas an immortal destiny and must make a beginning somewhere if he is to\nreach the stature of the perfect man at last.  We believe that faith is\nthe one indispensable qualification for this work, as for any work that\nis worth the doing, or ever has been worth the doing, in the history of\nmankind.  It is the victory that overcometh the world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n+A personal word.+--The task which has occupied the greater part of my\nwinter resting time has now been accomplished, as far as opportunity\naffords.  What has been said in these pages is no more than an outline\nstatement of the teaching which has been given from the City Temple\npulpit ever since I came into it.  There is not a single thought in\nthis book with which my own people are not already quite familiar, and\nchapter and verse for it can be produced from my published sermons\nwhich have been appearing week by week for years past in the _Christian\nCommonwealth_ and other periodicals.  If space had permitted, I should\nlike to have said much more, for necessarily many phases of the subject\nhave had to be left untouched; it has only been possible to deal with\nthose of fundamental importance.  For example, I should like to have\nincluded some examination of the great question of Miracles, the place\nof Prayer in Christian experience, and the value and significance of\nBiblical Criticism.  But as it has not been possible to do this I must\nadd a word or two to indicate my position in regard to these matters.\n\n+Miracle.+--It seems probable that before long we shall see a\nrehabilitation of belief in the credibility of certain kinds of\nmiracle, and that this rehabilitation will proceed from the side of\npsychical science.  Already there are signs that this rehabilitation is\non the way.  The power of mind over matter is being recognised for\ntherapeutic purposes, for instance, in a way hitherto undreamed of, and\nis receiving a large and increasing measure of attention from the\nmedical profession.  This appears to me to throw a considerable amount\nof light upon the healing ministry of Jesus, which, as the late\nProfessor A. B. Bruce has pointed out, rests upon as good historical\nground as the best-accredited parts of the teaching.  Given a time and\na mental atmosphere in which men expected miracles of this sort, and\ngiven a personality of such wonderful magnetic force as that of Jesus,\nsuch miracles would be sure to happen.  That they did not happen apart\nfrom such conditions is evident from such hints as the statement that,\n\"He could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief.\"  There\nare other kinds of miracle recorded in scripture which are not so\neasily credible, but I am not always prepared to brush them aside as\nmere childish fancies.  As a rule it will be found that they belong to\nthe poetry of religious experience, and that some valuable truth is\ncontained in this particular form of statement.  To this order belong\nthe accounts about the horses and chariots of fire on the hillside\nround about Elisha, the whirlwind in which Elijah ascended to heaven,\nand Jesus walking on the sea.  These accounts are forms in which the\noriental imagination is, even to-day, wont to clothe truths too great\nfor prosaic statement; they are poetry, not history, and the western\nmind ought to make allowance for the fact.  Sometimes we can discern in\nscripture records of an event, which to the stolid western imagination\nseems utterly incredible, a genuine historical truth.  Such, for\ninstance, are the passage of the Red Sea--a stirring and dramatic\nincident, thoroughly well told--and Joshua commanding the sun and moon\nto stand still.  In the latter case we have two lines of poetry from a\nbook which has been lost, and a comparison with similar poetry in\nalmost any literature gives us a clew to its meaning.  The poet\nrepresents the old warrior as declaring in magnificent style that the\nsun of Israel shall not go down, and that day and night shall be alike\nto him until her enemies are discomfited.  Any reader with a shred of\nsympathetic imagination ought to be able to feel the force of the\nsentiment which provoked this utterance without either accepting or\nrejecting it as a literal statement of fact; the best things which have\nbeen written in the books of the world are seldom literal and exact\nstatements of fact.  It has been well pointed out that myth and legend\nare truer than history, for they take us to the inside of things,\nwhereas history only shows us the outside.\n\n+Prayer.+--Prayer is a vital necessity to religious experience, and\nwithout it no religious experience has ever existed or ever can.  It is\nnot primarily petition but communion with God.  Our intercourse with\nour friends does not chiefly consist in asking them for things!  But\nwhen communion does become petition, there is a real place for it as\nwell as for the answer to such prayer.  It is not too much to say that\nno true prayer has ever gone without its answer.  This is quite\nconsistent with the assertion that prayer does not change God; it only\naffords Him opportunity.  It is impossible to improve on what God\nalready desires for us before we pray, but upon our prayer depends the\nrealisation of that desire.  Everything that the soul can possibly need\nis present beforehand in the eternal reality, and the prayer of faith\nis like going into a treasure-house and bringing forth from what is\ncontained therein all that the soul needs day by day.  Prayer,\ntherefore, cannot be too definite, but it should be as unselfish as the\nworshipper can make it in order that the highest can operate in\nresponse.  The same law holds good in this as in all other activities\nof the soul; selfishness draws away from the source of life, whereas\nlove is instantly at one with infinity.  I question whether many people\nrealise the enormous value of definite and systematic prayer; it is the\nsecret of all spiritual power.  Everything that we can possibly want is\nwaiting for us in the bounty of God, and what we have to do is to go\nand take it.  \"Believe that ye have received them and ye shall have\nthem.\"\n\n+The Bible and the young.+--One thing that urgently needs to be done\nfor the young people in our Sunday-schools and various Christian\nsocieties all over the world is to issue a series of well-written\npopular manuals presenting in succinct form the best results of\nBiblical Criticism.  The way the Bible is taught to young people at\npresent is most regrettable, for in after years it leads them to doubt\nand distrust the very foundations of Christianity.  If the teachers\nonly had a little more intelligent acquaintance with the sources of the\nscriptures, this danger would be avoided and the Bible would become a\nfar more interesting and helpful book both to young and old.  At\npresent it is interpreted by many people in a way which is an insult to\nthe intelligence and harmful to the moral sense.  Will anyone seriously\nmaintain that the trickeries of Jacob and the butcheries following the\nIsraelitish invasion of Canaan, not to speak of the obscenities which\nare to be found in so many parts of the Old Testament, are healthy\nreading for children or a mark of divine inspiration?  Is it not time\nwe adopted the more excellent way of facing the truth about the Bible\nrecords and presenting what is valuable in such a way as to help and\nnot to hinder the growth of a true knowledge of the relations of God\nand man?\n\nIn conclusion, let me say emphatically that no one but myself is\nresponsible for a single word in this book.  Among the many wild and\nunjust criticisms which have been published concerning my views, none\nis wider of the mark than that I have borrowed from this man or that in\nmy statement of them.  I am not conscious of owing a scintilla of my\ntheology to any living man.  In so far as it coincides with anyone\nelse's views I am thankful, for it shows that the same eternal Spirit\nof Truth is speaking to others than myself.  But I hope I may be\npermitted to say with due humility that in thinking out my position, \"I\nconferred not with flesh and blood.\"  Perhaps some people will maintain\nthat this makes my teaching all the worse, but if so I cannot help it.\nIt can hardly be denied that in its main bearing, to say no more, it is\nseen to be rising spontaneously in every part of the civilised world.\nAgain, no thinker can ever succeed in completely closing the circle of\nhis system of thought, and I cannot claim to be an exception.  But I\ntrust it will be seen that what is contained in this book is at least a\nself-consistent whole: every arc of the circle implies every other.  It\nonly remains to reiterate my conviction that the movement represented\nby the New Theology is only incidentally theological at all; it is\nprimarily a moral and spiritual movement.  It is one symptom of a great\nreligious awakening which in the end will re-inspire civilisation with\na living faith in God and the spiritual meaning of life.  If what I am\ntrying to do can contribute in any way toward this grand result, I\nshall be humbly thankful to the Giver of all good.","title":"The New Theology","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":67846}