What is religion? This over which men have waged the fiercest controversies known to human history; that has been the source of more strife and bloodshed than any other single cause known to mankind; and perhaps, in one way or another, more than all other causes combined, previous to the recent World War. It will be remembered that I said after finishing my special course of study on the origin, authorship, history and character of the Bible and the processes of reasoning which it inspired, "that I gave the whole thing up, inspiration, revelation, church and religion, as a farce and a delusion, as 'sounding brass and tinkling cymbals'; and cast it all into the scrap-heap of superstition, legend, fable and mythology." But after several years of study and observation I changed my mind again. I found that what I had always been taught and understood to be religion was not religion at all, but only aform of religious expression. Creeds and beliefs I found were not religion, but the products of religion. That subtle emotional experience which I had always been taught was religion, I found was itself but a form of religious expression. I learned that religion was not something one could "get," by repentance, faith, prayer, etc., as I had been taught and taught myself for years; but something every normal human being on earth had by nature, and could not get rid of.
Then what is religion? While it is the simplest thing on earth, it is yet perhaps the hardest to define; especially by one person for another. Its very simplicity eludes definition. In trying to define it I shall use in part the definitions given by others, as these are more expressive than any words of my own that I can frame: "Religion essentially consists of man's apprehension of his relation to an invisible power or powers, able to influence his destiny, to which he is necessarily subject; together with the feelings, desires and actions which this apprehension calls forth." Another definition that is perhaps more direct and simple than the above is this: "Religion is an impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive upward. It is a yearning of the soul in man to transcend its own narrow limits, and to soar to the heights of supreme excellence, where it may become identified with the noble, the lofty, the divine." Another has said that "Religion is simply the zest of life." To these I will add that I understand religion to be thatinner urgein all humanity that pushes it onward and upward; that inspires in man the desire to rise above his present station and attainments, and improve his condition; that spirit within man that has lifted him from the lowest savagery to the highest attainments in civilization, refinement and culture that man has yet reached; and will still lead him on to heights yet invisible and undreamed of.
Thisinner urgeis common to all humanity, different only in degree, and not in kind. It is possessed by the lowest savage, tho often in latent form, yet capable of being touched and aroused into life and action, as thousands of modern examples attest, as a result of some form of missionary effort. From the time that man first emerged above the brute, stood erect, looked up, beheld the phenomena of nature about him, thought, and recognized thatsomehowandsomewherethere was a Power above, beyond and greater than himself; and conceived in his own mind, however crude, the first faint spark of an aspiration to improve and better his condition, man became a religious being, and has been such ever since, varying only in degree, not in kind.
All religion is therefore one and the same. There may be many religions. But back of all these is religion. Religion is one in its origin. It is a part of the fundamental essence of human character. It is inseparable from the faculties of thought, reason and will. It is one and the same with these. Man without these faculties of thought, reason and will would not be man at all, but a brute. So without thisinner urge, and the faculty ofaspiration upward, which I have defined as the very fundamental essence of religion, man would still only be a brute. He would not be man at all. Religion is one in its origin because it is an essential characteristic of all human nature.
All religion is one in that it recognizes SOMETHING above man. I use this word advisedly. If I had said, "Because all men recognize the existence of God, or a Supreme Being," I would have been misunderstood and the statement challenged. Men have become so habituated to calling all other men atheists who do not accept their particular definition of God, that I omit the word entirely until I can further define my meaning. Because Voltaire did not believe in the God of Moses and the Pope, he was dubbed an atheist, altho he was a devoutly religious man, and built a chapel at his own expense on his estate and dedicated it "to the worship of God." Man instinctively recognizessomethingabove him. It is immaterial by what name this may be called; whether Jehovah, Elohim, Allah, Heaven, Nirvana, or Jove; nor what attributes we give it, whether we call it Person or Principle, the Great Unknown or the Ultimate Cause; or whether it be a mere abstract Ideal, the creation of one's own fancy; it is still that "Something" which man recognizes as above him, toward which he aspires and hopes to attain.
Man also instinctively recognizes that he sustains some sort of personal relationship to this "Something," that for want of a better name, we call God. It is necessary in this connection to repeat what we have already said: That very early in the history of the human race man was led to this conclusion, concerning his relationship and obligation to God, thru his effort to interpret and solve the problem of evil, or his own sufferings from it, and his ultimate death. The only possible method he had of interpreting these problems was drawn from his own nature and experience. He knew himself as being alive, as a conscious individual, capable of exercising will and exerting force. Thus when he heard the roaring thunders, saw the clouds floating overhead, and the flashes of lightning among them, felt the force of the wind and the falling rain; in fact all the phenomena of nature and life about him, including his own aches, pains, diseases, suffering, and the ultimate death of his kind, he could only interpret these things in terms of living personality, some great, powerful individual, or individuals behind, and directing it all. These became man's first gods.
Man also interpreted his own relation to the gods, and theirs to him, in the same terms that defined his relations toward his fellowmen. He recognized the fact that some of his fellowmen sometimes did him an injury, or committed some offense against him; that this offense or injury aroused in him a spirit of resentment, a desire for vengeance in kind, even to the taking of the life of the man who had injured, or seriously offended him. Man made his gods in his own image. He believed these gods to be like himself. Thus, man interpreted his own sufferings to mean that he was out of right relations with the gods; that he had personally offended them,—or, one or more of them in some way, according to the source from which he conceived some particular affliction to come. When the individual was conscious of his own innocence, he concluded that some of his ancestors had grievously offended the god, who relentlessly pursued his posterity and inflicted on them the penalties due for the sins of this ancestor. Hence the doctrine of inherited or original Sin. Man then set about to devise some means to appease the wrath of the gods, and thus restore harmonious relations with them. A volume might be written here, but wemustproceed with the next proposition.
All religion is therefore one in its ultimate purpose, and objective end: To attain to its ideal, or harmonize with its objective. In other words: To attain unto right relations with God. Lest I be misunderstood, I will repeat: It is immaterial what this God may be, Jehovah, Allah, Nirvana or Jove; Person, Principle, or Abstract Ideal. It is that which manin his mindsets before him, toward which he aspires and strives to attain. Remember that what wethinkGod to be, that is what God is to us.
We have now reached the point where divisions arise, where religion branches out into religions. "Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"
"What must I do to be saved?" This has, in one form or another, at one time or another, been the burden of almost every soul among men. How can man attain unto right relations with his God? This is the great question of the ages.Keep in mindthat it is immaterial who or what this god may be, how crude or how refined, from the lowest fetish to the highest spiritual conception, the fundamental question remains ever the same: How shall man get right with his God? What must man do to be saved?
To answer this question has been the purpose of every system of religion known to mankind, and every sect, order and denomination known to every system. And here is where confusion begins. Some one evolves a formula, means, or method that he believes meets the case. Some others are persuaded to accept it and the sect grows. In the mean time some other person has evolved another; and some other still another, and so on, and on, and on,ad infinitum; all having the same purpose in view, and each claiming to be theonly right one, or at least, thebest one. And it is immaterial how erroneous, crude, or even barbarous one may look to the devotees of the other; in fundamental purpose they are all the same. The Hindu mother who casts her babe into the Ganges as food for the crocodiles, as a sacrifice to her gods, does it with as sublime a motive as any Christian mother ever bowed before the altar of her own church,—and for the same purpose: To get right with her God. The Parsee wife, who burns herself to ashes upon the funeral pyre of her dead husband, does it for the same purpose: To get right with her God. The devotee who throws his body before the wheels of the Juggernaut to have it crushed as an act of devotion, does it for the same purpose: To get right with his God. The devout Mohammedan who bows himself to the earth five times a day, and says his prayers with his face towards Mecca, does it for the same purpose: To get right with Allah. The savage who repeats his incantations to his fetish that he has probably made with his own hands, does it for the same purpose: To get right with God as he conceives him. The Chinese that burns his sticks before the image in his Joss-house, does it for the same purpose: To get right with his God. And so onad infinitum, the same central purpose running thru it all, whether Hindu or Parsee, Buddist or Janist, Confucian or Shintoist, Jew or Gentile, Mohammedan or Christian, Catholic or Protestant, Methodist or Baptist, Presbyterian or Lutheran, Calvinist or Arminian, Unitarian or Trinitarian, one and all, have one and the same ultimate object: To get into right relations with God, each according to his own conception of God, and what he understands to be his will concerning him. However, in the more rational interpretation of religion in these later times, the element of fear of punishment hereafter has been almost, if not entirely eliminated; and the religious objective is made the highest, noblest, purest, and best possible life in this world, forits own intrinsic worth, and without any reference to any future life, resting firmly in the faith that he who lives right cannot die wrong.
Hence, religion does not consist in creeds, dogmas, or beliefs; nor in forms, ordinances, ceremonies, or sacraments, as I was early taught to believe. But these are, one and all, but so many varyingforms of expressionwhich religion takes. They are all only so many different ways, means and methods religion takes to attain to its ultimate purpose and aim. They are only so many different paths which different men take in their search for God.
And is there butonetrue path to God, while all the others only lead to hell? And if so,whichis the right one? Ah, herein lies the fruitful source of most of the world's tragedies and sufferings! It was this that burned John Huss, Savonarola and Bruno. It was this that lighted the fires of Smithfield and hung helpless, silly women in New England, as witches. But thank God, it is abating and the dawn of a better day is in sight.
I have long since come to believe that all who honestly, sincerely, and diligently seek God will ultimately find him, in some way, at some time, when God sees best to reveal himself, no matter what method may be pursued. I do not mean that all methods are equally good; no, not by any means. The quest for God may be helped or hindered, advanced or delayed, accordingly as the methods of search may be correct or erroneous. But I do mean to say that I do not believe the Infinite God, who knows the hearts of men, and will ultimately judge them by this standard, will forever hide, and deny himself to any, in whose heart He sees honesty, purity, and sincerity of purpose and motive, because in their finite judgment, they were unable to intellectually determine just which was the right, or best way;—and this, whether the searcher be Hindu, Chinese, Pagan or Parsee; Hottentot or Arab, savage or philosopher; Christian, Mohammedan or Buddhist; or any one else on earth. "Man looketh upon the outward appearance; but God looketh upon the heart." And they that diligently, honestly and earnestly seek after him will find him,—somewhere, somehow—in this life or some other, And when found, it will not be "in far-off realms of space," but in one's own heart.
"The outward God he findeth not,Who finds not God within."
From the foregoing it is quite clear that religion is not something miraculously revealed from heaven, handed down in a package already bound up, complete and finished, ready for use; but that in its origin, essence and purpose it is natural and common to all humanity alike. Its present status is but the result of its progressive development, from its crudest forms in early humanity, to the present day. While forever remaining one and the same in its origin, essence and purpose, it has undergone changes in its forms of expression, its means and methods, in all ages as mankind has progressively developed upward. What we call the great systems of religion, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, and others are but so many different forms of expression thru which religion manifests itself in human life; and the various sects and denominations in all these systems are but further subdivisions in these forms of expression, according to different desires, tastes and opinions among different people. Hence, religion was not produced by the Bible, nor is it in any way dependent upon the Bible as a source of authority, but just the opposite. Religion was long before the Bible and itself produced the Bible; and the Bible derives its sole authority from religion.
Here is perhaps as good a place as any to answer the question that has often been asked me: "If the Bible is not the ultimate source of authority in religion, what and where is it?" Just the same to you and me today that it was to Noah, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, apostles, and all others in all ages. "But were not these men divinely inspired?" No more than you or Imay be, even if we are not in fact. This subject will be fully elucidated when I come to treat specifically of inspiration and revelation in the next subdivision. The answer to this question about the source of authority in religion is clearly indicated in the very definition I have given of religion, and I only make it more specific here to avoid any misunderstanding of my position on it. If "religion is a natural impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive upward"; if it is the "zest of Life"; if it is "thatinner urgein all humanity that ever pushes it onward and upward"; these natural impulses themselves constitute the sole source of authority in religion. Thomas Paine once said: "All religions are good that teach men to be good." To which might well be added: That religion alone is best which teaches men to live the best lives. Life, not creed, is the final test of religion. To perceive what is right and what is wrong, to cleave to the right and avoid the wrong, is the highest, noblest and best expression of religion. Now, there is no single universal standard of right and wrong that is universally the same in its application to human life, in all ages, at all times, and under all circumstances and conditions. Life is progressive; and as it moves on new conditions arise, new relations develop, new problems present themselves, and new and changing standards come with them. For example, human slavery and polygamy were both practiced in the days of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon, and for centuries afterwards; and according to the Bible, with the divine sanction and approval. The simple facts are, that according to the standards of those ages, according to the social development of the race at that time there was no moral turpitude in those practices. But who would dare defend them now? And yet these, or most of them—and I say it reverently and sincerely—were doubtlessgood men, judged by the standards of their time; and devoutly religious.
Coming directly now to the answer to the question: The ultimate, final authority in all matters of religion is theindividual conscience, the inner light, that law written in the hearts of all men, aided and assisted by all the light of the present day, which includes all the light of the past that has come down to us, both in the Bible and from all other courses, history, science and the record of human experiences generally interpreted and applied by human reason. That "natural impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive upward"; that "inner urge that ever pushes him onward and upward," will not only start him in the right way of life, but will remain with him and guide him to the end, if he will but hear and obey its voice, interpreted by reason.
The reader will recall the opinion I reached concerning the Bible after my special course of study and the process of reasoning that followed it. But after fifteen years of continued study I changed my opinion about it again. When I took a different perspective I got a different view. First, I was confronted with the fact thatthe Bible is here. And while all my inherited opinions as to its origin, meaning and purpose were gone forever, the second question remained unanswered:How came it here? After all these years of study and investigation I found an answer to this question satisfactory to myself, which I have already indicated above, but will here more fully elaborate as a part of my New Confession of Faith.
The Old Testament is but a record preserved and handed down to us, first of events, legends, opinions and beliefs that existed in crude form as traditions, long before a line of it was written; and thereafter, for a period covering approximately a thousand years, it is a record, tho evidently imperfect, of the progressive development of the Jewish race, nation and religion, which are so inseparably bound together that they cannot be separated. Let us go a little more into detail. No one claims that a line of the Old Testament was written before Moses. (And it is here immaterial whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not. The Jews believed he did.) Yet the Jewish system of religion, at least in its fundamental features, had been in existence since Abraham, some five hundred years before, to say nothing of previous peoples back to Noah, or even to Adam and his sons. Yet none of these had any Bible whatever. If it is claimed by any one that Moses was the originator of the Jewish system, it leaves Abraham and all his posterity, down to the time of Moses, but pious pagans. But according to the record, Moses added nothing to theprinciplesof religious worship as practiced by Abraham and the other patriarchs. He simply reorganized, systematized, refined and somewhat elaborated the ancient system of worship, and at most reduced it to regularity and order.
It was quite natural that Moses should then reduce to writing the traditions and practices of his people, and make a more or less complete record of their laws, regulations, and civil and religious institutions; and especially of that system of religious worship which he had not originated, but organized, systematized and reduced to more perfect order, so that all this might be preserved for the benefit of the people thereafter. This was the beginning of the sacred literature of the Jews which, when completed in its present form, was called the Bible—meaning simply, The Books.
After this, tho the Jewish system of religion, according to the Jews themselves, was finished and complete, they had but five books of written scripture,—the Pentateuch. Yet thirty-four additional books were afterwards written and added to these. Can these later books be quoted asauthorityfor that which existed, in some instances, a thousand years before they were written? Certainly not. But the facts are plain. The system of religion already existing, but continually progressing, gave rise to these subsequent books, which are merely a record of the progress, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, practices, etc., of this peculiar and intensely religious people.
Thus we see that the Old Testament is agrowthproduced by, and recording the historic development of the Jewish race, nation and religion. It is simply theliteratureof a people. Its various parts were written by representatives of the people themselves, many of whose names are unknown, at various times covering a period of a thousand years, under many varying conditions and circumstances. It records in part their history, traditions, legends, myths, their beliefs, superstitions, hopes, fears, ideals and aspirations; and the legendary deeds of their national heroes, just as we find them in the literature of ancient Greece, Rome, England or Scandinavia. It contains books of law, ritual, maxims, hymns, poetry, drama, letters, sermons, denunciations, rebukes, warnings, arguments, anecdotes and biography. No literature on earth is more multifarious in its contents. That it contains many contradictions, errors, inconsistencies and incredible statements is nothing to its discredit from this viewpoint of its origin. The wonder is that there are not more. But that it contains only what the various writers of its different parts, at the time they wrote, honestly thought andbelievedto be true, may be freely admitted without in the least derogating from its true value, or adding supernatural sanctity to it. The Old Testament considered simply as a collection of ancient Jewish literature, reveals to us to-day many of the stages in the national, racial and religious evolution of ancient Israel, just as the literature of any nation or people reveals the same thing concerning them,—no more and no less.
Turning now for a moment to the New Testament: Is it the source and authority for Christianity? Or just the reverse? Which was first of the two? That which goes before is the cause of that which comes after,—not the reverse. If Christianity is to be considered as a separate and distinct system of religion, based upon divine authority, the system was finished, full and complete with the resurrection and ascension of Christ—for the argument's sake, admitting these to be facts. Hence Christianity would have existed as a fact just the same, whether a line of the New Testament had ever been written or not. As a matter of fact, not a line of it was written for twenty-five or thirty years after these events, and it was not completed for a hundred years thereafter. Therefore the New Testament did not produce Christianity; nor is it the authority upon which it is based, but just the opposite. Christianity produced the New Testament and is the authority upon which it is based.
So the New Testament, like the Old, is just literature,—no more. It records what the authors of its various parts, in the light of their time, and with the knowledge they possessed, as common, fallible, mortal men like ourselves, honestly thought, felt, hoped and believed was the truth. It gives us the only historical sketch we have of the origin and early development of that system of religion that in one form or another now dominates a third part of the human race. And as such it is the most valuable book the world possesses today. But it is no more the "infallible Word of God" than the Old Testament, Herodotus, Josephus, Plato or Plutarch.
The conclusion of the whole matter is: The Bible is not the supernaturally inspired, infallible word of God, given by him as the source and final authority for religion, outside of which and since its close there is no more revelation; but it was written by fallible men of like passions with ourselves, who wrote,—not as they were infallibly and inerrantly guided by the Holy Spirit, but—as they were moved by the same impulses, passions and motives that have moved men in all ages to write their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, hopes, fears, aspirations and views of life. Thus, as has already been said, the Bible is aproductof religion instead of being its source and authority. Thus the literature of the Jewish race and the early Christiansgrew. In course of time the thirty-nine books containing our present Old Testament were brought together in one collection. We do not know just when. Afterwards the twenty-seven books of our New Testament were collected in the same way. Age and tradition first embalmed them in an air of sanctity; and then superstition made of them a fetish. Until this "spell" is broken there can be no hope of anything like unity in the religious world. Until this fetish of a "once for all divine and infallible revelation, completed and handed down from heaven" is abandoned, there will continue to be "diversities of interpretation," and consequently divisions, controversies, bickerings, persecutions and recriminations will continue among mankind, and wars will continue among nations.
It may be said here that all the other sacred literature of the world, the Bibles of other systems of religion, the Zend Avesta, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Koran, and others, had their origin in exactly the same source and manner as did our Bible; and attained sanctity and authority among their respective followers in exactly the same way. But we need not go into it in detail.
But when we return to our first proposition, that all religion in its origin, fundamental essence and ultimate purpose is not only one and the same, but isnaturaland common to all humanity; that its processes are a continual revelation in nature and human experience in man's continuous progress onward and upward in the scale of human attainment; and that the Bible, and all other literature of its kind, merely records a part of these processes and revelations in nature and experience, by which we are able to read the footprints of human progress in the past, and that these various writers, mostly unknown, merely recorded what they saw, felt, believed or understood at that time to be the truth; then all these difficulties of interpretation and sources of division vanish, and these books take on a new value and importance that they never otherwise attain.
With this view of its origin and purpose the Bible readily takes and holds its place as the most remarkable and invaluable book the world has ever known, or perhaps ever will know. It becomes at once an inexhaustible treasure-house of knowledge indispensable to the world's highest thought and progress,—knowledge which cannot be obtained anywhere else. In this view its many contradictions, discrepancies, errors of fact, and incredible statements become at once of little force and easily accounted for; and when we consider the various ages in which its parts were written, the many different authors of its different parts, the standards of human knowledge and attainment in these times, the wonder is that there are not more. The Bible is thus the greatest book ofreligious instructionthat the world knows, or ever has known. It contains inexhaustible treasures of religious thought, feeling, emotion and experience, of every conceivable type and variety, which makes it indeed "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." It is an inexhaustible mine of the richest and purest gold, fused in the fires of human experience in many ages. But the gold is mixed with the sand and dirt and rocks and rubbish of the human frailties and weaknesses of the ages in which it was accumulated in this mine. The pure gold must be separated from this dross in the crucible ofpresent dayhuman intelligence, reason and experience. It is like a great river that has wound its course thru many countries and as many different kinds of soil, receiving tributaries from many different sources and directions. It contains much pure water; but it is impregnated with the sand and dirt and mud of the channels thru which it has passed. It must be filtered and these elements eliminated before it can be put to its highest and best use. As a great book of religious instruction it contains riches in human experience and inspiration from which any and all may draw something to fit their particular case and need. But to get the highest value, each must separate the gold from the dross, the pure water from the sand and mud, according to his particular case and need. Used in this way and for this purpose, the Bible will doubtless remain the world's greatest book of religious instruction and inspiration. But to persist in the claim, in the light of present-day knowledge, that the whole of it is a divine revelation, supernaturally given from heaven, and infallibly and inerrantly true, is to perpetuate confusion and discord among men, and cause the wisest and best among them to discredit it altogether, as many of them have already done. But to reverence it for what it really is, a record of the religious evolution of the most intensely religious nation of antiquity, a great race that has contributed more to the religious life of the world than any other, is a credit to the intelligence of any one. To enshrine it in superstition, and make it a fetish, is idolatry.
I am a strong believer in inspiration. But I believe it to be, like religion, natural, in a greater or less degree, to all peoples, in all ages and at all times; andnotsomething miraculous and supernatural, limited to a select few, of a single race, in a long past age, and since then has forever ceased. It is perhaps hard to define inspiration according to this view of it. Like religion, its very simplicity and universality eludes any exact definition; especially by one person for another. That it has often been manifest in much greater degree in some persons than in others; and in these much stronger at some times than at others, is not to be doubted for a moment. It is no more a uniform condition than human attainment in intelligence and character are uniform.
The simple dictionary definition will perhaps be adequate for our purpose,—at least as a starting point: "The inbreathing or imparting of an idea, emotion, or mental or spiritual influence; the elevating, creative influence of genius; also, that which is so inbreathed or imparted." It is that elevation of mental conception usually produced by intense concentration of mind, deep earnestness of thought, intense interest and zeal in a special subject or cause, or by some objective environment. A few simple illustrations will convey my meaning better than any lengthy metaphysical analysis. One night a long time ago, some sage philosopher was looking out upon the heavens, contemplating the beauties of the stars in their majesty and glory. Theseinspireda train of thought in his mind that found utterance in the nineteenth Psalm: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork...." This is inspiration if there ever was such a thing; and yet there is nothing miraculous or supernatural about it. It is as natural as the raindrops that fall from the clouds.
On another occasion some devout and intensely religious saint, but at the same time probably a great sufferer from some adverse fortune, beheld a shepherd taking care of his sheep, providing for them food and water, caring for the sick and lame and nursing them back to strength, leading them out to pasture thru the narrow defiles of the mountains, amidst many dangers, yet guarding them diligently against all. And this sight gave rise to reflections on the divine providence that found expression in that sublime and beautiful Twenty-third Psalm:
"The Lord ismyshepherd; I shall not want.He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;He leadeth me beside still waters;He restoreth my soul."
What is there in all the world's literature more inspired and more inspiring than this? And yet it is no more miraculous nor supernatural in its origin than the shepherd caring for his sheep.
Inspiration is simply a condition or state of mind. It is purely psychological in its nature, and may be produced by a great variety of causes; but is not supernatural. To some extent, and in some degree, but by no means always equal, it has been common among all peoples of the past; and at all periods of their history. Specimens of it have come down to us in this age, enshrined and preserved in the literature, music and art of these peoples. It is as common among men today as it ever was in any past age. It is embodied in some degree, in most, if not all the literature, art and music of all ages; but by no means to the same extent in all. There are passages in Dante, Goethe, Shakespeare, Milton, Browning, Emerson, Carlyle, Bryant, Longfellow, Lowell, and a thousand others, ancient and modern, that are just as much the products of inspiration as the Twenty-third Psalm or the Sermon on the Mount. But no one would pretend to say thatallthat these men wrote was equally inspired, or of equal value.
What then is to be the test of inspiration? How are we to know what is inspired from what is not? There is no absolute and infallible test. The rule I have generally followed is what may be termed, the test of reproduction. The test of the perfect life of an oak is the production of an acorn that will produce another oak. The test of all complete and perfect animal life is its power to reproduce itself in the perpetuation of its own species. The test of inspiration is whether or not it reproduces its kind:—Does it inspire? Who can read the Twenty-third Psalm, or the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Lost Sheep, or the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians without feeling the spirit of inspiration in his own soul? Therefore these must be inspired, because they inspire others. Who can read Emerson's essay on Spiritual Laws, or The Over-Soul, and not be inspired? or Longfellow's Resignation? or Bryant's Lines to a Water-fowl, or Thanatopsis, and not be inspired? Then these must have been inspired, or they could not inspire. Who today can sing the Star Spangled Banner, Geo. F. Root's Battle Cry of Freedom, or Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic, without feeling a thrill of inspiration that stirs the very depths of the soul? Then, these must have been inspired. Time and space fail me to mention even any of the great orators of history from Demosthenes to Woodrow Wilson, who by the power of their eloquence have been able to so inspire men to action as to change the course of empires and the destiny of nations. The secret of all this is that these men were themselves inspired,—not by some miraculous supernatural influence,—but by the natural intensity of their own earnestness, sincere devotion to, and all-absorbing interest in the cause they espoused, until theylost themselvesin their cause, and became thus inspired, and inspired others.
Yes, inspiration is as common and potent in the world today as it ever has been in any age of the past. Its spirit still "enters into holy souls, making them friends of God and prophets."
Just a few words about Revelation will suffice. Revelation has been generally looked upon as almost synonymous if not identical, with inspiration; or so intimately connected with it that they could not be separated. What might be distinctively called revelation was the product, or out-put of inspiration. Whatever truth may still remain as to these relations, since we have seen that inspiration is not something miraculous and supernatural, but purely and wholly natural, there can be no such a thing as revelation in any miraculous or supernatural sense. And yet, all that man has ever learned, accomplished, attained to, or achieved is a revelation. Man, with all his boasted knowledge and achievement, has never created anything; all that man has ever done, at his best, has been to discover and utilize things and forces that are as old as the universe itself. All the discoveries he has ever made, all the knowledge he has ever gained, all that he has ever accomplished or achieved, has been the result of a continuous, unfolding revelation from the dawn of time to the present day; by which he has been able to discover, utilize and appropriate to his own use and benefit, that which has existed, in one form or another, eternally—all of which is a revelation, divine, but not miraculous.
A few centuries ago Copernicus gave us a new view of the universe. This was revelation. But the universe had existed in exactly the same form and relations since "the morning stars sang together." A little later Newton revealed to us the law of gravitation. This was the first man ever knew of it. But the law had existed just the same since the chaos was first reduced to cosmos. The potential power of steam as a mechanical force was just as great in the days of Noah or Abraham as it is today. But it remained for Robert Fulton, but a little over a century ago, to apply it to practical use; and this was just as much a divine revelation as the call of Abraham, or the vision of Moses on the Mount. The same is true of electricity. All the multifarious uses to which it has ever been applied, were just as potent in the days of Shalmanezer or Solomon as they are today. Every discovery and new use to which it has been applied since the day that Franklin drew it from the clouds and corked it up in a bottle, has only been so many new divine revelations; as much so as the vision of Paul before the gate of Damascus, or John on the Isle of Patmos. In fact more so.
And onad infinitum. All the progress man has ever made or ever will make is only the result of this divine revelation ever unfolding itself to him, just as fast, and no faster than he is able to appropriate and use it. Thus God reveals himself to man, not miraculously, but naturally andthru nature itself, just in proportion to man's ability to understand, receive and appropriate it. Jesus is quoted as saying: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth." Did that spirit of truth ever come? And if so when, if ever, was it withdrawn? He said in another place that it should remain forever. Yes, I believe that same spirit of truth is still in the world today and has been ever since man has been here, guiding men into the way of truth just in proportion to their ability to receive it. And also, all truth is divine, because all truth comes from the same source—God. The truth concerning the universe, the laws of nature in the material world are thus just as divine, as are the moral laws governing man in his social relations, or those governing his relations to God. And the great store-house of Nature has not yet revealed even an infinitesimal part of her infinite riches for man's use and benefit, that are yet to be revealed as man progresses onward and upward. Instead of having reached the zenith of man's discoveries and achievements, and therefore a finished revelation, we have not yet passed the dawn. The heavens still declare the glory of God; but the scientist, philosopher, and astronomer of today sees much more in them than does the savage, or did the author of the Nineteenth Psalm. And as man goes on he will see more and more of God in Nature, and understand him better, until the final fruition of his hope and faith is reached. Inspiration and revelation are thus both living realities, as much so now as at any time in the past, and will continue so while mankind continues to inhabit this planet.
All the progress, achievement and attainment mankind has ever made, from the days of the Cave Man and the Stone Age to the present time, are but the products, results, fruits of this inspiration and revelation, that has ever impelled and led mankind onward and upward. I firmly believe that the future holds in store a civilization, social status, human achievement, intellectual and moral attainment on this planet, as far above the present as this is above that of the Cave Man; and as inconceivable to us now as this was to him; and all this will be but the product, result, fruit of this eternal, never-ending process of inspiration and revelation that has brought mankind to where he is today.
We have now reached the most interesting, if not the most vital part of this Confession of Faith. Thus far I have said almost nothing about the Man of Nazareth. "What then shall I do unto Jesus, who is called Christ?" The temptation is very great here to elaborate at some length upon my views of this, the most unique character in all history. I would like to give my views in full, with all the arguments, pro and con, as to his personality, character and mission. But this would extend this work to an undue length. Some day I may write it more fully in another book. I must be content now to give as briefly as possible the conclusions I have reached, without going into any very detailed arguments to support them.
What do we know about Jesus anyway? He never wrote a line that we have any record of, except a few words in the sand when the Jews brought a sinful woman before him to accuse her; and we know not what these words were. We have no record that he ever authorized any one else to write anything for, or about him. We have three short biographies of him that were written anywhere from fifty to eighty years after his death, the exact date of neither being known. The authors of two of these—Mark and Luke—it is admitted were not Apostles; and there is no evidence that either of them ever knew Jesus in his lifetime. It is admitted that each of them got all his information from another, and that one of them got his information from a person—Paul—who himself never knew Jesus in the flesh. It is admitted that the other—Matthew—as we now have it, is not the original writing of the Apostle of that name; that the original is entirely lost, and no one knows what additions or eliminations it underwent in its translation and transcription into another language. Years later a fourth biography appeared by an unknown author,—tradition being the only evidence that it was written by the Apostle John—so entirely different in its general make-up and contents, that but for thenameof its subject and a very few passages in it, no one would ever take it to be about the same person that formed the subject of the other three.
When these four are taken together, and all repetitions and duplications are eliminated, it would leave us with a small pamphlet of some sixty or seventy pages as our only record of this most remarkable character of all history. None of the epistolary writings throw any light on the life, doings, sayings or personality of Jesus. They only deal with deductions drawn from or based upon it. When we add to this the fact that at least fifty years had elapsed, after the events described had happened, before a line of it—at least in its present form—was written; and that in an age when few people could write and no accurate records were preserved, and when those that did then write, wrote only from memory or tradition; and when we further consider the varying and often very different accounts given by the different writers of the events they describe, differences in both the doings and sayings of Jesus, altho these are mostly only matters of minor detail, yet we become more and more convinced that we have no means of knowing for certain just what Jesus did; nor whether or not he uttered the exact words that the writers put into his mouth. Compare today the memory of any individual as to the exact details of some event, even that he personally witnessed, fifty years ago; especially as to the exact words used on any particular occasion, and we will have more than a fair example of the imperfection of human memory. Add to this the fact that this was in a very superstitious age, when every wonder was translated into a supernatural miracle, and our perplexity only becomes the greater. The doctrine of infallible guidance by divine inspiration is out of the question. If there was no other evidence against such an idea, the internal contents of these books themselves would forever destroy it.
Then, what do weknowabout Jesus? Very little. I do not accuse these writers of any deliberate misrepresentation, conscious fraud or forgery. They undoubtedly wrote what they honestly and sincerely believed at the time to be the truth. But they wrote simply as fallible men like ourselves. Their means of information in many cases was doubtless very meager and uncertain. They doubtless did the best they could under the circumstances. They wrote the truth as they understood it to be truth, just as any other historian or biographer would do today.
And what they wrote is all we know. It is the only basis we have upon which we can form any judgment as to who or what Jesus of Nazareth was. What Paul may have thought of him, and the system of theology he built thereon, is of but little value. What the Church Fathers may have thought, in the light of the age in which they lived, and their own standard of intellectual attainments, is of less. We have got to fall back upon the four gospels, and interpret them, not in the light of the superstitious age in which they were written; not assuming them to be exact truth; for in view of the fact of their own contradictions of each other on material and vital points this is impossible; but in the full light of this age of science and exact knowledge; of a more highly developed intelligence, and a deeper and more accurate reasoning power. With these records as a basis, or starting point, we must work out the problem for ourselves: Who and what was Jesus?
First, he was a Jew,—born, lived and died a Jew. There is no evidence that he ever rejected, or abrogated the religion of his fathers. That he tried to reform it, inject into it a deeper spiritual life, a more rational and higher ethical standard, will more fully appear as we proceed. He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it,—not by dying on the cross, for the law nowhere says, or even intimates, anything about anybody dying on a cross or anywhere else. He came to fulfill it by living up to its full ethical and spiritual import, and teaching others to do so. "Moses had summed up the law in ten commandments, the Pharisees of the time of Jesus had made of these ten thousand—to be exact, six hundred and thirteen—and Jesus reduced them to two,"—and kept them. This is how he fulfilled the law.
Next, Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary by the same process of natural generation by which all other human beings come into the world. Paul, the earliest and most elaborate writer of the New Testament, nowhere gives us the remotest hint that he had ever heard of any such a thing as the supernatural birth; and it is wholly unthinkable that if such had been the truth he should have been ignorant of it; or that if it sustained such a vital relation to the Christian system of religion to which he devoted his whole life, he should never in the remotest manner refer to it.
Mark's gospel, written to the best of our knowledge about fifty years after the death of Jesus, nowhere refers to it. As we have already seen, we do not know what the Apostle Matthew may have written, as we do not have his original writing at all. The early Ebionite copies of the Greek translation and transcription did not contain the first two chapters, and consequently no reference to the supernatural birth. We are left to fall back on Luke and we will have to examine his story a little in detail. In all of its details, including the genealogy, it is quite different from that in Matthew. Luke alone mentions the visit to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old, and in which he was missed from the company when they started on the return home. When Joseph and Mary found him in the temple, she is quoted as saying, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Now, if Jesus wasnotreally the son of Joseph, but of the Holy Ghost, his mother certainly knew it; and if so her statement, "thy fatherand I have sought thee sorrowing," was not only a deliberate untruth; but if Jesus was God, he also knew it was an untruth. Another inconsistency in the story is, that if Jesus was thus the son of the Holy Ghost, and therefore God, and his mother knew it, why should she worry about his being missing from the caravan? Couldn't God take care of himself and find his way back to Nazareth at any time he wished to go? On another occasion, mentioned by all the synoptics, when Jesus was teaching, his mother and brethren are reported as calling for him, evidently for the purpose of restraining him in his work, or persuading him to desist,—and this is the interpretation that has been most generally given to these passages, and the answer which Jesus gave supports it as correct,—such a course is entirely inconsistent with any conception that his mother at the timeknewhim to be the supernaturally born Son of God.
Turning now to the Fourth Gospel, we have not only an entirely different character, but an entirely different philosophy as to his life and mission. Not a word is said or anywhere hinted about a divine birth. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." To state it in the simplest words I can command, the theory of the Fourth Gospel is that of the old Alexandrian philosophy of the incarnation of the Divine Logos, or Word, or message from God, in human flesh, applied to Jesus of Nazareth. His pure and simple manhood is recognized, into which, in some mystical manner, nowhere explained, the Divine Logos, or Word, or Life, or God Himself, entered intothe manJesus, whereby he became the Son of God and the Messiah,—and not by the process of miraculous generation in the flesh. The old Ebionite doctrine was that this Divine Logos, or Word, or Spirit of God entered Jesus at his baptism, and that he thereby became the Messiah, distinctively "the Son of God" by divine selection, and not by supernatural generation.
There is no evidence that his disciples during his lifetime ever had the slightest conception that he had a supernatural birth. When Philip tells Nathaniel that he has found the Messiah of whom Moses and the prophets wrote, he also tells him that this Messiah is "Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Even after the death of Jesus the disciples seem to have had no knowledge of any supernatural birth. The two on their way to Emmaus, after the crucifixion, express their disappointment: "We hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel." No such expression of disappointment can possibly be reconciled with any thought that this Jesus who had so recently been crucified was the "eternal Son of God" incarnated in human flesh. On the day of Pentecost Peter speaks of him in no higher terms than "A man approved of God."
If Jesus was supernaturally born, as a matter of course his mother knew it all the time; yet during the whole life of Jesus she is nowhere mentioned as giving the slightest intimation of it; but on the contrary all the record we have of anything she did do or say would naturally lead to just the opposite conclusion. Of course no one else knew anything about it. Taking it naturally for granted, that at least at the beginning, his disciples knew nothing of it, if they ever learned it afterwards, there must have been some special time, condition or circumstance under which they came into possession of these remarkable facts. Yet, there is not a hint in the New Testament about any such time, place, circumstance or incident.
How then did the idea of a supernatural birth and the deification of Jesus come about, if it was not a real fact? Very simply and quite naturally. Any one acquainted with ancient history knows that in that age of the world, and for centuries before, it had been almost a universal custom, especially in Greece and the Roman empire, to attribute some supernatural origin to, and deify their heroes,—sometimes while they were yet alive, but most certainly after their death. Just so, after the death of this remarkable man, and his cult continued to gather adherents, time and distance lent perspective, and he naturally grew larger and greater in their estimation, until, naturally and inevitably, permeated by the universal thought of the age in which they lived, they gradually came to look more and more upon their great master as being something more than ordinarily human, until this thought gradually ripened into his deification; and of course to be consistent with this hemust have been, like all other deified heroes, supernaturally born. And out of this the legend of Bethlehem, in both its forms, in Matthew and Luke, somehow grew,—nobody knows exactly how. It is just like many other myths of past ages. The first we know of them they are full grown and complete; yet, like all other things, theymusthave had a natural and gradual growth.
As to where he was born we do not know, nor is it material. It is by far the most probable that he was born at Nazareth where his parents lived. The legend that he was born at Bethlehem was doubtless a pure conjecture, made necessary by those who accepted him as the Messiah of Hebrew prophecy, to make it correspond with the prophetic declaration that the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem of Judah. This fully accounts for the Bethlehem story as the place of his birth. The fact is they are all purely conjectural, made to fit into some preconceived notion of his personality or character. We have no reliable account whatever of his birth or early life.
We now come to consider the man,—yes, the man Christ Jesus. We have already said he was a Jew and lived and died one, with apparently no thought or purpose other than to reform and correct the abuses into which his people had lapsed, and revive and intensify the deep spiritual and ethical meaning of religion. Born of the most intensely religious race of all antiquity, he was the most intensely religious of his race. He perceived a new conception of God, not as the arbitrary ruler and vindictive judge of his people, but as the universal Father of all men, not anthropomorphic, but Infinite Spirit, whose greatest attributes were love, justice, mercy and truth, expressed in the great term Fatherhood; and that all men are children of the great Father, and therefore brothers. This expresses his fundamental philosophy and working basis of life. Upon it he undertook to build up and establish, not a new system of religion, but a new order of life. The central idea in this was man's direct relationship to God. In his own life he embodied a perfect example of his ideal. He thus became not God incarnate bodily in human flesh, nor the Son of God in anydifferentsense than all are sons of God—except perhaps in degree and not in kind—but the most complete reflection and interpretation of God in terms of human life that the world had ever known before his time, has ever known since, or perhaps ever will know. But this last statement is saying more than any man can know for certain. We know not what God may yet have to reveal to mankind, nor how He will reveal it.
His course of life and teaching naturally brought him into direct conflict with the prevailing order of his time. We need not discuss that in detail. It soon led to a violent and tragic death, before he had fairly begun his work. We cannot form any guess whatmight have beenthe result if he had been permitted to live out a normal life and continue his teaching. He only met the same fate that many prophets before him had met, and many more since. If he should appear today here in America and pursue the same course toward public institutions and popular beliefs and practices, he would meet with a reception little different from what he met in Palestine nineteen hundred years ago. He might not indeed be crucified on a cross; but he would stand a good chance to be cast into jail and sent to a penitentiary for a term of years for sedition and attempting to interfere with the established order. And no persons would be more active in his prosecution than some of the modern Pharisees who occupy high places in that great institution that bears his name. If he had appeared in Europe some four or five hundred years ago, he would have been almost dead certain to meet the same fate of John Huss, Savonarola and Giordano Bruno. But now, as then, the poor, down-trodden and oppressed would doubtless hear him gladly.
There is no reliable evidence that he ever claimed to be the Messiah of Hebrew prophecy. He is quoted on several occasions as having accepted the appellation when applied to him by others. On one occasion only is he quoted as having affirmatively declared himself the Messiah; and that was to the woman of Samaria, and the whole circumstance of it renders it incredible. It would certainly be a very unusual course to take, for the Jewish Messiah to come and announce himself as such, not to the Jews themselves, but to a very obscure, not to say disreputable woman, of the most despised race known to the Jews.
It was however quite natural that, after his followers had universally accepted him as the Jewish Messiah, they should recall some occasional remarks that he may have made, upon which to base this belief; and that these remarks would finally take more concrete form, until when written, fifty to a hundred years after they were uttered, they were perhaps entirely different from anything Jesus ever said. As a matter of fact there is nothing in the life or teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament, that at all corresponds to the personality or character of the Messiah of Hebrew prophecy. And may I add here, that the Messiah of Hebrew prophecy, for whose coming the Jews were looking at that time, and for which most of the Jews have been looking ever since, is but a fiction and a myth, born entirely out of the patriotic devotion and fervid poetic fancy of the Old Hebrew prophets? In the days of Israel's adversity, when all the really unquestioned Messianic prophecies were uttered, the mind of prophet and people turned back to the golden days of David's glorious reign; and in their intense patriotism and unfaltering faith in Jehovah, they hoped andbelievedthat he would some day raise up a King of the line and house of David that would restore the ancient glory of Israel; and so they prophesied—"the wish being father to the thought." And this is all there is to Old Testament Messianic prophecy. And a great many of the most intelligent Jews of the Reformed School of today are beginning to think the same.
But if there was ever a true prophet of God, a man in whom the God-life in human form was truly manifest, a man supremely divine,—not by miraculous generation, but by spiritual union with God, whereby God indeed became manifest in human flesh,—that man was Jesus of Nazareth. And as such he becomes the eternal example for all mankind after him. As a man he justly commands the highest homage that the world can give to man. But make him God, and the chain that connects him with man is at once broken. If Jesus was God, and therefore incapable of temptation or sin, the temptation and triumph in the wilderness becomes a farce, without any meaning to mankind whatever. But as a mortal man struggling with and overcoming the strongest temptations of life, it has infinite significance to all mankind. If he overcame as a man, so may I. As a god, the sweat of Gethsemane and the agony of the Cross are but mockery—not equal to a single pin-prick in a whole mortal life. But as a man, struggling with the last enemy, with eternity before him, a means of escape at hand, but deliberately devoting his life and his all in the most excruciatingly torturous manner known to human ingenuity in cruelty, it becomes a spectacle to command the awe and admiration of angels.
Jesus is indeed the savior of the world, not by havingredeemedmankind with the purchase-price of his own blood; but by his life and words in teaching men how to live, and by his death how to die, if necessary, for the right.
I know of no more fitting close to this my view of Jesus, than a quotation from Ernest Renan's Apostrophe to Jesus. Ernest Renan was called an infidel because he abandoned the church of his fathers, and with it the deity of Jesus. But he found in Jesus the supreme model of all human life, the most perfect and complete reflection of the God-life in mankind the world has ever known.
"Repose now in thy glory, noble founder. Thy work is finished; thy divinity is established. Fear no more to see the edifice of thy labors fall by any fault. Henceforth beyond the reach of frailty, thou shalt witness from the heights of divine peace the infinite results of thy acts. At the price of a few hours of suffering, which did not even reach thy grand soul, thou hast brought the most complete immortality. For thousands of years the world will depend on thee: Banner of our contests, thou shalt be the standard about which the hottest battle will be given. A thousand times more alive, a thousand times more beloved, since thy death than during thy passage here below, thou shalt become the cornerstone of humanity so entirely, that to tear thy name from this world would be to rend it to its foundation. Complete conqueror of death, take possession of thy kingdom, whither shall follow thee, by the royal road which thou hast traced, ages of followers."