OUR UNITARIAN GOSPEL B M. J. SAVAGE "The good news of the blessed God"BOSTON GEO. II. Ews, 141 FRANKLIN STREET 1898. 

DedicationTO THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE MESSAGE OF GOD TO HIS CHILDREN MUST BEONE OF LIFE AND HOPE INSTEAD OF A THEOLOGY WHICH TEACHES DEATH ANDDESPAIR. 

NOTE. The sermons which make up this volume were spoken in the Churchof the Messiah during the season of 1897-98. They are printed asdelivered, not as literature, but for the sake of preaching to a largercongregation than can be reached on Sunday morning. 

CONTENTS. 

UNITARIANISM "WHAT DO YOU IN PLACE OF WHAT YOU TAKE AWAY?"ARE THERE ANY CREEDS WHICH IT IS WICKED FOR US TO QUESTION?WHY HAVE UNITARIANS NO CREED?THE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRESENT RELIGIOUS DISCUSSIONDOUBT AND FAITH - BOTH IS LIFE A PROBATION ENDED BY DEATH?SIN AND ATONEMENT PRAYER, AND COMMUNION WITH GODTHE WORSHIP OF GODMORALITY NATURAL, NOT STATUTORYREWARD AND PUNISHMENTTHINGS WHICH DOUBT CANNOT DESTROYEVOLUTION LOSES NOTHING OF VALUE TO MANWHY ARE NOT ALL EDUCATED PEOPLE UNITARIANS?WHERE IS THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH?

UNITARIANISM. 

THROUGH the lack of having made themselves familiar with the matter, there is a common and, I think, a widespread impression among peoplegenerally that Unitarianism is a new-fangled notion, a modern fad, abelief held only by a few, who are one side of the main currents ofreligious life and advance. 

Even if it were new, even if it were confined to the modern world, thiswould not necessarily be anything against it. The Copernican theory ofthe universe is new, is modern. So are most of the great discoveriesthat characterize and glorify the present age. 

But in the case of Unitarianism this cannot be said. It is not new: itis very old. And, before I come to discuss and outline a few of itsgreat principles, it seems to me well that we should get in our minds abackground of historic thought, that we may see a little what are thesources and origins of this Unitarianism, and may understand why it isthat there is a new and modern birth of it in the modern world. 

All races start very far away from any Monotheistic or Unitarianbelief. The Hebrews are no exception to that rule. The early part ofthe Bible shows very plain traces of the fact that the Jews werepolytheists and nature-worshippers. If I should translate literally thefirst verse of the Bible, it would read in this way: In the beginningthe Strong Ones created the heavens and the earth. "The word that wehave translated God is in the plural; and I have already given you itsmeaning. This is only a survival, a trace, of that primeval beliefwhich the Jews shared with all the rest of the world. "

From this polytheistic position the people took a step forward to astate of mind which Professor Max Muller calls henotheism; that is, they believed in the real existence of many gods, but that they wereunder allegiance to only one, their national Deity, and that him onlythey must serve. 

I suppose this state of thought was maintained throughout the largerpart of the history of the Hebrew nation. You will find tracesconstantly, in the early part of the Old Testament, at any rate, of thebelief of the people in the other gods, and their constant tendency tofall away to the worship of these other gods. But by and by all thiswas outgrown, and left behind; and the Hebrew people came to occupy aposition of monotheism, spiritual monotheism, that is, they werepassionate Unitarians, so far as the meaning of that word is concerned. Though, of course, I would not have you understand that many, perhapsmost, of the principles which are held today under the name ofUnitarian were known to them at that time, or would have been accepted, had they been known. 

In the sense, however, of believing in the oneness of God, they wereUnitarians. 

Now, when Christianity comes into the world, what shall we say? It isthe assumption on the part of most of the old- time churches that Jesusmade it perfectly plain to his disciples that he was a divine being, that he claimed to be one himself, and that the claim was recognized. 

So far, however, as any authentic record with which we are familiargoes, Jesus himself was a Unitarian. All the disciples were Unitarians. Paul was a Unitarian. The New Testament is a Unitarian book frombeginning to end. The finest critics of the world will tell you thatthere is no trace of any other teaching there. And so, for the firstthree hundred years of the history of the Church, Unitarianism was itsprevailing doctrine. 

I have no very good memory for names. So I have brought here a littleleaflet which contains some that I wish to speak of. Among the ChurchFathers, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, andLactantius, all of them in their writings make it perfectly clear andunquestioned that the belief of the Church, the majority belief for thefirst three centuries, was Unitarian. Of course, the process of thoughthere and there was going on which finally culminated in the doctrine ofthe Trinity. That is, people were beginning more and more to exalt, asthey supposed, the character, the office, the mission of Jesus; comingmore and more to believe that he was something other than a man, thathe was above and beyond humanity. 

But one other among the Fathers, Justin Martyr, one of the best knownof all, takes care to point out explicitly his belief. I will read youjust two or three words from it. He says: "There is a Lord of the LordJesus, being his Father and God, and the Cause of his existence. "

This belief, then, was universal, practically universal, throughout thefirst three centuries. But the process of growth was going on whichfinally culminated in the controversy which was settled by the Councilof Nicaea, held in the early part of the fourth century; that is, theyear 325. The leaders of this controversy, as you know, were Arius, onthe Unitarian side, and Athanasius, fighting hard for the doctrine thennew in the Church, of the Trinity. 

The majority of the bishops and leading men of the Church at that timewere on the side of Arius; but at last the Emperor Constantine settledthe dispute. Now you know that the sceptre of a despotic emperor maynot reason, may not think; but it is weightier than either reason orthought in the settlement of a controversy like this at such a periodin the history of the world. So Constantine settled the controversy infavor of the Trinitarians; and henceforth you need not wonder thatUnitarianism did not grow, for it was mercilessly repressed and crushedout for the next thousand years. 

Unitarianism, however, is not alone in this. Let me call your attentionto a fact of immense significance in this matter. All this time thestudy of science and philosophy, that dared to think beyond the limitsof the Church's doctrine, were crushed out. There was no freephilosophy, there was no free study of science, there was no freeanything for a thousand years. The secular armed forces of Europe, withpenalties of imprisonment, of the rack, of the fagot, of torture ofevery kind, were enlisted against anything like liberty of thinking. 

So you need not wonder, then, that there was neither any science norany Unitarianism to be heard of until the Renaissance. What was theRenaissance? It was the rising again of human liberty, the possibilityonce more of man's freedom to think and study. Though the armed forcesof Europe were for a long time against it, the rising tide could not beentirely rolled back, and so it gained on human thought and human lifemore and more. And out of this the Renaissance came, the new birth ofscience, on the one hand, and on the other, issuing in theReformation's assertion of the right of thought and of private judgmentin matters of religion; and along with this latter the rebirth ofUnitarianism, its reappearance again as a force in the history of theworld. 

During this Reformation period there are many names of light and power, among them being Servetus, whom Calvin burned because he was aUnitarian; Laelius and Faustus Socinus, Bernardino Ochino, Blandrata, and Francis David; and, more noted in some ways than any of them, Giordano Bruno, the man who represents the dawn of the modern worldmore significantly than any other man of his age, not entirely aUnitarian, but fighting a battle out of which Unitarianism sprung, freedom of thought, the right of private judgment, the scientific studyof the universe, the attempt, unhampered by the Church's dogma orpower, to understand the world in which we live. 

As a result of this Renaissance, what happened? Let me run over veryrapidly the condition of things in Europe at the present time, withsome glances back, that you may see that Unitarianism has played justas large a part as you could expect it to play, larger and grander thanyou could expect it, considering the conditions. 

In Hungary, one of the few countries where freedom of thought inreligion has been permitted, there has been a grand organization of theUnitarian Church for more than three hundred years, not only churches, but a Unitarianism that has controlled colleges and universities anddirected the growth of learning. 

Let us look to the North. In Sweden and Norway it is still a crime toorganize a church that teaches that Jesus is not God. So we may expectto find no Unitarian churches there; though there are many and nobleUnitarian men, thinkers and teachers. Come to Germany. There are noorganized Unitarian churches under that name here; but there is acondition of things that is encouraging for us to note. There is aunion of the Protestant organizations, in which the liberals, orUnitarians, are free, and have their part without any question as totheir doctrine. 

There are hundreds and thousands of Unitarians in South Germany. In thecity of Bremen I called on a clergyman who had translated one of mybooks, and found out from him the condition of things there. Thecathedral of Bremen has half a dozen different preachers attached toit. Some of them are orthodox, and some are Unitarian, all perfectlyfree; living happily together in this way, and the people at liberty tocome and listen to which one of them they choose. This is not anuncommon thing in Germany. That is the condition of things, then, there. 

In Holland there are no Unitarian churches, no churches going by thatname; but there are thousands of Unitarians particularly among theeducated and leading men, and one university, that of Leyden, entirelyin control of the liberal religious leaders of the country. 

When you come to France, which you know is dominantly Catholic, youstill find a large body of Protestants; but one wing of their greatorganization is virtually if not out and out Unitarian. And a few ofthe most noted preachers of the modern time in France have beenUnitarians. I have had correspondence with men there which showed thatthey were perfectly in sympathy with our aims, our purposes, our work. 

In Transylvania and Poland there were large numbers of Unitarianchurches which were afterwards crushed out. 

You find, then, all over Europe, all over civilization, just as muchUnitarianism as you would expect to find, when you consider thequestions as to whether the law permits it and as to whether the peopleare educated and free. 

I should like, not for the sake of boasting, but simply that you maysee that you are in good company, to mention the names of some of thosewho are foremost in our thought. Take Mazzini, the great leader ofItaly; take Castelar, one of the greatest men in modern Spain; takeKossuth, the flaming patriot of Hungary, all Unitarian men. 

Now let us come a step nearer home: let us consider England, and notethat just the moment free thought was allowed, you find Unitarianismspringing into existence. Milton was a Unitarian; Locke, one of thegreatest of English philosophers, a Unitarian; Dr. Lardner, one of itsmost famous theological scholars, a Unitarian; Sir Isaac Newton, one ofthe few names that belong to the highest order of those which have madethe earth glorious, a Unitarian. 

And, then, when we come to later England, we find another greatscientist, comparatively modern, Dr. Priestley, who, coming to thiscountry after he had made the discovery of oxygen which made him famousfor all time, established the first Unitarian church in our neighborcity of Philadelphia. 

The first Unitarian church which took that name in the modern world wasorganized in London by Dr. Theophilus Lindsey in 1774; and itsestablishment coincides with the great outburst of freedom thatdistinguished the close of the eighteenth century. 

You must not look for Unitarians where there is no liberty; for it is acardinal principle of their thought and their life. 

Soon after the London movement, the first Unitarian church in thiscountry was organized, or rather the first Unitarian church came intoexistence. It was the old King's Chapel of Boston, an Anglican church, which came out and took the name Unitarian. 

There is a very bright saying in connection with this old church, whichI will pause long enough to repeat, because there is a principle in itas well as a great deal of wit. They kept there the old English churchservice, except that it was purged, according to their point of view, from all Trinitarian belief. It is said that Dr. Bellows, who wasattending a service there some years ago, had with him an Englishgentleman as a visitor. This man picked up the service, looked it over, and, turning to Dr. Bellows, with a sarcastic look on his face, said, "Ah I see that you have here the Church of England service watered. "Whereupon Dr. Bellows, with his power of ready wit, replied, No, mydear sir, not watered, washed. King's Chapel, then, was the firstUnitarian church in this country. But the number grew rapidly, and in afew years perhaps half, or more than half, of the old historic Puritanand Pilgrim churches in New England had become Unitarian, including inthat number the old First Church of Plymouth. 

Now, before I go on to discuss the principles underlying our movement, I wish to call your attention to a few more names; and I trust you willpardon me for this. There is no desire for vain-glory in theenumeration. I simply wish that people should know, what only a few doknow, who have been Unitarians in the past, and what great names, leading authoritative names in the world's literature and science andart, find here their place. 

Among the Fathers of the Revolution, all the Adamses, Dr. Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and many another were avowed Unitarians. And, when wecome to modern times, it is worth your noting that all our great poetsin this country, Bryant, Longfellow, Whittier, Holmes, Lowell, and inthis city Stedman, are Unitarian names. 

Then the leading historians, Bancroft, Motley, Prescott, Sparks, Palfrey, Parkman, and John Fiske, are Unitarians. Educators, likeHorace Mann, like the last seven presidents of Harvard University, Unitarians. Great scientists, like Agassiz, Peirce, Bowditch, ProfessorDraper, Unitarians. Statesmen and public men, like Webster, Calhoun, the Adamses, the Hoars, Curtis. Two of our great chief justices, Marshall and Parsons. Supreme Court Judges, Story and Miller. Literarymen, like Whipple, Hawthorne, Ripley, and Bayard Taylor; and eminentwomen, such as Margaret Fuller, Lydia Maria Child, Lucretia Mott, HelenHunt Jackson, Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, and Mrs. Julia Ward Howe. 

I mention these, that you may know the kind of men, ethical, scientific, judicial, political, literary, who have been distinguished, as we think from our point of view, by being followers of this grandfaith of ours. 

And now I wish you to note again, what I hinted at a moment ago, thatit is not an accident that Unitarianism should spring into being in themodern world coincidently with the great movements of liberty in Franceand England, and the outburst that culminated in our own Revolution andthe establishment here of a State without a king as well as of a churchwithout a bishop. 

Wherever you have liberty and education, there you have the rawmaterials out of which to make the free, forward looker in religiousthought and life. 

Now what are the three principles out of which Unitarianism is born?First, I have already intimated it, but I wish to emphasize it againfor a moment with an addition, Liberty. Humanity at last had come to atime in its history when it had asserted its right to be free; not onlyto cast off fetters that hampered the body, not only to dethrone thedespots that made liberty impossible in the State, but to think in therealm of religion, to believe it more honorable to God to think than tocringe and be afraid in his presence. 

Second, coincident with the birth of Unitarianism is an enlargement anda reassertion of the conscience of mankind. A demand for justice. Justthink for a moment, and take it home to your hearts, that up to thetime when this free religious life was born, according to the teachingof all the old creeds, justice and right had been one thing here amongmen and another thing enthroned in the heavens. The idea has alwaysbeen that might made right, that God, because he was God, had a rightto do anything, though it controverted and contradicted all the ideasof human righteousness; and that we still must bow in the dust, andaccept it as true. 

If I could be absolutely sure that God had done something whichcontradicted my conscience, I should say that probably my consciencewas wrong. I should wait at any rate, and try to find out. But, when Ifind that the condition of things is simply this, that certainfallible, unjust, uneducated, barbaric people have said that God hasdone certain things, then it is another matter. I have no direct wordfrom God: I have only the report of men whose authority I have noadequate reason to accept. 

At any rate, the world came to the point where it demanded thatgoodness on earth should be goodness up in heaven, too; that God shouldat least be as just and fair as we expect men to be. And that, if youwill think it out a little carefully, is enough to revolutionize thetheology of the world; for the picture of the character of God ascontained in the old theologies is even horribly unjust, as judged byany human standard. 

In the third place, Unitarianism sprang out of a new elevation of loveand tenderness. As men became more and more civilized, they became moretender-hearted; and they found it impossible to believe that the Fatherin, heaven should not be as kind and loving as the best father onearth. 

And here, again, if you think it out, you will find that this is enoughto compel a revolution of all the old theological ideas of the world. 

Just as soon, then, as the civilized modern world became free, therewas a new expansion of the sense of the right to think; there was a newexpansion of conscience, the insistent demand for justice; there was anew expansion of tenderness and love; and out of these, characterizedby these, having these in one sense for its very soul and body, cameUnitarianism. 

Now another point. It is commonly assumed by those who have not studiedthe matter that, because Unitarians have no printed and publishedcreed, they are all abroad in their thinking. They take this forgranted; and so it is assumed by people who speak to me on the subject. They think that there must be just as many views of things as there areindividuals. 

If there are any persons here having this idea, perhaps I shallastonish them by the statement I am going to make. After more thantwenty years of experience as a Unitarian minister, I have come to theconviction that there is not a body of Christians in the world to-day, not Catholic or Presbyterian or Methodist or Congregational or anyother, that is so united in its purposes, not only, but in its beliefs, as these very Unitarians. 

And the fact is perfectly natural. Take the scientific men of theworld. They do not expect a policeman after them if they do not holdcertain scientific opinions. There is no authority to try them forheresy or to turn them out of your society unless they hold certainscientific ideas. They have no sense of compulsion except to find andaccept that which they discover to be true. The one aim of science isthe truth. There is no motive for anything else. 

And truth being one, mark you, and they being free to seek for it, andall of them caring simply for that, they naturally come together, inevitably come together. So that, without any external power ororthodox compulsion, the scientific men of the world are substantiallyat one as to all the great principles. They discuss minor matters; but, when they discuss, they are simply hunting for a deeper truth, nottrying to conquer each other. 

Now Unitarians are precisely in this position. The only thing any of usdesire is the truth. We are perfectly free to seek for the truth; and, the truth being one, we naturally tend towards it, and, tending towardsit, we come together. So there is, as I said, greater unanimity ofopinion in regard to the great essential points among Unitarians thanamong any other body in Christendom. 

Now, as briefly as I can, I want to analyze what I regard as thefundamental principles of Unitarianism. I am not going to give you acreed, I am not going to give you my creed: I am going to give you thegreat fundamental principles which characterize and distinguishUnitarians. 

First, liberty, freedom of the individual to think, think as he will orthink as he must; but not liberty for the sake of itself. Liberty forthe sake of finding the truth; for we believe that people will be morelikely to find the truth if they are free to search for it than theywill if they are threatened or frightened, or if they are compelled tocome to certain preordained conclusions that have been settled forthem. Freedom, then, for the sake of finding the truth. 

Second, God. The deep-down conviction that wisdom, power, love, thatis, God, is at the heart of the universe. Third, that God is not onlywisdom and power and love, but that he is the universal Father, notmerely the Father of the elect, not merely the Father of Christians, not merely the Father of civilized people, but the Father of all men, equally, lovingly, tenderly the Father of all men. 

In the next place, being the Father of all men, he would naturally wishto have them find the truth. So we believe in revelation. Not inrevelation confined to one book or one epoch in the history of theworld, though we do not deny the revelation contained in them. Webelieve that all truth, through whatever medium it comes to the world, is in so far a revelation of our Father; and it is infalliblerevelation when it is demonstrably true, and not otherwise. 

The next step, then: in the words of Lucretia Mott, we believe thattruth should be taken for authority, and not authority for truth. Theonly authority in the world is the truth. The only thing to whichintellectually a free Unitarian can afford to bow is ascertained anddemonstrated truth. We believe, then, in revelation. 

In the next place, we believe in incarnation. Not in the completeincarnation of God in one man, in one country, in one age, in thehistory of the world. We believe in the incarnation of Godprogressively in humanity. All that is true, all that is beautiful, allthat is good, is so much of God incarnate in his children, and reachingever forth and forward to higher blossoming and grander fruitage. Thedifference between Jesus and other men, as we hold it, is not adifference in kind: it is a difference in degree. So he is the son ofour Father, our elder brother, our friend, our leader, our helper, ourinspiration. 

The next principle of Unitarianism is that character is salvation. Wedo not even say that character is a condition of salvation. Characteris salvation. A man who is right, who is in perfect accord with the lawand life of God, is safe, in this world, in all worlds, in this year, in all future time. 

And, then, lastly, we believe in the eternal and universal hope. Webelieve that God, just because he is God, is under the highestconceivable obligation, not to me only, but to himself, to see to itthat every being whom he has created shall sometime, somewhere, in thelong run, find that gift of life a blessing, and not a curse. 

We believe in retribution, universal, quick, unescapable; for webelieve that this is mercy, and that through this is to come salvation. 

These, then, are the main principles, as I understand them, ofUnitarianism. 

There is one point more now that I must touch on. When I wasconsidering the question of giving this series of sermons, one of mybest friends raised the question as to whether I had better put theword Unitarian? into the title. He was afraid that it might prejudicepeople who did not like the name, and keep them from listening to whatI had to say. This is a common feeling on the part of Unitarians. I wastrained as a boy, and through all my youth and early manhood in theministry, to look with aversion, suspicion, on Unitarianism, and tohate the name. But to-day, after more than twenty years of experiencein the Unitarian ministry, I have come to the conviction, which I wishto suggest to you, that it is the most magnificent name in thereligious history of the world; and I, for one, wish to hoist it as myflag, to inscribe it on my banner, not because I care for a name, butbecause of that which it covers and comprehends. 

Now, not in the slightest degree in the way of prejudice against othernames or to find fault with them, let me note a few of them, and thencompare Unitarianism with them. Take the word "Anglican, " for example, the name of the Church of England. What does it mean? Of course, youknow it is simply a geographical name. It defines nothing as to theChurch's government or belief or anything else. There is the word"Episcopal, " which simply means a church that is governed by bishops;that is all. Take the word "Presbyterian, " from a Greek word whichmeans an elder, a church governed by its old men or its elders. Nospecial significance about that. Then "Baptist, " signifying that thepeople who wear that name believe that baptism always means immersion, indicating no other doctrine by which that body is known, or its methodof government. "Congregational, " no doctrine significance there. Itsimply means a church whose power is lodged in the congregation. It isdemocratic in its methods of government. "Methodist, ", applied to themembers of a particular church because they were considered over-exactor methodical in their ways. There is no governmental significancethere. The name Catholic? or Universal? is chiefly significant from thefact that the claim implied by it is not true. Now let us look for amoment at the word Unitarian, and see whether it has a right to beplaced not only on a level with these, but infinitely above and beyondthem in the richness, in the wonder of its meaning. Let me lead you toa consideration of it. I want you to note that unity? is the one wordof more significance than any other in the history of man; and that itis growing in its depth, its comprehensiveness. What have wediscovered? We have discovered in this modern world, only a few yearsago, that this which we see, the earth, the stars, and all the wondersof the heavens, is one, a universe. Not only that. We have discoveredthe unity of force. There are not, as primitive man supposed, athousand different powers in the universe, antagonistic and fightingwith each other. We have learned to know that there is just one forcein the universe. That light, heat, electricity, magnetism, all thesemarvellous and diverse varieties of forces, are one force, and can beat the will and skill of man converted into each other. 

Next, we have learned that there is one law in the universe. Should wenot be Unitarians? Should we not believe in the unity of God, when wecan see, as far as the telescope can reach on the one hand and themicroscope on the other, one eternal, changeless Order?

Another point. We have learned the unity of substance. We know howComte, the famous French scientist, advised his followers not toattempt to find out anything about the fixed stars, because, he said, such knowledge was forever beyond the reach of man. How long had Comtebeen dead before we discovered the spectroscope? And now we know allabout the fixed stars. We know that the stuff we step on in the streetthis morning as we go home from church is the same stuff of which thesun is made, the same stuff as that which flamed a few years ago as acomet, the same stuff as that which shines in Sirius, in suns so manymiles away that it takes millions of years for their light to reach us. One stuff, one substance, throughout the universe; and this poor old, tear-wet earth of ours is a planet shining in the heavens as much asany of them, of the same glorious material of which they are made. 

Then, again, we have discovered the unity of life. From the little tinyglobule of protoplasm up to the brain of Shakspere, one life throbbingand thrilling with the same divinity which is at the heart of theworld. 

We have discovered not only the unity of life, we have discovered theunity of man. Not a hundred different origins, different kinds ofcreatures, different-natured beings, but one blood to dwell in everycountry on the face of the earth: the unity of man. 

We have discovered the unity of ethics, of righteousness, of right andwrong, one right, one wrong. A million applications, but one goaltowards which all those who hunger and thirst after righteousness arestriving. 

One religion: for underneath all the diversity of creeds and religions, barbaric, semi-civilized, civilized, enlightened, we find man, the onechild of God, hunting for the clearest light he can command, after theone Father, that is, the one eternal, universal search of the religiouslife of the race. 

Religion then one; one unifying purpose; every step that the worldtakes in its progress leading it towards liberty, towards light, towards truth, towards righteousness, towards peace. One goal, then, for the progress of man. 

And, then, one destiny. Some day, every soul, no matter how belated, shall arrive; some day, somewhere, every soul, however sin stained, shall arrive; every soul, however small, however distorted, howeverhindered, shall arrive. One destiny. Not that we are to be just alike;only that some time we are to unfold all that is possible in us, andstand, full statured, perfect, complete, in the presence of our Father. 

Do I not well, then, to say that Unity, Unitarianism, is a magnificentname, a name to be flung out to the breeze as our banner under which wewill fight for God and man; a name beside which all others pale intoinsignificance; a name that sums up the secret, the centre, the hope, the outcome of the universe? Greatest name in the religious history ofman, it coincides with that magnificent hope so grandly uttered byTennyson, "One God, one law, one element, And one far-off divine event, To which the whole creation moves. "

"WHAT DO YOU GIVE IN PLACE OF WHAT YOU TAKE AWAY?"

MY theme is the answer to the question, What do you give in place ofwhat you take away? For my text I have chosen two significant passagesof Scripture. One is from the seventh chapter of Hebrews, thenineteenth verse; and it sets forth, as I look at it, the drift andoutcome of the process of which we are a part, the bringing in of abetter hope. Then from the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, the thirty-ninth and fortieth verses, expressing the relation in which we stand tothose who have looked for God and his work in the past: And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise;God having provided some better thing for us, that they without usshould not be made perfect. 

What do you give in place of that which you take away? This is aquestion which is proposed to Unitarians over and over and over again. It is looked upon as an unanswerable criticism. We are supposed to bepeople who tear down, but do not build; people who take away the dearhopes and traditional faiths of the past, and leave the world desolate, without God, without hope. 

Not only is this urged against us, from the other side, but there are agreat many Unitarians, possibly, who have not thought themselves outwith enough clearness to know the relation between the presentconditions of human thought and the past; and sometimes even they maylook back with a regretful longing towards something which they haveoutgrown, and left behind. 

I propose this morning to answer this question, just as simply, asfrankly, as I can; to treat it with all reverence, with allseriousness, and try to make clear what it is that the world has lostas the result of the advances of modern knowledge, and what, ifanything, it has gained. 

But while I stand here, on the threshold of my theme, and before Ienter upon its somewhat fuller discussion, I wish to urge upon you twoor three considerations. 

It is assumed, by the people who ask this question, that, if we do takeaway anything, we are under obligation straightway to put something inits place. I wish you to consider carefully as to whether this positionis sound. Suppose, for example, that I should discover that some beliefthat has been held in the past is not well founded, not true. Must Isay nothing about it because, possibly, I may not have discovered justwhat is true?

To illustrate what I mean: Prince Alphonso of Castile used to say, ashe studied the Ptolemaic theory of the universe, that, if he had beenpresent at creation, he could have suggested a good many very importantimprovements. In other words, he was keen enough to see that thePtolemaic theory of the universe was not a good working theory. Must hekeep still about that because, forsooth, he was not able to establishanother theory of the universe in its place?

Do you not see that the criticism, the testing of positions which areheld, are the primary steps in the direction of finding some larger andgrander truth, provided these positions are not adequate and do nothold?

The Rev. Dr. George A. Gordon, of the historic Old South Church inBoston, told us, in an address which he gave in Brooklyn the other day, that Calvinism was dead; that it was even necessary to clear the faceof the earth of it, in order to save our faith in God. At the same timeDr. Gordon said frankly that he had no other as complete and finishedsystem to put in place of it. Was he justified in telling the truthabout Calvinism because he has not a ready-made scheme to substitutefor it?

I wish you to note that I do not concede for an instant that I must nottell the truth about anything that I perceive because I have not aready-made theory of some kind to put in the place of that which istaken away. It is my business to tell what seems to me true in allreverence, seriousness, earnestness and love, and trust theconsequences to God. 

In the next place, another consideration. I have been talking as thoughI conceded that Unitarians, or that I myself, sometimes take awaythings, beliefs. Now I wish to ask you who it is that takes awaybeliefs. Has Unitarianism ever taken away any faith or hope or trustfrom the world? Has anybody ever done it?

If we pit ourselves against one of God's eternal truths, is that truthgoing to suffer? Rather shall we not beat ourselves to pieces againstGod's adamant? If a thing is true, nobody is going to take it away fromthe world; for nobody has the power to uproot or destroy a divinetruth. 

Who is it, then, that takes these beliefs away? Is it not just this?Does it not mean that men have discovered that what they supposed to betrue is not true, and it is the old belief that passes away in thepresence of a larger and clearer light? Is not that the process?

When Magellan, for instance, demonstrated that this planet of ours wasround by circumnavigating it, the ship returning to the port from whichit started, did he take away the old flat earth, fixed and anchored, immovable, around which the sun moved? Why, there was no old, flat andanchored, stationary earth to take away. There never had been. AllMagellan did was to demonstrate a new, higher, grander truth. He tookaway a misconception from the minds of ignorant and uneducated people, and helped put one of God's grand, luminous truths in the place of it. That is all he did. 

It is modern intelligence, increasing knowledge, larger, clearer lightthat takes away old beliefs. But, if these old beliefs are not true, itsimply means that we are discovering what is true; that is, having aclearer view and vision of God's ways and methods of governing theworld. 

I wish you to note, then, in this second place, that Unitarianism doesnot take away anything. 

One third consideration: Suppose we did. Suppose we took away belief inthe existence of God. Suppose we took away belief in man as a soul, leaving him simply an animal. Suppose we took away faith in continuedexistence after death. Suppose we had the power to sweep all of thesegrand beliefs out of the human mind. Then what?

If I had my choice, I would do it gladly, with tearful gratitude, rather than keep the old beliefs of the last two thousand years. 

The late Henry Ward Beecher, in a review article published not longbefore his death, said frankly this which I am saying now, and which Ihad said a good many times before Mr. Beecher's article was written, that no belief at all is infinitely, unspeakably better than thosehorrible beliefs which have dominated and darkened the world. 

I would rather believe in no God than in a bad God, such as he has beenpainted. And, if I had my choice of the future, what would it be? Ihave, I trust, just over there, father, mother, two brothers, numberless dear ones; and I hope to see them with a hope dearer thanany other which I cherish. But, if I were standing on the threshold ofheaven itself, and these loved ones were beckoning me to come in, and Ihad the choice between an eternity of felicity in their presence andeternal sleep, I would take the sleep rather than take this endless joyat the cost of the unceasing and unrelieved torment of the meanest soulthat ever lived. And I would have no great respect for any man whowould not. I would not care to purchase my joy at the price of endlesspangs, the ascending smoke of torment, the wail going up to the sweetheavens forever and ever and ever. 

So, even if it were a choice between no belief at all and the oldbeliefs, the darkness would be light to me; and I would embrace it withjoy rather than take the selfish felicity of those men who estimate itas a part of their future occupation to be leaning over the battlementsof heaven and witnessing the torture of the damned. This, thoughsounding so terrible to us now, is good old Christian doctrine, whichhas often been avowed. Thank God we are outgrowing it. 

These, then, for preliminary considerations. 

Now let me raise the question as to what has been taken away. Youremember I said that I have taken nothing away, Unitarianism has takennothing away. But the advance of modern knowledge, the larger, clearerrevelation of God, has taken away no end of things. What are they?

Let me make two very brief statements right here. I am in the position, this morning, of appearing to repeat myself; that is, I must go over agood many points that I have made from this platform before. But pleaseunderstand that it is not on account of lapse of memory on my part. Iam doing it with a distinct end in view, which can only be attained bythese steps. 

In the next place, my treatment has so much ground to cover that what Isay will appear somewhat in the nature of a catalogue; but I see noother way in which to make the definite statement I wish to lay beforeyou. I am going to catalogue, first, a lot of the things that modernknowledge has taken away. Then I am going to tell you some of thethings that modern knowledge is putting in place of what it hasremoved. 

In the first place, the old universe is taken away; that is, thatlittle tiny play-house affair, not so large as our solar system, whichin the first chapters of Genesis God is reported to have made as acarpenter working from outside makes a house, inside of six days. Thatlittle universe, that is, the story of creation as told in the earlychapters of Genesis, is absolutely gone. I shall tell you pretty soonwhat has taken the place of it. 

Secondly, the God of the Old Testament, the God of most of the creedshas been taken away, that God who was jealous, who was partial, who wasangry; who built a little world, and called it good, and then inside ofa few days saw it slip out of his control into the hands of the devil, either because he could not help it or did not wish to; who watchedthis world develop for a little while, and then, because it did not goas he wanted it to, had to drown it, and start over again; the God whoin the Old Testament told the people that slavery was right, providedthey did not enslave the members of their own nation, but only thoseoutside of it; the God who indorsed polygamy, telling a man that he wasat liberty to have just as many wives as he wanted and could obtain, and that he was free to dispose of them by simply giving them a littlenotice and telling them to quit; the God who indorsed hypocrisy andlying on the part of his people; the God who sent a little light on onelittle people along one edge of the Mediterranean, and left all therest of the world in darkness; the God who is to damn all of thesepeople who were left in darkness because they did not know that ofwhich they never had any chance to hear; the God who is to cast all hisenemies into the pit, trampling them down, as Edwards pictures sohorribly to us, in his hate for ever and ever. This God has been takenaway. 

In the third place, the story of Eden, the creation of man and thenimmediately the fall of man and the resulting doctrine of totaldepravity, this has been taken away. That man was made in the image ofGod, and then, inside of a few days, fell into the hands of the Powerof Evil, and that since that day he has been the legitimate subjecthere on this earth of the prince of this world, that is, the devil, andthat is taught both in the Old Testament and in the New, that man isthis kind of a being, this is forever gone. There is no rational, intelligent, free belief in it left. 

Then the old theory of the Bible has been taken away, that theory whichmakes it a book without error or flaw, and makes us under the highestobligation to receive all its teachings as the veritable word of God, whether they seem to us hideous, blasphemous, immoral, degrading, ornot. This is gone. 

Professor Goldwin Smith, in an article published within a year, treatsthe belief, the continued holding to this old theory about the Bible, under the head of Christianity's "Millstone. " He writes from the pointof view of the old belief; but he says, if Christianity is going to besaved, this millstone must be taken off from about its neck, andallowed to sink into the sea. 

If we hold that theory, what? Why, then, we must still believe that, inorder to help on the slaughter of his enemies on the part of abarbarian general, God stopped the whole machinery of the universe forhours until he got through with his killing. We must believe theliteral story of Jonah's being swallowed by the whale. We must believeno end of incredibilities; and then, if we dare to read with our eyesopen, we must believe immoral things, cruel things, about men and aboutGod, things which our civilization would not endure, were it not forthe power of tradition, which hallows that which used to be believed inthe past. 

This conception of the Bible, then, is gone. 

Then, in the next place, the blood atonement is gone. What did thatmean to the world? It meant that the eternal Father either would not orcould not forgive and receive back to his heart his own erring, mistaken, wandering children unless the only begotten Son of God wasslaughtered, and we, as the old awful hymn has it, were plunged beneaththis fountain of blood I Revolting, terrible, if you stop to think ofit for one reasoning moment, that God cannot forgive unless he takesagony out of somebody equal to that from which he releases his ownchildren! That, though embodied still in all the creeds, has been takenaway. It is gone, like a long, hideous dream of darkness. 

Belief in the devil has been taken away. What does that mean? It meansthat Christendom has held and taught for nearly two thousand years thatGod is not really King of the universe; that he holds only a dividedpower, and that here thousands on thousands of years go by, and thedevil controls the destiny of this world, and ruins right and leftmillions on millions of human souls, and that God either cannot help itor does not wish to, one of the two. This belief is taken away. 

And then, lastly, that which I have touched on by implication already, the belief in endless punishment is taken away. Are you sorry? Doesanybody wish something put in the place of this? The belief that allthose except the elect, church members, those who have been through aspecial process called conversion, these, including all the millions onmillions outside of Christendom and from the beginning until to-day, have gone down to the flame that is never quenched, the worm that neverdies, to linger on in useless torture forever and ever? Simply amonument of what is monstrously called the justice of God! This isgone. 

Now, friends, just ask yourselves, as you go home, as you think overwhat I have said this morning, as to whether there is anything elselost. 

Is there anything of value taken away? Let me run over now in parallelfashion another catalogue to place opposite this one, so that we maysee as to what has been our loss and as to whether there has been anygain. 

In the place of the little, petty universe of Hebrew dream, what havewe now? This magnificent revelation of the Copernican students; auniverse infinite in its reach and in its grandeur; a universe fit atlast to be the home of an infinite God; a universe grand enough toclothe him and express him, to manifest and reveal him; a universeboundless; a universe that has grown through the ages and is growingstill, and is to unfold more and more of the divine beauty and gloryforevermore. Is there any loss in this exchange?

Now as to God. I have pictured to you, in very bald outline, some ofthe conceptions of God that have been held in the past. What is our Godto-day? The heart, the life, the soul, of this infinite universe;justice that means justice; power that means power; love that surpassesall our imagination of love; a God who is eternal goodness; who fromthe beginning has folded his child man to his heart, whispering all oftruth that he could understand, breathing into him all of life that hecould contain, inspiring him with all love and tenderness that he couldappreciate or employ, and so, in this way, leading him and guiding himthrough the ages, year by year and century by century, still tosomething better and finer and higher; a God, not off somewhere in theheavens, to whom we must send a messenger; not a God separated from usby some great gulf that we must bridge by some supposed atonement; aGod nearer to us than our breath; a God who hears the whisper of ourwant, who understands the dawning wish or aspiration before it takesform or shape; a God who loves us better than we love ourselves or lovethose who are dearest to us; a God who knows better what we need thanwe know ourselves, and is more ready to give us than fathers are togive good gifts to their children. Is there any loss here?

In the third place, the new man that has come into modern thought. Notthe broken fragments of a perfect Adam; not a man so crippledintellectually that, as they have been telling us for centuries, it wasimpossible for him to find the truth, or to know it when he did findit; not a being so depraved, morally, that he never desires any good, and never loves anything which is sweet and fine; a being totallydepraved, a being who, as one passage in the Old Testament tells us, isso corrupt his very prayer is a sin; conceived, born, in evil, and allhis thoughts tainted, and drifting towards that which is wicked. Notthis kind of a man. A man who has been on the planet hundreds ofthousands of years, who has been learning by experience, who has beenanimal, who has been cruel, but who at every step has been trying tofind the light, has been becoming a little truer and better; a beingwho has evolved all that is sweetest and finest in the history of theworld; who has made no end of mistakes, who has committed no end ofcrimes, but who has learned through these processes, and at last hasgiven us some specimens of what is possible by way of development inAbraham and Moses and Elijah and David and Isaiah, and a long line ofprophets and seers of the Old Testament time; not perfect, butmagnificent types of actual men; who has developed in other nationssuch men as Gautama, the heroes and teachers of China, like Confucius;then Aristotle, Plato, Socrates; the noble men of Rome; who has givenus in the modern world the great poets, the great discoverers, thegreat philanthropists; those devoted to the highest, sweetest things;musicians and artists; who has given us Shakspere, who has given us, crowning them all, as I believe, by the moral beauty and grandeur ofhis love, the Nazarene, Jesus, our elder brother, Son of God, andhelper of his fellow-man; this humanity that has never fallen; that hasbeen climbing up from the beginning, and not sinking down. Is there anyloss here?

Then let us see what kind of a Bible modern science and moderndiscovery and modern scholarship and modern life have given us. 

Our Bible is the sifted truth of the ages. There is not a passage in itor a line for which we need apologize. There is nothing incredible init, except as it is incredibly sweet and good and true. It is the truththat has come to men in all ages, no matter spoken by whose lips, nomatter written by what pen, no matter wrought out under what conditionsor in whatever civilization or under whatever sky. 

All that is true and sweet and fine is a part of God's revelation ofhimself to his children, and makes up our Bible, which is not allwritten yet. Every new truth that shall be discovered in the futurewill make a new line or a new paragraph or a new chapter. God has beenwriting it on the rocks, in the stars, in the hearts, on the brains ofhis children; and his hand does not slacken. He is not tired: he iswriting still. He will write to-morrow, and next year, and throughoutall the coming time. This is the Bible. 

We believe, for example, that the saying of the old Egyptian, God shallwipe away all tears from their eyes, is just as divine and sweet aswhen said in the New Testament. We believe that the Golden Rule is justas golden when uttered by Confucius hundreds of years before Jesus asit was afterwards. 

We believe that the saying about two commandments being the sum andsubstance of the law was just as holy when Hillel spake them as whenJesus uttered them after his time. All truth is divine, and part ofGod's divine revelation to his children. 

Here is our Bible, then. Now let me speak about Jesus, and see if ourthought is less precious than the old. In my old days, when I preachedin the orthodox church, Jesus was never half so dear, so helpful to me, as he is now. If I thought of him at all, I was obliged to think of himas somehow a second God, who stood between me and the first one, andthrough whom I hoped deliverance from the law and the justice of thefirst. I had to think of him as a part of a scheme that seemed to meunjust and cruel, involving the torture of some and the loss of most ofthe race. You cannot pick the old-time Jesus out of that scheme ofwhich he is a part. I could not love him then as I love him now. Icould not think of him as an example to follow; for how can one takethe Infinite for an example? How can one follow the absolutely Perfectexcept afar off?

But now I think of Jesus and his cross as the most natural and at thesame time the divinest thing in the history of man. Nothing outside ofthe regular divine order in it. Jesus reveals to me to-day thehumanness of God and the divineness of man. And he takes his place inthe long line of the world's redeemers, those who have wroughtatonement, how? Through faithfulness even unto death. 

The way we work out the atonement of the world, that is, thereconciliation of the world to God, is by being true to the vision ofthe truth as it comes to us, no matter by the pathway of whatsuffering, true as Jesus was true, true even when he thought his Fatherhad forsaken him. 

Do you know, friends, I think that is the grandest thing in the world. He verily believed that God had forsaken him; and yet he held fast tohis trust, to his truth, to his faithfulness, even when swooning awayinto the unconsciousness of death. 

There is faith, and there is faithfulness; and he shares this withthousands of others. There are thousands of men who have suffered morethan Jesus did dying for his own truth; thousands of martyrs who, withhis name on their lips, have gone through greater torture than he did. All these, whoever has been faithful, whoever has suffered for theright, whoever has been true, has helped to work out the atonement, thereconciliation, of the world with God, showing the beauty of truth andbringing men into that admiration of it that helps them to come intoaccord with the divine life. 

Then one more point. Instead of the wail of the damned that is never, through all eternity, for one moment hushed in silence, we place thesong of the redeemed, an eternal hope for every child born of the race. We do not believe it is possible for a human soul ultimately to belost. Why? Because we believe in God. God either can save all souls orhe cannot. If he can and will not, then he is not God. If he would andcannot, then he is not God. Let us reverently say it: he is under aninfinite obligation to his own self, to his own righteousness, to hisown truth, his own power, his own love, his own character, to see to itthat all souls, some time, are reconciled to him. 

This does not mean a poor, cheap, an easy salvation. It means thatevery broken law must have its consequences so long as it remainsbroken. It means that in this world and through all worlds the law-breaker is to be followed by the natural and necessary results of histhoughts, of his words, of his deeds; but it means that in thispunishment the pain is a part of the divine love. For the love of Godmakes it absolutely necessary that the object of that love shall bedelivered from sin and wrong, and brought into reconciliation withhimself; and the pain, the necessary results of wrongdoing, are a partof the divine tenderness, a part of the divine faithfulness, a part ofthe divine love. So we believe that through darkness or through light, through joy or through sorrow, some time, somewhere, every child of Godshall be brought into his presence, ready to sing the song of peace andjoy and reconciled love. 

Now, friends, I have gone over all the main points of the theology ofour question. I have told you what I think the results of modern studyhave taken away. I have indicated to you what I believe is to come andtake the place of these things that are absolutely gone. Ask yourselvesseriously, if you are not one of us, is there a single one of thesethings that modern investigation is threatening that you really care tokeep? If you could choose between the two systems and have your choicesettle the validity of them, would you not choose the second, and begrateful to bid good-by to the first?

Remember, however, at the end let me say, as I did at the beginning, that, if these things pass away and the other finer things come intheir places, Unitarianism is not to be charged by its enemies withdestroying the old, neither is it to take the credit on the part of itsfriends for having created all the new. That distinguishes us asUnitarians from any other form of faith is that we believe in theliving, loving, leading God of the modern world, and are ready gladlyto take the results of modern investigation, believing that they areonly a part of the revelation of the divine truth and the Father'swill. 

We accept these things, stand for them, proclaim them; but we did notcreate them. If anything is gone that you did not like, we did not takeit away. If anything is come that you do like, give God the glory; andlet us share with you the joy and praise. 

ARE THERE ANY CREEDS WHICH IT IS WICKED FOR US TO QUESTION?

ANY body of people whatsoever has, of course, an undoubted right toorganize on the basis of any belief or principles which it may happento hold. This, always, on the supposition that those principles orbeliefs are not antagonistic to human welfare. They have a right toestablish the conditions of membership and limit their numbers as muchas they please. 

For example, suppose a set of persons chanced to hold the belief thatthe so-called Shakspere plays were written by Bacon. They have aperfect right to organize a society, and to say that nobody shall be amember of that society unless he agrees with them in this belief. If Ihappen, as I do, to hold some other conviction about the matter, I haveno right to blame them because they do not wish me to be a member. Ican organize, if I please, another society that shall have for itscardinal doctrinal statement the belief that Shakspere was the authorof these plays. There is no need that I should quarrel with peopleholding these other ideas. 

Or, if I am a laboring man, in the technical sense of the word that iscommonly used to-day, I have a right to organize a society devoted tothe furtherance of the eight- hour movement, or any other specific endor aim which seems to me necessary to the welfare of society asorganized in the modern world. 

All this we concede at the outset. People have a perfect right toorganize on the basis of their particular beliefs, and to keep out oftheir organization those persons who do not happen to agree with them. But, and here is a most important consideration, if these beliefs seemto us who are outside to be vital; if they appear to concern us, totouch our well-being, our future hopes, then we certainly have a rightto study those beliefs, to criticise them, to put them to the test tosee whether they are well founded, whether they have any adequate basisof support. 

And, still further, if the people holding a certain set of beliefs tellus that they are inspired of God, that they are spokesmen for God, thatthey have had committed to them a certain definite deposit of faith forthe benefit of the world; if they tell us that, unless we agree withthem, unless we accept the conditions and come into their organization, then we are opposed to God, are endangering our own souls, and areenemies of the human race, then it becomes not merely our right to lookinto these matters: does it not become our most solemn duty? Are we notunder the highest of all obligations to decide for ourselves one way orthe other as to whether these claims are valid? For, if they are, thenthere is nothing so important for us as that we should accept them andlive in accordance with them, join the societies that are organized onthem as a basis, do our utmost to extend their acceptance throughoutthe world. 

If they are not valid, then we ought to do our very best to prove thisalso, and help those who are in bondage to these false ideas to attaintheir liberty, in order that they may join with us in finding out thatwhich is true, in order that together we may work for the discovery ofthe will of God, and that we may co-operate in helping the world tofind and obey that will. 

You would suppose from the ordinary assumption of those who hold theold creeds, and who have organized their churches on these creeds, asfoundation stones, that there had been at the outset a clear, adefinite revelation of truth, that it had been unquestioned, that ithad come with credentials enough to satisfy the world that the speakersspoke by authority, and that the matter had from the beginning beenwell understood. 

It is assumed that we who do not hold these ideas are wilfully wrong, that we are not inclined to accept the divine truth, that it is onaccount of the hardness and wickedness of our hearts, and that weprefer evil rather than good. We are told that we might know, if wewould, that the matter is definite, and has been perfectly well settledfrom the beginning. This, I say, is the assumption. 

Let us now, then, investigate the matter for a little while, just ascalmly, just as simply, just as dispassionately as we are able. 

I confess to you, at the outset, that I do not like such a task as to-day seems to be imposed upon me. I do not like to be put in theposition of seeming to criticise my fellow- citizens, my friends, andneighbors; but it seems to me that it is more than a task, that it is aduty, and one that I cannot readily escape. I mean as little aspossible even to seem to criticise people; but I must look into thefoundations of their beliefs, and see whether they are valid, whetherthere is any reason why we should feel ourselves compelled to-day toaccept them. 

Let us take our place, then, at the outset of Christianity by the sideof Jesus and the apostles. Now let us note one strange fact. For thefirst two or three hundred years the belief of the Church was chaotic, unconfirmed, unsettled. There was dispute and discussion of the mostearnest and most bitter kind concerning what are regarded to-day as thevery fundamentals of the Christian faith. 

This would hardly seem possible, would it, if Jesus had made himselfperfectly clear and explicit in regard to these matters? If Jesus werereally God, and if he came down on to this earth for the one expresspurpose of telling humanity what kind of moral and spiritual conditionit was in, just what it needed in order to be saved, would you notsuppose that he would have been so clear that there could have been nohonest question about it?

If, for example, Jesus knew he was God, ought not he to have told it soplainly that no honest man could go astray about it? If he knew thatthe human race fell in Adam and was in a condition of loss under thegeneral wrath and curse of God, ought not he to have said somethingabout Adam, something about the Garden of Eden, something about thefall? Yet it never appears anywhere that he did. If he knew it wasabsolutely necessary for us to hold certain ideas about the Bible, ought not he to have told us? If he knew that the great majority of thehuman race was going to endless and hopeless torment in the futureunless they held certain beliefs, ought not he to have made it plain?

But take that which I read as a part of our Scripture lesson thismorning, that magnificent picture of the judgment scene, where hedivides the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Who arethe sheep, and who are the goats? Those who are to be admitted withglad welcome to the presence of the Father are simply those that havebeen morally good; and those who are told they must be shut out aresimply those who have bee morally bad. There is no hint of thenecessity of any belief at all. Nothing said about any Bible, about anyTrinity, about any faith, about anything that is supposed to beessential as a condition of salvation, not a word. Only the goodreceive the welcome, and the bad are shut out. That is all. 

If this is not true, ought he not to have told us something about it, and made it perfectly clear?

Now what was the condition of popular belief? Let me illustrate it byone or two points. Origen, for example, one of the most famous of theChurch Fathers, believed and preached the pre-existence of the humansoul and universal salvation. Now, if Jesus said anything contrary tothis belief of universal salvation, either Origen did not know anythingabout it or he did not regard it as of any authority, one or the other. We cannot conceive of his holding a position of this sort if he hadknown that Jesus had pronounced explicitly to the contrary. 

Take another illustration. Two weeks ago this morning I had occasion toquote to you a few words from another of the old Church Fathers, JustinMartyr, who taught explicitly that Jesus was not the equal of theFather, but a subordinate and created being. Now, if Jesus had clearlytaught anything approaching the doctrine of the Trinity, is itconceivable that Justin Martyr had not heard of it, or, having heard ofit, had not accepted it?

At any rate, if these things were true and important, it isinconceivable that the Church Fathers, the very founders ofChristianity, should have been all at sea in regard to them, shouldhave held divergent opinions, and should have been discussing thesequestions one way and the other for three hundred years. 

Let us now see what we have as a basis for belief in regard to whatJesus really did say. The Gospels grew up in a time when there was noshorthand writing, no reporting. Jesus does not say one word abouthaving any record made of his teaching, does not seem to haveconsidered it of the slightest importance. He simply talks andconverses as friend with friend, preaches to the crowds wherever theygather, but says nothing whatever about founding any system ofdoctrine, says nothing about the importance of having a statement ofhis doctrine kept. 

The Gospels, as a matter of fact, did not come into their present shapefor many years after his death. How long? The critics are not at one inregard to it. A book has recently been translated from the German, by aprofessor in the Union Theological Seminary in this State, which saysthat not a single one of the Gospels was known in its present shapeuntil between the years 150 and 200 A. D. All scholars do not acceptthis; but they are all at one in the statement that it was a great manyyears after the death of Jesus before they came into the shape in whichwe know them to-day. 

There was, then, no clear record at the first in regard to thesematters of belief; and, as I said a moment ago, for the first two orthree hundred years the condition of the Church was chaotic. It was along time coming to a consciousness of itself. 

Now let us note the time when a few of the creeds were formed, and whatare some of their characteristics. 

Although the Apostles' Creed would seem to take us back to theapostles, we are not to deal with that first, because it was not thefirst one of the creeds to come into its present shape. 

The oldest creed that we have to-day is the Nicene. When was thatformed? It was agreed upon at the Council of Nicaea, in the early partof the fourth century. Now note, if you please, what influences shapedand determined it. 

Did those who proposed that this particular clause or that should enterinto it have any proof of their belief? Did they even claim to have?Why, the idea of evidence, the thought of proof, was absolutely unknownto the mind of Christendom at that time. Nobody thought of such a thingas proposing to prove that this or that or the other was true. 

The Nicene Creed came into existence very much, indeed, as does theplatform of a political party at the present time. One man fought forthis proposition, another man for that one; and at last it was a sortof compromise decided by a majority. And how was the majority reached?Friends, there were bribes, there were threats, there were all kinds ofintimidation, there were blows, there was wrangling of every kind, there was banishment, there was murder. There has not been a politicalplatform in the modern world evolved out of such brutal, conflicting, anti-religious conditions as those which prevailed before and inconnection with the Council of Nicaea. 

Anything like evidence? Not heard of or thought of. Anything like quietbrooding of those who supposed they were, under the influence of theHoly Ghost, receiving divine and sacred truth? The farthest possiblefrom any conditions that could be suggested by such a thought. 

And at the last, though undoubtedly the majority of the Church at thattime was Unitarian, as I told you the other day it was the decisiveinfluence of the Emperor Constantine which settled the controversy. Thus came into existence in the fourth century the oldest of the churchCreeds which is recognized as authoritative in the Catholic, theAnglican, and the Episcopal churches of the present time. 

And this Nicene Creed, if I had time to go into it and analyze it, Icould show you contains elements which no intelligent man in any ofthese churches thinks of believing at the present time; and yet nobodydares suggest a change, or the bringing it into accord with what theintelligence of the modern world knows to be true. 

Let us pass on, and consider for a moment the Apostles' Creed, socalled. There was a time in the Church when people really supposed thatthe apostles were its author. There are persons to-day who have notdiscovered the contrary. I crossed the ocean a few years ago when onboard were a bishop of one of the Western States and a young candidatefor orders who was travelling with him as his pupil. I fell intoconversation with this young man, and found that he really believedthat the twelve clauses of the Apostles' Creed were manufactured by theapostles themselves. He had never discovered anything to the contrary. 

A still more astonishing fact came to my knowledge last year. Duringthat discussion over Ian McLaren's creed, in which so many people wereinterested last winter, Chancellor McCracken, of the University of NewYork, published a letter, in which he referred to the Apostles' Creedas written eighteen hundred years ago. It took my breath away when Iread it. I wondered, Could the chancellor of a great Universitypossibly be ignorant of the facts? Would he state that which he knewwas not true? I could not explain it either way. I was compelled tothink, if he was thoughtless and careless about it, that he had nobusiness to be about a matter of such importance. But he said theApostles' Creed was written eighteen hundred years ago. 

Now what are the facts? The apostles had nothing whatever to do withthe creed, as everybody knows to-day who chooses to look into thematter. It grew, and was four or five hundred years in growth, onephrase in one shape held in a certain part of the Church, anotherphrase in another shape held in another part of the Church, peopleholding nothing so sacred about it but that they were at perfectliberty to change it and add to it and take away from it, until, as weget it to- day, it appeared for the first time in history at about theyear 500. And yet it stands in the Church to-day claiming to be theApostles' Creed. 

And this Apostles' Creed, if it were a part of the purpose I have inmind this morning, I could analyze, and find that it contains elementswhich nobody accepts to-day; and yet nobody dares to propose touchingit, such is the reverence for that which is old. So much more reverencedoes the world have for that which is old than for that which is true. 

If you approach a Churchman in regard to his belief in the resurrectionof the body, he will say, Of course, we do not believe in theresurrection of the body: we believe in the resurrection of the soul. But he does not believe in the resurrection of the soul, either. 

Let me make two statements in regard to this. In the first place, if hedoes not believe in the resurrection of the body, he has no right tosay it, because the House of Bishops, representing the whole Church ofthe United states, in an authoritative pastoral letter issued withinthree years, declares that fixity of interpretation is of the essenceof the creeds. No man, then, is at liberty to change the interpretationto suit himself. 

And then, again, nobody, as I say, believes in the resurrection of thesoul. Why? Because that statement, with the authority of the House ofBishops that nobody has any business to change or reinterpret, carrieswith it a world underneath the surface of the earth to which the deadgo down; and resurrection means coming up again from that undergroundworld. Nobody believes in any underground world to-day. You cannot beresurrected. That is, you cannot rise again unless you have first gonedown. It is the ascent of the soul we believe in to-day, and not itsresurrection, much less the resurrection of the body. 

Now a word in regard to another of the great historic creeds. 

The third one to be shaped was the Athanasian Creed. Curiously namedmost of these are. There was a tradition in the Church that Athanasius, who was one of the great antagonists of the Council of Nicaea, wrotethis creed called after his name; but, as a matter of fact, the creedwas not known in the Church in the shape in which we have it now untilat least four or five hundred years after Athanasius was dead. 

The Athanasian Creed dates from the eighth or ninth century; and inthis for the first time there is a clear, explicit, definiteformulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. It never had been shaped inperfection until the time of the Athanasian Creed; and this creedcontains among other things those famous damnatory clauses? which theEpiscopal Church in this country, to their credit be it said, have leftout of their Prayer Book. But this Athanasian Creed is obliged to besung thirteen times every year in the Church of England; and you canimagine with what grace and joy they must sing the statement that, unless a man believes every single word and sentence of it, he shall nodoubt perish everlastingly. 

The Athanasian Creed, then, takes us only to the eighth or ninthcentury. You see, do you not, that, instead of there having been anyclear, explicit, definite statement of church beliefs on the part ofJesus and his apostles, they are long and slow growths, and not builtup on the basis of proof or evidence, simply opinions which people cameto hold and fight for and preach, until at last they got a majority tobelieve in them, and they were accepted by some council. 

I wish now to ask your attention for a few moments to one or two of themodern statements of beliefs. We are face to face here in this modernworld with a very strange condition of affairs. I wish I could see theoutcome of it. Here are churches printing, publishing, scattering allover America and Europe, statements of belief which perhaps hardly oneman in ten among their pew-holders or vestrymen believes. They willtell you they do not believe them; they are almost angry with you ifyou make the statement that these are church beliefs; and at the sametime we are in the curious position of finding that the man whoproposes himself as a candidate for the ministry in any of thesechurches dares not question or doubt these horrible statements. And, ifit is found that he does question them after he gets into the ministry, he is in danger of a trial for heresy. 

We have had a perfect storm here in New York in one of our greatestchurches over Dr. Briggs. And what was Dr. Briggs tried for? Simply forraising the question as to whether every part of the Old Testament wasinfallible. That was all. Another professor in a theological seminaryin the West was turned out of his professorship for a similar offence. An Episcopal minister, a friend of mine in Ohio, was turned out of hischurch for daring to entertain some of the modern ideas which are inthe air, and which intelligent people believe everywhere. One of thebest known Episcopal ministers in this city to-day has an indictmentover his head. It has been there for eight years; and it is only by thegood will of his bishop that he is tolerated. His crime is daring tothink, and to believe what all the respectable text-books of the modernworld teach. 

And people in the pews are indignant if you say that their Church holdsthese ideas! It is a curious state of affairs. How long is it going tolast? What is to be its outcome? I do not know. 

But let us look for a moment at another. Let us note one or two pointsin the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. 

It teaches still, with what it claims to be absolute authority, thatGod, before the foundation of the world, selected just the precisenumber of people that he was going to save; that he did this, not inview of the fact that they were going to be good people at all, butarbitrarily of his own will, not to be touched or changed by anythingin their character or conduct. All the rest he is to "pass by "; andthey are to go to everlasting woe. The elect are very few: those whoare passed by are the many. And why does he do this? Just think for amoment. There is no such colossal egotism, such extreme of selfishness, in all the world as that attributed to God in this Confession of Faith. The one thing he lives for, cares for, thinks of, labors after, iswhat? His own glory. He saves a few people to illustrate the glory ofhis grace and mercy. He damns all the rest purely to illustrate theglory of some monstrous thing called his justice. 

This kind of doctrine we are expected to believe to-day. 

And worse yet, if anything can be worse. I wonder how many loving, tender mothers in all these churches know it, how many know that thelittle babe which they clasp to their bosoms with such infinitetenderness and love, which they think of as a gift from the good God, right out of heaven, is an enemy of God, is under the curse and wrathof God? How many of you know that your creed teaches that God hatesthis blessed little babe, and that, if he does not happen to be one ofthe elect, he must suffer torment in darkness forever and ever?

That is taught in your confession of faith, which I have right here atmy hand. The only mitigation of it that I have ever heard of on thepart of consistent believers is the saying of Michael Wigglesworth, afamous alleged poet of the Puritan time in New England, when he statesexplicitly that none of these non-elect children can be saved, butsince they are infants, and not such bad sinners as the grown up ones, their punishment shall be mitigated by their having the easiest room inhell. 

Friends, you smile at this. This poem of Michael Wigglesworth's was ahousehold treasure in New England for a hundred years. No end ofeditions was sold. It was earnestly, verily believed; and the doctrineis still taught every time that a new edition of the PresbyterianConfession of Faith? is issued in this country or in Europe. 

Shall we escape these things by going into other churches? Some ofthem, yes; but the essentials are there in all of them. 

Take for one moment the Episcopal Prayer Book. I have had friends inthe old churches who have become Episcopalians for no reason that Icould imagine, except that it seemed to them they were escaping some ofthe sharpest corners of the old beliefs; and yet, if you will readcarefully the form of service for the baptism of infants in theEpiscopal Prayer Book as held to-day and in constant use in everyEpiscopal Church in this country and England and throughout Europe, youwill find that it is taught there in the plainest and most forcible waythat the unbaptized infant is a child of wrath, is under the dominionof the devil, is destined to everlasting death, and is regenerated onlyby having a little water placed on its forehead and by a priest sayingover him certain wonderful words. 

Can you believe, friends, for one moment that a little child thisminute belongs to the devil, is under his dominion, hated of God, doomed to eternal death, then the priest puts his fingers in somewater, touches its forehead, and says, "I baptize thee, " etc. , and thechild, after this is said, five minutes later, God loves, has taken tohis arms as one of his own little children, and is going to receive himto eternal felicity forever?

Can we believe such things to-day? Do people believe them? If they donot, are they sincere in saying they do, in supporting the institutionsthat proclaim to the world every hour of every day of every week ofevery month of every year that they do believe them?

I have now said all I am going to about these creeds in any specialway. I wish now to discuss the general situation for a little. 

I have heretofore said, I wish to say it again, to make it perfectlyplain and emphasize it, that all these old Creeds are based on thesupposed ruin of the race. They have come into existence for theexpress purpose of saving as many souls as possible from this ruin. They never would have been heard of but for the belief in this ruin. And yet to-day there is not a intelligent man in Christendom that doesnot know that the doctrine of man's fall and ruin is not only doubtful, but demonstrably untrue. It is not a matter of question: it is settled;and yet these churches go on just as though nothing had happened. 

Is it sincere? Is it quite honest? Is this the way you use language inWall Street, in your banks and your stores? Is this the way youmaintain your credit as business men?

Oh, let us purge these statements of outgrown crudities, cruelties, falsities, blasphemies, infamies! Let us dare to believe that the lightof God to-day is holier than the mistakes about Him made by those whowalked in darkness. 

Now let me suggest to you. Every one of these creeds sprang out of atheory of the universe that nobody any longer holds. They are Ptolemaicin their origin, not Copernican. They sprang out of a time when it wasbelieved that this was a little tiny world, and God was outside of it, governing it by the arbitrary imposition of his law. Every one of thesecreeds is fitted to that theory of things; and that theory of thingshas passed away absolutely and forever. 

Consider for just a moment. Why should we pay such extravagantdeference to the opinions of men who lived in the dark ages, of the oldChurch Fathers, of Athanasius, of Arius, of Justin Martyr, of Origen, of Tertullian? Why, friends, just think for a moment. There was hardlya single point connected with this world that they knew anything about. How did it happen that the whole modern world should get on its kneesin their presence, as though they knew everything about the Infinite, when they knew next to nothing about the finite? Is there any proofthat they knew anything about it? Not one single particle. 

Think for a minute. We know to-day unspeakably more about the origin ofthe Bible, how it grew, how it came into its present shape, than anyman from the first century until a hundred years ago could by anypossibility know. We know a good deal more than Paul, though he was oneof the writers, unspeakably more. He had no means of knowing. We havesifted every particle of evidence, every source of knowledge that theworld has to show. We know unspeakably more about this universe thanany man of the olden time had any way of knowing. He had no way ofknowing anything. 

I said something recently about the origin and nature of man. Verylittle was known about this until within the present century. We knowsomething about how religions grow. We have traced them, studied them, not only Christianity and Judaism, but all the religions of the worldback to their origin, and seen them coming into shape. We can judgesomething about them to-day. You want the antiquity of the world?People are bowing in the presence of what they suppose to be theantiquity, that is, the hoary-headed wisdom, of the world. Why, friends, as you go back, you are not going back to the old age of theworld: you are going back to its childhood. The world was never so oldas it is this morning. Humanity was never so old, never had suchaccumulated experience, such accumulated knowledge, as it has thismorning. 

If you want the results of the world's hoary-headed antiquity, itswisdom, its accumulated experience, its knowledge, then get the verylatest results of the very finest modern investigations; for that iswhere you will find them. 

Then let us note in just a word some other reasons why we cannot holdthese old creeds. The statements that are made about God are horrible. The statements that are made in regard to the method by which God isgoing to deal with his creatures are horrible; and then what they tellus in regard to the outcome of human history is pessimistic andhopeless in the extreme. 

Where do they claim to get the authority for these old beliefs? Theytell us they find them on the one hand in the Bible. What do you findin the Bible? You find almost anything you look for. Is it notperfectly natural you should? The Bible was written by ever so manydifferent writers during a period covering nearly a thousand years. Would you expect to find the same ideas throughout it? The book ofEcclesiastes teaches that man dies like a dog. The Bible upholdspolygamy, slavery, cruelty of almost every kind. You might prove almostany kind of immorality from the Bible if you wished to. 

But take the highest and noblest conception of the Bible you can have. I was talking with an eminent and widely known clergyman of thePresbyterian Church during the present year; and we were speaking aboutthe Bible. I tell you this to show how modern ideas are permeating thethoughts of men. He said: I confess that, if God had ever given theworld an infallible book, I should be utterly appalled anddisheartened; because it is perfectly clear that we have no such booknow. And, if God ever gave us such a book, then he has lost control ofhis universe, and was not able to keep us in possession of it. 

Here are Quakers and Methodists proving their beliefs, the Baptistsproving theirs, the Episcopalians proving theirs, the Presbyterianstheirs, all of them different in some particular, and each of themgetting their proof from the Bible. 

Let us remember that the Bible is simply a great body of nationalliterature, and that you can prove anything out of it. Then rememberthat it has been proved over and over again by the facts of thehandwriting of God himself to be mistaken and wrong in any number ofdirections. 

God is writing his own book in the heavens, in the earth, in the humanheart; and we are reading the story there. No creed, then, particularlyif it be infamous and unjust and horrible, can prove itself to us sothat we are bound to accept it to-day on the basis of an appeal to anybook. But the Catholic Church claims not only that the book isinfallible, but that their church tradition is infallible too. Is it?How can a church prove that its declarations are infallible? Is thereany way of proving it? Think for a moment. It can make the claim: theonly conceivable way of proving it is by never making a mistake. Trythe Catholic Church by that test. It has committed itself over and overand over again to things which have been demonstrated beyond questionto be mistakes. It has made grave mistakes, not only as to fact, but asto morals as well. 

On what, then, shall we base any one of these "infallible" creeds?There is no basis for any such claim; and thank God there is not. Fornow we are free to study, here, there, everywhere; to read God's wordin the stars; to read it in the rocks; to read it in the remains ofold-time civilizations; to read it in the development of education, thearts, science; to read it in the light of the love we have for eachother, the love for our children, and the growing philanthropy andwidening benevolence of mankind. 

We have thus perfect freedom to listen when God speaks, to see when heholds a leaf of his ever-growing book for our inspection, and tobelieve concerning him the grandest and noblest and finest things thatthe mind can dream or the heart can love. 

WHY HAVE UNITARIANS NO CREED?

FOR a Scripture suggestion touching the principle involved in mysubject, I refer you to the words found in the fifth chapter of theGospel according to Matthew, the forty-third and the forty-fourthverses, "Ye have heard that it hath been said; but I say unto you. " Itake these phrases simply as containing the principle to which I wishto call your earnest attention at the outset. 

Jesus here recognizes the fact that the religious beliefs of one ageare not necessarily adequate to a succeeding age. So he says over andover in this chapter, Ye have heard that it hath been said by thefathers, by the teachers, the religious leaders in old times, so andso: but I say unto you something else, something in advance, somethingbeyond. 

If any one chooses to say that Jesus was infallible, inspired, andtherefore had a right to modify the teachings of the fathers, stillthis does not change the principle at all. In any case he recognizedthe fact that the beliefs of the old time might not be sufficient tothe new time. 

And, even if any one should take the position that Jesus was the secondperson in the Trinity, that he was the one who revealed the old-timetruth, and also revealed the new, still the principle is not changed:it is conceded, whatever way we look at it. For, even if he were God, he is represented as giving the people in the time of Moses, the timeof David, certain precepts, certain things to believe, certain thingsto do, and then, recognizing at a later time that they were notadequate, changing those precepts, and giving them something larger, broader, deeper, to accept and to practise. 

Because this principle is here involved, I have taken these words as myScripture point of departure. 

Now to come to the question as to why Unitarians have no creed. Ofcourse, the answer, though it sounds like an Hibernicism, is to saythat they do have a creed. Not a creed in the sense in which some ofthe older churches use the word. If by creed you mean a written orpublished statement of belief, one that is supposed to be fixed andfinal, one that is a test of religious fellowship, which is placed atthe door of the church so that no one not accepting it is able toenter, why, then, we have no creed. But, in the broader sense of theword, it means belief; and Unitarians believe quite as much, and, in myjudgment, things far nobler and grander, than those which have beenbelieved in the past. 

We are ready, if any one wishes it, to write out our creed. We areperfectly willing that it should be printed. We can put it into twelveclauses, like the Apostles' Creed; we can make thirty-nine clauses orarticles, like the Creed of the Anglican Church; we can arrange it anyway that is satisfactory to the questioner. Only we will not promise tobelieve all of it to-morrow; we will not say that we will never learnanything new; we will not make it a test of fellowship; we will admitnot only to our meeting-house, but to our church organization, if theywish to come, people who do not believe all the articles of the creedthat we shall write. Perhaps we will admit people who do not believeany of it; for our conception of a church is not the old conception. 

What was that? That it was a sort of ark in which the saved were taken, to be carried over the stormy sea of this life and into the haven ofeternal felicity beyond. As opposed to that, our conception of thechurch is that it is a school, it is a place where souls are to betrained, to be educated; and so we would as soon refuse to admit anignorant pupil to a school as to refuse to admit a person on account ofhis belief to our church. We welcome all who wish to come and learn;and if, after they have studied with us for a year, they do not thenaccept all the points which some of us believe, and hold to be veryimportant, we do not turn them out even on that account. 

Unitarians, then, do have a creed, only it is not fixed, it is notfinal, and it is not the condition of religious fellowship. 

Now I wish to give you some of the reasons, as they lie in my mind, forthe attitude which we hold in regard to this matter. 

I do not believe in having a fixed and final statement of belief whichwe are not at liberty to criticise or question or change. Why? BecauseI love the truth, because I am anxious to find the truth, because Iwish to be perfectly free to seek for the truth. 

Our first reason, then, is for the sake of the truth. 

Now let me present this to you under three or four minor heads. Theuniverse is infinite, God is infinite, truth is infinite. If, then, onthe background of the infinite you draw a circle, no matter how largeit may be, no matter how wide its diameter, do you not see that younecessarily shut out more than you shut in? Do you not see that youlimit the range of thought, set bounds to investigation, and that youpledge yourselves beforehand that the larger part of truth, of God, ofthe universe, you will never study, you will never investigate?

There is another point bearing on this matter. If a man pledges himselfto accept and abide by a fixed and final creed, he does it either for areason or without a reason. If he does it without a reason, then thereis, of course, no reason why we should follow his example. If he has areason, then two things: either that reason is adequate, sound, conclusive, or it is not. If it is not adequate, then we ought to studyand criticise and find that out, and be free to discover some reasonthat is adequate. If the reason for his holding the creed is anadequate one, then, certainly, no harm can be done by investigation ofit, by asking questions. 

If the men who hold these old creeds and defend them can give in thecourt of reason a perfectly good account of themselves, if they canbring satisfactory credentials, then all our questioning, all ourcriticism, all our investigation, cannot possibly do the creeds anyharm. It will only mean that we shall end by being convinced ourselves, and shall accept the creeds freely and rationally. 

It has always seemed to me a very strange attitude of mind for a man tofeel perfectly convinced that a certain position is sound and true, andto be angry when anybody asks a question about it. If there are goodreasons for holding it, instead of calling names, why not show us thereasons? He who is afraid to have his opinions questioned, he who isangry when you ask him for evidence, to give a reason for the positionthat he holds, shows that he is not at all certain of it. He admits byimplication that it is weak. He shows an attitude of infidelity insteadof an attitude of faith, of trust. 

There is no position which I hold to-day that I consider so sacred thatpeople are not at liberty to ask any questions about it they please;and, if they do not see a good reason for accepting it, I am certainlynot going to be angry with them for declining to accept. The attitudeof truth is that of welcome to all inquiry. It rejoices in daylight, itdoes not care to be protected from investigation. 

Then there is another reason still, another point to be made in regardto this matter. People are not very likely to find the truth if theyare frightened, if they are warned off, if they are told that this orthat or another thing is too sacred to be investigated. I have knownpeople over and over again in my past experience who long wished theymight be free to accept some grander, nobler, more helpful view oftruth, and yet have been trained and taught so long that it was wickedto doubt, that it was wicked to ask questions, that they did not dareto open their minds freely to the incoming of any grander hope. 

If you tell people that they may study just as widely as they please, but, when they get through, they must come back and settle down withinthe limits of certain pre-determined opinions, what is the use of theirwider excursion? And, if you tell them that, unless they accept thesefinal conclusions, God is going to be angry with them, they are goingto injure their own immortal souls, they are threatening the welfare ofthe people on every hand whom they influence, how can you expect themto study and come to conclusions which are entitled to the respect ofthoughtful people?

I venture the truth of the statement that, if you should inquire overthis country to-day, you would find that the large majority of peoplewho have been trained in the old faith are in an attitude of feartowards modern thought. Thousands of them would come to us to-day ifthey were not kept back by this inherited and ingrained fear as to thedanger of asking questions. 

Do I not remember my own experience of three years' agonizing battleover the great problems that were involved in these questions, afraidthat I was being tempted of the devil, afraid that I was risking thesalvation of my soul, afraid that I might be endangering other peoplewhom I might influence, never free to study the Bible, to studyreligious questions as I would study any other matter on the face ofthe earth on account of being haunted by this terrible dread?

And, then, there is one other point. I must touch on these verybriefly. The acceptance of these creeds on the part of those who dohold to them does not, after all, prevent the growth of modern thought. It does hinder it, so far as they are concerned; but the point I wishto make is this, that these creeds do not answer the purpose for whichthey were constructed. They are supposed to be fixed and finalstatements of divine truth, which are not to be questioned and not tobe changed. 

Dr. Richard S. Storrs, of Brooklyn, the famous Congregational minister, said a few years ago that the idea of progress in theology was absurd, because the truth had once for all been given to the saints in thepast, and there was no possibility of progress, because progressimplied change. And yet, in spite of the effort that has been made tokeep the faith of the world as it was in the past, the change iscoming, the change does come every day; and it puts the people who aretrying to prevent the change coming in an attitude of what shall I sayI do not wish to make a charge against my brethren, it puts them in avery curious attitude indeed towards the truth. They must not accept anew idea if it conflicts with the old creed, however much they may beconvinced it is true. If they do accept it, then what? They must eitherleave the Church or they must keep still about it, and remain in anattitude of appearing to believe what they really do not believe. Orelse they must do violence to the creed, reinterpreting it in such away as to make it to them what the framers of it had never dreamed of. 

Do you not see the danger that there is here of a person's disingenuousattitude towards the truth, danger to the moral fibre, danger to theprogress of man? Take as a hint of it the way the Bible has beentreated. People have said that the Bible was absolutely infallible:they have taken that as a foregone conclusion; and then, when theyfound out beyond question that the world was not created in six days, what have they done? Frankly accepted the truth? No, they have tried totwist the Bible into meaning something different from what it plainlysays. It expressly says days, bounded by morning and evening; but no, it must mean long periods of time. Why? Because science and the Biblemust somehow be reconciled, no matter if the Bible is wrenched andtwisted from its real meaning. 

And so with regard to the creeds. The creeds say that Christ descendedinto hell; that is, the underworld. People come to know that there isno underworld; and, instead of frankly admitting that that statement inthe creed is not correct, they must torture it out of its meaning, andmake it stand for something that the framers of it had never heard of. I think it would greatly astonish the writers of the Bible and theChurch Fathers if they could wake up to-day, and find out that theymeant something when they wrote those things which had never occurredto them at the time. 

Is this quite honest? Is it wise for us to put ourselves in thisattitude?

I wish to speak a little further in this matter as to not preventingthe coming in of modern thought, and to take one illustration. Look atAndover Seminary to-day. The Andover Creed was arranged for the expresspurpose of keeping fixed and unchangeable the belief of the Church.. Its founders declared that to be their purpose. They were going toestablish the statement of belief, so that it should not be open tothis modern criticism, which had resulted in the birth of Unitarianismin New England; and, in order to make perfectly certain of it, theysaid that the professors who came there to teach the creed must notonly be sound when they were settled, but they must be re-examinedevery five years. This was to prevent their changing their minds duringthe five years and remaining on there, teaching some false doctrinewhile the overseers and managers were not aware of it. So every fiveyears the professors and teachers of Andover have to reaffirm solemnlytheir belief in the old creed. 

It is not for me to make charges against them; but it is for me to makethe statement that so suspicious have the overseers and managers cometo be of some of the professors in the seminary that they have beentried more than once for heresy; and everybody knows that the leadingprofessors there to-day do not believe the creed in the sense in whichit was framed. 

And, to illustrate how this is looked upon by some of the students, letme tell you this. My brother was a graduate of Andover; and not longago he said to me that when the time came around for the professors toreaffirm their allegiance to the creed, one of the other students cameinto his room one day, and said, "Savage, let's go up and see theprofessors perjure themselves. "

This was the attitude of mind of one of the students. This is the wayhe looked at it. I am not responsible for his opinion; but is it quitewise, is it best for the truth, is it for the interests of religion, tohave theological students in this state of mind towards theirprofessor?

Modern thought does come into the minds of men: they cannot escape it. What does it mean? It means simply a new, higher, grander revelation ofGod. Is it wise for us to put ourselves into such a position that itshall seem criminal and evil for us to accept it? If we pledgeourselves not to learn the things we can know, then we stunt ourselvesintellectually. If, after we have pledged ourselves, we accept thesethings and remain as we are, I leave somebody else to characterize suchaction, action which, in my judgment, and so far as my observationgoes, is not at all uncommon. 

We then propose to hold ourselves free so far as a fixed and finalcreed is concerned, because we wish to be able to study, to find andaccept the truth. There is another reason. For the sake of God, becausewe wish to find and come into sympathy with him, and love him and servehim, we refuse to be bound by the thoughts of the past. 

What do we mean by coming into a knowledge of God? Let me illustrate amoment by the relation which we may sustain to another man. You do notnecessarily come close to a man because you touch his elbow on thestreet. The people who lived in Shakspere's London might not have beenso near to Shakspere as is Mr. Furness, the great Shakspere critic to-day, or Mr. Rolfe, of Cambridge. 

Physical proximity does not bring us close to a person. We may be nearto a friend who is half-way round the world: there may be sympatheticheart-beats that shall make us conscious of his presence night and day. We may be close alongside of a person, but alienated from him, misunderstanding him, and really farther away from him than thediameter of the solar system. If, then, we wish to get near to God, andto know him, we must become like him. There must be love, tenderness, unselfishness. We must have the divine characteristics and qualities;and then we shall feel his presence, know and be near him. 

People may find God, and still have very wrong theories about him; justas a farmer may raise a good crop without understanding much abouttheories of sunshine or of soil. But the man who does understand aboutthem will be more likely to raise a good crop, because he goes about itintelligently; while the other simply blunders into it. So, if we haveright thoughts about God, it is easier for us to get into sympathy withhim. If we think about him as noble and sweet and grand and true andloving, we shall be more likely to respond to these qualities that callout the best and the finest feelings in ourselves. 

I do not say that it is absolutely necessary to have correct theoriesof God. There have been good men in all ages, there have been noblewomen in all ages, in all religions, in all the different sects ofChristendom. There are lovely characters among the agnostics. I haveknown sweet and true and fine people who thought themselves atheists. Aman may be grand in spite of his theological opinions one way or theother. He may have a horrible picture of God set forth in his creed, and carry a loving and tender one in his heart. So he may be betterthan the God of his creed. All this is true; but, if we have, I say, right thoughts about him, high and fine ideals, we are more likely tocome into close touch and sympathy with him. 

And, then, and here is a point I wish to emphasize and make perfectlyclear, this arbitrary assumption of infallibility cultivates qualitiesand characteristics which are un and anti-divine. 

Let us see what Jesus had to say about this. The people of his time whorepresented more than any others this infallibility idea were thePharisees. They felt perfectly sure that they were right. They feltperfectly certain that they were the chosen favorites of God. There wason their part, then, growing out of this conception of theinfallibility of their position, the conceit of being the chosen andspecial favorites of the Almighty. They looked with contempt, not onlyupon the Gentiles, who were outside of the peculiarly chosen people, but upon the publicans, upon all of their own nation who were notPharisees, and who were not scrupulously exact concerning the thingswhich they held to be so important. 

What did Jesus think and say about them? You remember the parable ofthe Pharisee and the publican. Jesus said that this poor sinningpublican, who smote upon his breast, and said, "God be merciful to me asinner, " was the one that God looked upon with favor, not the Pharisee, who thanked God that he was not as the other people were. And, if thereis any class in the New Testament that Jesus scathes and withers withthe hot lightning of his scorn and his wrath, it is these infalliblepeople, who are perfectly right in their ideas, and who look withcontempt upon people who are outside of the pale of their own inheritedinfallible creeds and opinions. 

We believe, then, that the people who are free to study the splendorsof God in the universe, in human history, in human life, and free toaccept all new and higher and finer ideas, are more likely to find God, and come into sympathetic and tender relations with him, than those whoare bound to opinions by the supposed fixed and revealed truths of thepast. 

We reject, then, these old-time creeds for another reason, for the sakeof man. A long vista of thought and illustration stretches out beforeme as I pronounce these words; but I can only touch upon a point hereor there. 

One of the most disastrous things that have happened in the history ofthe past and it has happened over and over again is this blocking andhindering of human advance, until by and by the tide, the growingcurrent, becomes too strong to be held back any more; and it has sweptaway all barriers and devastated society, politically, socially, religiously, morally, and in every other way. 

And why? Simply because the natural flow of human thought, the naturalgrowth of human opinion, has been hindered artificially by theassumption of an infallibility on the part of those who have tried tokeep the world from growth. 

Suppose you teach men that certain theological opinions are identicalwith religion, until they believe it. The time comes when they cannothold those opinions any more, and they break away; and they give upreligion, and perhaps the sanctities of life, which they are accustomedto associate with religion. 

Take the time of the French Revolution. People went mad. They wereopposed not only to the State: they were opposed to the Church. Theytried to abolish God, they tried to abolish the Ten Commandments; theytried to abolish everything that had been so long established andassociated with the old regime. 

Were the people really enemies of God? Were they enemies of religion?Were they enemies of truth? No: it was a caricature of God that theywere fighting, it was a caricature of religion that they were opposedto. When Voltaire declared that the Church was infamous, it was notreligion that he wished to overthrow: it was this tyranny that had beenassociated with the dominance of the Church for so many ages. 

This is the result in one direction of attempting to hold back thenatural growth and progress of the world. If you read the history ofthe Church for the last fifteen hundred years until within a century ortwo, and by the Church I mean that organization that has claimed tospeak infallibly for God, you will find that it has been associatedwith almost everything that has hindered the growth of the world. Icannot go into details to illustrate it. It has interfered with theworld's education. There is only one nation in Europe to-day whereeducation has not been wrenched out of the hands of the priesthood inthe interests of man, and that even by Catholics themselves; and thatcountry is Spain. It pronounced its ban on the study of the universeunder the name of science. It made it a sin for Galileo to discover themoons of Jupiter. And Catholic and Protestant infallibility alikedenounced Newton, one of the noblest men and the grandest scientiststhat the world has ever seen, because in proclaiming the law ofgravity, they said, he was taking the universe out of the hands of Godand establishing practical atheism. 

So almost everything that has made the education, the political, theindustrial, the social growth of the world, this infallibility idea hasstood square in the way of, and done its best to hinder. Take, forexample, an illustration. When chloroform was discovered, the Church inScotland opposed its use in cases of childbirth, because it said it wasa wicked interference with the judgment God pronounced on Eve after thefall. 

So, in almost every direction, whatever has been for the benefit of theworld has been opposed in the interests of old-time ideas, until thewhole thing culminated at last in this: Here is this nineteenth centuryof ours, which has done more for the advancement of man than thepreceding fifteen centuries all put together. Political liberty, religious liberty, universal education, the enfranchisement andelevation of women, the abolition of slavery, temperance, almosteverything has been achieved, until the world, the face of it, has beentransformed. And yet Pope Pius IX. , in an encyclical which he issued alittle while before his death, pronounced, ex-cathedra and infallibly, the opinion that this whole modern society was godless. And yet, as Isaid, this godless modern world has done more for man and for the gloryof God than the fifteen hundred years of church dominance that precededit. 

For the sake of man, then, that intellectually, politically, socially, industrially, every other way, he may be free to grow, to expand, toadopt all the new ideas that promise higher help, hope, and freedom, for the sake of man, we refuse to be bound by the inherited and fixedopinions of the past. 

Now two or three points I wish to speak of briefly, as I near theclose. 

We are charged sometimes, because we have no creed, with having no bondof union whatever. As I said a few Sundays ago, they say that we areall at loose ends because we are not fixed and bound by a definitecreed. 

What is God's method of keeping a system like this solar one of ourstogether? Does he fence it in? Does he exert any pressure from outside?Or does he rather place at the centre a luminous and attractive body, capable of holding all the swinging and singing members of the systemin their orbits, as they play around this great source of life and oflight? God's method is the method of illumination and attraction. Thatis the method which we have adopted. Instead of fencing men in andtelling them to climb over that fence at their peril, we have placed agreat, luminous, attractive truth at the centre, the pursuit of truth, the love of truth, the search for God, the desire to benefit and helpon mankind. And we trust to the power of these great central truths toattract and keep in their orbits all the free activities of thethousands of minds and hearts that make up our organization. 

Then there is one more point. Suppose we wanted an infallible creed;suppose it was ever so important; suppose the experience of the worldhad proved that it was very desirable indeed that we should have one. What are we going to do about it? I suppose that men in otherdepartments of life than the ecclesiastical would like an infallibleguide. Men engaged in business would like an infallible handbook thatwould point them the way to success. The gold hunters would like aninfallible guide to the richest ores. Navigators on the sea would likeinfallible methods of manning and sailing their ships. The farmer wouldlike to know that he was following an infallible method to success. Itwould be very desirable in many respects; it would save us no end oftrouble. 

But it is admitted that in these other departments of life, whether wewant infallible guides or not, we do not have them. And I think, if youwill look at the matter a little deeply and carefully, you will becomepersuaded that it would not be the best for us if we could. Men notonly wish to gain certain ends, but, if they are wise, they wish morethan that, to cultivate and develop and unfold themselves, which theycan only do by study, by mistakes, by correcting mistakes, by findingout through experience what is true and what is false. In this processof study and experience they find themselves, something infinitely moreimportant than any external fact or success which they may discover orachieve. 

So I believe that a similar thing is true in the religious life. Itmight be a great saving of trouble if we were sure we had an infallibleguide. I am inclined to think that a great many persons who go into theRoman Catholic Church, in this modern time, go there because they aretired of thinking, and wish to shift the responsibility of it on tosome one else. 

It is tiresome, it is hard work. Sometimes we would like to escape it:we would like infallible guides. But I have studied the world with allthe care that I could; and I have never been able to find the materialsout of which I could construct an infallible guide, if I wanted it everso much. 

Whether it is important or not to have infallible teaching in thetheological realm, there is no such thing as infallibility that isaccessible to us; and I, for one, do not believe that it would be bestfor us if there were. God is treating us more wisely and kindly than, if we were able, we would treat ourselves; because it is not thediscovery of this or that particular fact or truth that is so importantas is the development of our own intellectual and moral and spiritualnatures in the search for truth. 

Lessing said a very wise thing when he declared that, if God shouldoffer him the perfect truth in one hand and the privilege of seekingfor it in the other, he should accept the privilege of search as thenobler and more valuable gift, because, in this seeking, we developourselves, we cultivate the Divine, and work our natures over into thelikeness of God. 

And now at the end I wish simply to say that God has given us thebetter thing in letting us freely and earnestly and simply investigateand look after the truth, cultivating ourselves in the process, andbeing wrought over ever more and more into the likeness of the divine. 

And I wish also to say, for the comfort of those who may think thatthis lack of infallible guides is a serious matter, it may astonish youto have me say it, that there is not a single matter of any practicalimportance in our moral and religious life concerning which there isany doubt whatsoever. If anybody tells you that he is not living areligious life or not living a moral life, for the lack of light andguidance, do not believe him. 

What are the things that are in question? What are the things of whichwe are sure? Take, for example, the matter of Biblical criticism, as towho wrote the book of Chronicles, as to whether Deuteronomy was writtenby Moses or compiled in the time of King Josiah. Are there any greatspiritual problems waiting for those questions to be settled? Do youneed to have that matter made clear before you know whether you oughtto be an honest man in your business, whether you ought to judgecharitably of a friend who has gone astray, whether you ought to behelpful towards your neighbors, whether you ought to be kind to yourwife, and whether you ought to lovingly train and cultivate yourchildren?

Take another of the great questions, as to the authorship of the Gospelof John. I shall be immensely interested in the settlement of that ifthe time ever comes when it is settled; but it would be a purelycritical interest that I should have. I am not going to wait until thatis settled before I lead a religious life. I am not going to let thatstand in the way of my helping on the progress of the world. 

I tell you, friends, that these matters that are in doubt, that need aninfallibility to settle them, are not the practical matters at all. Welook off into the vast universe around us, and question about God. Ishe personal? Can we have the old ideas about him? One thing is settled:we know we are the product of and in the presence of an Eternal Order, and that knowing and keeping the laws of the universe mean life andhappiness, but the opposite means death. That is the practical part ofit. 

We know that the Power that is in this universe is making graduallythrough the ages for righteousness; and we know that the righteous andhelpful life is the only manly life for us to lead, for our own sake, for the sake of those we can touch and influence. 

Are we going to wait for criticism to settle metaphysical problemsbefore we do anything about these great practical matters?

Whatever your theory about Jesus may be, you can at least be like him, and wait; and, when you see him, you will love him, and know the truthabout him, if you cannot before. 

Matthew Arnold, an agnostic, has put into two or three lines, which Iwish to read now at the end, what might well be the creed of the personwho doubts so much that he thinks nothing is settled. If you cannot sayany more than this, here is all that is absolutely necessary to thevery noblest life:

"Hath man no second life? Pitch this one high. Sits there no Judge inheaven our sin to see? More strictly, then, the inward judge obey. WasChrist a man like us? Ah I let us try If we, then, too, can be such menas he. "

THE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRESENT RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION. 

SCIENCE tells us that the law of growth is embodied in the phrase, "thestruggle for life and the survival of the fittest. " As we look beneaththe surface in any department of human endeavor, analyze things alittle carefully, we discover that this contest is going on. We knowthat it is not confined to the lower forms of life or the order of theinanimate world. It is a universal law. We are not always conscious ofit; but, when we do think and study, we discover it as an unescapablefact. 

In the religious world, for example, between the different thoughts andtheories which are held among men as solutions of the problems of lifewe find this contest going on. Here, again, it is not always noticed;but in the mind of any man who thinks, who reads, who reflects, thisprocess is apparent. This view is considered, another view mentioned bysomebody else is set over against it, and the claims of the twotheories are brought up for judgment. And so there goes on perpetuallythis debate. Now and again it comes to the surface, and attractspopular attention. We have been in the midst of an experience of thiskind for the last two or three weeks here in New York City. 

But the thing I want you to note is -- and that is the great lesson Ihave in mind this morning that all of this superficial discussion ofone point or another is only an indication of a larger, deeper contest. When, for example, men are debating as to the infallibility orinerrancy of the Old Testament, as to the story of the creation as toldin Genesis, as to the nature and work of Jesus, as to the futuredestiny of the race, when they are discussing any one of theseparticular problems, they are dealing with matters that are reallysuperficial. Underneath these there is a larger problem; and to thisproblem and its probable issues I wish to call your attention thismorning. 

There are two great world theories, complete each in itself, both ofthem thinkable, mutually exclusive, one of which only can be true, andone of which must finally become dominant in the educated and freethought of the world. These two theories I wish to place face to facebefore you this morning, call your attention to some of their specialfeatures and note the claims they have on our acceptance. 

Before doing this, however, I wish you to note that there areindications of a dual tendency on the part of the human mind which hasnot been manifested in the development of these two theories alone, butwhich has had illustrations in other directions and in other times. 

In the early traditions of Greece and Rome you find two tendencies onthe part of the mind of man. There was, first, an old-time traditionwhich placed the Golden Age of humanity away back in the past. Thepeople dreamed of a time when Saturn, the father of gods and men, livedon the earth, and governed directly his children and his people. Inthat happy time there was no disease, no pain, no poverty. There wereno class distinctions. There were no wars. The evil of the world wasunknown. That was the Golden Age which a certain set of thinkers thenplaced far back in the past. They told how that age was succeeded by abronze age, a poorer condition of affairs, how the gods left the earth, and ill contentions and evils of every kind began to afflict the world. This was succeeded by the age of brass, that by the age of iron; and sothe poor old world was supposed to be getting worse and worse, lowerand lower, from one epoch of time to another. 

But also among these same people there were another set of traditions, illustrated sufficiently for our purpose by the story of Prometheus. According to this the first age of humanity was its worst and poorestand lowest age. The people lived in abject poverty and misery. Theywere even neglected on the part of the gods, who did not seem to carefor them, but treated them with contempt. Prometheus is represented aspitying their evil estate, caring more for them than the gods did; andso he steals the celestial fire, and comes down to the world andpresents it to men, and so helps them to begin civilization, a periodof prosperity and progress. For this he is punished by the gods. 

The point I wish you to note is that even among the Greeks and theRomans there were two types of mind, one of which placed the Golden Agein the past, and the other of which placed it in the future as the goalof man's endeavor and growth. 

A precisely similar thing we find in the Old Testament, so that thesetwo types of mind appear among the Hebrews. In one of these we findagain the Golden Age, the perfect condition of things, placed at thebeginning. There was a garden, and man and woman were perfect in it. There was no labor, no toil, no pain, no sorrow, no fear, no trouble ofany kind. But that was followed by sin, evil, entering the world, bytheir being driven out; and so the world has again been going from badto worse, as the ages have passed by. 

On the other hand, among the Hebrews, as illustrated in the writings ofthe great prophets, the master minds of the Hebrew race, there is theopposite belief manifested. There is no fall of man, no perfectcondition of things, no Golden Age at the beginning, in the prophets. There is none in the teaching of Jesus. Rather do they look forwardwith kindling eye and beating heart to some grander thing that is tobe. 

Here is this dual tradition, then, in the world, in different parts ofthe world, this dual way of looking at the problem of life. 

Now I wish to place before you the two great contrasted theories of theuniverse. In presenting that which has been dominant for the last twoor three thousand years, two thousand, perhaps, speaking roughly, I amquite well aware that I shall have to seem to tell you what youperfectly well know, what I have said on other occasions; but it isnecessary for me to run over it, and I will do so as briefly as I can, setting it before you in outline as a whole, so that you may see it incontrast with the other theory which I shall then endeavor to set forthalso as a whole. 

According to that theory of the world, then, which lies at thefoundation, the old-time and still generally accepted theory ofChristendom, the world was created in the year 4004 B. C. It was createdin a week's time. This was the general teaching until thinkers werecompelled to accept another theory by the advances of moderninvestigation. The world was created inside of a week. God got through, pronounced it good, and rested. Then in a short period of time we donot know how long evil entered this world which God had pronouncedperfect. Satan, a real being, the leader of the hosts of the fallenangels, the traditional enemy of God, who had fought him even in hisown heaven and been cast out, invades this fair earth. He seduces ourfirst parents, gets them to commit a sin against God which makes themhis enemies, turns them into rebels against his just and holygovernment. The world, then, is fallen. Now from that day to this theone effort on the part of God, according to this theory, has been todeliver the world from this lost condition. Jonathan Edwards, forexample, published a book called "The History of Redemption. " Heconceived the entire history of the world under that title, because thehistory of the world, according to this theory, has been the history ofthe effort of God to deliver man from the effects of the fall. 

Now let us note the story as it proceeds a little further. The worldexists for I think I have a date here which may interest you 1, 656years, God meantime doing everything he could, by sending angels andspecial messengers and teaching the people; and he had accomplished solittle that the world was in such a condition that he was compelled todrown it. So came the flood. After that, he chooses one family, onelittle family and the descendants of that family, one little people, and bends all his energies to the education and training of thatpeople, -- a small people inhabiting a country on the eastern coast ofthe Mediterranean Sea just about as large as the State ofMassachusetts. 

For more than two thousand years he devotes himself to the training ofthis people. How does he succeed here? He sends his messengers again, his angels, his prophets, one after another. He inspires a certainnumber of men to write a book to deliver his will to the people, falleninto such condition that they are incapable of discovering the truthfor themselves. But, after all his efforts, they are so far from thetruth that, when the second person of the Trinity appears, they havenothing to do with him except to put him to death. After that, Godsends the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, to organize hisChurch, spread his truth, convert men, bring them into the Church, andso fit them to be saved. And, after two thousand years of that kind ofeffort, what is the result? They tell us that not more than a thirdpart of the inhabitants of the world have heard anything about it, thatthe majority of those who have heard about it reject it. Mr. Moody toldus last year that in this country, which we love to think of as themost favored and highly civilized and intelligent country in the world, out of seventy millions of inhabitants, not more than thirty millionsever see the inside of any kind of church. I do not vouch for theaccuracy of the statistics. I wish to impress upon you the result ofthis theory of this six thousand years of endeavor on the part of Godto bring his own children to a knowledge of his own truth. The upshotof it is that the few, the minority, will be saved, and the greatmajority eternally lost. 

Now here is one world theory, one scheme of world history which I wishyou to hold clearly and as definitely as possible in your minds, whileI place alongside of it another theory. 

According to this other, God did not suddenly create the world in aweek or in a hundred thousand years. It is a story of continuous andeternal creation. As Jesus said, with fine and noble insight, "Myfather worketh hitherto. " He did not recognize that God was resting onany day or through any period of time. 

 The world, then, has always been in process of creation. The sameforces at work in accordance with substantially the same laws. Theworld has been millions of years in this process; and the process allaround us, if we choose to open our eyes and note it, is still going onwith all its wonder and divinity. And we know, as we study the heavensabove us, or around us rather, with our telescopes, that there areworlds and systems of worlds in process of creation on every hand. Weare permitted to look into the divine workshop and observe the divinemethod. 

The world, then, is always in process of creation. This is the firstpoint in the new theory. It follows, of course, from this that we areto hold the story of the antiquity of the earth, the earth millions ofyears old, instead of six thousand or ten thousand. 

And then, in the third place, it tells us the story of the antiquity ofthe human race. 

All scholars, for example, as bearing on this I will give you just thisone illustration, know that there was a civilization in Egypt, wide-spread, highly developed, with nobody knows how many ages of growthbehind it, there was this civilization in Egypt before the world wascreated according to the popular chronology that has been generallyreceived until within a few years. 

We know that man has been on the earth hundreds of thousands of years. This is the next point in that story. 

In the next place, they tell us a wondrous tale of the origin andnature of man, tracing his natural development from lower forms oflife. When I say "natural, " I do not wish you to think for one momentthat I leave out the divinity; for, according to this story of theworld which I am hinting and outlining now, God is infinitely nearer, more wonderfully in contact with us, than he ever was in the old. Natural, then, but divine at every step, so that we are seeing God faceto face, if we but think of it, and are feeling his touch every momentof our lives. 

No fall of man, then, on this theory. No invasion of this world by anyform of evil or any evil person from without. This story of the fall ofman came into the world undoubtedly to account in some philosophicalfashion for the existence of pain, of evil, and of death. We accountfor it on this new theory much more naturally, rationally, morehonorably for God, more hopefully for man. 

The history of the world, then, since man began has not been by anymeans a history of universal progression. Evolution, however much itmay be misunderstood and misrepresented, does not mean the necessity ofprogress on the part of any one person or any one people, any more, forexample, than the growth of the human body is inconsistent with thefact that cells and composite parts of the body are in process of decayand dissolution every hour, every moment of our lives. 

Nations grow, advance, if they comply with the laws, the conditions, ofgrowth and advance; and, if not, they die out and disappear. And so isit of individuals. But, on the other hand, in the presence of theloving, lifting, leading God, humanity in the larger sense has beenadvancing from the beginning of human history until to-day; and thegrade, dim glimpses of which we gain as we look out toward the future, is still up and still on. 

According to this theory of the universe, there does not need to be anystupendous breaking in of God into his own world after any miraculousfashion. We do not need an infallible guide in religion any more thananywhere else, unless we are in danger of eternal loss because of anintellectual mistake. We do not need any stupendous miracle toreconcile God to his own world; for he has always been reconciled. Wedo not need any miraculous bridging of any mythical gulf; for therenever has been any gulf. And the outcome, not as we look forward are wehaunted by fearful anticipations of darkness and evil; as we listen, wedo not ever hear the clanking of chains; as we look, we know that thedimness that hangs over the coming time is not caused by "the smoke ofthe torment that ascendeth up forever and ever. " It is a story ofeternal hope for every race, for every child of man and child of God. 

Here are these two theories, then, two schemes of the universe and ofhuman history. Which of them shall we accept?

I wish you to note now, and to note with a little care, that you cannotrationally accept a part of one theory and a part of the other, and somake up a patchwork to suit yourselves. Take, for example, the onequestion, Is man lost or is he not? He is not half lost or sort oflost: he is either lost or he is not lost. Which is true? If he is not"lost, " then he does not need to be "saved. " He may need somethingelse; but he does not need that, for the two correspond and match eachother. Let us think, then, a little clearly in regard to this matter, and remember that the outcome of the conflict between these twotheories must be the supremacy of either one or the other. 

Now, before I come to any more fundamental and earnest treatment of thesubject, let me call your attention to certain things that arehappening to the old theory. 

How much of that old theory is intact to-day? How much of it is heldeven by those who, being scholars and thinkers, still hold theirallegiance to the old-time theology? Let us see. The story of thesudden and finite creation of the world is completely gone. Nobodyholds that now who gives it any attention. They have stretched the sixdays of the week, even those who hold the accuracy of the Genesisaccount, into uncounted periods of time. So that is gone. The antiquityof man is conceded by everybody who has a right to have and express anopinion; that is, by everybody who has given it any study. Everycompetent and free scholar knows to-day that the story of the fall ofman and the whole Eden story, is a Babylonian or a Persian legend thatcame into the life of the Jews about the time of their captivity, andwas not known of till then among them, and did not take hold on theleading and highest minds of their own people. And there are, as youknow, hundreds, if not thousands of clergymen in all the churches to-day who are ready to concede that the story of Eden is poetry or legendor tradition: they no longer treat it as serious history. And yet, as Ihave said a good many times, they go on as though nothing had happened, although the foundation of their house has been removed. Only theorieswhich stand in the air can thus defy the law of gravitation. 

Nobody to-day who has a right to have an opinion believes that God everdrowned the world. That is gone. As to the question as to whether wehave an infallible book to guide us in religious matters, there arevery few scholars in any church to-day, so far as my investigationshave led, who hold any such opinion. That is gone; and the Bible, theOld Testament, at any rate is coming to be recognized, not asinfallible revelation, but as ancient literature, immenselyinteresting, full of instruction, but not as an unquestioned guide inany department of life. 

There are many among the nominally old churches who are coming to holda very different theory concerning Jesus, his life, his death, and theeffect of his death on the salvation of man. More reasonable ideas areprevailing here. In every direction also there are thousands onthousands who are becoming freed from that horrible incubus of fear asthey look out towards the future. 

As you note then, point after point of this old scheme of the universeis disappearing, being superseded by something else; until I amastonished, as I converse with friends in the other churches, to findhow little of it is really left, how little of it men are ready, outand out, to defend. In conversation with an Episcopal clergyman a shorttime ago on theological questions, we agreed so well that I laughinglysaid I saw no reason why I should not become a clergyman in theEpiscopal Church. 

Now, friends, what I wish you to note is this: that there is not onesingle point in this old scheme of the universe that can be reasonablydefended to-day. It is passing away from intelligent, cultivated humanthought. 

And note another thing: it is a scheme which is a discredit to thethought of God. It is unjust. It is dishonorable in its moral andreligious implications. It is pessimistic and hopeless in its outlookfor the race. It does not explain the problems of human nature andhuman experience half as well as the other theory does, even if itcould be demonstrated as truth. 

Now let us look at the other. The other theory is magnificent in itsproportions. It is grand in its conception and in its age-long sweepand range. It is worthy of the grandest thought of God we can frame;and we cannot imagine any increase or heightening or deepening of thatthought which would reach beyond the limits of this conception of theuniverse, magnificent in its thought of God. And, instead of beingpessimistic and hopeless in its outlook for man, it is full of hope, oflife, of inspiration, of cheer, something for which we well may breakout into songs of gladness as we contemplate. 

And, then, it is true. There is not one single feature of it, or pointin it, that has not in the main been scientifically demonstrated to beGod's truth. I make this statement, and challenge the contradiction ofthe world. Whatever breaks there may be in the evidence for this secondtheory that I have outlined, every single scrap and particle ofevidence that there is in the universe is in its favor; and there isnot one single scrap or particle of evidence in favor of the other. AsI say, I challenge the contradiction of the scholarly world to thatstatement. 

It is true then. Being true, it is God's truth, God's theory of things, the outline of human history as God has laid it down for us; and, as wetrace it, like Kepler, we may say, "O God, I think over again thythoughts after Thee. "

Now I wish you to note one or two things concerning this a littlefurther. There are a great may persons who shrink from accepting newideas because they are haunted with the fear that in some way somethingprecious, something sweet, something noble, something inspiring thatthey have associated with the past, is going to be lost. But think, friends. When the Ptolemaic theory of the universe gave way to theCopernican, not only did the Copernican have the advantage of beingtrue, but not one single star in heaven was put out or even dimmed itslight. All of them looked down upon us with an added magnificence and afresher glow, because we felt at last we were standing face to facewith the truth of things, and not with a fallible theory of man. 

Do not be afraid, then, that any of the sanctities, any of thedevoutness, any of the tenderness, any of the sweet sentiments, any ofthe loves, any of the charities, any of the worships of the past, arein danger of being lost. Why, these, friends, are the summed-up resultof all the world's finest and sweetest achievement up to this hour; andour theories are only vessels in which we carry the precious treasure. 

I am interested in having you see the truth of this universe, because Ibelieve you will worship God more devoutly and love man more truly andconsecrate yourselves more unreservedly to the highest and noblestends, when you can think thoughts of God that kindle aspiration andworship, and thoughts of men as children of God that make it grandlyworth your while to live and die for them. 

Do you think there is going to be a poorer religion than there has beenin the past? I look to the time when we shall have a church as wide asthe horizon, domed by the blue, lighted by the sun, the Sun ofRighteousness, the Eternal Truth of the Father; a church in which allmen shall be recognized as brothers, of whatever sect or whateverreligion, in which all shall kneel and chant or lisp their worshipaccording as they are able, the worship of the one Father, cheered andinspired by the one universal and eternal hope for man. 

Do not be afraid of the truth, then, for fear something precious isgoing to be lost out of human life. Evolution never gives up anythingof the past that is worth keeping. It simply carries it on, and mouldsit into ever higher and finer shapes for the service of man. 

 I intimated a moment ago? I wish to touch on this briefly for the sakeof clearness that man, according to this new theory, does not need tobe saved, in the theological sense, of course, I mean, because he isnot lost. He has never been far away from the Father, never been beyondthe reach of his hand, never been beyond the touch of his love andcare. What does he need? He needs to be trained, he needs to beeducated, he needs to be developed for man is just as naturallyreligious as he is musical or artistic, as he is interested in problemsof government or economics, or any of the great problems that touch thewelfare of the world. 

Man needs churches, then, or societies of those interested in thehigher life of the time, needs services, needs all these things thatkindle and train and develop and lift him up out of the animal into thespiritual and divine nature which is in every one of us. So that noneof the worships, none of the religious forms of the world that are ofany value, are ever going to be cast aside or left behind. 

But there is one very important point that I must deal with for just alittle while. I will be as brief as I can. 

I have been very much surprised to note certain things that have comeout in the recent religious discussions. The editor of the BrooklynEagle, for example, has deprecated all talk in regard to matters ofthis sort, saying, in effect: What difference does it make? What isinvolved that is of any importance? Why not let everybody worship andbelieve as he pleases? A writer in the New York Times? I think perhapsmore than one, but one specially I have in mind has said substantiallythe same thing. It does not make any difference. Let people worship asthey please, let them believe as they please, let them go their ownway. What difference does it make?

Friends, it makes no difference at all, provided there is no such thingin the world as religious truth. If there is, it makes all difference. Let us take this "Don't care" and "No matter" theory for a moment, andin the light of it consider a few of the grandest lives of the world. 

If it makes no difference what a man believes in religion or how heworships or what he tries to do, how does it happen that we Unitarians, for example, glorify Theodore Parker, and count him a great moral andintellectual hero? Why should he have made himself so unpopular as tobe cast out even of the Unitarian fellowship? Was he contending fornothing? Was he a fool? was he making himself uncomfortable overimaginary distinctions? Perhaps; but, then, why are we foolish enoughto honor him?

Why is it that we glorify Channing, who at an earlier period was castout of the best religious society of the world for what he believed tobe a great principle? Why is it to-day that we lift John Wesley on sucha lofty pedestal of admiration? He left the Church of England, or wascast out of it, went among the poor, preached a great religious reform, led a magnificent crusade, teaching a higher and grander spiritualreligion, a religion of heart, of life, of character, against the mereformalism of the Church of his time. Was he contending about airynothings without local habitation or a name? If so, why are we sofoolish as to admire him?

Go back further to Martin Luther, putting himself in danger of hislife, standing against banded Europe, and saying, "Here I stand: Godhelp me, I can do no otherwise!" What is the use? What did he do itfor? If it made no difference whether a man worshipped Godintelligently or according to the things Luther thought all wrong, whatwas the difference? What was he contending about, and why does theworld bow down to him with reverence and honor?

Why are we fools enough to honor the men who were burned at Oxford? Whydo we honor to-day the line of saints and martyrs? Why do we look uponSavonarola with such admiration?

To go back still farther, why was it that the early Christians wereready to suffer torture, to be racked, to be persecuted, to be throwninto kettles of boiling oil, to be cast to the wild beasts in thearena? Were they contending for nothing at all? If it makes nodifference, why were they casting themselves away in this Quixotic andfoolish fashion and, if there was nothing involved, how is it thatthese names shine as stars in the religious firmament of the world'sworship?

Go to the time of Jesus himself. A young Nazarene, he leaves his homein Nazareth, joins the fortunes of John the Baptist. After John theBaptist had been fool enough to get his head cut off contending for histheory, Jesus takes up his work, dares to speak against the temple, dares to challenge the righteousness of the most righteous men of theirtime, dares at last to stand so firmly that he is taken out oneafternoon and hung upon a tree on the hill beyond the walls of thecity, the one supreme piece of folly in the history of the world fromthe "Does not make any difference" point of view. 

Is there any truth involved? Does it touch the living or the welfare ofthe world? If not, why, then, are these looked upon as the grandestfigures since the world began? Are all men fools for admiring them, except these wiseacres who stand for the theory that it makes nodifference and who ought not to admire them at all?

Suppose you apply the principle in other departments of life. We had atremendous issue in this city and country last fall over the financialquestion. Would it have made any difference which side won? If it wasjust as well one way as the other, why not let the people who clamoredfor silver have silver, those who wanted greenbacks have greenbacks, and those who desired gold have gold? What was the use of troublingabout it? We thought there were principles involved. 

Take it in the economic world, the individualist here with his theory, the socialist here with his; theories outlined like those in EdwardBellamy's "Looking Backward"; a hundred advancers of these differentschemes, each contending for mastery. And we feel that the welfare ofcivilization is at stake; and we stand for our great principles. Takeit in politics. What difference does it make whether the theoriesembodied in the reign of the Czar of Russia prevail, or these here inthe United States which we are so foolish as to laud and prideourselves so much about? What did we have a Civil War for, wastingbillions of money and hundreds of thousands of lives? Are these greathuman contests about nothing at all?

Friends, think one moment. Either man is a child of God or he is not. Man fell at the beginning of his history, and came under the wrath andcurse of God, or he did not. God has sent angels, breaking into hisnatural order of the world, or he has not. He has created an infalliblebook or he has not. He has organized an infallible church that hasauthority to guide and teach the world or he has not. He himself camedown to earth in the form of a man once and for all, and was crucified, dead and buried and ascended into heaven, or he did not. 

These are questions of historic fact. Does it make no difference whatwe believe about them? If man is a fallen being, condemned to eternaldeath, and God has provided only one way for his escape and salvation, then it makes an infinite and eternal difference as to whether we knowit or believe it or act on it or not. If the majority of the human raceis doomed to eternal torture unless it escapes through certainprescribed conditions, does it make any difference whether we know itor not?

And, if he is not so doomed, does it make no difference to the heartand hope, the life, the cheer, the courage and inspiration of man, whether or not we lift from the brain and the heart this horribleincubus of dread and fear?

Here are all these churches with their wealth, their intelligence, their enthusiasm, their inspiration, ready to do something forhumanity. Does it make any difference whether they are doing the rightthing for it or not? We could revolutionize the world if we could beguided by intelligence, and find out what man really needs, and devoteourselves to the accomplishment of what that is. The waste, the waste, the waste of money and thought and energy and time and inspirationpoured into wrong channels, unguided by intelligence, directed towardsthings that do not need to be done, and away from things that do needto be done!

These are the questions involved in discussions as to what God is andhas done and is going to do with his world. 

The one thing we need, then, almost more than all others just now, isto be led by the truth, and have the truth make us free from the errorsand the burdens of the past, so that we may place ourselves truly atthe disposal of God for the service of our fellows. 

O star of truth down-shining, Through clouds of doubt and fear, I askbut 'neath your guidance My pathway may appear. However long thejourney, How hard soe'er it be, Though I be lone and weary, Lead on, I'll follow thee. I know thy blessed radiance Can never lead astray, However ancient custom May tread some other way. E'en if through untroddesert Or over trackless sea, Though I be lone and weary, Lead on, I'llfollow thee. The bleeding feet of martyr Thy toilsome road have trod;But fires of human passion May lead the way to God. Then, though my feetshould falter, While I thy beams can see, Though I be lone and weary, Lead on, I'll follow thee. Though loving friends forsake me Or pleadwith me in tears, Though angry foes may threaten To shake my soul withfears, Still to my high allegiance I must not faithless be, Through lifeor death, forever Lead on, I'll follow thee. 

DOUBT AND FAITH-BOTH HOLY. 

THE object of all thinking is the discovery of truth. And truth for us, what is that? It is the reality of things as related to us. There hasbeen a good deal of metaphysical discussion first and last as to whatthings are "in themselves. " It seems to me that this, if it werepossible to find it out, might be an interesting matter, might satisfyour curiosity, but is of absolutely no practical importance to us. I donot believe that we can find out what things are in themselves, in thefirst place; and I do not believe that, if we could, it would be of anyservice to us. What we want to know is what things are as related tous, as touching us, as bearing upon our life, upon our practicalaffairs. 

Once more: there has been a good deal of discussion as to whether theuniverse is really what it appears to be to us. They tell us that it isquite another thing from the point of view of other creatures, tobeings differently constituted from ourselves. Again, all this may be. It might be interesting to me, for example, to look at the world fromthe point of view of the fly or of the bird or some one of the animals;but, again, while it might satisfy my curiosity, it could be of nopractical importance to me. It might be very interesting to me to knowhow the universe looks from the point of view of an angel. But, so longas I am not an angel, but a man, what I need to know is what theuniverse is as related to man. 

So truth, I say, then, is the reality of things as related to us. 

I must make another remark here, in order perfectly to clear the way. Philosophers and scientific men, a certain class of them, areperpetually warning us of the dangers of being anthropomorphic. Someone has said, "Man never knows how anthropomorphic he is. " This means, as you know, that we look at things from the point of view ofourselves. We see things as men, as anthropoi. This has been erected incertain quarters into a good deal of a bugbear in the way of thinking. We are told we can never know the universe really, because we shapeeverything into our own likeness, we are anthropomorphic, we look ateverything from the point of view of men. 

I grant the charge; but, instead of being frightened by it, I accept itwith content. How else should we look at things except from the pointof view of men, since we are men? We cannot look at them in any otherway. Let us be, then, anthropomorphic. The only thing we need to guardagainst is this: we must not assume that we have exhausted theuniverse, and that we know it all. This is the evil of a certain typeof anthropomorphism. But I cannot understand why it is important for usto be anything else but anthropomorphic. I want to know how things lookto a man, what things are to a man, how things affect a man, how I amto deal with things, being a man. 

This is the only matter, let me repeat again, which is of any practicalimportance to us, until we become something other than men. 

Truth, then, the truth that we desire to find, is the reality of thingsas related to us. Now doubt and faith are attitudes of mind, and areneither good nor bad in themselves, either of them. They are of valueonly as they help us in the discovery of this reality about which Ihave been speaking. If a certain type of doubt stands in our way inseeking for truth, then that doubt so far is evil. If a certainsomething, called faith, stands in the way of our seeking frankly andfearlessly for the truth, that is evil. If -doubt helps us to findtruth, it is good: if faith helps us to -find truth, it is good. Butthe only use of either of them is to help us discover and live thetruth. 

The attitude of the Church and by the Church I mean the historic Churchof the past towards doubt and faith is well known to us. It hascondemned doubt almost universally as something evil, sinful. It hasextolled faith as something almost universally good. But in my judgmentand I will ask you when I get through, perhaps, to consider as towhether you do not agree with me the trouble with the human mind up tothe present time has not been a too great readiness to doubt: it hasbeen a too great inclination to believe. There has been too much ofwhat has been called perhaps by the time I am through you will thinkmiscalled faith; and there has been too little of honest, fearless, earnest doubt. This is perfectly natural, when you consider how theworld begins, and the steps by which it advances. 

Let us take as an illustration the state of mind of a child. A child atfirst does not doubt, does not doubt anything. It is ready to believealmost anything that father, mother, nurse, playmate, may say to it. And why? In the first place it has had no experience yet of anythingbut the truth being told it; and in the next place it lives in a worldwhere there are no canons or standards of probability. In the child-world there are no laws, there are no impossibilities, there is nothingin the way of anything happening. The child mind does not say, inanswer to some statement, Why, this does not seem reasonable. Thechild's reason is not yet developed into any practical activity. Thechild does not say, Why, this cannot be, because there is such a forceor such a law that would be contravened by it. The child knows nothingabout these forces or laws: it is a sort of a Jack- and-the-Beanstalkworld. The beanstalk can grow any number of feet over night in theworld in which the child lives. Anything is possible. If father andmother and nurse tell the child about Santa Claus coming down thechimney with a pack of toys on his back, it does not occur to the childto note the fact that the chimney flue is no more than six inches indiameter, and that Santa Claus and his pack could not possibly passthrough such an opening. All this is beyond the range or thought of thestage of development at which the child has arrived. 

So in the childhood world. As I said, anything may happen. But you willnote, beautiful, sunny, lovely as this childhood world is as a phase ofexperience, as a stage of development, sweet as may be the memory ofit, yet, if the child is ever to grow to manhood, is ever to beanything, ever to do anything, it must outgrow this Jack-and-the-Beanstalk world, this Santa Claus world, this world in which anythingmay happen, and must begin to doubt, begin to question, begin to testthings, to prove things, find out what is real and what is unreal, whatis true and what is untrue, must measure itself against the realitiesof things, learn to recognize the real forces and the laws according towhich they operate, so as to deal with them, obey them, make them servehim, enable him to create character and to create a new type ofcivilization, new things on the face of the earth. 

Now what is true of each individual child has been true of the race. The world started in childhood; and for thousands of years it believedvery easily, it believed altogether too much for its good, it believedaltogether too readily. Naturally, perhaps, necessary in that stage ofits development; but so long as it remained in that stage there was nopossibility of its becoming master of the earth. 

Note, for example, the state of mind of the old Hebrews, I use themmerely as an illustration, because you are familiar with their story astold in the Old Testament. Similar things are true of every race on theface of the earth. They knew nothing about the real nature of thisuniverse. They knew nothing about natural forces working in accordancewith what we call natural laws. Consequently, they lived in a child-world, a world of magic and miracle, a world in which anything mighthappen. It did not trouble one of the people of that time to be toldthat, in answer to the prayer of one of the prophets, an axe-head whichhad sunk in the water rose and floated on the surface. There were nonatural laws in his mind contradicted by an asserted fact like that. Itnever occurred to him to be troubled about it. There was nothing verystartling to him in being told that the sun stood still for an hour ortwo to enable a general to finish a battle in which he was engaged. Hedid not know enough about the universe to see what tremendousconsequences would be involved in the possibility of a thing like that. He was not troubled when you told him that a man had been swallowed bya great fish, and had lived for three days and three nights in itsstomach, and had come out uninjured. There was no improbability in itto him. Simply, a question as to whether God had chosen to have thefish large enough so that it could swallow him. To be told again that ahuman body that could eat food and digest it, a body like ours, mightrise into the air and pass out of sight into some invisible heaven, notvery far away, there was nothing incredible about it. He knew nothingabout the atmosphere, limited in its range so that it would beimpossible to breathe beyond a certain distance from the planet. Heknew nothing about the intense cold that would make life impossiblejust a little way above the surface. 

The world in which our forefathers lived until modern times was justthis magic, Jack-and-the-Beanstalk world, a world without anyimpossibilities in it, without any improbabilities in it. All thisthought of the true and the untrue, the possible and the impossible, the probable and the improbable, is the result of the fact that man hasgrown up, has left his childhood behind him, has begun to think, hasbegun to study, has begun to search for reality, to find out the natureof the world in which he lives, the forces with which he must deal, tounderstand the universe at least in some narrow range, measured by hisso-far experience. 

The world, then, until modern times has believed too readily, hasaccepted things too easily. Let us note, for example, what have beencalled by way of pre-eminence the Ages of Faith, the Middle Ages, theage, say, from the seventh or eighth century until the thirteenth orfourteenth. What was characteristic of those ages? Were they grand, noble? They were ages of ignorance, of superstition, of cruelty, ofimmorality, of poverty, of tyranny, of degradation. Almost everythingexisted that men would no longer bear to-day; and hardly any of thegrand things that characterize modern civilization had then been heardof. 

Where did this modern civilization of ours begin? Did it ever occur toyou that it began when men began to doubt? It began, we say, with theRenaissance. What was the Renaissance? The Renaissance was the birth ofdoubt, the birth of question, the demand on the part of men, who beganto wake up and think, for evidence. It was the beginning of thescientific age, the birth of the scientific spirit which has renovated, re- created, uplifted the world. Men began to think, to look aboutthem, and to prove all things. And instead of holding fast all things, as they had been doing in the past, they began to hold fast only thethings which they found by experience, and after testing and trial, tobe good. 

Here began, then, the civilization of the world; and all that is finestand highest in industry, in education, in discovery, in the wholeexternal civilization of the world, came in with the coming of thisspirit that questions and that asks for proof. 

I do not wish you to understand me as supposing that all kinds of doubtare good, equally good. The Church, as I said a little while ago, hasbeen accustomed to teach us that doubt was wrong; and there are certainkinds of doubt that are morally wrong, certain kinds of doubt that aredisastrous to the highest and finest life of the world. 

I wish now to analyze a little and define and make clear thesedistinctions, that you may see the kind of doubt which is evil and thekind of doubt which is good. 

There are doubts which spring out of the fact that men, under theinfluence of personal interest, as they suppose, or strong desire, wishto follow certain courses, wish to walk in certain paths; and theydoubt and question the laws, moral or mental, religious or what not, which stand in their way, which would prohibit their having their will. As an illustration of what I mean, suppose a man is engaged in acertain kind of business, or wishes to manage his business in a certainkind of way. He suspects, if he stops and thinks about it, that theinterests of other people may be involved, that the way in which hewants to conduct his business is a selfish way, that the interests ofother people may be injured, that the world as a whole may not be aswell off; but it seems to be for his own advantage. 

Now it is very difficult, indeed, for you to persuade a man that heought to do right under such circumstances. He is ready to doubt andquestion as to whether these laws of right are imperative, whether theyare divine, whether they may not be waived one side in the interest ofthe thing which he desires to do. So you must guard yourself verycarefully, no matter what the department of life may be that you arefacing, if you find yourself doubting under the impulse of your ownwishes, if you are trying to argue yourself into the belief that youmay be permitted to do something which you very much want to do. 

Be suspicious of your doubts, then, and remember that probably they arewrong. Great moral questions may be involved, and doubt may mean wreckhere. 

There is another field where doubt is dangerous and presumably an evil. You will find most people, in regard to any question which they haveconsidered or which has touched them seriously, with their mindsalready made up. They have some sort of a persuasion about it, theyhave a theory which they have accepted; and, if you bring them a truthwith ever such overwhelming credentials which clashes with thispreconceived idea or prejudice, the chances are that it would be metwith doubt, with denial, not a clear-cut, intelligent, well- balanceddoubt, but a doubt that springs out of the unwillingness that a manfeels to reconstruct his theory. 

Let me give you an illustration of what I mean, and this away off inanother department of life from our own, so that it will not clash withany of your particular prejudices. Sir Isaac Newton won a great andworld-wide renown, and magnificently deserved, by his grand discoveryof the law of gravity. You will see, then, how natural it was forpeople to pay deference to his opinion, to be prejudiced in favor ofhis conclusions. It was perfectly natural and, within certain limits, perfectly right. Sir Isaac Newton not only propounded this law ofgravity, but he propounded a theory of light which the world has sincediscovered to be wrong. But it was universally accepted because it washis. It became the accepted scientific theory of the time. By and by aman, unknown up to that time, by the name of Young, studied Newton'stheory, and became convinced that it was wrong; and he propoundedanother theory, the one which to- day is universally accepted throughthe civilized world. But it was years before it could gain anythinglike adequate or fair consideration, because the preconception in favorof Newton's theory stood in the way of any adequate consideration ofthe one which was subsequently universally adopted. 

So you will find scientific men, I know any quantity of them, grand intheir fields, doing fine work, who are not willing to consider anythingwhich would compel a reconstruction of their theories and ideas. Thisis true not only in the scientific field, but it is true everywhere: itis true in politics. How many men can you get fairly to consider thepolitical position of his opponent? He not only doubts the rightnessand the sense of it, but he is ready to deny it. How many people canyou get fairly to weigh the position of one who occupies a religioushome different from their own? And these religious prejudices, beingbound up with the tenderest and noblest sentiments, feelings, andtraditions of the human heart, become the strongest of all, and so arein more danger of standing in the way of human progress than anythingelse in all the world. 

People identify their theories of religion with religion itself, withthe honor of God, with the worship and the love of God, and feel thatsomehow it is impious for them to consider the question whether theirintellectual theories are correct or not; and so the world stands bythe ideas of the past, and opposes anything like finer and nobler ideasthat offer themselves for consideration. And not only in the religiousfield; but these religious prejudices stand in the way of acceptingtruths outside the sphere of religion. For example, when Darwinpublished his book, "The Origin of Species, " the greatest opposition itmet with was from the religious world. Why? Had they consideredDarwin's arguments to find out whether they were true? Nothing of thekind. But they flew to the sudden conclusion that somehow or other thereligion of the world was in danger, if Darwinism should prove to betrue. And it is very curious to note I wonder how long the world willkeep on repeating that serio-comic blunder from the very beginning ithas been the same; almost every single step that the world proposes totake in advance is opposed by the constituted religious authorities ofthe time because they assume at the outset that the theories which theyhave been holding are divinely authorized and infallible, and that itis not only untrue, this other statement, but that it is impious aswell. 

The doubt, then, that springs from preconceived ideas is not onlyunjustifiable, but may be dangerous and wrong. 

Then there is another kind of doubt against which you should beware. There are certain doubts that, if accepted and acted on, stand in theway of the creation of the most magnificent facts in the world. Take asan illustration of what I mean: when Napoleon, a young man in Paris, was asked to take command of the guard of the city, suppose he haddoubted, questioned, distrusted, his own ability; suppose he had beentimid and afraid, the history of the world would have been changed bythat one doubt. Take another illustration. At the opening of our war orin the months just preceding the beginning of active hostilities theman then occupying the presidential chair had no faith, no faith inhimself, no faith in the perpetuity of our institutions, no faith inthe people; and so he sat doubting, while everything crumbled in piecesaround him. And then appeared a man in whom the people had little faithat first, and who had no great faith perhaps in his own ability; but hehad infinite faith in God, faith in right, faith in the people, faithin the possibilities of freedom trusted in the hands of the people. Andthis faith created a new nation. 

If there had been doubt in the heart of Abraham Lincoln, again thehistory of the world would have been &hanged. He believed that "Rightis right, since God is God, And right the day must win: To doubt wouldbe disloyalty, To falter would be sin. "

You see, then, here is another field where you had better be wary ofdoubt. Do not doubt yourself, do not doubt the possibilities of nobleaction, noble character, of achievement. We say of a young man enteringlife, brimful of enthusiasm, that all this will be toned down by andby; and we speak of it as though the enthusiasm itself somehow was afault or a folly. And yet it is just this enthusiasm of the young menthat moves and lifts the world. It is this faith in themselves and inthe possibility of great things, it is this faith that lies at theheart of every invention, of every great discovery, of everymagnificent achievement. Read the history of invention. The world isfull of stories of men who got a new idea. They were laughed at, theywere told it was impracticable; and, if they had been laughed out ofit, it would have been impracticable. It was their faith in thepossibility of some great new thing, their faith in the resources ofthe universe, their faith in themselves as able to discover some newtruth and make it applicable to the needs of the world, it was thisfaith which has been at the root of the grandest things that have everbeen done. 

It is this which was in the heart of Columbus as he sailed out towardsthe West. It is this which was in the heart of Magellan as he studiedthe shadow of the earth across the face of the moon, and believed inthe story that shadow told him against the constituted authorities ofthe world. 

But now let us turn sharply, and find out where doubt does come in, andwhere it is as honorable, as noble, as necessary as faith. 

People misuse this word "faith. " Doubt applies to all questions of factthat may be investigated, to all questions of history, to all questionsopen to the exercise of the critical faculty. For example, if I am toldthat Moses wrote the Pentateuch, and I say I accept that statement onfaith, I am abusing the dictionary. I have no business to accept it onfaith. Faith has nothing whatever to do with it. It is a pure matter ofscholarship. It is a matter of study, of investigation, a matter ofclear and hard intelligence and nothing more. 

Suppose I am told that the Catholic Church is infallible, and I amasked to accept it as an article of faith. Here, again, theintroduction of the word "faith" into a domain like that is animpertinence. Faith has nothing whatever to do with it. That is aquestion of fact. We can read history for the last eighteen hundredyears. We can find out what the Catholic Church has said and what theCatholic Church has done, as to whether it has proved itself absolutelyinfallible or not. It is a matter of study and decision intellectually;and it is my duty to doubt that which does not bring authenticcredentials in a field like this. 

Take the question of the authorship of the Gospel of John. Was itwritten by the apostle John, who lay in the bosom of Jesus, and wascalled the beloved disciple? Have I any business to say I have faiththat it was written by him, and let it rest there? Faith has nothing todo with it. We can trace the history of that book, find out when firstit was referred to, follow it back as far as possible, find out whetherit was in existence before the apostle John had died or not. It is apure matter of criticism, a matter of study; and I have no business toaccept it as a matter of faith, because, if I do, I am in danger notonly of deceiving myself, but of misleading the world. And truth, wecannot say it too often or too emphatically, truth is the only thingthat is holy in investigations of this kind. Men's beliefs andmistakes, old, venerable, reverenced though they may have been bythousands and for hundreds of years, are no less unworthy longer todelude the minds of men. Truth is divine, truth is the one object ofour search. 

Now let us come to consider for a moment the nature of faith. I said alittle while ago that the word is very frequently misused. Nine timesout of ten, when I hear people using the word "faith" and I see theconnection in which they use it, I discover they do not know themeaning of the word. That which has favor generally under the name offaith is simple credulity. It is closing the eyes and acceptingsomething on somebody's authority without any investigation. That, remember, is not faith. 

Let us see now if I can give you a clear idea of what faith really is;and now I have the Bible and I am glad to say it behind me. Thismagnificent chapter, * a portion of which I read as our lesson thismorning, gives precisely the same idea of faith as that which I amgoing to outline. What is faith? Faith is a purely rational faculty. Itis not irrational, but it is perfectly understandable. Suppose there isa man suddenly accused of a crime, and I never saw him before, I do noteven know his name; but I go into court when he is brought up fortrial, and I say that I have faith in that man, and I do not believethat he committed the crime. Do you not see that I am talking nonsense?I have no business to have faith in him, there is no ground for faith, it is an entire misuse of the word. But now take another case. Here isa man that I have known for twenty years. I have seen him in business. I have seen him in his home, among his neighbors and friends, and inthe street. I have met him in all sorts of relations. I have talkedwith him, I have tested him. I have been intimate with him. He issuddenly accused of crime, and is brought into court. I appear, and sayI have faith in that man, I do not believe that he committed the crime. I do not know that he did not commit it; but I have grounds here forfaith. In the light of his past life, of his experience, of histemptations, of his opportunities to go wrong, and of his having goneright, in the light of all this past experience of years, I have faithin this man; and I say it, and I am talking reason and sense. In theother case I am talking folly. 

Faith, you see, is a rational faculty. Let me give you anotherillustration. Suppose I am driving along through the country somemorning when there is a very thick fog hanging over the landscape. Thefog is so thick that I can see no more than ten or fifteen feet aheadof me; but I discover that I am near the bank of a river, and I come tothe entrance to a bridge. I can see enough to know that here is anabutment of a bridge and an arch springing out into the fog. I drive onto that bridge with simple confidence. I do not know that there is anyother end to the bridge. I have never seen it before. I have seen otherbridges, however; and I know that, generally, bridges not only beginsomewhere, but end somewhere. So, though I do not know for certain thatthe bridge ends on the other side of the river, for aught I know theremay be a break in it, the bridge may not be completed, something mayhave happened to it, I confidently drive on; and in ninety-nine timesout of a hundred my faith is justified by the result. This is a pureact of faith, but faith, do you not see, based in reality, springingout of experience, and so a purely rational act of the mind. 

Let me give you one illustration of the scientific use of faith, verystriking, beautiful, as it seems to me. The only time Mr. Huxley was inthis country, I happened to be in New York, and heard him give theopening one of a brief course of three lectures in Chickering Hall. Hewas very much interested then in the ancestry of the horse. Most of youare probably aware of the fact that they have traced its ancestry to alittle creature having five toes, like ordinary animals. At the timethat Mr. Huxley was here, one link in this chain was missing; that is, one of the forms in the line of the horse's ancestors had not beendiscovered. 

But here, for example, was the first one and the second one, we say, and the third one was missing, and here was the fourth one, and herewas the horse itself. Now, in the light of the presumable uniformity ofnature, Mr. Huxley went on to describe this missing animal. He said, ifthe remains of this creature are ever found, they will be so and so;and he went into an accurate detailed explanation as to what sort ofcreature it would be. He had not been at his home in England a yearbefore Professor Marsh, of Yale College, discovered this missing linkin Colorado, and it answered precisely to the description whichProfessor Huxley had beforehand given of it. 

Now here is a case of scientific prophecy, scientific faith, a faithbased on previous scientific observations, based on the experienceduniformity of nature. Mr. Huxley did not know, he could not have known;but he believed. He believed in the universe, he believed in the sanityof the universe, he believed in the uniformity, the order, the beautyof the universe; and the result justified his faith. 

Faith, then, is a purely rational faculty. It has nothing to do withthe past, but is always the evidence of things hoped for, the substanceof something not yet seen. It is always looking along the lines ofpossible experience for something as possibly or probably to be. 

Now at the end I wish to suggest a few things that are in the rightfulprovince and field of faith, fields where we can fearlessly exercisethis grand faculty, where indeed we must exercise it if we are toachieve the highest and finest results in the world. 

And, in the first place, quoting the words of the old writer, let mesay, "Have faith in God. " I do not mean by this, accept certainintellectual statements or propositions about him, though they may bemine, and though I may thoroughly accept and believe them. 

You may doubt the representation of God that is made in any one of thetheologies of the world, as to whether the statements made about himare accurate. It is not this intellectual belief that I am talkingabout at this minute. Have faith in God! You may not even use the name. I am no such stickler for phrases as to condemn a man who cannot say"God. " I have known a good many men, who have hesitated to pronouncethe name, who were infinitely more divine in their life and characterthan those who are glibly uttering it every hour of their lives. It isnot this I mean. It is something deeper, higher, grander than that. Asyou look along the lines of history from the far-off time when we beginto trace it until to-day, and see the magnificent march of advance, anorderly universe lightening and glorifying as it advances, becomingever finer and higher and better; as you observe the order and truthand beauty and good dominant, and ever coming to be more and moredominant as the years advance, believe in this and trust this, trust toall possibilities of something finer and grander by way of outcome inthe future. Have faith in God!

And, then, have faith in truth. I meet only a few people that seem tome to have utter faith in truth, who really believe that it is safe totell the truth, always tell it. I talk with a great many people I wishto mention this as an illustration of what I mean who speak in thegreatest commendation of the Roman Catholic Church. They say, We do notknow what we should do in this country if we had not the Roman CatholicChurch to keep a certain section of the people down, to keep them inorder. I wonder if people ever realize just what this means. It means alack of faith in God and faith in truth and faith in humanity, allthree. If it is not safe to tell the truth, then I am not responsiblefor it. I propose to say it, although people tell me that there isdanger of the explosion of the universe on account of it. If there is, I am not responsible for making it true. Oh, I get so tired of thiskind of timidity, this playing hide-and-seek with people! I have had aminister tell me that he wished he was free to tell the truth in hispulpit, as I am; and then I have had people in his congregation tell meafterwards that they wished their minister would preach the truthplainly, as I did. Simply playing hide-and-seek with each other!

You remember the story of the man in Italy, who asked the priest if hereally believed the religion of the country; and the priest said, "Oh, no! we have to go slowly on account of the people; they believe it. "And when the people were asked if they believed it, they said, "Oh, no, we are not such fools; but the priests believe it. " And so people playhide-and-seek with each other, not daring to tell the magnificent, clear truth of things. 

Have faith in the truth. It is feared that it is not quite safe to tellpeople the truth, because they are not quite ready for it; and I havehad no end of conversations during the religious discussion of the lasttwo or three weeks right in this line. It seems to me very much likesaying that, because a man has been shut up in a dark prison for a longtime, you had better keep him there, because it would be such a shockto him suddenly to face the light. Undoubtedly, it would be a shock. Undoubtedly, it would trouble and stagger people for a little while tobe told the simple truth; but how is the world ever to get ahead, ifyou keep on, as a matter of policy, lying to it for ages? How is itever going to find the truth? Shall I lie for the glory of God, thesupposed honor of God? I will take no such responsibility. 

Let us have faith in the truth, then. Tell it fearlessly, simply, utterly; and, if God is not able to take care of his own world, why, the sooner it ends and we get into a stage of existence where it issafe to tell the truth, the better. 

Have faith in men. Have faith in the people. This it is that we trustto in all our hopes of progress for the future. This it is whichdistinguished Lincoln among our statesmen. You remember that grandsaying of his, true and humorous, so that it sticks in our memory, andwe can never forget it, "You can fool all the people a part of thetime; you can fool a part of the people all the time; but you can'tfool all the people all of the time. " Here is the basis on which werest our republic. Our republic is fallen unless the people are reallyto be trusted. 

Have faith, then, in the people, faith in their healthy instincts, faith in their general sanity, faith in their desire for the right andthe true; and this is a genuine exercise of faith, for the past historyof the world justifies it. 

And, then, have faith in yourself as a child of God. I do not meanconceit now. I do not mean an overestimate of your ability, but beliefthat you can do great, grand, noble things, belief that you can becomesomething great, noble, grand; belief in the possibility in this lifeor in some other life of unfolding all that is highest, truest, sweetest, in manhood and womanhood. It is this faith that is able tocreate the fact and make that which it trusts in. 

Let us then believe in God, believe in truth, believe in humanity, believe in ourselves; and then we may work towards the coming of thatfar, grand time when the dreams of the world shall be realized and itsfaith shall become reality. 

IS LIFE A PROBATION ENDED BY DEATH?

MY subject this morning is an attempted answer to the question, "IsLife a Probation ended by Death?" It will broaden itself naturally, ifwe cannot accept that theory of it, into the further question, What isthe main end and purpose of our life? I take my text from the fifthchapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, the fifteenth and thesixteenth verses. I will read them as they appear in the Old Version:"See, then, that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time. "

The idea of the writer is that, as we pass through the world, we shoulddo it with our eyes kept intelligently open, looking about us on everyhand, trying to comprehend the situation, to see what things are, andwhat we ought to do to play our part in the midst of them. Notheedlessly, not unwisely, he says, perhaps hardly the harsh word"fools, " but as wise, as persons intelligently ready to take advantageof the situation and make the most of the condition in which one findshimself; redeeming the time, or, as the Revised Version has it, "buyingup the opportunity "; being ready, that is, to pay whatever price isnecessary in order to make the most of the situation. 

This, then, is the spirit according to our text in which we should lookover the problem of life; and this is the method by which we shouldattempt to guide its practical affairs. 

That which people regard as the matter of most importance, anyparticular theory or plan of life which they may hold to be for themthe most desirable, this, of course, is that to which they will directtheir chief attention, on which they will lavish their thought, onwhich they will pour out their care, to which they will consecratetheir energies. If now the theory or plan of life be false, if it beinadequate, if one is looking in the wrong direction for the successthat he desires, or if he expects to achieve the great end and objectof living by means which are not real, which do not match the actualfacts of the world and of human life, then of course his effort is sofar thrown away. He wastes energies, power, time, enthusiasm on wrongends which might be used to the attainment of things which are real andfine and high. 

Is it not then of the utmost importance that our conception of life, what it is for, what we ought to attempt to reach, and how we shouldmake this attempt, should be an accurate one? Any young man startingout in life, if he sets up for himself a goal which is unworthy, whichdoes not match his faculties and powers, and if he proposes to reach itby means which are not adequate to the attainment of his desires, doyou not see how he wrecks and wastes his life? His opportunity is gone;and by and by he wakes up to find that the years have been dissipated, and he has not attained any worthy or noble end. 

If this be true of a young man as he looks forward to a scheme or planof life here during these few short years, how much more is a similarthing true, when we are contemplating not merely the question of abusiness, or professional or social failure and success, but arelooking at the grander and more inclusive theme of the beginning andaim and outcome of life itself We have inherited from the past the ideathat this life here, under the blue sky for a few years, as we live it, is a probation, that we are put here on trial, and that death ends it, and that, when we have passed that line, gone over from that which isvisible here into the invisible, we are either "lost" or "saved, " andthings are definitely fixed forever. 

I am perfectly well aware that the most of us who are here have givenup this idea, though there may remain fragments and suggestions of itin our minds still haunting the chambers of the brain, not yetoutgrown, not yet cleared away. But with most people in the modernworld, if they are sincere, if they are consistent, the one greatquestion with them is whether they are to be saved or lost in anotherlife. And, if this be the true theory of things, then not only oughtmen to bend all their thought, their energies, devote theirenthusiasms, consecrate their time and money to it as much as they do, but a thousand times more. 

We look, perhaps, with a sort of amused curiosity, some of us, fromwhat we regard as our superior point of view, at a man like Mr. Moody;and yet Mr. Moody is one man out of a million for his consistency andconsecration to the thought which underlies all the Protestant churchesof the modern world, with the exception of a few here and there. Mr. Moody believes that this life is a probation ended by death. There arethousands on thousand on thousands of men who say they believe it, whostill cast in all their influence with churches that are based on it, and who yet devote their energies mainly to making money, to attainingsocial success, to pleasures of one kind or another, to politicalambitions, who live as though this great fate were not overhanging theworld, who meet their neighbors for pleasure or business, believing, ifthey are sincere, that this neighbor is heedlessly walking on to thebrink of a gulf, and yet never speaking to him about it, never saying aword to imply that they really believe it; and yet this fear hangs overthem, haunts their consciousness waking or sleeping; and, if you askthem if they believe it, they will say they suppose they do. In hoursof danger, when disease threatens them or they are looking death in theface, they are affrighted, and try to flee to the traditional refuge asa place of safety. 

The whole great Catholic Church teaches that nobody has the slightestchance of being saved except by becoming a member of her great body ofbelievers and partaking of her sacramental means of grace. 

This, I say then, is the great underlying belief of Christendom; and, if it is true, the world ought to consecrate itself, head and brain andsoul, time, money, power, prayer, enthusiasm, everything, to deliveringmen from the imminent danger. If it is not true, then it ought to bebrushed completely one side, put out of consciousness, of thought, offear. The world ought to be dispossessed of its haunting presence. Why?So that we may fix our attention on the true end and aim of life, andfind out what it means to live, how we ought to live, and why and whatfor, what ought to be the goal of our human endeavor. 

So long, then, as this belief does lie at the foundation of all thegreat churches of Christendom, so long as it is employed in all thecriticisms of us who do not any longer accept it, it seems to me thatit is worth our while to reconsider the question for a little while, sothat we may clear our minds and thoughts, and may fix our attentiondefinitely and earnestly on that which ought to be the goal of all ourendeavor, our enthusiasm and our hope. 

Let us, then, look for just a few moments at this theory, and see whatit means and implies. 

It is said that our first father was put on probation, was called uponto decide, not for himself only, but for all his descendants, as towhat the future history of the inhabitants of this planet should be. Two famous books were published only a few years ago by Dr. EdwardBeecher, the eldest son in that famous family. These were "The Conflictof Ages" and "The Concord of Ages. " Dr. Beecher argued that anythinglike a fair probation on the part of Adam was an impossibility. This inthe face of the prevailing beliefs of the time when the books werewritten. He said that, if a man were to choose on such a momentousquestion as this, choose adequately, choose fairly, he must be socircumstanced and endowed that he could comprehend the entire result ofhis choice. He must be able to look down the ages imaginatively, andsee on one hand all the line of sin and misery, of death, finite andeternal, which should issue from his choosing in one direction. He mustbe able to comprehend all the good, the music, the joy, the beauty, theglory, the infinite perfectibility, in this world and the next, whichshould follow his choice in the other direction. And he said that Adamhad no such opportunity as that, and was not endowed with the abilityor the experience to make any such momentous choice; in other words, that the fundamental basis of the whole theological scheme of the worldwas unjust and unfair. 

This was Dr. Beecher's contention. How did he get over the difficulty?He believed in the pre-existence of human souls, and that in some otherlife before Adam there must have been an intelligent and fair choice, and that we here and now are only fighting out one stage of the resultsof that far-off decision. But, if you will stop to think of it amoment, you will see that this puts the difficulty only a littlefurther back: it does not solve it. How does this first person, if itis so, countless millions of ages ago, happen to be endowed withintelligence and experience and ability enough to make such a momentouschoice?

And now just consider a moment. Is it conceivable that a sane personshould intelligently choose evil, unless he had some inherited bias ortendency in that direction? For what does the choice of evil mean? Itmeans sorrow, it means pain, it means death, it means everythinghorrible, everything undesirable, and means that a person deliberatelyand intelligently pits himself against an infinite and almighty powerin what he knows must be an eternally losing battle. Can you conceiveof a sane person making such a choice as that?

If one of these first ancestors in the Garden of Eden, or no matter howfar back, had a right to choose for himself, I deny his right to choosefor me. What right had he to choose for you? What right had he todetermine that you should be born with a perverted and corrupt nature, so that you would be certain to choose evil instead of good, helplessin the hands of a fate like this?

Now you may look at this theory any way you please, place thisprobationary choice at the beginning of human history on this planet, or place it just as far back as you will, it is inconceivable, it isunfair, it is unjust, it is insane, it is everything that is foolishand wrong. And yet, note clearly one thing. So long as the worldbelieves this, so long as the one end and aim of human life, as held upto people, is to be saved, think of the waste, think of the time, theanxiety, the enthusiasms, the prayers, the consecrations; think of thewealth, think of the intellectual faculties, think of the moraldevotion, this whole power of the world expended on a false issue, turned into wrong channels!

Is this a dead question? Is there no reason for us to consider it herein this latter part of the nineteenth century? Why, nine-tenths ofChristendom to-day is spending its time in trying to propitiate a Godwho is not angry and trying to "save" souls that are not "lost. "Expending its energies along mistaken channels towards issues that areentirely imaginary! Think, for example, if during the last two thousandyears all the time and the money, all the intelligence, all theconsecration, could have been spent on those things that would havereally helped men to find out the meaning of life, and to illustratethat meaning in earnest living; suppose the money that has been spenton the cathedrals, on the monasteries, spent in supporting hordes andhordes of priests, spent in all the endeavor to save men in a futurelife, if all this had been used in educating men and training them intoa comprehension of what kind of beings they really are, what kind of aworld this is in which they have found themselves, spent in trainingthem into mastery of themselves, spent in teaching them how tounderstand and control the forces of nature in order to serve anddevelop the higher life, think what a civilization might have beendeveloped here on this poor old planet by this time! How much of thedisease, how much of the corruption, how much of the unkindness, howmuch of the cruelty, how much of all that still remains in us of theanimal, might have been outgrown, sloughed off, put underneath ourfeet!

Is it not, then, a vital question, so long as so many thousands, somany millions of people are still consecrating their time, their money, their energy, in the attempt to do that which does not need to be done?

Let us turn, now, and for a little while face another theory of humanlife; try to find out, or to suggest, what we are here on this planetfor, what may be accomplished, how much of grand and true may bewrought out as the result of our attempt. 

The philosopher Kant has somewhere said that there are three thingsneeded to the success of a human life, "something to do, some one tolove, something to hope for. " The old Catechism says that the chief endof man is "to glorify God and enjoy him forever. " I indorse the wordsof Kant; I agree most heartily and thoroughly with the Catechism. Philip James Bailey, the author of that once famous poem "Festus, " hassaid, "Life's but a means unto an end; that end, Beginning, mean, and end toall things, God. "

This also I indorse. I believe that life is something inner, somethingdeeper than that which we ordinarily think of as constituting thematters of chief concern regarding it. Let me quote two or three linesagain from Bailey's "Festus, " familiar to you because so fine. 

We live in deeds, not years; in thoughts, not breaths; In feelings, notin figures on a dial. 

We should count time by heart-throbs. "He most lives Who thinks most, feels the noblest, acts the best. "

What is human life, then? What is it for? The object of life is living. But what does living mean? Most people cannot answer that question, because they have never more than half lived, and consequently havenever appreciated its depth and significance. As I have had occasionover and over and over again, to say to business men, and I like to sayit on every opportunity, it seems to me, as I look over the face ofsociety, that most people live only in some little fragmentary way, some corner of their being. 

Most men spend their lives in the attempt to accumulate the means tolive, and forget to begin to live at all. Sometimes, as you are ridingthrough the country on a winter evening, you come to a silent farm-house, and you see one window lighted; and, if you should go and knockat the door, you would probably find out that the light is shining fromthe kitchen, where the family is gathered in the evening, perhaps as amatter of economy to save fire, perhaps to save trouble. And, if youexamine the lives of these people, you would find that they livechiefly in the kitchen. They may have a sitting-room where they spend afew leisure hours; perhaps they have the beginning of a library; butthey do not spend much time in that. They have little opportunity forthe life of the parlor, representing the expansive, social human lifewhich comes into contact with other lives. And so you will find thatthis, which is a figure, represents that which is true of most of us. We have only begun to live; and we live in the lower ranges of ournature, or perhaps we have touched life on a higher level in sometentative sort of way. But the most of us are only partly alive, haveonly developed a little of what is possible in us, have only come incontact with some fragments of this wonderful universe that is allaround us on every hand. 

What, then, is the meaning of life? What shall we try to do? What arewe here for? I do not attempt to go into the profound explanation ofmysteries too deep for me to answer, as to what must have been in themind of God when he planned and created this universe of which we are apart. My task is a humbler one. Let us see if I can help you comprehenda little part of it. Take an illustration. 

An immensely wealthy man suddenly dies, leaving his estates to a littleboy seven or eight years of age. He has wide stretches of land, hilland valley, river, woods, all that is beautiful as making up alandscape. The house represents the accumulated resources of theexperiences and the intelligence of a lifetime. There are not onlybeautiful drawing-rooms, telling of taste, but there is a library inwhich is all that the world has been able to accumulate of learning, ofliterature in every department. Here is another room containinginstruments of music and the works of the great composers. There is anart gallery, containing some of the finest masterpieces in the way ofpainting and sculpture; and then there is a room devoted to scientificexperiments, -- chemistry, the microscope, the telescope. Here are meansand opportunity for finding out what the world has so far developed. 

Now has this young boy come into possession of these things? He hasinherited them, he is his father's heir. We say they belong to him; butdo they belong to him? In what sense and to what extent do they belongto him? They belong to him just in so far and just as fast as hedevelops himself into capacity of comprehension and enjoyment, nofaster, no farther. As he enters upon his inheritance then he is putunder tutors. Some man comes to teach him the languages which he doesnot comprehend; and by and by that part of the library which iscomposed of books written in other speech than his own begins to belongto him. It belongs to the tutor a good deal more than it does to thechild, until the child has learned the lessons of the tutor. And soanother teacher comes to instruct him in art; and the masterpieces ofart belong to the person of taste, of culture, with appreciation, tothe teacher again, to any one who knows and who feels, instead of tothe boy, who merely has possession of the title-deeds. 

Do you see the suggestion of the picture? Man wakes up here on thisplanet what sort of a being? Not at first "a little lower than God, " asthe old Psalmist says of him, but only a little higher than theanimals, ignorant of himself, ignorant of his surroundings, weak, undeveloped in every faculty and power. He begins, we say, to live; andwhat does that mean? He begins to explore this wonderful world, whichis his heritage; and do you not see that along with this explorationthere goes of necessity a process of self- development? I would pitagainst that statement of Kant's a phrase something like this. Theobject of life is threefold: it is to become all possible, it is toserve all possible, it is to enjoy all possible. But I cannot outlinecompletely either one of these suggestions; for they blend, theyintermingle, as you will see in a moment. They are like different notesin a piece of music that are so blended together that they constituteone tune, while separate they are only fragments, or discords. 

The first thing, then, if a man wishes really to live, is that heshould develop himself, unfold the faculties and powers which liedormant in him. He is a child of God. He is capable of comprehendingwithin his limit that which is divine. He is capable of being touched, played on, by all the phases and forces of the universe surroundinghim. He is an instrument of ten thousand strings; and marvellous may bethe music of his life. 

First, he should be as complete an animal as possible. Then he shoulddevelop himself as a being capable of thinking, of knowing. How manymen are there that take possession of the intellectual realm that liesaround them on every hand? Just think. Let me hint suggestions, illustrations, in one or two directions. A man goes out for a walk inthe park, or, better yet, into the country. The park is too artificial, perhaps, to carry just the meaning that I have in mind. Let it be awalk in the country, then. How much do the grasses and the flowers haveto say to him?

I have a friend in Washington, a famous botanist, a botanist not onlyof all things that live and grow to-day, but who has pushed hisresearches back and down into the prehistoric ages so as to understandand explain the records, the prints, the leaves and twigs, the forms ofevery kind that are on the rocks and left to tell the story of a lifethat has passed away many thousands on thousands of years ago. How muchof all this marvellous realm, or even a suggestion of it, is revealedto the ordinary man as he walks through the field?

Look in the direction of geology a moment. Here is a river course; hereis the shape of a hill top; do they say anything to the ordinary manwho walks with his head down, and occupied with some problem of WallStreet, perhaps? Here are marvels of creative power. God shaped theslope of that hill as really as though he smoothed it down with hishand. And he who understands the methods of world building, oflandscape-sculpture, may stand in wonder and awe and reverence beforethe forces that have been at work for millions of years, and are atwork the same to-day. How many men have even a conception of thewonders of the microscopic world? To how many men do the star haveanything to say at night? A man looks at a bowlder, unlike any otherrock there is to be found anywhere in the neighborhood, and perhaps hedoes not even ask a question about it; while a man who has made acareful study of these things sees spring up before him in hisimagination that long ice age before man lived on the planet, when thisbowlder was swept from some far-off place by the glacial power, deposited where it is, scraped on its surface by the passing of theice, as if God himself had left his sign-manual here, his autograph, that he, in after- ages who might make himself capable of reading, might understand. 

These merely as fragmentary, brief hints of what it is to live in theintellectual realm. 

Go up to that realm where the intellect is blended with the emotions, the glamour of pictures, poetry, sculpture, music, beauty of color andform and sound. What a world this is, infinite resources of an infiniteuniverse, appealing to, and, if a man responds, calling out thefaculties and powers of his own nature that are capable of dealing withthese things, so that a man may feel that he is thinking over thethoughts of God, tracing his footsteps, listening to the marvellousmusic of his words! This is one of the results of self-development, ifa man is unfolding, developing himself, becoming as much as possible. 

Now let us turn sharply to one of these other phases which I spoke of, of doing what we can to help the world. And now note, this universe isso cunningly contrived that a man cannot possibly be successful as aselfish man. It is one of the most conclusive proofs, it seems to me, not only of the divine goodness, but of the moral meaning and scope ofthe world. Selfishness is not wicked only, it is the most outrageousfolly on the face of the earth. If a man develop himself, if hedevelops that which is finest in him, that which is best and sweetestand truest, he develops not only his power to think, but his capacityto love, his capacity to enjoy, and to bestow enjoyment; and he cannotpossibly succeed in the long run, and in the best ways, on selfishlines. 

People used to have a notion that he who grasped and retainedeverything he could get hold of was the fortunate, the successful man. People had an idea in politics, for example, that that nation washappiest which humbled other nations; and, if it was superior to allthe rest, by as much as they were poor and devastated, this nation wasfortunate. We know now that a nation finds its prosperity in that ofother nations, in its ability to exchange, to trade, to carry on allthe grand avocations of life with them. If a man writes a book, hewants the world intelligent enough to understand and appreciate it. Ifa man paints a picture, he wants artistic ability on the part of thepublic, so that they will appreciate and buy his pictures. If a mancarves a statue, he wants the people to appreciate glory of form enoughto see how great and true his work is, and reward him for his endeavor. In other words, no man would write a book, and go off with it alone byhimself. No man would paint a picture, and hide it. No man would carvea statue, and conceal it from his fellows. 

We have learned, and are learning constantly in every direction, thatour happiness is involved in the happiness of other people. The worldis haunted to-day and I thank God that it is with the thought of theunhappiness, the misery, of men. What does it mean? It means that menhave developed so on their sympathetic side that they cannot be happythemselves while the world is unhappy. So you see that this self-development, which I placed as the chief thing at the outset in themeaning of life, carries with it the necessity on the part of those whoare developed, of doing everything they can to develop and lift upeverybody else; so that making the most of yourself means making themost of everybody else. 

And now, if I turn for a moment to that other point, merely todistinguish it by itself, although I have been dealing with it all thewhile, the end and aim of life once more is to be happy. I am perfectlywell aware that the old Puritan theology has taught otherwise, so faras this life is concerned. I was brought up with the feeling that, if Iwanted to do anything, the chances were it was wrong, that it was agood deal more likely to be in the way of virtue if it was somethingthat was disagreeable to me. And yet, curiously enough, this oldPuritan theology invented and held up before men, as a lure to leadthem to virtue, the most tremendous bribe that ever entered into theimaginations of men, eternal felicity on the one hand, and eternal woeon the other. So that it conceded the very thing that it seemed todeny, that men naturally and necessarily sought happiness, and couldnot possibly do otherwise. 

And so we learn to live, to think, to serve others. We are beginning tolearn also that this desire for happiness is natural, is necessary, isright. If a man is not happy, you may be sure there is something wrong. If there is pain in the body, it means disease, difficulty, obstruction, something out of the way. It means that God's laws are notperfectly kept. If there is pain up in the mental realm, pain in themoral realm, pain in the spiritual realm, it means always somethingwrong. Man ought to be happy. He ought to seek happiness as the greatend and outcome of human life. 

And we are learning, as the natural and necessary result of ourexperiences in knowing and in serving, that just in so far as we knowthe laws of God, just in so far as we obey the laws of God, just in sofar as we help others to know and obey, just in so far there comes intoour lives the blessedness of the blessed God. 

The end of life, then, the object of life here on earth, is to developourselves to the utmost. It is to learn to know, take possession of ourinheritance, this earth, control all its forces for the service ofcivilization. It is to rejoice in all this self-development, in allthis help, in all this knowledge, in all this power. It is to feelourselves thrilling with the consciousness that we are sons of God, andare co-operating with him in bringing about the grand result of theages, the perfection of man. 

And then what? Death? This is only one stage of our career. We are hereat school; we learn our lessons or we do not; we attain the ends weseek after or we only partly attain them or do not attain them at all;and then we go on. Does that mean that it ends there? I do not believeit. I believe that it simply means that we go out into a largeropportunity, from the planet to the system, to the galaxy, to theuniverse, wider knowledge answering to more magnificent resources inthe infinite universe. We, with undeveloped powers that may increaseand advance forever, and a universe so complete, so exhaustless, thatit may match and lure and lead and rejoice us forever; we being trainedas God's children in God's likeness and helping others to attain thesame magnificent ends, this I believe to be the significance, themeaning, the purpose, of life. 

Are there any here this morning who think or fear that the taking awayof the old idea concerning the results of Lying may remove moralmotive, may undermine character, nay make people less careful to doright? It seems to me hat, if people understand the significance ofthis universe, and their relation to it, they will find that all thecarelessness of motive, the ease of salvation, as they call it, is withthe old idea. Our theory is a more strenuous and insistent one. Childrenare learning as they become wiser that evil is not only evil, but it isfolly. A man wishes life, health, happiness, prosperity, all good. Helearns, as he goes on, that the universe is in favor of the keeping ofits own laws; and that, f he flings himself against the forces of theuniverse, he is only broken for his pains. If you wish to be healthful, sappy, strong, wish to attain any desirable thing, it is to be boundnot in defiance of the laws of the universe, but in loving and tenderobedience. 

And, then, if you only remember that in this universe and coder theuniversal law of cause and effect you are building to-morrow out ofto-day, and next week and next year, and all he future, that everythought, every word, every action, is cemented together as a part ofthis structure that you build, hat you can make your own future forgood or ill, and that you cannot build it successfully except inaccordance with he eternal laws of things, then you find that here arethe most insistent and tremendous motives it is possible for the humanmind to conceive. 

This life of ours, if we lead it nobly and truly, then, we shall findto be a growth into the likeness of the Divine, a growth into anincreasing opportunity to share the work of our Father in building andhelping men, and that, as the result of this, joy, infinite joy, is tofill our hearts until we share the very blessedness of our Father. 

God made our lives to be a song Sweet as the music of the spheres, Thatstill their harmonies prolong For him who rightly hears. The heavensand the earth do play Upon us, if we be in tune: Winter shouts hoarsehis roundelay, And tender sweet pipes June. But oftentimes the songsare pain, And discord mars our harmonies: Our strings are snapped byselfish strain, And harsh hands break our keys. But God meant music;and we may, If we will keep our lives in tune, Hear the whole year singroundelay, December answering June. God ever at his keyboard plays, Harmonics, right; and discords, wrong: "He that hath ears, " and whoobeys, May hear the mystic song. 

SIN AND ATONEMENT. 

For the sake of clearness, and in order that you may definitelycomprehend the doctrine of sin and atonement which I believe to be thetrue one, I need in the first place to outline as a background thatwhich lies at the foundation of all the popular theologies ofChristendom. I am perfectly well aware that at least a part of thetime, while I am doing this, I shall be traversing ground with whichyou are already familiar. Some of it, however, I think may be somewhatstrange to you. 

The tradition begins with the story of a war in heaven. In some wayrebellion began among the angels; and he who had been Lucifer, thelight-bearer, prince among the glorious sons of God, took up arms ofrebellion against the Almighty. Naturally, he failed in this inevitablylosing battle, and was cast out into the abyss, with a third part ofall the angels, who had followed him. Then the tradition goes on: Goddecided to create the world, that the sons of men born and trained heremight ultimately take the places that had been held by the angels whohad been cast out on account of their sin. But Satan, seeing this fairand beautiful earth, this wondrous handiwork of God, determined, ifpossible, to thwart and defeat the purposes of the Almighty. Hetherefore invades this beautiful world. He finds Adam and Eve in theircondition of perfect felicity, innocent, but inexperienced; and theyfall a ready prey to his intention. 

They then share his rebellion, accept him instead of God as king. Henceforth they are followers of him in his age-long warfare againstlight and truth, and, unless in some way saved, are to be sharers ofhis eternal destiny, cast out into chains and darkness forever. 

Now comes the necessity for noting for a moment the nature of sin onthis theory. You see it is not ignorance, it is not weakness merely, itis not inherited passion only: it is conscious and purposeful rebellionagainst God, putting yourself at enmity with his truth, hisrighteousness, his love. In action it is some specific deed doneagainst God or against his truth or his right. As a state of mind, itis a heart perverted, choosing always that which is evil, a heart atenmity with God and with all that is good; and the theologians havealways been obliged, as a matter of consistency, to hold, no matter hownoble, how unselfish men might appear to be, that the natural man hasinherently, always, necessarily been evil. He carries about with himthe taint of original sin; that is, sin of constitution, ingrained, inherited, that which is of the very fibre of his being. This is thecharacter of man as required by the old theological systems; and thisis how it happened to come about. Evil is not something natural, notimperfection, not something undeveloped, not yet outgrown. Sinoriginated outside of this world, invaded it, and worked its ruin anddestruction. 

Now comes the device that has been called the Atonement, by which it issupposed that God is going to be able to save at least a part of thisrebellious humanity. There have been a good many different theories ofthe atonement that have been held, eighteen or twenty varieties of thedoctrine, three or four of which I must outline, in order to make themclear to your mind, that you may see what have been the devices bywhich the theologians have supposed that they could find a way for thedeliverance of man from this condition of loss, and fit him to sharethe felicity for which he was originally intended. 

Of course, the main point in the whole scheme is that the Second Personof the Trinity becomes incarnate, comes down here to this world, isborn, grows up, teaches, suffers and at last is put to an ignominiousdeath. This is the central idea of the doctrine of the atonement; or, rather, the Christ is the central figure in that doctrine. But how isit supposed to work out the atonement that is necessary, in order thatman may be saved? You will see that the world, according to the ideas Ihave been delineating, is in a condition of rebellion. What men need isto be persuaded that they are wrong, convinced of sin, in theologicallanguage, and then made repentant, and in some way be forgiven for thewrong which they have done. 

Now it is supposed that God must invent some scheme by which to make itpossible for him to save these lost and fallen men. If you read theparable of the Prodigal Son as Jesus has so tenderly, touchingly, beautifully outlined it for us, you will see that there is no thoughtor plan or necessity for either in that. The son left his home, followed the impulses and passions of youth, had gone among those thatwere degraded, had soiled his character, done despite to his father'slove, injured his own nature, degraded himself by his associations andactions. But when at last he awakes, becomes conscious of his father'slove and righteousness and truth, and says, "I will arise, and go to myfather, " there is no talk of God's not being ready to receive him, ornot being able to receive him, or needing to have something done beforehe can receive him, no thought of anybody's suffering any more in orderthat he may be forgiven. You see all these elements that are associatedwith the popular doctrines of atonement are not once thought of, nevereven alluded to. He simply arises, and goes to his father; and hisfather is so anxious to help him that he goes to meet him before hereaches the father's house, and gladly falls on his neck and kisses himand folds him in his arms. It only needs that the son should recognizethe righteousness and goodness of his father, and should wish to goback. That is the doctrine of Jesus as taught in this wonderfully sweetand beautiful parable. 

Now what are the theories of atonement as outlined in the populartheology? For the first thousand years of Christian history one of thestrangest conceptions possessed the ecclesiastical mind that has everbeen dreamed of. It was held literally that through the sin of Adam thehuman race had become the rightful subjects of Satan, that theybelonged to him. He was their king, their emperor, their ruler, and hada right to them in this world and the next. And so some diplomaticnegotiations must be entered into with the Devil, in order to deliver acertain part of these his subjects, and open the way for them to besaved. So the Church Fathers taught that Satan recognized in Christ hisold adversary in heaven, and he entered into a bargain with God that, if he could have Christ delivered over to him, in exchange for that hewould give up his right to so many of the souls of men as were to besaved as the result of this compact. So the work of the atonement usedto be preached as being this sort of bargain entered into with Satan. 

But note what quaint, naive ideas possessed the minds of people at thattime. Satan did not know that Jesus possessed a divine nature, andthat, consequently, he could not beholden of death; and so, when heentered into this bargain, he was cheated, he found out to his dismaythat he had lost not only humanity, but Christ also, had been defraudedof them both. This was the doctrine of the atonement that was preachedduring the early centuries of the Christian Church, at least in certainparts of Europe. 

But later there came another doctrine, the belief that the sufferingsof the Christ were a substitute offered to God for what would have beenthe sufferings of the lost. He was made sin for us, he who had known nosin, as the New Testament phraseology has it. So that he, beinginfinite, in a brief space of time during his little earthly career, during his suspension on the cross and his descent into hell, was ableto suffer as much pain as all the lost would have suffered throughouteternity. And this suffering of the Christ was supposed to be acceptedon the part of God as the substitute for that which he would haveexacted on the part of the souls of those that for his sake were to besaved. 

There is still another theory that I must mention briefly, that whichis called the governmental theory, that which I was taught during mycourse of theological instruction. The idea was that God had a moralgovernment to maintain, not only on this earth, but throughout therange of the universe among all his intelligent creatures, and, if hepermitted his laws to be broken without exacting an adequate penalty, then all governmental authority would be overthrown. In other words, men took their poor human legal devices, their political ideals, andlifted them into the heavens, made them the models after which it wassupposed God was to govern his great, intelligent universe. 

So they said that God would be willing to forgive, he would like toforgive, he was loving and tender and kind, but it was not safe, safefor the interests of his universal government, for him to forgive anyone until an adequate penalty had been paid in expiation of human sin. 

You see, according to this theory, it does not apparently make muchdifference who it is that suffers, whether it is the person who hascommitted the sin or not; but somebody must pay an adequate penalty, and Jesus volunteered to do this, to be the victim, and so to deliverman from the righteous deserts which he had incurred as a transgressorof the law of God. 

Gradually, however, as the world became civilized, as wider and broaderthoughts manifested themselves in the human mind, as tenderer and truerfeelings took possession of the human heart, these theories recededinto the background; and there came to the front I remember the bittercontroversies over it in my younger days what was called the MoralTheory of the Atonement. The originator and sponsor for this theory wasthe famous Dr. Horace Bushnell, of Hartford. He taught that God did notneed the punishment of anybody to uphold the integrity of his moralgovernment. He taught that God was not angry with the race, and did notcare to exact a penalty before he was ready to forgive human sin. Hetaught that the inner nature of God was love, and that in the SecondPerson of the Trinity he came to earth, was born, grew up, taught, suffered, died, as a manifestation to the world of his love, of hisgoodness, of his readiness to forgive and help, and that the efficacyof the atonement as thus wrought on the part of the Christ was in itsrevelation to men of the love and saving power of righteousness. 

This was the moral theory of the atonement. It was not supposed to workany result in the nature of God or his disposition towards men. Itseffect was to work along the lines of human thought and human action:it was to affect men, and make them willing to be saved instead ofmaking God willing to save them. This was the moral theory of theatonement; and you will see how it gradually approaches that whichintelligent and free men, it seems to me, must hold to-day in the lightof their careful study of human history and human nature. It is almostthe theory which is being held by the freest and noblest men of to-day. The difference between it and that which I shall in a moment try to setforth is chiefly that Dr. Bushnell confines this work of the atonementto the person and history and character of one man instead of lettingall men share in this divine and atoning work which is being wroughtout through all the ages. 

Let me now come to set forth what I believe to be the simple anddemonstrated truth. My objections against this old theory arethreefold. I will mention them, and have done with them in a word. 

In the first place, the supposed origin of sin in heaven seems to me soabsurd as to be utterly unthinkable. This idea of war in heaven, rebellion against God, smacks too much of the Old World traditions, ofthe mythologies of Greece and Rome and of other peoples. Jupiter coulddethrone his father, the god Saturn, because Saturn was not almightyand all-wise. These gods of the ancient time were merely exaggeratedtypes of human heroes and despots. There could be war among them, andone of them overthrown; and Jupiter could divide the universe, after hehad conquered and dethroned his father, with his two brothers. 

All this is reasonable, when you are talking about finite creatures;but try to think for one moment of an archangel, a pure and clear-eyedintelligence, deliberately choosing to rebel against Omnipotence! Hemust have known it would be utterly, absolutely, forever hopeless!Intelligent creatures do not rebel under conditions like that, particularly when you combine with the absolute hopelessness of thecase the fact that he knew he was choosing misery, suffering, forever. 

As I said, the whole conception of the origin of evil that implies therebellion of a spiritual being who knew what he was doing isinexpressibly absurd, so absurd that we may dismiss it as impossible. If there were any such rebellion, if you waive the absurdity for themoment and consider the possibility, God would be responsible; for hemade him. The whole theory is not only absurd: it is unjust in itsimplications towards both God and man. And then, and perhaps we neednot say any more about it, we know that it is not true. It did not evenoriginate in the Bible, it did not even originate among the Jews: it isnothing in the world but a pagan myth imported into Jewish traditionjust a few hundred years before the birth of Jesus. It is of no moreauthority in rational human thought than the story of Jason orHercules, not one particle. 

Let us now turn, then, to what we know, from the history of man and thescientific study of the universe, to be something approaching thereality of things. People have always been talking about the origin ofevil. It is not the origin of evil that we have to face or deal with orexplain at all. Let me ask you to consider for a moment the conditionof the world when man first appeared on this planet. Here among thelower animals were what? All the vices and all the crimes that we canconceive of, only they were not vices nor crimes at all. There were allthe external actions and all the internal feelings and passions; butthey were not vices, and they were not crimes. Why? Because there wasno moral sense which recognized anything better, no moral standard inthe light of which they might be judged. 

Here, for example, in this lower world, were all hatreds, jealousies, envies, cruelties, thefts, greeds, murders, every kind of action thatwe speak of as evil in man. And yet I said there was no evil there, nomoral evil there, because there was no consciousness, no recognition, of the distinction between the lower and the higher. This was a part ofthe natural and intended order of the development of life, not anaccident, not an invasion from the outside, not a thwarting of the willof God, not an interference with his purpose, all of this a part of theworking out of his purpose. 

Now, when man appeared, what happened? The origin, not of evil, but theorigin of goodness. A conscience was born. Man came into possession ofa moral ideal, in the light of which he recognized something higherthan this animalism that was all around him, and became conscious ofthe fact that he must battle against that, and put it under his feet. So that the life of the world, from that day to this, has been thegrowth, the gradual increase, and the gradual conquest of good overthat which was in existence before. 

There is no fall of man, then, there is no conscious and purposefulrebellion against God to be accounted for, there is no need of anydevil to explain the facts. He is only an encumbrance, only in the way, only makes it difficult and practically impossible to solve ourproblem. 

The old story was that, after the rebellion, pain and death and allevil came into the human world; and the natural world was blighted. Thorns and briers and thistles sprang up on every hand; and animalswhich before had been peaceful began to fight and destroy each other. We all know this to be a childish myth, and pagan. The actual historyof the world has been something entirely other than that. 

Now I do not wish that you should suppose that I minimize evil, that Imake light of sin, that I do not properly estimate the cruelties andthe wrongs that have devastated the world. I need only suggest to youthat you look in this direction and that to see how hideous all theseevils may be; how bitter, how cruel, is the fruit of wrong thoughts andof wrong actions. Look at a man, for example, divine in thepossibilities of his being, but through vice, through drink, throughhabits of one kind and another, corrupted until it is an insult to abrute to call him brutal. We do not deny all this. Notice the crueltiesof men towards each other, the jealousies, the envies, the strifes, thewarfares. How one class looks down upon and treats with contemptanother that is a little lower! How masters have used their slaves; howtyrants like Nero and Caligula have made themselves hideous spectaclesof what is possible to humanity, on a stage that is world-wide andilluminated by the flash-lights of history!

I do not wish you to suppose for a moment that I belittle, that Iunderestimate these evils, only we do not need anything other than thescientific and historic facts of the world in order to account forthem. What is sin, as science looks at it and treats it? Not somethingconsciously and purposely developed, not something originating in arebellion in some other world than this. It seems to me that we canvery easily account for it when we recognize that man has beengradually coming up from the lower orders of life, and that he stillhas in him the snake and the hyena, the wolf, the tiger, the bear, allthe wild, fierce passions of the animal world only partly sloughed off, not yet outgrown; when you remember how ignorant he is, how he does notunderstand yet the meaning of these divine laws and the divine life, glimpses of which now and then attract his attention and lure him on;when you remember that selfishness, misguided by ignorance, can believethat one man can get something for his behoof and happiness and good atthe expense of the welfare of somebody else, and harm come only to theperson that is defrauded. Right in here, if I had time to treat it instill further detail, it seems to me we have a simple and adequateexplanation of all the evil that has ever blasted, blighted, anddarkened the history of man. 

Now, man being this kind of a creature, having an animal origin as wellas a divine one, gradually climbing up out of this lower life andlooking towards God as his ideal, what is it that he needs? Is thereany need of atonement? All need of atonement! What does atonement mean?The word itself carries its clearest explanation. In its root it means"atonement, " healing the division, whatever its nature or kind, bringing man into one-ness with God and men into one-ness with eachother. 

Now let me suggest to you a little as to the things that keep man andGod apart, keep men away from each other; and they will suggest theatonement that is needed to heal all these divisions, and bring aboutthat ideal condition of things that we dream of and pray for and talkabout, when men shall perfectly love God, and when they shall love eachother as themselves. 

What is it that keeps man from God? First, it seems to me, it isignorance. What man needs in order to bring him into oneness with Godis first to have some clear conceptions of the divine, some high, sweet, noble thoughts of God, some knowledge of the laws of God asembodied in himself and in the universe around him. Man needsintelligence, then, to help him, needs education. 

In the next place, he needs such a picture of God as shall; make himseem lovable. You cannot make the human heart love that which seemshateful. The picture of God, as he has been outlined to the world inthe past, has repelled the human heart; and I do not wonder. I do notthink it strange that humanity should be at enmity with that conceptionof the divine. Make God the ideal of all that is noble and sweet andlovely, and the heart will be as naturally attracted and drawn to himas a flower is toward the sun. 

Then man needs to have his spiritual side developed, that in him whichis akin to God, so that he shall naturally live out the divine love. Education, then, is all on man's side, you will see. God does not needto be changed: we need to know him, to love him, to come into consciousrelationship with him. This is what we need, so far as our relation toGod is concerned. 

Now for the more important side; for it is infinitely the moreimportant practically. Let me speak a little while of the work ofatonement between man and man. If we trace the history of humanity, wefind that men were scattered in groups all over the world, isolated, separated from each other, ignorant of each other, misunderstandingeach other, hating each other, fighting each other; and the work ofsome other world than this. It seems to me that we can very easilyaccount for it when we recognize that man has been gradually coming upfrom the lower orders of life, and that he still has in him the snakeand the hyena, the wolf, the tiger, the bear, all the wild, fiercepassions of the animal world only partly sloughed off, not yetoutgrown; when you remember how ignorant he is, how he does notunderstand yet the meaning of these divine laws and the divine life, glimpses of which now and then attract his attention and lure him on;when you remember that selfishness, misguided by ignorance, can believethat one man can get something for his behoof and happiness and good atthe expense of the welfare of somebody else, and harm come only to theperson that is defrauded. Right in here, if I had time to treat it instill further detail, it seems to me we have a simple and adequateexplanation of all the evil that has ever blasted, blighted, anddarkened the history of man. 

Now, man being this kind of a creature, having an animal origin as wellas a divine one, gradually climbing up out of this lower life andlooking towards God as his ideal, what is it that he needs? Is thereany need of atonement? All need of atonement! What does atonement mean?The word itself carries its clearest explanation. In its root it means"atonement, " healing the division, whatever its nature or kind, bringing man into one-ness with God and men into one- ness with eachother. 

Now let me suggest to you a little as to the things that keep man andGod apart, keep men away from each other; and they will suggest theatonement that is needed to heal all these divisions, and bring aboutthat ideal condition of things that we dream of and pray for and talkabout, when men shall perfectly love God, and when they shall love eachother as themselves. 

What is it that keeps man from God? First, it seems to me, it isignorance. What man needs in order to bring him into oneness with Godis first to have some clear conceptions of the divine, some high, sweet, noble thoughts of God, some knowledge of the laws of God asembodied in himself and in the universe around him. Man needsintelligence, then, to help him, needs education. 

In the next place, he needs such a picture of God as shall: make himseem lovable. You cannot make the human heart: love that which seemshateful. The picture of God, as he has been outlined to the world inthe past, has repelled the human heart; and I do not wonder. I do notthink it strange that humanity should be at enmity with that conceptionof the divine. Make God the ideal of all that is noble and sweet andlovely, and the heart will be as naturally attracted and drawn to himas a flower is toward the sun. 

Then man needs to have his spiritual side developed, that in him whichis akin to God, so that he shall naturally live out the divine love. Education, then, is all on man's side, you will see. God does not needto be changed: we need to know him, to love him, to come into consciousrelationship with him. This is what we need, so far as our relation toGod is concerned. 

Now for the more important side; for it is infinitely the moreimportant practically. Let me speak a little while of the work ofatonement between man and man. If we trace the history of humanity, wefind that men were scattered in groups all over the world, isolated, separated from each other, ignorant of each other, misunderstandingeach other, hating each other, fighting each other; and the work ofcivilization means to bring men together, to work out an atonementbetween nation and nation, religion and religion, family and family, man and man. 

Here, again, as in the case of God, the first thing that needs to beovercome is ignorance. Look back no further than our late war. I thinkevery careful student of that tremendous conflict is ready to sayto-day that, if the North and South had been acquainted with each other, known each other as they know each other now, the war would have beenimpossible. We need to know other men. As you go back, you find curioustraditions illustrating this ignorance of different nations anddifferent peoples of each other. Plato, for example, taught it as avirtue that the Athenians should hate all other peoples except theGreeks and all other Greek cities except Athens; and they spoke of theoutside nations that did not speak Greek as barbarians, people whocould not talk, people who, when they essayed to speak, said, "Ba, ba, "misusing words and expressions. They had traditions of men who carriedtheir heads under their arms, who had only one eye, which was in themiddle of their forehead, all sorts of monstrosities in human shape, antagonistic to the rest of mankind. 

Even in modern times those ignorances, misconceptions, and prejudicesare far from being outgrown. Lord Nelson counted it as a virtue in anEnglishman that he should hate a Frenchman as he did the devil. Howmany people are there to- day who look with an unprejudiced eye upon aforeigner?

The things, then, that keep nations apart are ignorance. Then there isthe lack of sympathy. You will find people walking side by side here inour streets, people in the same family, who find it impossible tounderstand each other. 

They cannot put themselves in the place of another; they cannotcomprehend something which is a little different from what they areaccustomed to hear; not only cannot they understand it, they cannotlovingly or patiently look at it. Think of the things that have keptpeople apart in physical and mental and spiritual realms, the rivers, the mountain chains, the oceans; differences of religion, differencesof language, differences of civilization; different ethical ideas, until people of the world have sat looking at each other with faces offear and antagonism instead of with the dawning in their eyes of loveand brotherhood. 

Now what the world needs is something to atone, to bridge over thesedifferences, to bring men into sympathetic and loving acquaintance witheach other. I wish to note two or three things that have wrought verylargely and effectively in this direction. Does it ever occur to youthat commerce is something besides a means for the accumulation ofwealth? Commerce has played one of the largest parts in the history ofthis world in atoning the differences, the antagonisms, between nationand nation and man and man. It has taught the world that there is acommunity of interests, and that, instead of fighting each other, theyare mutually blessed and helped by coworking, co-operating, exchangingwith each other. 

So the inventors, the discoverers, have helped to bring about thissense of human brotherhood, this community of human interests. Howmuch, for example, was wrought when the electric wire was placed underthe seas, and, instead of allowing weeks and weeks for amisunderstanding to grow and for ill-feeling to ferment between Englandand this country, puts us in such quick relations that amisapprehension could be corrected in an hour. All these things havehelped bring the world together, are engaged in this magnificentreligious service of atonement, of making nations one, making humanityone, a family. 

I do not wish you to suppose that I misunderstand or underestimate thework of the Christ in this direction. He has done a grander work ofatonement than any other figure in the history of the world. Herevealed to us the glory, the tenderness, the love, of God, and solifted the heart of the world towards the Father as no other one manhas done who has ever lived. And, then, he lived out and manifested theglory, the tenderness, the wonder, of human character and human life ashardly any other man who has ever lived; and on so world- wide a stagedid he do this that the influence of his work has overrun all nationalbarriers, and is rapidly coming to be world-wide, and in admiration of, and love for him, Jew and Greek, and barbarian, Scythian, Arabian, European, and Asiatic, all the nations of the world are becoming one. For no matter what their theory may be about him, whether they hold himto be God or man, they hold the ideal that he set forth and lived to bespiritually human and nobly divine. So Jesus is more and more, as theages go by, helping us to one-ness with God, helping us intosympathetic one-ness with each other. 

But I would not have you think that Jesus is the only one who haswrought atonement for the sin of the world. Every man in his degree, inso far as he has been divine and human, patient, faithful, has renderedservice to the world, has done his part in bringing about thismagnificent consummation. 

Look for a moment at Abraham Lincoln. Think what he did by the atoningsacrifice of his life for liberty, for humanity, for truth. On the onehand, his murderer showed what sin may come to in its ignorance, itsmisconception, its antagonism to whatever is right and good and true. And, on the other hand, he, with words of forgiveness on his lips, words of human love, with all tenderness and charity in his heart, illustrated again and lived out the sweetness of divinity and thetenderness of humanity. 

As another illustration, human, simple, natural, just let me say a wordconcerning the act, the attitude, of General Grant at Appomattox. Hedid more at the surrender of Lee to send a thrill of brotherly sympathythrough North and South and help wield this nation into one than hecould have possibly done by the most magnificent achievement of arms, when he refused to take his opponent's sword; when he let the officersgo away with their side-arms; when he told each man that his horse orhis mule was still of right his because he would need it to begin thenew life again that was before him. 

Facts like these suggest the naturalness, the humanness, as well as theGod-likeness of the work of atonement that is going on all over theworld, as it climbs and swings slowly up out of the darkness and intothe light of life. Jesus the great atoning sacrifice? Yes, butthousands on thousands of others atoning in just the same divine way, just the same human way, just as naturally, just as necessarily. Everyman who does an honest day's work, every man who is kind and loving inhis family, every man who is helpful as a neighbor, every man whostands faithfully by his convictions of truth, every man who shows thathe cares more for the truth than he does for worldly success, that heknows that in that truth only is immortality, and that it is greaterand better and sweeter than even life, every man who consecrateshimself in this way is doing his part towards working out the atonementof human sin, the reconciliation of man with God, the reconciliation ofmen with each other. 

Let us, then, while loving Jesus, while reverencing him for thegrandeur of his work and the beauty of his life, let us rise and claimkinship with him, rise to the dignity and glory of the thought that weare sons of God as he was, and that we may share with him the grandestservice that one man can render to his time, the helping of people tofind and love and serve God, the helping of people to discover and loveand serve each other. The outcome of this atoning work is simply thecoming of that time which we speak of familiarly without halfcomprehending it, when the world shall recognize the universalFatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man. 

PRAYER, AND COMMUNION WITH GOD

SOME years ago I heard a minister, then widely known throughout thecountry, say in a public address, "Prayer is the power that moves thearm that moves the world. " Can we accept that to-day as a definition ofa rational view of the relation in which we stand to God? Many of youwill remember that not long ago the churches and the scientific men ofEngland and America were much stirred and roused over a discussionconcerning the practical efficacy of prayer. There was much talk ofwhat was called the "prayer-gauge. " I think it was Professor Tyndallwho proposed to test the question as to whether prayer was a real powerin the physical world; and his test, if I remember rightly, wassomething like this. He said: You churchmen claim that prayer is ableto heal the sick. Now, he said, let us take a certain hospital. We willdivide it, a certain number of wards on one side, and a certain numberof wards on the other, equalizing so far as we can the nature of theillnesses which afflict the patients. You now concentrate as much asyou please, and as many as you please, the prayers on certain wards inthe hospital, and we will commit the rest to the ordinary treatment ofthe physicians; and we will see if you are able to produce any results. 

Against a certain type and theory of prayer I suppose a test like thatis legitimate enough; and this type, this theory, is the one that hasprevailed throughout Christendom largely for a good many hundreds ofyears. I suppose you can remember in your boyhood some of you are asold as I that it was not an uncommon thing for the minister to prayearnestly for certain things that intelligent men would hardly think ofpraying for in the same fashion to-day. It was not an uncommon thing, afew years ago, to have a special prayer- meeting during a drought inthe endeavor to prevail upon God to send the rain; and there wascertainly a Scriptural warrant for it; for Elijah is represented in theOld Testament as having, by the power of prayer, shut up the heavensfor three years and a half, and then as bringing rain again as theresult of his petition. If you study the Book of James, and remember, when you do study it, that it was not written by the apostle, but bysome unknown author towards the middle of the second century, you willsee that he teaches that, if any one is sick, you are not to send for aphysician. The brethren are to assemble, the invalid is to be anointedwith oil, they are to pray over him, and the explicit and unqualifiedpromise is given that the prayer of faith shall save the sick. And yetwe have been confronted for ages with the spectacle of people breakingtheir hearts in pleading prayer for those that were sick, and seeingthem fade and vanish from their sight in spite of their petitions. 

I have heard it said a good many times that the fame of the Cunard lineof steamships touching the matter of the safety of its passengers wasto be explained by the piety of the founders of the line, and the factthat they prayed every time a ship sailed that it might safely crossthe seas and land its passengers without accident in the wished-forhaven. Are there no prayers for other lines? Has no one ever prayed onbehalf of a ship that did meet with an accident? But this would beexplained on this theory by saying that the prayer was not the prayerof faith or that there was some defect in it somewhere. 

I refer to these things simply by way of illustration to recall to yourmind that prayer used to be supposed to be a power touching the winds, the waves, the prosperity of the crops, insuring safety during adangerous journey; that it was a power that was able to heal disease, that could accomplish all sorts of strange and startling effects in thephysical realm. 

And now I simply wish to call your attention to the naturalness of thatkind of prayer in the olden time. To some of us this thought may seemstrange, it may seem almost absurd, to-day; but remember it was notstrange, it was not absurd, in the times when the old theory of theuniverse was thoroughly believed in, not only by church members, but byscientific men as well. 

What was that old conception? I have had occasion to refer to it in oneconnection or another a good many times; and now I shall have to referto it again, so that you may clearly see what is involved in thisquestion of the efficacy of prayer. God was supposed to be up inheaven, away from nature. Nature was a sort of mechanism, a machinethat ordinarily ran on after its own fashion. God had made it, indeed, in some sense, God supported it continually; but it went on apart fromhim, and he was away from it. He was, as Carlyle used to say, lookedupon as an absentee God. He was up in heaven. He ruled this world asthe Kaiser rules Germany, arbitrarily. He was not even always supposedto know everything that was going on, at least, if you are to judge bythe tone of the prayers of a good many people such as I have heard. Heneeded information concerning matters. He needed to be pleaded with, that he might interfere and accomplish some results that would nototherwise take place. He ruled the world arbitrarily and from adistance. 

Now, if any German wishes a certain thing accomplished that would nothappen in the ordinary course of nature and human life, he knows thatthe Kaiser has almost unlimited power; and, if he can persuade him toundertake it, it may be accomplished. So he will send a petition to theKaiser; and he will back that petition with all the influence that heis able to bring to bear upon it. If there is a prime minister whostands specially high in favor with the Kaiser, do you not see how muchmight be accomplished by winning his ear, and getting him to intercedeon behalf of the petitioner? Do you not see right in there the parallelto the old idea that used to dominate us in regard to the government ofthe universe? If only we could get God interested in the matter, if wecould bring to bear upon him an adequate amount of influence, if wecould get Jesus to intercede with him, then something might beaccomplished. 

Are these antiquated ideas? I received a letter only a little whileago. It told me nothing new; but it came to me with a shock, roused meto a recognition of ideas still dominant and popular in the commonmind. It was from a Catholic. He said: We do not worship Mary; but sheis in the spirit world, and she is in sympathetic relation with thisworld's sorrow and trouble. We pray to her, asking her to intercedewith her son, because a mother's influence is efficacious. Think for amoment of the implications of this theory of governing the universe. God is away off, has forgotten us, or does not care, at any rate, isnot doing for us the things we need. If we can get Jesus to intercede!But, according to this Catholic theory, Jesus had perhaps forgotten orwas not attentive. So he pleads with his mother, and gets the mother toexert her influence on Jesus so he may exert his influence on God, andat last something may be done. I confess to you, friends, that thistheory of things does not seem piety to me, but the precise opposite. 

I ask you now to follow me while I attempt to point out some of thedifficulties that confront us in this old-time theory of prayer. Why isit that we cannot pray to God to change the order of the natural world?Why cannot we believe that prayer is the power that moves the arm thatmoves the world??? Why cannot I consistently pray to God to heal mydisease or the disease of a friend, or to save the soul of some friendwho would otherwise be neglected by the divine care? Why cannot I anylonger pray to God to send his light and truth to the heathen world?Why cannot I pray to him to insure my safety in mid-Atlantic, to dosomething to prevent my colliding with a derelict, as the Van-dam hasdone during the last few days? Do you think there was no one on thatship that prayed? What is the difficulty in the mind of theintelligent, modern thinker when he faces this conception of prayer?

Let us think a little clearly just a moment; and I imagine I can makeit plain. We no longer think of God we cannot think of him as outsidethe system of nature, and as possibly interfering with it to produce aresult that would not otherwise take place. Why? Because God is thesoul, the mind, the heart of nature. The forces of the universe, actingaccording to their changeless and eternal laws, are simply God at work. And, when I pray to God to interfere, I am praying him to interferewith himself, I am praying him to contradict his own wisely andeternally and changelessly established methods of controlling theworld. 

The question is sometimes asked, but a man can interfere with thecourse of nature, and produce a result that would not be naturallyproduced without it? Certainly, because man does not stand in thisrelation to natural forces. But man, however, does not change any law, he does not interfere with any law. He simply discovers some law andobeys it, and in that way produces a result that would not otherwise beproduced. But man does not stand, I say, in this vital relation to theforces of the universe and their laws. When you remember that theseforces working, as I said, changelessly, eternally, after theirmethods, when you remember that these are God in his ceaseless and wiseand loving activity, then do you not see that he cannot contradict orinterfere with himself? Here is the great difficulty in regard to thisold method, this old conception of prayer which confronts theintelligent, the educated, the thoughtfully devout man. 

When I was first struggling out into the light? as it seems to me nowfrom my old theological training, I met another difficulty that I thinkwill appeal to you. It seemed to me an impertinence for me to betelling God, as I heard so many people on every hand, all sorts ofthings that he knew before. I reconsidered the words of Jesus, You arenot to give yourself to much speaking in your prayers, for your Fatherknoweth what you have need of before you ask him. And then there wasanother difficulty which troubled me more than any of the others, adelightful, splendid difficulty it has seemed to me since those days. It was connected with the thought of God's goodness and love. There areheathen, they tell us, who have got a glimpse, from their point ofview, of this fact about God. It is said they do not bring anyofferings, except some flowers, to the deities they regard as good, because, they say, they do not need to be persuaded. They bring alltheir costly offerings to the bad gods, the ones they are afraid of;and they attempt to buy their favor or buy off their anger. 

When I waked up to the free and grand conception of the eternal loveand the boundless goodness of the Father, then it seemed to me thatmany of my prayers in the past had been so far from reasonable thatthey were absurd, and so far from piety that they were wrong. Toillustrate what I mean. When I was minister of an orthodox church inthe West, a lovely, faithful lady came to me to raise some questiontouching this matter of prayer. It had been suggested, I suppose, bysomething I had said; and I asked her this question: What would youthink of me if I should come to you, and with pathos in my voice, andperhaps with tears in my eyes, plead with you to be kind to your ownchildren, beg you to give them something to eat, beseech you to furnishthem with clothes, entreat you to educate them, to do the best for themthat you knew how? What would you think of it? I asked. She said, Ishould feel insulted. And I replied, Do you not think that God isalmost as good as you are?

If you are anxious and ready, do you think that God needs to be pleadedwith and entreated and besought in order to make him willing, in orderto make him kind, in order to bring some sort of pressure to bear uponhim so that he will do the things for his children of which they moststand in need? No scientific difficulty, no question of theories of theuniverse, has ever affected my practice in the matter of prayer so muchas this overwhelming, blessed thought of the loving-kindness and careof the infinite Father. He does not need to be informed, he does notneed to be persuaded. Has not Jesus told us that your heavenly Fatheris more ready to give the things which you need than you are to givegood gifts to your children?

And so I came to have a difficulty with the kind of prayer- meetings inwhich I was brought up as a boy, and which I used to lead as a youngand earnest minister. I have heard kinds of prayers which have seemedto me reflections on the goodness and the kindness of our Father inheaven. I remember one man I used to hear him over and over again, weekby week who would pray, It is time for thee, O God, to work! And, as Icame to think of it, it hurt my sense of reverence. I shrank from it. And I could not believe that God was going to let thousands of souls inChina or Africa perish merely because Christians in America did notpray hard enough and long enough for their salvation. Why should theymeet with eternal doom on account of the lack of enthusiasm or devotionof people of whom they have never heard?

So I used to find myself troubled about this question of praying sohard for the salvation of other people's souls. If, as the old creedstell us, it is settled from all eternity as to just who is to be savedand who is to be lost, there would hardly seem place for a vitalprayer; and if, as a friend of mine, a minister, and a very liberal andbroad one, though in one of the older churches, said to me, "I believethat God will save every single soul that he can save, " then do you notsee again that it touches this kind of prayer? If he cannot save them, then why should I beg him to do it? If he can, and loves them betterthan I do, again, why should I plead with him after that fashion to doit?

These, frankly and freely spoken, are some of the difficultiesconnected with a certain theory of prayer. 

I gladly put all that now behind my back, and come to the grand andpositive side of my theme. I wish to tell you what I myself believe inregard to this matter of prayer. And, in the first place, let mesuggest to you that prayers, even the prayers of the past, any of them, the most objectionable types, are not made up only of petition; theyare not all begging, teasing for things. There enter into theircomposition gratitude, adoration, reverence, aspiration, a sense ofcommunion with the spiritual Being, a longing for higher and finerthings; a sense of refuge in time of trouble, a sense of strength intime of need, a sense of hope, uplift, and outlook as we glance towardsthe future. A prayer, then, you see, is a very composite thing, not asimple thing, not merely made up of the element of pleading with God togive us certain things that we cannot come into possession of byordinary means. 

Right here let me stop long enough to ask you to attend a littlecarefully to the teaching of Jesus on the subject of prayer. You willsee he chimes in almost perfectly with the things I have been saying. If we followed his directions literally, we should never pray in publicat all. He says, Enter into your chamber, and shut to the door, andcommune with the Father in secret. He does not advocate long prayers, nor this kind of pleading, begging prayers that I have referred to. Doyou remember the story of the unjust judge? Jesus tells this parable onpurpose to enforce the point I have been speaking of. He says: Here isan unjust judge: a widow brings her case before him. She pleads withhim until she tires him out; and at last he says, although I am anunjust judge, and fear neither God nor men, because with her continualpraying she wearies me, I will grant her petition. Jesus does not sayyou are to weary God out in order to get your petitions granted, butjust the opposite. How much more shall God give good gifts unto thosethat ask him Read once more that other story of the man who rises atnight and goes to a neighbor for assistance. The neighbor, for the sakeof being gracious and kind, will rise, although it gives him troubleand he does not wish to, and grant his request. But God is not likethat neighbor: he does not need to be wearied or roused to make himcare for our interests. This is the teaching, you will notice, ofJesus. If there is anything that appears like contrary teaching, youwill find it in the supposed Gospel of John, written by an anonymousauthor, in which quite different doctrines are taught in regard to agood many things from those that are reported of Jesus in the othergospels. 

Now I wish to come to my own personal position concerning the subjectof prayer. It is fitting is it not that we should open our hearts withgratitude to God, no matter what has come to us of good or bright, ofbeautiful, sweet and true things, no matter through what channel, bythe ministry of what friend, as the result of the working of no matterhow many natural forces. Trace it to its source, and that source isalways of necessity the one fountain, the one eternal Giver. And, ifthere be no more than courtesy in our hearts, ought it not to be easyand fitting for us to think, at least, if we do not say, Thank you, Father? Not only thanksgiving, but adoration. 

Any uplook to something beautiful and high and fine above you partakesof the nature of worship. So that prayer which is worship, is it notaltogether fitting and sweet and true? Only as we look up do we everrise up, do we ever attain to anything finer and better. 

And then there is communion. Is it true that God is Spirit, and that heis Father of his children, also spirit? Are we made in his likeness? Isthere community of nature between him and us? I believe that he ishuman in all essential qualities, and that we are divine in allessential qualities. I believe the only difference between God and manis a difference not of kind, but of degree, and that there is, possibility of constant interchange of thought, of feeling, communion, between God and his children. Profound, wonderful truth it seems to meis expressed in those beautiful words of Tennyson's:

"Speak to him thou, for he hears, And spirit with spirit may meet. Closer is he than breathing, And nearer than hands and feet. "

Communion then possible, the very life of that which is divine withinus!

Then I do not believe for one moment that prayer is only a sort ofspiritual gymnastics, that it produces results in us merely by theexercise of spiritual feelings and emotions. I believe that in themoral and spiritual realms prayer does produce actual results thatwould not be produced in any other way. This, however, mark youcarefully, not by producing any change in God, only changing ourrelations towards God. Can I illustrate it? I have a flower, forexample, a plant in a flower-pot in my room. It seems to be perishingfor the lack of something. It may be that the elements in the air donot properly feed it: it may be that it is hungry for light. At anyrate, I try it: I take it out into the sunshine, I let the air breatheupon it, the dews fall upon it, the rains touch it and revive it andthe plant brightens up, grows, blossoms, becomes beautiful andfragrant. Have I changed natural laws any? Not to one parunticle. Ihave changed the relation of my plant and the air; and I have produceda result of life and beauty where would have been ugliness and death. 

So I believe in prayer in that sense, that it may and does change thespiritual attitude of the soul towards God so that we come intoentirely new relations with him, and the spiritual life in us grows, unfolds, becomes beautiful and sweet, not because we have changed God, but because we have got into a new set of relations with him. 

If I thought that I could change God by a prayer, that I couldinterfere in the slightest degree with the working of any of thenatural forces, I would never dare to open my lips in prayer again solong as I live. We do not need to change God: we need simply to changeour attitude towards him, change our relations to him. Is not this truein every department of human life? How is it that you produce resultsanywhere? You wish a mountain stream to work for you. Do you change thelaws of motion? You adapt your machinery to those laws of motion, andall the power of God becomes yours. You do not change him, you changeyourself, your attitude towards him. And so in every one of thediscoveries, in every one of the revolutions, that have come to theworld, simply by discovering God's methods, and humbly adapting ourways to those methods Thus the forces of God, which are changeless andeternal, produce for us results which they would not have produced butfor adapting our lives to the working of their ways. 

A great many people do not think they ever pray. I have never seen aman yet who did not pray. You cannot live, and not pray: you cannotescape it if you try. Take Montgomery's famous old definition, "Prayeris the soul's sincere desire, Uttered or unexpressed, The motion of ahidden fir That trembles in the breast. "

Soul's sincere desire. Yes, the body's desire, the mind's desire, theheart's desire, any desire, any outreach of life, is a prayer, anappeal for something that only the universe, that only God, can bestow. So, no matter whether you think you are religious or not, you are apraying man so long as you are a living man; and you cannot escape thefact if you try. It is merely a question whether you are a loving prayingman or some other kind. 

There is another aspect of prayer to which I wish to call yourattention. Prayer is the refuge of a soul in trouble. It does not meanhere, again, that you change God any. Can you not understand what itmeans to go to God, as it were, and fling yourself, like a child, against his breast and feel yourself folded in the everlasting arms?Your sorrow may not be removed, the burden may not be taken away, thelife of your friend may not be saved, the sickness may not be healed;but there is comfort, there is strength, there is peace, there is help. Why, even in our human life do you not know how it is? You go to somefriend you trust and love with your trouble. Perhaps he cannot lift itwith one of his fingers; but he can tell you that he loves you, hecares, he would help you if only he were able. He can put his armaround you, he can say, God bless you; and you are stronger. You goaway with lifted shoulder and with head that fronts the heavens; andyou are able to bear the burden. Is there nothing akin to this in thesense of coming into intimate relations with the eternal Father, whentroubled, pressed, when the outside world is dark, and feeling thathere is refuge in a love deeper, higher, unspeakably more tender thanthat of the dearest friend that ever lived?

And this suggests another point. I have no doubt that sometimes, in myattempts to lead the devotions of this congregation, I use words which, if I were to sit down and critically analyze, I could not logicallyjustify. I do not mean to; but, perhaps, sometimes I do. What of it?When my children were small, and my little boy came and climbed up inmy lap and expressed himself in all sorts of illogical and foolishways, telling me every sort of thing he wanted, impossible things, unwise things, things I could not get for him, things I would not getif I could, because I thought myself wiser than he, did these thingstrouble me? I loved to have him pour out his whole little soul intomine, because he was my child and because I did not expect him to beover-wise. It was this simple touch of kinship, this simple communionof father and child, which was sweet and tender and true. 

So I believe with my whole soul that God loves us, his little children, with an unspeakable tenderness, a tenderness infinitely beyond thatwith which any earthly father ever loved a child, and that we can go tohim freely and pour out our hearts, whether it is wise in expression orunwise; only let us do it with the feeling, "Not my will, Father, butThine, be done, " not as though we were trying to persuade him to dothings for us that he would not otherwise do, but merely as the pouringout of our gratitude, our tenderness, our love. 

There is another thing that needs just a word of suggestion. I believethat we ought to pray to God, not in the sense of begging for things, but sympathetically bringing in the arms of our sympathy all those welove and all those we hate, if there are any, and all things that liveon the face of the earth. There is a hint of what I mean in thosebeautiful words of Tennyson's:

"For what are men better than sheep or goats That nourish a blind lifewithin the brain, If, knowing God, they lift not hands in prayer Bothfor themselves and those who call them friend? For so the whole roundearth is every way Bound by gold chains about the feet of God. "

Let us reach out our arms of sympathy to all the world and bring theworld sympathetically into the presence of our Father. So our ownhearts and loves will broaden, until they, too, are divine. 

And, then, there is one other thing. What a strength prayer has been tothe grandest souls of the ages! Never was truer, finer truth writtenthan those magnificent words of Isaiah: "Even the youths shall faintand be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: but they that waitupon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up withwings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, andnot faint!"

Take Jesus in his hour of agony, take Savonarola with his struggle, take Huss, Wyclif, Luther, take all the grand souls of the ages whenthey have simply stood with the feeling, One with God is a majority, and ready to face the world, if need be, in the conviction that theyspoke for and represented the truth. The times of which Lowell speaks:

"Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet thatscaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth Godwithin the shadow, keeping watch above his own. "

This sense that God is for the truth and right, and, if you arestanding for the truth and right, the Almighty Power is backing you up, the ground you stand on impregnable, because of that position. You donot expect God to work miracles, you do not expect him to do anything;but simply the sense that you are in his presence, that you are on hisside, re- enforces you more than a thousand men could re-enforce anarmy in the time of its need. This is the great sense of surety thatthe poet Clough had in mind, when he wrote those wonderfully finewords:

"It fortifies my soul to know That, though I perish, Truth is so; Thathowsoe'er I stray or range, Whate'er I do, thou dost not change. Isteadier step when I recall That, if I slip, thou dost not fall. " Hereis the confidence, the strength, that comes from prayer, from communionwith God, from the sense of being in his presence, from a feeling offellowship with the Divine. 

The truest and finest, the sweetest prayer must come oft of the loving, the sympathetic, the tender soul. No selfish prayer can expect to enterinto the heart of God. You will note in the words that Jesus teacheshis disciples, it is not "My" Father, it is "Our" Father. And, if wewish to pray in the divine spirit, we shall broaden that "Our" until itincludes not only our family, our church, our city, our State, ournation, our humanity, but until it includes all life that swims orwalks or flies, feeling that it is the one life of the Father that isin us all. For, as Coleridge has finely put it, He prayeth best wholoveth best All things, both great and small; For the dear God wholoveth us, He made and loveth all. 

THE WORSHIP OF GOD

THERE are those who in religious matters, as well as in all otherdepartments of life, are content to walk unquestioningly the path whichthe footsteps of previous generations have made easy and familiar. Butthere are others and these among the more thoughtful and earnest mindsto whom it is not enough to utter earnest words concerning enthusiasmand devotion, consecration and worship. These spiritual attitudes andexercises must first be made to appear reasonable to them, fitting, fitting to their conception of God, fitting to their ideas of thatwhich is highest and finest in man. 

So there are many things that pass to-day as forms of worship, manyideas connected with worship, which this class of minds cannot heartilyand fully accept. Some of them do not seem to them fitting, as theylook upward towards God. They cannot, for example, believe that Godcares for flattery, cares to sit on his throne, and be told by hiscreatures how great and how wonderful he is. They cannot think that hecares to have presents brought to him, gifts offered on his altar, asmen say. They cannot believe that he really is anxious for many ofthese external forms and ceremonies, which seem to the onlooker toconstitute the essential element of much that passes as popularworship. 

And then, on the other hand, man has grown into a sense of dignity. Hehas a higher and loftier idea of his own nature and of what is fittingto a man; and he cannot any longer heartily enter into the meaning ofwords which speak of him as a worm of the dust, which seem to him tointimate that God cares to have him prostrate himself in utterhumiliation, to speak of himself always as a miserable sinner, as onewithout any good in him. 

Many of these things from the point of view of the man himself nolonger constitute the real conviction, the real feeling of the noblesthearts; and so there are many who are troubled over this question ofworship, who are not quite sure as to how much spiritual significanceit may any longer retain, not quite sure as to how vital a part it mayplay in the development of the religious life of man. 

We find an adequate and perfectly natural explanation of some of thesephases of worship that trouble us to-day, as we look back and note someof the steps in the religious development of the race. I shall notraise the question as to how or where or in what way the act of humanworship began. I will simply say that one of the first manifestationsof that which came to be religious worship which we are able to traceat the present time is to be found in the burial-mounds of the dead. Men reverenced the memory of the chief of the tribe who had passed intothe invisible. They did not believe that he had ceased to exist: theyrather looked upon him as having become, because invisible, a higherruler. They thought of him as still interested in the welfare of thetribe, still its guardian, still its avenger, still demanding of thetribe the same reverence that it paid to him while he was yet alive;and his followers clothed him with all the human attributes with whichthey were familiar during the time he was among them. He was stillhungry, he was still thirsty, he still wanted his old-time weapons, allthose things he was familiar with during his earthly career. And sothey brought food, and laid it on the burial-mound above his body; andthey poured out their libations of drink to quench his spiritualthirst. 

These were very real beliefs on the part of man universally during acertain stage of his mental, his moral, his spiritual growth. It was avery natural step beyond this to the origin of sacrifices. Allsacrifice began right here. It was a religious meal, in which God andhis worshippers equally shared. Some animal, supposed to partake of alife similar to that which distinguished the god and the worshipper, too, is sacrificed. It is cooked, and the worshippers partake of themeal; and they fully believe that the god joins in it also. And thenthe drink they partake of, and pour out their libation for theinvisible spirit. 

So the first sacrifice was a meal eaten together; and just as, forexample, to-day you see a remnant of this idea when a man eats with anArab, although the Arab may discover five minutes after that it was hisbitterest foe, he finds himself at least during a little time bound toamity and peace by the fact that they have shared this sacred mealtogether, so in the act of sacrifice it was believed that theworshipper consecrated himself in loyalty to his God, and that the Godconsecrated himself in faithfulness to his worshippers as theirguardian and protector. Here is given the central significance ofsacrifices that have made so large a part of the religious ceremonialof the world. 

These are not peculiar to what we call pagan people. Do you rememberthe story of how, after the flood, Noah offers a sacrifice, and God upin heaven is represented as smelling the flavor of the burning meat andas rejoicing in it, accepting the offering, and pledging himself toguard and care for his worshippers? Do you remember, also, that storyof Jacob, how, when he is on his journey, he falls asleep, and has hiswonderful dream, and sees the ladder starting at his feet and ending atthe throne of God, up and down which the angels are passing? When hewakes in the morning, he says, "Surely, this is holy ground"; and hetakes the stone on which he slept, and sets it up as an altar, andpours out the sacred oil as an offering to his God. 

All the way through the Old Testament, in the history of the Hebrewpeople, you trace these same ideas that you find in the life of almostall the other nations of the world. It was only a step beyond this tothe idea of presenting gifts to God, no matter what the nature of thatgift might be. And, as men came to make him these sacred offerings, they came also to believe and in the most natural way in the worldthat, the more costly the gift, the more likely it was to be acceptedon the part of its sublime recipient. 

So human sacrifices arose; for there could be no more sacred gift thanfor a man to offer his own child or his own wife to God. The gods werelooked upon as sometimes demanding these tremendous sacrifices as theconditions of their mercy or their care. I refer you for illustrationto one of the most striking and touching of Tennyson's poems. I thinkit is entitled "The Victim. " There had been famine in the land, and thepriests have announced that they have learned that the gods demand asan offering that which is most sacred and most dear to the heart of theking; and the question is as to whether it is his son, his boy, or hiswife. They think it must be the boy, because he was the one that wouldcontinue the kingly line; but the wife detects the gladness of herhusband when he sees that the boy is to be selected, and knows by thatsense of relief that passes over his face that the priests have made amistake, and that she herself is to be the victim. And so, in her lovefor him and for the people, she rushes upon the sacrificial knife. 

All these ideas, you see, are perfectly natural in certain stages ofhuman development, logically reasoned out in view of their thought ofthe gods and of their relations to them and of what these gods mustdesire at their hands. It is not only among the very early beliefs thatyou find these ideas controlling the thought and action of men. Studythe ancient classical times as they are reflected in the Iliad, in theOdyssey, or in Virgil's Aeneid, and you will find that the gods werevery human in all their feelings, their thoughts, their passions. As, in the Old Testament, Yahweh is reported to have been a jealous God, not willing that respect should be paid to anybody but himself, so youfind the old Greek and Roman deities very jealous as to what wereregarded as their rights, as to what the people must pay to them; and, if they are angry, they can be appeased if an offering rare and costlyenough be brought by the worshipper. You can buy their favor; you canward off their anger, if only you can offer them something which isprecious enough so that they are ready to accept it at the worshipper'shands. 

These are not merely Old Testament ideas, nor only pagan ideas. Someyears ago, when I was in Rome, I visited among others one of the manychurches dedicated to Mary under one name or another; and there was astatue of the Virgin by the altar, and it impressed me very much to seethat it was loaded down with gifts. Every place on the statue itself towhich anything could be attached, anything on the altar around it, wasweighted down with gold chains, with jewels, with precious gifts ofevery kind. These had been brought as thank-offerings, expressions ofworship, or pledges connected with a petition, because I have broughtthee this gift, have mercy, do this for me which I need. 

So these old ideas are vital still, and live on in the modern world. And yet modern and magnificent are those utterances of the old Hebrewprophet, who had so completely outgrown the common customs even of histime, when he represents God as saying that he is weary of all theseexternal offerings. He says: I do not want the cattle brought to mytemples. Those that wander on a thousand hills are already mine. If Iwere hungry, I would not ask thee. He does not want the rivers of oilpoured out. What does he want? The old prophet says, What doth the Lordrequire of thee but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humblywith God? And some of the later writers caught a glimpse of the samespiritual truth when they said, Not burnt- offerings, not calves of ayear old; when they cry out, Shall I bring the fruit of my body for thesin of my soul? No, it is a broken and contrite heart, a heart sorryfor its sin, a heart consecrating itself to righteousness and truth, this inner, spiritual worship. 

The prophets, you see, were climbing up to that magnificent ideal sofinely set up by Jesus as reported in the Gospel from which I read ourlesson this morning. They had not only believed that God was to beworshipped after these external fashions, but that there was somespecial place, not only where it was easier to think of him, but wherehe demanded the offering should be brought. He said to the woman at thewell: You think it is Mount Gerizim where the people ought to worship, and the Jews think it is Mount Moriah; but I say unto you that neitherin this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem shall men worship the Father. Godis spirit, the universal spirit, every place a temple, every spothallowed, if only those that worship him do so in spirit and in truth. 

You see, then, how up these stairways of gradual approach the humanrace, in the person of its highest and finest representatives, hasclimbed, how near it has come to the spiritual ideal of God and thespiritual thought of that which he requires at our hands. 

Is worship, then, so far as external form is concerned, to pass away?By no manner of means, as I think. As you analyze any one of these oldprimitive acts of worship, no matter how crude, no matter how cruel, how bloody, how repulsive it may be to-day from the outlook of ourhigher civilization, you will note that it has in it an element which, I believe, is permanent, and can never be outgrown. Whatever else thereis, there is always the sense of a Presence, Invisible, mighty, high, and, from the point of view of the worshipper, holy and set apart. There is always the feeling of being in the shadow of the high andlofty One who inhabiteth eternity. There is always the sense ofuplooking, of worship, in the higher sense of that term. Always, at anyrate, the germ of these; and this, it seems to me, we may be sure andcertain, however it may clothe itself in the future, shall never passaway. 

I wish now, if there are any who think it is not befitting thegreatness, the nobleness of man that he should bow himself in thepresence of the highest, humiliate himself, if you choose to use thatterm, in acts of worship, I wish now, I say, to consider worship undertwo or three aspects, and see what it means. And, in the first place, Iask you to note that the ability to worship is always the measure ofthe rank of a being, it is the test and the standard of greatness. 

As you look over the animal world, which one of them are we accustomedto think of as coming the nearest to man? What one do we love to havemost with us, to associate most with our joys, with the peace of ourhomes? Is it not the dog? And as you examine the dog, study carefullyhis nature and characteristics, do you not note that there is in hisnature a hint, a suggestion, of that which is the root of all worship?The dog is the one animal with which man is accustomed familiarly toassociate himself, who looks up with an incipient reverence, love, almost worship, to his master. And it is this quality in the dog thatenables him to look up, and, however dimly, feel the life of some onethat is above him, that lifts him into our society, and makes us feelthis tenderness of heart-kinship with that which is finest in hisnature. 

And man is man simply because he is able to look above himself. The oldGreeks had an anticipation of that idea when they called man anthropos;for the meaning of the word is the upward-looker. As in imagination yougo back and down to the time when man first appeared, developed fromthe lower life which preceded him, the first thing you can think abouthim as human is the opening of his eyes in wonder, the lifting of hisface in curiosity and question, and the birth of adoration in his soul. This is that which made him man. 

You go and study the lowest type of barbaric life to-day; and you willfind that the barbarian has very little curiosity as compared with thecivilized man. You will find that it is very difficult to astonish himwith anything. He does not wonder. He takes everything for granted. Hedoes not see clearly and deeply enough to appreciate the marvel. Let meillustrate from a specimen of barbaric life itself. A few years ago thechief of an Indian tribe was brought from the plains of the West tovisit Washington. The idea was to impress him as much as possible withthe idea of our civilization, so that he might report it to his peoplewhen he went home. After they had crossed the Mississippi on their wayto the West, the gentleman in whose care he was travelling asked thechief what the one thing which he had seen during his trip was whichhad impressed him the most; and he said at once the St. Louis bridge. But his companion said, Are you not astonished at the Capitol ofWashington? "Yes, " he said, "but my people can pile stones on top ofeach other; but they cannot make a cobweb of steel hang in the air. "

You see how that perception lifted him above the average level of hispeople? He was showing his capacity for higher and nobler civilization. It is just this ability in the man to wonder, to see something towonder at, to worship, to admire, which lifts him one grade higher thanthat of the average level of his tribe. So that which makes man a manis the capacity in him to admire. All admiration is the essence, theroot, of worship. And, the more things a man admires, the greater andnobler type of man he is seen to be. If he can admire music, if he canadmire painting, if he can admire sculpture, if he can admire poetry, if he can admire literature of every kind, if he can admire grandarchitecture, the beautiful monuments of the world, we say, Here is alarge, all-round type of man. We estimate his dignity, his greatness, by the capacity that he shows for worship in its lower type; forworship is simply looking up with admiration. 

There is another quality about this worship that I wish to speak of. Itis the power that is capable of transforming a man, making him overinto the likeness of that which he admires. You find the man withoutthis capacity, and you know it is hopeless to appeal to him, hopelessto set up ideals, hopeless to place before him enticing examples. Thereis nothing in him to which these things appeal. Take Alexander theGreat. It is said he carried around with him a copy of the Iliad, andthat Achilles was his ideal of a hero. Do you not see how thisadmiration transformed the life of the young king, and made him afterthe type of that which he admired? It does not make any difference whatthis special admiration may be. Let a man admire Beethoven, and he willcultivate instinctively the qualities that make the beauty andgreatness of Beethoven's character and the wonders of his career. 

This ideal may be in a book, it may be embodied in fiction. I haveliked always, either on the walls of my room or on the walls of myheart, to have certain portraits of persons whom I have loved, who areno longer living; and they are to me constant stimulus. They speak tome by day, and in my dreams at night their eyes follow me, and seem tolook into my soul; and in their presence I could not do a mean, anunmanly thing. I love, I reverence, I worship these lofty ideals. Andthe quality of these characters filters down through and permeates thethought and the life. 

You remember how the other aspect of this thought is illustrated byShakspere. He says, "My nature is subdued To what it works in, like thedyer's hand. " If that with which you keep company, that you admire, isbelow you, it degrades; if it is above you, it lifts. In any case youare transformed, shaped into the likeness of that which you admire. 

There is another aspect of this close akin to that which I have justbeen dealing with. It is only the worshipper who has in him anypromise, any possibility, of growth. Whether it is the individual orthe nation, it makes no difference. If you find no capacity to admirethat which is above and beyond you, then there is no hope of progress. Take the young man who thinks he has exhausted the possibilities of theworld, who has reached the stage, who prides himself on not beingsurprised, not being over whelmed, not admiring anything. The carefuloutside observer knows that, instead of having exhausted thepossibilities and greatness and wonders of the universe, he has simplyexhausted himself. 

The man who knows how full the world is of that which is beautiful andgreat and true and noble walks through the universe with his head baredand bowed, and feels, as did Moses when standing in the presence of theburning bush, that he ought to take off his shoes from his feet, forthe place where he is standing is holy ground. Wherever you arestanding in this universe, which is full of God from star to dustparticle, is holy ground; and, if you do not feel it, if you are nottouched, if you are not bowed, if you are not thrilled with wonder, itis defect in you, and not lack of God. 

If the musician admires his great predecessors and strives to emulatethem; if the painter in the presence of the Sistine Madonna feelslifted and touched, so that he never can be content with poor workagain; if the sculptor is ready to bend his knees in the presence ofthe Venus of Melos, as he sees her standing at the end of the longgallery in the Louvre; if the lover of his kind admires John Howard, and can never be content unless he is doing something for his fellow-men again; if we can be touched by lives like Clara Barton's, likeFlorence Nightingale's, like Dorothea Dix's, like the great andconsecrated ones of the earth; if in any department of life we can belifted, humbled, thrilled, at the same time with the thought of thegreatness and glory and beauty that are above and beyond us, then thereis hope of growth, then there is life that can come to something fineand noble in the future. 

I wish, in the light of these illustrations of what worship means, tonote the thought that a great many men conscientious, earnest, simplewho have never been accustomed to think of themselves as religious, andperhaps would deny it if a friend suggested to them that they had inthem the possibilities of worship, that perhaps they are worshippers, even if they know it not. A great many persons have thrown away thecommon ideals of worship, and perhaps have settled down to the ideathat they are not worshippers at all, while all the time the substanceand the beauty and the glory of worship are in their daily lives andalways in their hearts. I want to suggest two or three grades ofworship, to show that this worship climbs; and I want to call attentionto the fact that on the lowest grade it is worship of God just the sameas on the highest, that all worship or admiration for truth, forbeauty, for good, wherever, however, manifested, is really worship ofGod, whether we think of it or call it by that name or not, becausethey all are manifestations of God. 

Take the man who is touched and lifted by natural beauty, the sense ofnatural power; the man who loves the woods, who turns and stands to seethe glory of a sunset, who is lifted by tides of emotion as he hearsthe surf beat on the shore, who feels bowed in the presence of the widenight sky of stars, who is humbled at the same time that he is upliftedin the presence of the mountains, who is touched by all natural scenesof beauty and peace and glory. Are not these men in their degreeworshippers?

Take the feeling that is expressed in those beautiful lines of Byron. We do not think of Byron as a religious nature, but certainly he had inhim the heart of worship when he could write such thoughts as these:

"'Tis midnight. On the mountains brownThe cold, round moon shines deeply down;Blue roll the waters; blue the skySeems like an ocean hung on high, Bespangled with those isles of light, So wildly, spiritually bright. 

Whoever looked upon them shiningAnd turned to earth without repining, Nor wished for wings to flee awayAnd mix with their eternal ray?"

And Wordsworth says he feels a Presence that "Disturbs him with the joyof elevated thought, A sense sublime of something far more deeplyinterfused. "

And so you may run all through the poets, these simply as hints, specimens, every one of them worshippers, touched by the beauty, glory, uplift of the natural world. 

And then pass to the next stage, and come to the worship of the human, to the admiration of the highest and finest qualities that aremanifested in the lives of men and women. Who is there that is nottouched and thrilled by some story of heroic action, of heroic self-sacrifice, of consecration to duty in the face of danger and death? Andno matter what this manifestation of human goodness may be, if you canbe thrilled by it and lifted by it, then you have taken another step upthis ladder of worship which leads you into the very presence chamberof the Divine. 

Let a boy read the life of Lincoln, see his earnest thirst forknowledge, the sacrifice he was willing to pay for it, his consecrationto his ideals of truth, the transparent honesty of the man, the supremecontempt with which he could look down upon anything poor or mean orlow, the firmness and simplicity with which he assumes high office, thefaithfulness, the unassuming devotion, that he carries into thefulfilment of the trust. Take him all the way through, study hischaracter and admire, and you are a worshipper of that which is divine. 

So in the case of Jesus, the supreme soul of history in itsconsecration to the Father, its simple trust in the divine love, itssuperiority to fear, to question, to death. When we bow ourselves inthe presence of the Nazarene, we are not worshipping another God. Weare worshipping his Father and our Father as lie shines in the face ofJesus, as he illumines and beautifies his life, as he makes gloriousthe humble pathways of Galilee, and so casts a reflected glory over thehumblest pathways any of us may be called upon to tread. 

The next step in our ascent brings us to the conscious worship of Godhimself. We cannot grasp the divine idea. The finite cannot measure oroutline the infinite; and so, when we say God, we mean only thegrandest ideal that we can frame, that reaches on towards, but cannever adequately express the Deity. And so we worship this thought, this ideal, growing as our capacity develops, advancing as the raceadvances, and ever leading us Godward, as when we follow a ray of lightwe are travelling towards its source. And the attitude of our souls inthe presence of this which is divine is truest worship. The humility ofit, the exaltation of it, is beautifully phrased in two or three lineswhich I wish to repeat to you from Browning's Saul: "I but open myeyes, and perfection, no more and no less, In the kind I imagined, full-fronts me, and God is seen God In the star, in the stone, in theflesh, in the soul and the clod. And, thus looking within and aroundme, I ever renew (With that stoop of the soul which in bending upraisesit, too), As by each new obeisance in spirit I climb to his feet!"

Here is the significance of the thought I had in mind at the opening. We talk about humbling ourselves. When we can bend with reverence inthe presence of that which is above us, the very bending is exaltation;for it indicates the capacity to appreciate, to admire, to adore. Thuswe climb up into the ability to worship God, the infinite Spirit, ourFather, in spirit and in truth. 

Now to raise one moment the question suggested near the opening, Areforms of worship to pass away? The reply to this seems to me perfectlyclear. Those forms which sprang out of and are fitted to only lowerideals of worship, ideals which humanity outgrows, these must be leftbehind, or else they must be transformed, and filled with a new andhigher meaning. But forms will always remain. But note one thing: theysometimes say that we Unitarians are too cold, and do not have formenough. You will see that, the higher men rise intellectually, the lessthere is always of outward expression. 

For example, before men were able to speak with any large vocabulary, they eked out their meaning by all kinds of motions and gestures. Butthe most highly cultivated men to- day, in their conversation, are theones who get the least excited and have the least recourse to gestures, because they are capable of expressing the highest, finest, and mostvaried thoughts by the elaborate power of speech which they havedeveloped. And perhaps the highest and finest worship of the world willnot be that which has the most elaborate ceremonial and ritual; but itwill have adequate and fitting ceremonial and ritual, because it willnaturally seek to express in some external way that which it feels. 

I sometimes wish and perhaps you will pardon me for saying it here andnow that we Unitarians were a little less afraid of adequate postureand gesture in our acts of public worship. God is, indeed, everywhereas much as he is here; but this is the place we have speciallyconsecrated to thinking about him and to going through our stated formsof worship. And if, when you enter the house of a friend, you take offyour hat, you bow the head, it seems to me it would be especiallyfitting to do it, when one enters a Christian church. And, in theattitude of prayer, I wish that all might find it in their hearts tosit with bended brow and closed eyes as in the presence of the Supreme, shutting out the common, the outside world, and trying to realize whatit means to come consciously to the feet of the eternal One. 

I love these simple, fitting, external manifestations of the worshipfulspirit; and, if we do not substitute them for the worship, and think weworship when we bend the knee, this appropriate expression of thespirit, or feeling, it seems to ought to help cultivate the feeling andthe spirit, and make it easier for us to be conscious of the presenceof the Divine. 

We are men, then, in the highest sense of the term, only as we areworshippers. And the more worshipful we are, in high and true sense ofthat word, the nobler and higher manhood, and the grander thepossibilities in us of de intellectual, moral, spiritual growth. 

Let us, then, cultivate the admiring, the wondering, the worshipfulattitude of heart and mind, and recognize on lowest steps of thisladder that lifts to God, the presence of the same divine power andbeauty and glory as that which we see clearly on the highest, and knowthat always, when we are worshipping any manifestation of God, we areshipping Him who is spirit, in spirit and in truth. 

When on some strain of music Our thoughts are wafted high; When, touched with tender pity, Kind teardrops dim the eye; When thrilledwith scenes of grandeur, Or moved to deeds of love, Do we not give theeworship, O God in heaven above? For Thou art all life's beauty, AndThou art all its good: By Thy tides are we lifted To every lofty mood. Whatever good is in us, Whatever good we see, And every high endeavor, Are they not all from Thee?

MORALITY NATURAL, NOT STATUTORY. 

IT is very common for people to identify their special type of religionor their theological opinions with religion itself, and feel that thosewho do not agree with them are in the rue sense not religious. Not onlythis. It is perhaps quite less common for them to identify theirparticular type of religion with the fundamental ideas of morality, andthink that the people who do not agree with them are undermining themoral stability of the world. For example, those who question theabsolute authority of the Catholic Church are looked upon theauthorities of that Church as the enemies, not only of religion, but asthe enemies of society, the enemies of humanity, as doing what they canto shake the very foundations of he social order. You will find a greatmany Protestant theologians who seem to hold the opinion that, if youdare to question the authenticity or authority of some particular nookin the Bible, you are not only an enemy of religion, but you are anenemy of morality. You are doing what you can to disturb the stabilityof the world. 

But, if we look at the matter with a little care, we shall see that weought to turn it quite around, look at it from another point of view. Though every Bible, every particle of religious literature, every hymn, every prayer on the face of the earth, were blotted out of existenceto-day, religion would not be touched. Religious books did not createreligion, did not make man a religious being. It is the religiousnature of man that made the Bibles, that uttered itself in prayers, that created the rituals, that sung the hymns and chanted the anthems. It is man, a religious being, who makes religious institutions, whocreates all the external aspects and appearances of the religious life. And the same is true precisely in regard to moral precepts. If the TenCommandments were blotted out of the memory of man, if every singleethical teaching of Jesus should perish, if the high and fine moralprecepts of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius and all the great teachers ofthe pagan world should cease to exist, if there were not a printedmoral precept on earth, morality would not be touched. It is not thesethat have created morality. It is the natural moral nature of man thathas written all the commandments, whether they have come to us by thehand of Moses or of Gautama or Mohammed or Confucius or Seneca, or nomatter who the medium may have been. 

Man is a moral being, naturally, essentially, eternally, and this is amoral universe, inherently, necessarily, eternally; and, though all theexternal expression of moral thought and feeling should be lost, thehuman race would simply reproduce them again. 

It is sometimes well for us to get down to the bed-rock in ourthinking, and find how natural and necessary the great foundations are. The Hindu priests used to tell their followers that the earth, whichwas flat, rested on certain pillars, which rested again on some otherfoundation beneath them, and so on until thought was weary in trying totrace that upon which the earth was supposed to find its stability. Andthey also told their followers that, if they did not bring offerings, if they did not pay the special respect which was due to the gods, ifthey were not obedient to heir teachings, these pillars would give way, and the earth would be precipitated into the abyss. 

But we have found, as a result of our modern study of he universe, thatthe earth needs no pillars on which to rest; but it swings freely inits orbit, as the old verse that used to read in my schoolboy dayssays, "Hangs on nothing in the air, " part of the universal system ofthings, stable in its eternal sound and motion, kept and cared for bythe power that lever sleeps and never is weary. So, by studying intothe foundations of the moral nature of man, we have discovered a lastthat it needs no artificial props or supports, but that morality isinherent, natural and eternal. 

I shall not raise the question, which is rather curious than practical, as to whether there are any beginnings of moral feeling in the animalworld below man. For our purpose this morning it is enough to note thatthe minute that man appears conscience appears, and that conscience isan act which springs out of social relations. In other words, when thefirst man rose to the ability to look into the face of his fellow andthink of the other man as another self, like himself in feelings, inpossibilities of pleasure or pain, when this first man was ableimaginatively to put himself in: he place of this other, then moralityas a practical fact was Dorn. 

We may imagine, for the purpose of illustration, this man saying: Hereis another being who appears to be like myself. He is capable ofsuffering pain, as I am. He does not like pain any better than I do. Therefore, I have no right to make him suffer that which I do not wishto suffer myself. This other man is capable of pleasure. He desirescertain things, similar things to those which I desire. If I do notwish him to take these things away from me, I have no right to takethem away from him. 

I do not mean that this was thought out in this clear way, but that, when there was the first dim perception of this other self, withsimilar feelings, similar possibilities, similar pleasures, similarpains, then there became a conscience, because there was aconsciousness of this similarity of nature. Morality, then, is born asa social fact. 

To go a little deeper, and in order to trace the natural and historicalgrowth of the moral ideal, let me say that morality in its deepest andtruest sense is born of the fact of sex, because it is right in therethat we find the root and the germ of permanent social relations. And Iwish you to note another very significant fact. You hear people talkingabout selfishness and unselfishness, as though they were directcontraries, mutually exclusive of each other, as though, in order tomake a selfish man unselfish, you must completely reverse his nature, so to speak. I do not think this is true at all. Unselfishnessnaturally and necessarily springs out of selfishness, and, in thedeepest sense of the word, is not at all contradictory to that. 

For example: A man falls in love with a woman. This, on one side of it, is as selfish as anything you can possibly conceive. But do you not seeby what subtle and divine chemistry the selfishness is straightwaytransformed, lifted up, glorified, and becomes unselfishness? The verylove that he professes for her makes it necessary for his own happinessthat she should be happy, so that, in seeking for his own selfishgratification, he is devoting himself unselfishly to the happiness ofsomebody else. 

And, when a child is born, do you not see, again, how the twoselfishnesses, the father's and the mother's, selfishly, if you please, brooding over and loving the child, at once go out of themselves, consecrating time and care and thought and love, and even health orlife itself, if need be, for the welfare of the child?

Right in there, then, out of this fact of sex and in the becoming ofthe family, are born love and sympathy, and tenderness and mutual care, all those things which are the highest and finest constituent elementsof the noblest developments of the moral nature of men. 

Imagination plays a large part in the development of morality; for youmust be able to put yourself imaginatively in the place of anotherbefore you can feel for that other, and in that way recognize therights of that other and be ready to grant these rights to that other. So we find that morality at first is a narrow thing: it is confinedperhaps to the little family, the father, the mother, the child, boundtogether by these ties of kinship, of love, of sympathy, devotingthemselves to each other; but they may look upon some other family astheir natural enemies, and feel no necessity whatever to apply thesesame principles of love and tenderness and care beyond the limits oftheir own little circle. 

So you find, as you study the growth of the moral nature of man, thatit is confined at first to the family, then to the patriarchal family, then the tribe; but the fiction of kinship is still kept up, and, whilethe member of the primeval tribe feels he has no right to rob or murderwithin the limits of his tribe, he has no compunction whatever aboutrobbing or murdering or injuring the members of some other tribe. Sothe moral principle in its practical working is limited to the range ofthe sympathy of the tribe, which does not go beyond the tribal limits. We see how that principle works still in the world, from the beginningclear up to the highest reaches which we have as yet attained. 

Take the next step, and find a city like ancient Athens. Still, perhaps, the fiction of kinship is maintained. All the citizens ofAthens are regarded as members of the same great tribe or family. Buteven in the time of Plato, whom we are accustomed to look upon as oneof the great teachers of the world, there was no thought of any moralobligation to anybody who lived in Sparta, lived in any other city ofGreece, and less was there any thought of moral obligation as touchingor taking in the outside barbarian. So when the city grew into anation, and we came to a point where the world substantially standsto-day, do you not see that practically the same principle holds, that, while we recognize in some abstract sort of fashion that we ought to dojustice and be kind to people beyond our own limits, yet all ourpolitical economy, all our national ideas, are accustomed to emphasizethe fact that we must be just and righteous to our own people, but thataggression, injustice of almost any kind, is venial in our treatment ofthe inhabitants of another country? And it may even flame up into thefire of a wordy patriotism in certain conditions; and love of countrymay mean hatred and injustice towards the inhabitants of anothercountry, or particularly towards the people of another race. 

Let me give you a practical illustration of it. What are the relationsin which we stand to-day towards Spain? I have unbounded admiration forthe patience, on the whole, for the justice, the sense of right, whichcharacterize the American people. I doubt if there is another nation onthe face of the earth to-day that would have gone through the last twoor three years of our experience, and maintained such an attitude ofimpartiality, of faithfulness, of justice, of right. And yet, if weexamine ourselves, we shall find that it is immensely difficult for usto put ourselves in the place of a Spaniard, to look at the Cubanquestion from his point of view, to try to be fair, to be just to him. It is immensely difficult, I say, for us to look at one of theseinternational questions from the point of view of another race, cherishing other religious and social ideas, having another style ofgovernment. 

And there is another illustration of it that has recently occurred herein our country, which is sadder still to me. Only a little while ago apostmaster in the South was shot by a mob. The mob surrounds his house, murders him and his child, wounds other members of the family, burnsdown his home; and why? Under no impulse whatever except that of pureand simple race prejudice, the utter inability of a white man to puthimself in the position of a black to such an extent as to recognize, plead for, or defend his inherent rights as a man. 

I am not casting any aspersion on the South in what I am saying, nonewhatever. Were the conditions reversed, perhaps we should be no better. It is not a practical problem with us. If there were two or three timesas many colored men in the State of New York as there are white men, then we might understand the question. Let us not mentally cast anystones at the people across the line. I point it out simply asillustrating the difficulty that we have in recognizing the rights, themoral rights, of people beyond the limits of that sympathy to which wehave been accustomed and for a long period trained. 

I believe the day will come when we shall be as jealous of the right ofa man as we are now of the right of an American. We are not yet. Therehave been foregleams and prophecies of it in the past. Long ago a Latinwriter said, I am a man, and whatever is human is not foreign to me. But think what a lone and isolated utterance that has been for hundredsof years. Jesus taught us to pray, not my Father, but our Father, andwe do pray it every day in the-year; but how many are the people in anyof the churches that dream of living it? A hundred years ago thatheretic, who is still looked upon as the bugaboo of all that is fineand good, Thomas Paine, wrote, "The world is my country, and to do goodis my religion, " a sentence so fine that it has been carved on the baseof the statue of William Lloyd Garrison on Commonwealth Avenue inBoston, as being a fitting symbol of his own philanthropic life. 

How many of us have risen to the idea of making these grand sentimentsthe ruling principles of our lives? But along the lines of moral growthit is to come. The day will be when, as I said, we shall feel as keenlywhatever touches the right of any man as to-day we feel that whichtouches the right of one of our own people; and the moral growth of theworld will reach beyond that. I love to dream of a day when men will nolonger forget the inherent rights of any inhabitant of the air or ofthe waters or of the woods or any of the domesticated animals that wehave come to associate with our lives. 

We feel towards them to-day as in the old days a man felt towardsanother man who was his slave, that he had a right to abuse, tomaltreat, even to kill, if he pleased. We have not yet become civilizedenough, so that we feel it incumbent upon us to recognize the fact thatanimals can suffer pain, that animals can enjoy the air or thesunshine, and that they have a right to each when they do not trespassupon the larger rights of humanity. I was something of a boy when itfirst came over me that it was not as amusing to animals to be shot andkilled as it was to me to shoot and kill them. From the time I was ableto lift a gun I had always carried one; but I soon learned that for methere was no pleasure in taking needlessly the life of anything thatlived. We are only partially civilized as yet in the treatment of ourdomesticated animals. How many people think of the torture of the curbbit, of the check, of neglect in the case of cold, of thirst, ofhunger? How many people, I say, civilized and in our best society, arecareful yet as to the comfort, the rights, of those that serve them inthese humble capacities?

The time will come when our moral sympathetic sense shall widen itsboundaries even farther yet, and shall take in the trees and theshrubs, the waters, the hills, all the natural and beautiful featuresof the world. I believe that by and by it will be regarded as immoral, as unmanly, to deface, to mar, that which God has made so glorious andso beautiful. As soon as man develops, then, his power of sympathy, sothat it can take the world in its arms, so soon he will have grown tothe stature of the Divine in the unfolding of his moral nature. 

I wish now to raise the question, for a moment, as to what is to be ourguide in regard to moral facts and moral actions. I was trained, andperhaps most of you were, to believe that I was unquestioningly tofollow my conscience, that whatever conscience told me to do wasnecessarily right. The conscience has been spoken of as though it werea sort of little deity set to rule man's nature, this little kingdom ofthought and feeling and action. But conscience is nothing of the kind. Half of the consciences of the world to-day are all wrong. 

Let me hint by way of illustration what I mean: Calvin was just asconscientious in burning Servetus as Servetus was in pursuing thatcourse of action which led him to the stake. One of them was wrong infollowing his conscience, then. You take it to-day: some people willtell you there is a certain day in the week that you must observe assacred. Your conscience tells you there is another day in the week thatyou must observe as sacred. Can both be right? Many of the greatesttragedies of the world have come about through these controversies andconfusions of conscience. The Quaker in old Boston went at the cart'stail, in disgrace, because he followed his conscience; and the Puritanput him there because he followed his conscience. Were both of themright? The inquisitor in Spain put to death hundreds and thousands ofpeople conscientiously; and the hundreds and thousands of peopleconscientiously went to their deaths. 

What is conscience, then? Conscience is not a moral guide. It is simplythat monitor within that reiterates to us forever and forever andforever, Do right. But conscience does not tell us what is right. Wemust decide those questions as a matter of calm study and judgment inthe light of human experience. It is the judgment that should tell uswhether a thing is right or wrong. And how shall we know whether it isright or wrong? Simply by the consequences. That which helps, thatwhich lifts man up, that which adds to the happiness and the well-beingof the world, as the result of human experience, is right. That whichhurts, that which injures men and women, that which takes away fromtheir welfare and happiness, that is wrong. All these things, as weshall see before I get through, are inherent in the nature of things, not created by statute, not the result of the moral teaching ofanybody. 

This leads me to extend this idea a little farther, and to raise thequestion as to what is the standard by which you are to judge moralaction. If you will think it out with a little care, you will find thatthe standard of all moral action may be summed up in the one word"life. " Life, first, as continuance; second, to use a philosophicalterm, content, that which it includes. Life, this is the standard ofright and wrong. 

To illustrate, take me physically, leave out of account all the rest ofmy nature now for a moment, and consider me as an animal. From thepoint of view of my body, that which conduces to length of life, tofullness, to completion, to enjoyment of life, is right, the onlyright, from this physical point of view. That which threatens my life, that which takes away my sum of strength, injures my health, takes awayfrom my possibility of enjoyment, that, from a physical point of view, is wrong; and there can be no other right or wrong from the point ofview of the body. 

But I am not simply body. So this principle must be modified. Come upto the fact that I am an intellectual being. In order to develop myselfintellectually, I may have to forego things that would be pleasant onthe bodily plane. I sacrifice the lower for the higher; and that whichwould be right on the physical plane becomes relatively wrong now, because it interferes with something that is higher and more important. 

Rise one step to man as an affectional being. If you wish to develophim to the finest and highest here, you may not only be obliged undercertain conditions to sacrifice the body, but you may be obliged tosacrifice his intellectual development. In order that he may be thebest up here, he must put the others sometimes, relatively, under hisfeet. So, again, that which would be right on the physical plane or theintellectual plane becomes relatively wrong, if it interferes with thatwhich is higher still. 

And so, if you recognize man as a spiritual being, a child of God, thenyou say it is right, if need be, to put all these other things underhis feet, in order that he may attain the highest and best that he iscapable of here. But you see it is life all the way, it is the physicallife or it is the mental life or it is the affectional life or it isthe spiritual life; and that which is necessary for the cultivation anddevelopment of these different grades of life becomes on those gradesright, and that which threatens or injures one or either of thesegrades becomes, so far as that grade is concerned, wrong. 

Life, then, continuance, fullness, joy, use, this is the standard ofright and wrong; a standard which no book ever set up, which no bookcan ever overthrow; a standard which is inherent, natural, necessary, apart of the very nature of things. 

I wish now for a moment I must of course do it briefly to consider therelation of religion to this natural morality. And perhaps you willhardly be ready some of you, at any rate for the statement which Ipropose to make, that sometimes, in order to be grandly moral, a manmust be irreligious. I mean, of course, from the point of view of theconventional religion of his time, he must be ready to be regarded asirreligious. In the earliest development of the religious and morallife of a tribe, very likely, the two went hand in hand, side by side;for the dead chief now worshipped as god would be looked upon as infavor of those customs or practices which the tribe had come to regardas right. But religion perhaps you will know by this time, if you havethought of it carefully is the most conservative thing in the world. Naturally, it is the last thing that people are willing to change. Thisreluctance grows out of their reverence, grows out of their worshipfulnature, grows out of their fear that they may be wrong. 

But now let me illustrate what I mean. Religion, standing still in thisway, has become an institution, a set of beliefs, of rites andceremonies, which do not change. The moral experience of the peoplegoes right on; and so it sometimes comes to pass that the moral idealhas outgrown the religious ideal of the community. And now, as apractical illustration to illume the whole point, let us go back toancient Athens for a moment at the time of Socrates. Here we areconfronted with the curious fact that Socrates, who has been regardedfrom that day to this as the most grandly moral man of his time, theone man who taught the highest and noblest human ideals, is put todeath as an irreligious man. The popular religion of the time cast himout, and put the hemlock to his lips; and at the same time his teachingin regard to righteousness and truth was unspeakably ahead of thepopular religion of his day. 

Let us come to the modern Athens for a moment, to the time of TheodoreParker in Boston. We are confronted here, again, with this strangefact. There was not a church in Boston that could abide him, not eventhe Unitarian churches; and in the prayer-meetings of the day they werebeseeching God to take him out of the world, because they thought hewas such a force for evil. And at the same time Theodore Parker stoodfor the very highest, tenderest, truest moral ideal of his age. 

There was no man walking the earth at that time who so grandly voicedthe real law of God as did Theodore Parker. And yet he was outcast bythe popular religious sentiment of his time. 

This, then, is what I mean when I say that we ought to be careful, andstudy and think in forming our religious ideals, and see that we do notidentify our own unwillingness to think with the eternal and changelesslaw of God. This is what I have meant in some of the strictures which Ihave uttered during the last year upon some of the theological creedsof the time. The people have grown to be better than their creeds, butthey have not yet developed the courage to make those creeds utter thehighest and finest things which they think and feel. This is what Ihave meant when I have said that the character of God as outlined inmany of these creeds is away behind and below the noblest and finestand sweetest ideals of what we regard as fitting even to humanityto-day. 

Religion, then, may be ahead of the moral ideal or it may be behind it. The particular type of religion I mean, of course, which is being heldat any particular time in the history of the world. But the moral idealof necessity goes on, keeping step with the social experience of therace. 

I must touch briefly now just one other point of practical importancethat we need to guard, in order to be tender and true in our dealingswith our fellow-men. You will find, if you look over the face ofsociety, that there are two kinds of morality, frequently quiteinconsistent with each other; and sometimes the poorer of the two kindsis held in higher esteem than the better. I mean there is conventionalmorality, and there is real morality. 

As a hint of illustration: An American woman goes to Turkey to-day; andshe is shocked by the customs of the women and their style of dress. Itseems to her that no woman can possibly be moral who, although shecovers her head, can appear on the street with feet and ankles bare. But this same Turkish woman is shocked beyond the possibility ofutterance to know that in Europe and America women carefully covertheir feet, but expose their faces and their shoulders. It seemsterrible to her, and she cannot understand how a European or Americanwoman can have any regard for the principles of delicacy and morality. 

Do you not see how, in both cases here, it is purely a matter ofconvention? No real question of morality is touched in either case. Ispeak of this to prepare you to note how conscience can be as troubledover things which are purely conventional as it can over things whichare downright and real. Let me use another illustration, going a littledeeper in the matter. Here is a man, for example, who is terriblyshocked because his neighbor takes a drive with his family on Sundayafternoon. It seems to him an outrage on all the principles of publicand social morality; and he is eager to get up a society to abolishsuch customs, that seem to him to threaten the prosperity of all thatis good in the world. But this same man, perhaps, has been trained in away of conducting his business that, while legal, is not strictly fair. This man may be hard and cruel towards his employees. He may cherishbitter hatreds towards his rivals. In his heart he may be transgressingthe law of vital ethics, while fighting with all the power of hisnature for that which does not touch any real question of right orwrong at all. 

Or take a woman who, while shocked at the transgression of some socialcustom in which she has been trained from her childhood, or, forexample, has come to think that a certain way of observing Lent, onwhich we have just entered, is absolutely necessary to the safety ofreligion and morals both, is yet quite willing, and without a qualm ofconscience, on the slightest hint of a suspicion, to tear into tattersthe character of one of her neighbors or friends, does not hesitate toslander, perhaps is unjust or cruel to the servants that make the housecomfortable and beautiful for her; in other words, transgressing thereal laws of right and wrong, she is shocked and troubled over thetransgression on the part of others of some purely conventionalstatute, the keeping or breach of which has no real bearing on thewelfare of the world. 

A good many of our social judgments are like the case of the old ladypardon me, if it should make you smile, but it illustrates the case whocriticised with a great deal of severity a neighbor and friend who worefeathers on her bonnet. Somebody said to her, But the ribbons on yourbonnet are quite as expensive as the feathers that you criticise. "Yes, "she said, "I know they are; but you have got to draw the linesomewhere, and I choose to draw it at feathers. " So you find a greatmany people on every hand in society who are choosing to draw theselines purely artificial, purely conventional in regard to matters ofsupposed right or wrong, while they are not as careful to look downdeeply into the essential principles of that which is inherently rightor wrong. 

And now at the end I wish to suggest what is a theme large enough for asermon by itself, and say that these laws of righteousness are soinherent that they are self-executed; and by no possibility did anysoul from the beginning of the world ever escape the adequate result ofhis wrong-doing. The old Hebrews, as manifested in the Book of Job, thePsalms, and all through the Old Testament, taught the idea, which wascommon at that time in the world, that the favor of God was to bejudged by the external prosperity of men and women. The Old Testamentpromises long life and wealth and all sorts of good things to thepeople who do right; and I find on every hand in the modern worldpeople who have inherited this way of looking at things. I have heardpeople say: I have tried to do right, and I am not prosperous. I wonderwhy I am treated so? I have heard women say, I have tried to be a goodmother: why is my child taken away from me? As though there was anysort of relation between the two facts. I hear people say, Don't talkto me about the justice of God, when here is a man, who has beendishonest all his life long, who has prospered, and become rich andlives in a fine house, drives his horses, and owns a yacht. As if therewas any sort of connection between the two, as though a man merelybecause he had a fine house and owned a yacht was escaping thepunishment of his unjust and selfish life. 

Remember, friends, look a little below the surface. There is nopossibility of escape. I break some law of my body; do I escape theresult? I break some law of my mind; do I escape the result? I breaksome law of my affectional nature; is nothing to happen? I break a lawof my spiritual nature; does nothing take place as the result of it?You might as well say that the law of gravity can be suspended, that aman can fling himself over the edge of a precipice, and come to noharm. The precipice over the edge of which you fling yourself may be aphysical one, may be a mental one, an affectional one, a spiritual one;but the moral gravity of the universe is never mocked, and the man whobreaks any of God's laws never goes free. He may discover that he hasbroken it, be sorry for it, begin to keep it again, and recoverhimself; but the consequences are sure, inevitable, eternal. 

You look at a man who is externally prospering, and because of this yousay he is not suffering the result of the evil he has done. Go backwith me to Homer's Odyssey at the time when Ulysses and his companionsfell into the hands of the sorceress, and his companions were turnedinto swine. Would you go and look at these swine, and say they are notsuffering anything? See how comfortable they are. See with what gustothey eat the food that is cast into their troughs. See how happy theyare as swine. They are not suffering anything Is it nothing to becomeswinish, merely because you have your beautiful pen to live in? Is anot suffering the result of his moral wrong when he debases anddegrades and deteriorates his own nature, and becomes less a man, because he is surrounded with all that is glorious and beautiful thatart can supply? Look within whatever department of nature where the lawhas been disobeyed, and there forever and forever read the result, theinevitable law, that the soul that sinneth, in so far as it sinneth, itshall die. 

REWARD AND PUNISHMENT. 

Two WEEKS ago I preached a sermon, the subject of which was "MoralityNatural, not Statutory. " Judging by the conversations which I have hadand letters which I have received, it has aroused a good deal ofquestion and criticism in certain quarters. This must be for one ofthree reasons. In the first place, the position which I took may not bea tenable one. In the second place, it is possible that the viewsexpressed, being somewhat new and unfamiliar, were not found easy ofapprehension and acceptance. In the third place, it is possible that, in endeavoring to treat so large a subject, I did not analyze andillustrate enough to make myself perfectly clear. 

At any rate, the matter seems to me of such supreme importance as tomake it worth my while this morning to continue the general subject bya careful and earnest treatment of the great question of reward andpunishment as applied to feeling, to thought, to conduct, the whole ofhuman life. 

Let me say here at the outset, as indicating the point towards which Ishall aim as my goal, that in the ordinary use of language, in thepopular use of language, I do not believe in either reward orpunishment: I believe only in causes and results. This, as I said, isthe point that I shall aim at. Where shall I begin?

I need to ask you to consider for a moment the state of mind of man, sofar as we can conceive it, when he first wakes up as a conscious being, and begins to look out over the scene of nature and human life with theendeavor to interpret facts as they appear to him. Of course, he knowsnothing whatever of what we mean by natural law: he knows nothing ofnatural cause and of necessary result. So far as we can discover by ourresearches, all the tribes of men about whom we have been able togather any information have had a belief, if not in God, at least ingods, or in spiritual existences and powers that controlled withincertain limits the course of human events. It may have been the worshipof ancestors, it may have been the worship of some great chief of thetribe; but these invisible beings have been able to help or hurt theirfollowers, their worshippers; and of course they have been thought ofas governing human life after substantially the same methods that theyused when they were living here in the body. 

That is, it has been a magical or arbitrary government of the worldthat has been for ages the dominant one in the human mind. People havesupposed that these invisible beings desired them to do certain things, to refrain from doing certain other things, and they have expected themto reward or punish them how? By giving them that which they desired, on the one hand, or sending them something which they did not desire, on the other. They have brought the gods their offerings, theirsacrifices, their words of praise, and have asked that they might besuccessful in war, that they might bring home the game which theysought when they went on a hunting expedition. When there have beendisease, pestilence, famine, drought, no matter what the nature of theevil, they have been regarded as allotments of these divine powers senton account of something they have done or omitted to do. It neveroccurred to them to interpret these as part of a natural order, becausethey knew nothing about any natural order. They reasoned as well asthey were able to reason at that stage of culture in any particular ageof the world's history which they had reached. But this has been thethought of men time out of mind concerning the method of the divine orspiritual or unseen government of the world. 

Is this way of looking at it confined to primitive man, confined topagan nations? Do we find something else, some other condition of mind, when we come to study carefully the Old Testament? Let us see. Take thefirst verse which I read as a part of my text. The author of this Psalmwe do not know who he may have been says, "I have been young, and nowam old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seedbegging their bread. " As I have read this a great many times in thepast, I have wondered as to the strange experience that this man musthave had in human life, if this is a correct interpretation of thatexperience. I have been young: I do not like to admit that as yet I amold; but, whether I am or not, I have a good many times seen therighteous forsaken, and his seed begging their bread. 

It seems to me that the writer of this verse was trained in a theory ofthe government of human affairs that does not at all match the facts. He has this magical, this arbitrary theory in his mind. It was thegeneral conception I think, as any one will find by a careful readingof the Old Testament or study of Jewish history, the ordinaryconception among the Hebrews, that God was to reward people for beinggood by prosperity, long life, many children, herds of cattle, distinction among his fellow-men, positions of political honor andpower; and the threat of the taking away of these is frequently utteredagainst those that presume to do wrong. In other words, it seems to methat the ordinary theory of the government of human affairs as setforth in the Old Testament is precisely this same one that I have beenconsidering as the natural and necessary outcome of the ignorance andinexperience of early man. 

As time went on, now and then some deeper, more spiritual thinkerbegins to question this method of reasoning, begins to wonder whetherit is quite adequate; and we have a magnificent poetical expression ofthis kind of critical thought in the Book of Job. This Book of Job isany way and every way worthy of your careful attention. It is thenearest to a dramatic production of anything in the Bible. JamesAnthony Froude said once in regard to it that, if it were translatedmerely as a poem and published by itself, it would take rank as aliterary work among the few great masterpieces of the world. 

But the thing that engages our attention this morning is not its poweras a dramatic production, but its criticism of God's government of theworld. It has been assumed, as I have said, and we are not through withthat assumption, that, if a man suffered, if he was ill, if his wife orchildren were taken away from him, if his property was destroyed, somehow he had offended God, and that this was a punishment for thecourse of wrong-doing in which he had been engaged. But the author ofthe Book of Job conceives that this does not quite match the facts; sohe gives us this magnificent character that he declares upright, spotless, free from wrong of any kind, who yet is suffering. He haslost his property, it has been swept away, his children have been putto death, almost everything that he cared for he has lost, and he fromhead to feet is sick of a loathsome disease; and he sits in the midstof his deprivation and sorrow. His friends gather around him; and withthis old assumption in their minds some of them begin to taunt him. They say, Now, Job, why not confess, why not own up as to what you havebeen doing? Of course, you have been doing something wrong, or all thiswould not have happened. This is the tone that one of his criticstakes. This is the kind of comfort that he receives in the midst of hissorrow. But Job protests earnestly and indignantly that it is not true. He says he is innocent, there are no secret wrongs in his life; and hewishes that he might find some way by which he could come into thepresence of the great Ruler of the universe, and openly plead hiscause. But his friends do not believe him. 

Now the writer of the book lets us into the explanation he has thoughtout for this: God for a special reason is testing Job, to see whetherhe will be true to him in spite of the fact that he does not get theordinary blessings that the people were accustomed to look for as therewards of their conduct. But the writer is not consistent with thewonderful position that he makes Job assume; for, after the trial isall over, he falls in with the popular theory, and shows us Job, notwith the old children who could not be brought back, but with a lot ofnew ones, with herds and cattle again in plenty, with honor among hisfellow-citizens, with all that heart could wish in the way of worldlyprosperity and peace. 

So I say the writer is not quite consistent, for he falls back at theend on the old theory, and he lets us gain a glimpse behind the scenes, just enough to see that there are cases, special cases, where thepopular theory does not hold; but he still seems to assume that, in ageneral way, we are to accept it as correct, and as explaining thefacts of human life. 

The Jews acted on this theory in their political history. Theirprophets, their great teachers, asserted over and over again that, ifthey were true to their God, if they were faithful in their obedienceto the law, if they lived out all these highest and finest ideals ofceremonial as well as heart righteousness, that they would be mighty asa nation, that their enemies would be put under their feet, that theywould have political success and power; and yet their increasinginsistence on this ceremonial and interior righteousness of thought andlife was found to be no adequate defence against the Roman legions. Political success did not come to them. In spite of all theirobedience, they were swept out of existence as a nation. 

Now do we find any difference in teaching in the New Testament? We do;and we do not. The teaching of the New Testament is not consistent inthis matter. If Jesus be correctly reported, his own teaching is notquite consistent on this subject. Let me give you one or twoillustrations, that you may see what I mean. John tells us that acertain man, who had been born blind, was brought to Jesus to be cured;and the people stood about, and said to Jesus, "Who is it, this manhimself or his parents, that sinned, so that he was born blind?" Yousee it does not occur to them that there is any natural cause for aman's being blind, apart from some sin on the part of somebody. Who isit, then, his father or mother, or he himself, that has sinned, that isthe cause of it? Jesus says, "Neither this man nor his parents havesinned, " and you think at first that you are going to get an adequateexplanation; but he straightway adds that the man was blind in orderthat the works of God might be manifest in him; which we cannot acceptto-day as quite an adequate explanation. 

Then take the case of the man who was lying at the pool of Bethesda, and was reported as cured. Jesus meets him, after a good deal ofquestion and criticism on the part of the Jews, and says, "Now you havebeen healed, see to it that you sin no more, lest a worse thing come toyou, " seeming to imply again that sin might be punished by lameness, byaffliction of this kind or that. 

So it seems to me that we do not get, even in the New Testament, entirely free from this old conception. Indeed, there are the verseswhich I read as a part of our lesson from the fifth chapter of Matthew, one of which for a clear or more spiritual insight I have quoted as apart of my text, "Blessed are they that do hunger and thirst afterrighteousness, for they shall be filled" with what? Filled withrighteousness; not filled with health, external prosperity, manychildren, friends, political position, honor. Blessed are the pure inheart, for they shall what? See God. "Blessed are the merciful, forthey shall obtain mercy. Blessed are they that are persecuted forrighteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "

You see these beatitudes strike down to the eternal principle ofnatural, necessary causation and result, just as does the last versewhich I have quoted from Galatians, "Be not deceived; God is notmocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap, " notsomething else, that. Here is a clear and explicit annunciation of theeternal, universal law of cause and effect, of the idea that thosethings which happen are not arbitrary infliction, but natural andnecessary result. 

Let us, then, consider this matter for a little as we look over theface of human life as it is manifested to us at the present time. Isuppose hardly a week passes that, either by letter or in conversation, I do not come face to face with this same old problem, showing thatonly partially and here and there have men and women even to-day cometo comprehend the real method after which this universe of ours isgoverned. For example, let me give you a few illustrations. 

I have a friend in Boston, one of the noblest men I ever knew, sweet, gentle, true: he came to me one day, and said: "Mr. Savage, I havetried all my life to be an honest man. I do not own an ill-gottendollar. I have tried to be kind and helpful to people in need, introuble; and yet, " and then it began to dawn on him that he was not ona very logical track, for he smiled, "and yet I have not got on verywell in the world; I have not made a great deal of money; I have notbeen specially prosperous in business. " And the implication was thathere, next door or in another street, was a man who had a good manyill-gotten dollars, and who had not been generous or kindly or humaneor tender, but who had prospered and become rich, as he had not. And heraised this as a serious objection against the justice of thegovernment of the world. 

I have had mothers; I presume a thousand times, say to me: "I havetried to take the best possible care of my child. I loved my child, Iwatched over it night and day, I have money enough to give it a goodeducation, I could train it into fitness for life; and yet my child istaken away. " Here is somebody else who has not the means to educate herchild, perhaps whose character and intelligence are a good deal belowthe average level. Her child is spared, spared for what? Spared for acareer for which it will be entirely unfitted; and the question is, Whydoes God do such things, why is the universe governed in this fashion?

And I have had persons say to me: "I have been ill all my life, I havesuffered no end of pain and trouble: I wonder why? What have I donethat I must be burdened and afflicted after this fashion?" So thesequestions are coming up perpetually, showing that underlying theordinary surface of our common daily life is still this theory that Godarbitrarily governs the world, and rewards people for being good withhealth and with money and with children and with all sorts ofprosperity. There is no end of talk in regard to judgments, as they arecalled. I remember when I was living in the West I take this as anillustration as good as any a neighboring small city was badlydevastated by fire. All the ministers around me in my city began topreach about it as a judgment of God for the supposed wickedness ofthis city. One peculiar thing about this particular judgment, which Inoticed as reported in the papers, was that the last thing which thefire burned was a church; and it left standing next door, anduntouched, a liquor saloon. It seemed to me a very peculiar kind ofdivine judgment, if that is what it really was. 

And so, as you look into these cases of supposed divine judgments, which people are so ready to see in regard to their neighbors, you willfind that it has some serious defect of this sort almost always thatmakes you question whether a wise man would be guilty of that method ofconducting his affairs. 

This, perhaps, is enough by way of setting forth the popular method oflooking at these problems. I want to ask you now to go with me for alittle while, as I attempt to analyze some of these cases, and get atthe real principle involved as to what it is that is really going on. 

Now take this case of the mother whose child is taken away from her, asshe says. Let us see if we can find out what is really being done. Itis possible, of course, that the child has inherited, it may be from agrandfather or great-grandfather, from somewhere along the line, atendency to a particular kind of disease. It may be that, withoutanybody's being to blame for it or anybody's knowing it, the child wasexposed to some contagious disease on the street or at school. It maybe that the mother, through a little otherwise pardonable vanity, wishing to display the beauty of the child rather than to dress it inthe healthiest manner, has been the means of exposing it to cold. Itmay be any one of a dozen things has caused the death of this child. And do you not see that in every case it has nothing whatever to dowith the mother's moral goodness or spiritual cultivation? It is absurdto think that the mother, in this case, is being punished for somethingthat she is entirely unconscious of having been guilty of. Do you notsee that there is no logical connection between an inherited disease, between exposure, between taking cold, between any of these naturalcauses and the goodness of the mother? Is it not absurd to talk abouttheir having anything whatever to do with each other?

I remember hearing a famous revivalist preach some years ago; and inthis particular sermon he represented God as using all means to try toturn such a man from his path of evil, as he regarded it, into the wayof right and truth and salvation; and he said: First, perhaps, Godtakes his property away from him; and that does not change him. And byand by he takes his wife; and that does not change him. And then hetakes one of his children; and, as he expressed it, he lays thesecoffins across his pathway in order to warn him of his sinfulcondition, and turn him into the right way. 

Think of a God who kills other people on account of my wrong!

I had a friend in Boston once, a lady, a school-teacher, who in allseriousness told me, when her sister died, that she was afraid God hadtaken her sister away because she had not been sufficiently faithful inattending church services during Lent. Think of it! Not only the lackof logic in linking things like these together, but the practicalimpiety of attributing to God such feelings and action in regard to hisdealings with his children!

Let us take the case of a man who, not being highly elevated incharacter, becomes rich. Let us see if we can get at the principlesinvolved here. Perhaps you can call to mind one or another case thatyou may be thinking of while I speak. Of course I shall mention nonames. Here is a man who possesses remarkable natural business ability, power to read the commerce, the business of his times. He deals withthese in a practical way. He complies with the conditions ofaccumulating wealth. No matter for the present whether he does wrong indoing it or not, that is, whether he is unjust or hard or cruel; but hecomplies with the conditions for the obtaining of money in thisparticular department of life. Now do you not see that, no matter whathis moral character may be in other directions, whether he is kind tohis wife, whether he is loving towards his children, whether he isgenerous in a charitable way, whether he is politically stanch orcorrupt, do you not see that these questions are entirely irrelevant, have nothing whatever to do with the question of success in the moneyfield? He sows according to the laws of the product which he wishes toraise, and the product appears. 

Or take the case of a farmer: Here is a certain tract of land adaptedto a particular crop. He sows wisely in this field. He cultivates it:the rain and the sun do their part; and in the fall he has amagnificent result. Now has that anything whatever to do with thequestion whether the man was a good man or not, as to whether he wentto prayer-meeting or not, as to whether he read his Bible or not, asto whether he was profane or not, as to whether he was a good neighboror not? Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap, and reap it wherehe sows it. Is it not perfectly plain? So in any department of humanlife, I care not what, trace it out, and you will find that preciselythe same principle is involved, and that you get results, not arbitrarybestowal's of reward or punishment. 

Now I must come having, I hope, made this sufficiently clear, thoughafter this fragmentary fashion to deal a little more with some of theethical sides of this question. I have had no end of persons tell me, first and last, that it seemed to them that the universe could not be amoral universe, that it was not governed fairly, that reward andpunishment were not meted out evenly to people; and they based theircriticism on statements of fact similar to those with which I have beendealing. 

Now let us look into the matter a little deeply; and let us see if wecan find any hint of light and guidance. I have had a person within aweek say to me, "I do not feel at all sure that it means much thatpeople get the moral results of their moral action in a particulardepartment of life. If a person becomes a little bit callous and hard, wisely selfish and prudent, and so prospers in the affairs of thislife, I am not sure that he is not as well off as anybody, perhaps alittle better off, perhaps a little better off than a person who issensitive, and worries because he does not reach his ideals; and it ispossible that he serves the world after all quite as well. " This is akind of criticism, I say, that has been made to me in the last week. 

Let us look at it for just a minute. People do not seem able as yet tounderstand that a man is really "punished, " in the popular sense ofthat word, unless they can see him publicly whipped. It does not seemto them to mean anything because a man deteriorates, because thehighest and finest qualities in him atrophy and threaten to die out. Iused an illustration in my sermon two weeks ago to which I shall haveto recur again, to see if I can make it mean more than it did then. Itis the story of Ulysses who fell into the hands of the famoussorceress, and whose companions were turned into swine. Now would yoube willing to be turned into a pig, merely because, being a pig, youwould not know anything about it, and would not suffer? Would you bewilling to be reduced to the life of an oyster, merely because, beingan oyster, you would be haunted by no restless ideals, and, so far asyou had any sense at all, would probably be very comfortable indeed? Isthere no "punishment" in this deprivation of the highest and finestthings that we can conceive of?

It seems to me that a person who has deteriorated, who has becomeselfish, who has become mean, who has lost all taste for high and fineand sweet things, and is unconscious of them, is having meted out tohim the worst conceivable retribution. If a man is mean and knows it, if a man is selfish and is conscious of it, if a man is unjust and isstung by the reflection, there is a little hope for him, there is lifethere, there is moral vitality, there is a chance for him torecuperate, to climb up into something higher and finer; but, if he hasnot only become degraded and mean, but has become contented in thatcondition, it seems to me that he is worse off than almost anybody elseof whom we can dream. 

Let us see for a moment on what conditions a man who has deterioratedis well off. There are three big "ifs" in the way, in my thought of it. If a man really is a spiritual being, if he is a child of God, if thereare in him possibilities of unfolding of all that is sweet and divine, then he is not well off when he is not developing these, and is contentnot to develop them. Browning says, in his introduction to "Sordello, ""The culture of a soul, little else is of any value. "

If we are souls, and if the culture of a soul is of chiefestimportance, then cursed beyond all words is the man who hasdeteriorated and become degraded and is content to have it so. Blessedbeyond all words is the soul that is haunted by discontent, haunted byunattained and unattainable ideals, who is restless because of thatwhich he feels he might be and yet is not, he who is touched by thefar-off issues of divinity, and cannot rest until he has grown intothe stature of the Divine!

And then, once more, if it be true that it is worth our while to helpour fellow-men in the higher side of their nature, to help them be menand women, to help them realize that they are children of God, and togrow into the realization of it, if, I say, this be worth while, thenlamentable beyond all power of expression is the condition of that manwho does not feel it and does not care for it, and does not consecratehimself to its attainment. Look over the long line of those who haveserved mankind. Who are they? From Abraham down, the prophets ofIsrael; Jesus, Paul, Savonarola, Huss, Wyclif, Luther, Channing, Parker, who have these men been but the ones who were ready at anyprice to do something to lift up and lead on the progress of mankind?These are the ones who have felt the meaning of those sublime words ofJesus: "He that loseth his life shall save it. " If there is any meaningin that splendid passage from George Eliot, that is so trite because itis so fine, "Oh may I join the choir invisibleOf those immortal dead who live againIn minds made better by their presence: liveIn pulses stirred to generosity, In deeds of daring rectitude, in scoreFor miserable aims that end with self, In thoughts sublime that pierce the night like stars, And with their mild persistence urge man's searchTo vaster issues. So to live is heaven:To make undying music in the world, Breathing as beauteous order that controlWith growing sway the growing life of man. This is life to come, Which martyred men have made more gloriousFor us who strive to follow. May I reach That purest heaven, be to other soulsThe cup of strength in some great agony, Enkindle generous ardor, feed pure love, Beget the smiles that have no cruelty, Be the sweet presence of a good diffused, And in diffusion ever more intense. So shall I join the choir invisibleWhose music is the gladness of the world. "

If, I say, there is any meaning in that magnificent song, then indeedit is worth while to be miserable, if need be, worth while to suffer, worth while to sacrifice for the sake of planting seed in the spiritualfields, and looking for its spiritual results, and not finding faultwith the universe because we do not get results of spiritual goodnessin material realms. 

There is one other "if. " If it be true, as I believe it is, that thislife goes right on, and that we carry into the to-morrow of anotherlife the precise and accurate results that we have wrought out in theto-day of this; if it be true that, when we get over there, it will bespiritual facts and spiritual things with which we shall deal, then theman who has cultivated his spiritual nature and has reaped spiritualresults has no right to find fault with the universe because it has notpaid him with material good. 

Let us remember, then, that we get what we sow. God has not promised topay you in greenbacks for being good; God has not promised to give youphysical health because you are gentle and tender; God has not promisedto give you long life because you are generous; God has not promised togive you positions of social or political honor because you are kind toyour neighbors, faithful to your wife, true to your children. Can younot see that whatsoever a man sowest, that shall he reap; and that hewill reap in the field where he sows, and not in some other; and thatGod is dealing fairly, justly, tenderly, truly, with you in giving youthe results at which you aim, and not the results at which you do notaim?

So, if you really care to be a man, if you care to be a woman, honest, noble, tender, true, then be these, and be grateful that you reap thereward where you sowed, and do not find fault with God or the universebecause he does not pay you for things that you have not done, becausehe does not make a crop grow in some field that you have notcultivated, because it is eternally true that God is not mocked, andthat whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 

THINGS WHICH DOUBT CANNOT DESTROY. 

THE critical and investigating work of the modern world threatens toshake not the earth only, but also heaven. And there are large numbersof people who are disturbed and afraid: they are troubled lest certainthings that are precious, that are dear to them, may be taken away. Notonly this, they are troubled lest things of vital importance to thehighest life of the world be taken away. I propose, then, this morningto run in rapid review over a few of the changes that are caused by theinvestigating spirit of the time, and then to point out some thingsthat are not touched, that cannot be shaken, and that therefore mustremain. And I ask you to have in mind, as I pursue this line ofthought, the question whether doubt has taken away anything reallyvaluable from mankind. The negative part of my theme I shall touch onvery lightly, and dispose of as briefly as I may. 

What has doubt, what has investigation, done concerning the universe ofwhich we are a part? In the old days, before doubt began its work, before men asked questions and demanded proof, we lived in a little, petty, tiny world, which the imagination of the superstitious and thefear of ignorant men had created. But the cycles and epicycles whichPtolemy devised, and by means of which he explained, as well as he knewhow, the movements of the heavenly bodies around us, these have passedaway. The breath of doubt has blown upon them; and they have gone, likemists driven by the wind. 

But has doubt quenched the light of any star? Has doubt taken away fromthe glory of the universe? Rather, as the result of the work of thesemyriad investigators, whose one aim and end was truth, at last we havea universe worthy to be the home of an infinite God, a universe thatmatches our thought of the Divine, a universe that thrills and liftsus, fills us with reverence, and bends us to our knees in the attitudeof worship. 

The same spirit has raised no end of questions concerning God. What hasbeen the result? We have lost the old thought of God in the shape of aman sitting on a throne located in the heavens just above the blue oron some distant star. We have lost the thought of a God as a tyrant, asa jealous being, as angry every day with his children, as ready topunish these children forever for their ignorance, for theirintellectual mistakes, for their sins of whatever kind. We have changedour conception of him; but have we lost God? I will not answer thatquestion at this stage of the discourse, because I wish merely tosuggest it now, and dwell on it a little more when I come to thepositive treatment of our morning's theme. 

Let us glance at the Bible a moment. Doubt and investigation have beenat work there. What has been the result? Have we lost the Bible? No. Wehave gained it. We have lost those things about it which wereintellectual burdens because we could not believe them, which were amoral burden because they conflicted with our highest and noblest senseof right. We no longer feel under the necessity of reconciling humanmistakes with divine infallibility. Professor Goldwin Smith has told usrecently that these old theories of the Bible were a millstone aboutthe neck of Christendom, and that they must be gotten rid of ifChristianity was to live. This is all that doubt and investigation havedone to the Bible. They have cleared away the things that no sane andearnest and devout mind wishes to keep; and they have restored to us inall their dignity and beauty and sweetness and power the real humanBible, the Bible which poured out of the heart of the olden time, andwhich is in all its truth and sweetness, so far as they go, arevelation of the divinest things in human thought and human dream. 

Preachers tell us every little while that those who ask questions havetaken away our Lord, and they know not where he has been laid. What hasthis spirit done concerning Jesus? Has it taken him away from us?Rather, as the result of all this question and criticism, at last wehave found him, found him who has been hidden away for ages, found theman, divine son of God, son of man, brother, friend, inspirer, companion, helper. It has done for Jesus the grandest service of whichwe can conceive. 

And now one more point. People used to suppose they knew all about thenext world. They knew where heaven was and where hell was, and who wereto be the inhabitants of either place, and why. Doubt and question havebeen at work here, and now we do not know where heaven is; and we donot know where hell is, except that it is within the heart of thosethat are not in accord with the divine life. Where the places are, weknow not; but blessed beyond all words be ignorance like this! We knowbecause we believe in righteousness and truth that there is no hellexcept that which we create for ourselves; and that is in this world, in any world where there is a breach of a divine law. But has the greathope gone? Has doubt touched that, so that it has shrivelled and becomeas nothing? That I shall have occasion to touch on a little more atlength in a moment; and so I leave it here with this suggestion. 

I wish you now to note, and to note with a great deal of care, thatdoubt, criticism, question, investigation, have no power to destroyanything. People talk as though, if you doubted a thing, itdisappeared, as though doubt had magical power to annihilate in someway a truth. If you really do doubt an important divine truth, it maydisturb and trouble you for a while; but the truth remains just thesame. I remember some years ago a parishioner came to me, anintelligent lady, and said, "Mr. Savage, I have about lost my belief inany future life. " I smiled, and said: "I am sorry for you, if itinterferes with your comfort and peace; but remember one thing, neitheryour doubt nor my belief touches or changes the fact. " The eternal lifeis not something to be puffed away with a breath, if it be real. Sorest right there in the firm assurance that whatever is true is true, and rests on the eternal foundation of the permanence of God; andasking questions about it, digging away at its foundations, testing itin any and all sorts of ways, cannot by any possibility injure it. Enforce thus this idea, simple as it seems, because thousands of menand women at the present time are made to tremble by utterances fromthe pulpit, as though doubt were really a destroyer. Of course, itseems commonplace the moment you think of it; and, still for your peaceand for the restfulness of your mind as you look on the things that aretaking place about us, hold fast to this simple idea. 

There is one other point which I wish to raise. What is the use ofcriticism? What is the use of all this investigating? Why indulge inall this doubt? And now let me give you an illustration which will leadme to answering this question and enforcing the point I have in mind. Afarmer, if he selects a favorable piece of ground, plants good seed, cultivates it properly, if the rain falls and the sun shines, and theweather is propitious, will have a successful crop. Does it make anydifference now whether the farmer has correct ideas about soil and seedand cultivation? Does it make any difference whether he has any trueconception of the nature and work of the sunshine in producing thiscrop? In one sense, No. In another, a very important sense, Yes. Suppose the farmer, having gotten into his mind the idea that the sunis the source of all the life and growth of the things that he plantsand the crops he cultivates, should say, "Well, now, it does not makeany difference whether I have correct scientific theories about the sunor not: the sun carries on his work just the same. " I have heard peoplesay, over and over again, using an illustration like this: "Whatdifference does it make what your theories are about the spirituallife, about the origin and nature of religion, about morality? If youlive a good life, the results are just the same, whatever your thinkingmay be. " And I grant it. But now suppose the farmer should say tohimself: "The sun is the source of all the life that I am able toproduce, that I see growing around me; and now I will worship him as agod. I will pray to him, I will sing songs of praise to him, I willbring birds and animals and burn sacrifices to him; and so I will winhis favor, and get him to produce these wonderful results for me. "Suppose he should so seek his results, and pay no attention to thecharacter of the soil, to the kind of seed he planted, or to propercultivation: would that make no difference?

Do you not see that theory may be of immense practical importance incertain contingencies? Whether he has any knowledge of the sun or not, if he complies with the laws, the conditions, if he is fortunatelyobedient, then his results will be produced. But, if his ignorance, hissuperstition, lead him to neglect the natural forces with which hedeals, then it may make all the difference in the world. So, as I studythe history and development of religious thought, I see everywhere thatmen and women, through their ignorance in regard to the real nature ofthe universe and of God and of their own souls, are going astray, wasting time, wasting thought, wasting effort, misdirecting all theseinstead of complying with the real natural universal conditions onwhich these noblest and highest results which they desire depend. 

If a man, for example, believes that he is to please God by asacrifice, by an offering, by swinging incense, by going through acertain ceremony, instead of being righteous and true, does it make nodifference? Carry out the idea as far as you please, I think I havemade plain the thought I had in mind. 

So it does make a difference what our thoughts, our theories, may be;and, therefore, there is good in this work of investigation whichproposes to sift and test and try things, and find out the real natureof the forces which confront us and with which we have to deal. 

Now, then, I come to the positive answering of our question. Are theresome things that doubt cannot touch? And are these things the mostimportant ones, the ones that we need to feel solid under our feet?What do we need? We do not need to be able to unravel all the mysteriesof the universe. Any quantity of the questions we ask are not practicalones. We do not need to wait for an answer to them. Any number of thethings that are in doubt are of no practical consequence; and we neednot wait for their settlement before we begin to live and to help ourfellowmen and to do what we can to bring in the coming kingdom of ourFather. 

I wish to note now a few of the things that seem to me very stablethings, that doubt cannot disturb. And first I will say that which Imean when I use the word "God. " I wish you to learn to separate betweenthe word and the reality. Sometimes people are quarrelling over a labelinstead of the reality that is back of all. I care very little for aname. I care for things, for the eternal truths of the universe. May wethen feel that modern doubt does not touch our belief in God? I ask youto consider a moment, and see. As we wake up, assuming nothing, andlook abroad, what do we find? We find ourselves in the presence of aPower that is not ourselves, another Power, a Power that was herebefore we were born, a Power that will be here after we have died, aPower that has produced us, and so is our father and mother on anytheory you choose to hold of it, a Power out of which we have come. Nowsuppose we look abroad, and try to find something in regard to thenature of this Power. We can conceive no beginning: we can conceive noend. And let me say right here that, as the result of all his lifelongstudy and thinking as an evolutionist, Mr. Herbert Spencer has saidthat the existence of this infinite and eternal Power, of which all thephenomenal universe is only a partial and passing manifestation, is theone item of human knowledge of which we are most certain of all. 

An Infinite Power, then, an eternal Power, shall I say an intelligentPower? At any rate, just as far as our intelligence can reach, we findthat the universe matches that intelligence, responds to it, so that wemust think of it, it seems to me, as intelligent. Out of that Power, asI have said, we have come; and who are we? Persons, persons that think, persons that feel, persons that love, persons that hope; and we are thechildren of this Power, and, according to one of the fundamentalprinciples of science, nothing can be evolved which was not firstinvolved, the stream cannot rise higher than its source, that which isproduced must be equal to that which produces it. 

This Power, then, eternal, infinite, intelligent, must be as much aswhat we mean by person, by thought, by love, by hope, by all that makesus what we are. Shall we call a Power like this God? Shall we call itNature? Shall we call it Law? Shall we call it Force? It seems to methat, if we take any name less and lower than God, we are indulging ina huge assumption, and a negative assumption at that. Suppose that, looking at one of you, I should call you body instead of calling youman. I should be assuming that you are only body, which I have no rightto do. If I call this Infinite Power, then, Nature, Force, Law, Matter, I am indulging in a negative assumption which is scientificallyunwarranted. As a reasonable being, then, I think I am scientificallywarranted in saying that belief in God is something that allinvestigation only affirms, and affirms over and over again, and withstill greater and greater force. 

I have not time to go into this at any further length this morning; butI believe that we are scientifically right in saying that all thedoubt, all the investigation, all the questioning of the world, haveonly given us a stronger and more solid assurance that we have a divinePower around us, and that we are the children of that Power. 

In the next place, to carry the idea a little farther, we want, if wemay, to believe that this Infinite and eternal Power manifested in theuniverse is a good Power. If it be not, we are hopeless. I hearreformers sometimes in their zeal picturing the dreadful condition ofaffairs socially or industrially or politically, and saying that theworld is getting worse and worse, that the rich are getting richer, andthe poor are getting poorer, and the republic is becoming more corruptweek by week and year by year, giving the impression that the world ingeneral is on the down grade. If I believed that, I should give it up, I should see no reason for struggle and effort. If an Infinite Power isagainst me in my efforts to do good, what is the use of my making theeffort?

We want to know, then, as to whether a belief in the goodness of thisInfinite Power is a thing that doubt and investigation have not touchedand cannot disturb. Let us consider just a moment one or two thoughtsbearing upon it. 

The pessimist tells us that the universe is bad all the way through, that this is the worst possible kind of world. When a man makes astatement like that, I always wish to ask him a question which it seemsto me absolutely overturns his position, how did he happen to find itout? If the universe is bad all through, essentially bad, where did heget his moral ideal in the light of which to judge and condemn it? Howdoes this bad universe produce an amount of justice and truth and loveto be used as a measuring-rod in order to find out whether it willcorrespond with these ideals or not? That one question seems to meenough to turn pessimism into nonsense. 

Let us look at it in another way. As we look back, as far as we cantowards the beginning of things, we find this fact: when man appearedon the earth, conscience was born, as I told you the other day, a senseof right came with him, and since that day he has been struggling toattain and realize an ever and ever enlarging and heightening ideal. This, then, the conscience, the sense of right, the ideal, must be apart of the nature of the universe that has produced them. And wenotice that these have been growing with the advance of the ages. Before dwelling on that a little farther, let me touch anotherconsideration which is germane to it. 

If you look over the face of human society, you get proof positive, scientific demonstration unquestionable, that good is in the majority, love is the majority power of the world. How do I know? You draw up alist of all those things that you call evil, and you will note, as youanalyze them, that they are the things that tend to disintegrate, toseparate, to tear down; and you draw up a list of those things that youcall good, and you will find that they are the things that tend tobuild up, that bind human society together, and help on life and growthand happiness. 

Now the simple fact that human society exists proves that the thingsthat tend to bind together are more powerful than the things that tendto disintegrate and tear down. Just as, for instance, if you see aplanet swinging in the blue to-night, you will know that thecentripetal power is stronger than the centrifugal, or there would beno planet there. That which tends to hold it together is mightier thanthat which tends to disintegrate and fling its particles away from eachother. So the simple fact that human society exists proves that good isin the majority. 

And then, as we trace the development of human society from the far-offbeginning, we find that justice, truth, tenderness, pity, love, helpfulness, all these qualities have been on the increase, and aregrowing; and, since the Power that has wrought in lifting up andleading on mankind is unspent, we believe that that Infinite Power ofwhich we have been speaking is underneath this lifting, is behind thisprogress, and that the end may reasonably be expected to issue in thatperfection of which we dream and whose outlines we dimly see afar off. 

An infinite power, then, a power that is good, a power that we maystudy, partially understand, at any rate, and co-operate with. We canhelp on this progress instead of hindering it. We can do something tomake the world better. Here are two things then, God and goodness, thatno doubt, no investigation, have ever been able to touch or destroy. 

A third thing. We want to believe that there is a meaning in theselittle individual lives of ours. Sometimes, when we read of pestilencesor the great wars of the world, when we think of children born anddying so soon almost as they are born, when we note the brevity of eventhe longest life and take into account the sweep of the ages, wesometimes find ourselves depressed with the thought that these humanlives of ours mean so little. It sometimes seems as though nature carednothing for us, and swept us away as the first cold and the frost sweepaway the millions of flies that had been buzzing their little hour ofsunshine. 

We need to feel, then, if we are to live manly, womanly lives, thatthere is some plan, or may be some purpose in our being born, in ourlittle struggle of a few years, in our being thwarted, in oursucceeding, in our being sick or well, in our being rich or poor, inour being learned or ignorant. Does it make any difference how we livethese lives of ours? Is there significance in them, any purpose, anyplan, any outcome, to make it worth while for us to struggle andstrive? We need to know this; and what do the investigation and thedoubt and the struggle of the world say to us concerning these? Ifthere is anything which science teaches us, it is that the infiniteGod, the Power, whatever we name it, that is the thought and life ofthis universe, is expressed just as perfectly in the tiniest atom as inthe most magnificent galaxy. There is no such thing as an imperfectatom in this universe. The infinitesimal atoms below us, and the tinyorbits through which these atoms and molecules sweep, are as much inthe grasp of the Eternal Law as the movements of the stars over ourheads. 

Things are not lost in this universe out of the eternal purpose becausethey are little. So our apparent littleness, the weakness, feeblenessof our lives, need not disturb the grandeur of our trust in thisdirection. 

Then as we study ourselves, as we see the good that has been growingthrough the ages, and as we note the fact that I hinted at a momentago, that we can plant ourselves in the way, and hinder the working ofthe Divine, so far as our tiny strength goes, or that we can study theconditions of this growth and co-operate and help it on, and so be justas truly a builder of the highest and finest humanity of the future asGod is himself, as we note this, are not our little lives raised intodignity and touched with glory? And why should I cringe and humiliatemyself in the presence of a planet a thousand times larger than ourearth, or a sun a million and a half times larger than the planet thatshakes to its centre as I stamp my tiny foot? I, or one like me, hasmeasured the sun, weighed it as an apothecary can weigh a gram in hisscales. I have untangled the rays of his light, and am able to tell thesubstances that are burning those ninety millions of miles away, inorder to send down that ray of light to our earth. I have untangled themysteries of the heavens, and find these only aggregations of matterlike those of which my body is composed; but I deal with all these andovertop them, speeding with my thought with the rapidity that leavesthe lightning behind. And I know that, because I can think God and cantrace his thoughts after him as he goes through his creative processes, so I am more than these, -- a child of the Creator. I may feel as alittle boy feels who stands beside his father who is the captain ofsome mighty ship. The ship may be a million times greater than he; butthe captain's intelligence and hand made it, shaped it, rules it, turnsit whithersoever he will. And I am the captain's child, like him, andcapable of matching his masterly achievement. 

And so I may believe that I, as a child of the infinite Father, am ofinfinite importance to him in this universe of his; and I can live agrand and noble life. Nobody can harm me but myself. Place an obstaclein my path, and, whether it be insurmountable or not, I may show myselfa coward or a hero as I face it. Tell me I have made a mistake, I canrepair it. Tell me I have committed some moral error, am guilty of sin, I confess it. But I can make all these mistakes and sins stairways upwhich I can climb nearer and nearer to God. You may test me withsorrows, affliction, take away my property, take away my health, takeaway my friends; and the way in which I receive these may either makeme nobler or poorer and meaner, as I will. The sun shines upon theearth. It turns one clod hard, makes it incapable of producinganything. It softens and sweetens another, the same sun: the differenceis in the way in which it is received. So these influences may touchme, may make me hard and bitter and mean and rebellious, or I may standall, and say, as the old Stoics used to, "Even if the gods are notjust, I w ill be just, and shame the gods. "

So man may say, Whatever comes upon me, I will meet it like a man, andlike a child of the Highest, and so make my life significant, a part ofthe divine plan, something glorious and real. 

One thought more. When we have got through with this life, and stand onthe shore of a sea whose wavelets lap the sands at our feet, and theships of those that depart go out into the mist, and we wonder whither, what has doubt done, what has investigation done, touching this greathope of ours, as we face that which we speak of as the Unknown? So faras the old-time and traditional belief is concerned, I hold that doubthas been of infinite and unspeakable service. Certainly, I could ratherhave no belief at all than the old belief. Certainly, I would rathersink into unconsciousness and eternal sleep than wake to watch over thebattlements of heaven the ascent of the smoke of the torment that goethup forever and ever. But is there any rational ground for hope still? Icannot stop this morning even to suggest to you the grounds for theassertion that I am about to make. I believe that, if we have notalready demonstrated eternal life, we are on the eve of suchdemonstration. I believe that another continent is to be discovered asveritably as Columbus discovered this New World. As he, as he nearedthe shore, saw floating tokens upon the waters that indicated to himthat land was not far away, so I believe that tokens are all about usof this other country, which is not a future, but only a present, unseen and unknown to the most of us. 

But grant, if you will, that that is not to be attained, moderninvestigation and doubt have done nothing to touch the grounds of thegreat human hope that springs forever in the breast, that hope which isborn of love, born of trust, born of our dreams, born of our yearningtowards the land whither our dear ones have departed. 

Let me read you just a few lines of challenge to those that would raisea question as to the reality of this belief:

What is this mystic, wondrous hope in me, That, when no star from outthe darkness bore Gives promise of the coming of the morn, When alllife seems a pathless mystery Through which tear-blinded eyes no waycan see; When illness comes, and life grows most forlorn, Still daresto laugh the last dread threat to scorn, And proudly cries, Death isnot, shall not be? I wonder at myself! Tell me, O Death, If that thourul'st the earth, if "dust to dust" Shall be the end of love and hopeand strife, From what rare land is blown this living breath That shapesitself to whispers of strong trust, And tells the lie, if 'tis a lie, of life? Where did this wondrous dream come from? How does it grow asthe world grows?

It must be a whisper of this eternal Being to our hearts; and so, inspite of all the advance of knowledge, all the criticism, it remainsuntouched, brightening and growing. And so there is reason, as we gazeout on the future, why we should look with contempt, if you will, uponthe conditions that trouble us in this life, the burdens, the sorrows, the illnesses, when all that life means at its highest is that out ofthe conditions, whatever they are, I should shape a manhood, cultivatea soul, make myself worth living, fitting myself for that which gleamsthrough the mist a promise, if you will, of something there beyond. 

Now I wish simply to call your attention to the fact that doubt doesnot touch this eternal Power, does not touch the fact that this is agood Power, and that it is on the side of goodness, does not touch thefact that we are the children of that Power and may co-operate with itfor good and share its ultimate triumph, does not touch the great hopethat makes it worth while for us to suffer, to bear, to dare allthings. And these great trusts, are they not all we need to be men, tobe women, to conquer the conditions of life and prove ourselveschildren of the Highest?

EVOLUTION LOSES NOTHING OF VALUE TO MAN. 

I TAKE two texts, one of them from the New Testament. It may be foundin the fifth chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew, theseventeenth verse, "Think not that I came to destroy the law or theprophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. " The other text is fromEmerson: "One accent of the Holy Ghost The heedless world hath neverlost. "

The theory of evolution to-day, in the minds of all competent students, is quite as firmly established as is the law of gravity or theCopernican theory in astronomy. But, when it was first propounded inits modern form by Herbert Spencer, when he issued his first book, andwhen Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published, there was an outcry, especially throughout the religious world. There was a great fearshuddered through the hearts of men. They felt as though the dearestthings on earth were threatened and were likely to be destroyed. Essayists declared that this theory undermined the foundations ofmorals. They said that it took away, not only the Bible, but God andall rational religion. They told us that, in tracing the ancestry ofman back and down to the animals, humanity was being desecrated, andthat the essential feature of man as a child of God was being takenaway. 

If I believed that any of these things were true, I might not be anenemy of evolution, if indeed it be established; for there is verylittle reason in a man's setting himself against an established truth. But I should certainly be very sad, and should wish that we might holdsome other theory of things. But I believe that it will appear, as westudy the matter a little while carefully, that not only are thesecharges that have been brought against the theory baseless, but thatright here is to be found not only the real progress of the world, butthe true conservatism. Evolution is the most conservative theory thathas ever been held. It keeps everything that has been found serviceableto man. It may transform it. It may lift it to some higher level, on tosome loftier range of life; but it keeps and carries forward everythingthat helps. This inevitably and in the nature of things. 

There are two great tendencies which are characteristic of that methodof progress or growth which we call by the name of evolution. One isthe hereditary tendency, and the other is the tendency to variation. One, if it were in full force, would merely, forever and forever, repeat the past: the other, if it were in full force, would blot outall the past, and forever be creating something new. It is in thebalance of these two tendencies that we discover the orderly growth ofthe world; and this orderly growth it is which constitutes evolution. Let me illustrate: Here is a tree, for example. The tendency that wecall heredity would simply constantly repeat the past: the tendency tovary would vary the tree out of existence. The ideal is that it shallkeep its form, for example, as an oak, but that, in the process ofgrowth, the bark shall expand freely and sufficiently to make room forthe manifestation of the new life. Now, if the bark had power to refuseexpansion, of course, you know, the tree would die. If there were notpower enough to maintain the form, then, again, the tree would cease toexist. This you may take as a type and illustration of the method ofall life and all progress everywhere. 

Those people who naturally represent the heredity tendency what wecall the conservative people of the world are the ones who are alwaysafraid of any change. They deprecate the utterance of new ideas. Theyhesitate to accept any new-fangled notions, as perhaps they call them. They are afraid that something precious, something sweet, somethingdear, that belonged to the past, may be lost. 

This manifests itself in all departments of life. I suppose that therenever was an improvement proposed in the world that somebody did notobject to it in the interests of the established order. And yet, ifthese people that do not want any changes made had had control of theworld ten thousand years ago, where should we be to-day? We shouldstill be barbarians in the jungles. For it is because these people havenot been able to keep the world still that we have advanced here andthere in the direction of what we are pleased to call civilization. Youremember, for example, as illustrating this opposition, how theworkingmen, the laborers of the time, a few years ago, in England, fought against the introduction of machinery. They said machinery wasgoing to take their work away, it was going to break down the oldindustrial order of the world, it was going to make it impossible forthe laborer to get his living. A few machines were to do the world'swork; and the great multitude were to be idle, and, not having anythingto do, were to receive no pay for labor, and consequently were tostarve. This was the cry. The outcome has been that there has beeninfinitely more done, a much larger number of laborers employed, employed less hours in the day, paid higher wages; and in everydirection the condition of the industrial world has been improved. Ispeak of this simply as an illustration of this tendency. 

When we come to religion, it is perfectly natural that the oppositionhere should be bitterer than anywhere else in the world; and it alwayshas been. If you think of it just a little, if you read the history ofthe world a little, you will find that the last thing on earth thatpeople have been willing to improve has been their religion. And this, I say, is perfectly natural. Why? Because men have instinctively feltand rightly felt, as I believe that religion was the most importantthing in human life. They felt that it was the most sacred thing, thaton it depended higher and more permanent interests than on anythingelse; and they have naturally been timid, naturally shrunk from change, with the fear that changing the theories and the practices and thethoughts was going to endanger the thing itself. They have said, Wewill hold on, at any rate, to these reverences, these worships, theseprecious trusts, these hopes; and we will hold on to the vessels inwhich we have carried them, because how do we know, if the vessels arechanged or taken away, that we may not lose the precious contentsthemselves? This, I say, has been the feeling; and it has been aperfectly natural feeling. 

I wish then, this morning, for a little while to review with you someof the steps in evolution that the world has taken, and let you see howit has worked in different departments of human thought and human life, so that you may become convinced if possible, as I am that evolutionhas never thrown away, has never lost, anything precious in anydepartment of the world since human life began. If I believed it did, Iwould fight against it. For instance, here is a devout Catholicservant-girl. She believes in her saints. She counts her beads andrecites her Ave Marias. She goes to the cathedral on Sunday morning. And this is her world of poetry and romance. Here is a source ofcomfort. This throws a halo around the drudgery of the kitchen, theservice of the house in which she is an employee. Would I take awaythis trust, this poetry, this romance, untrue as I believe it to be inform, inadequate as I believe it to be? Would I take it away, and leaveher mind bare, her heart empty, leave her without the comfort, withoutthe inspiration? Not for one moment. I would take it away only if, inthe process, I could supply her with something just a little better, alittle more nearly true, something that would give her comfort, something that would be an inspiration to her, something that wouldbuoy her up as a hope, something that would help her to be faithful andtrue in the work of her daily life. This is what evolution means. Itmeans taking away the old, and, in the process, substituting thereforesomething a little bit better. I would not take away the idol of thelowest barbarian unless I could help him to take a step a littlehigher, so that he should see the intellectual and spiritual thing thatthe idol stood for, and so enable him to walk his pathway of life asfirmly, as faithfully, as hopefully, as he did before. 

I have been watching the work that has been going on in our streetsduring the last months. You, too, have seen how they will replace thetrack on an entire line of railway without stopping the running of thecars. They take away the old and worn and poorer, but constantlysubstitute something better for it; and human life moves right on. Everything is better; the change has come; but that change is; animprovement. This is what evolution does; for evolution is nothing newin the world. It is only the name for the method of God, which is asold as the universe itself, new to us because we have just discoveredit; but as old as the light of a star that has been travelling fortwenty-five thousand years, and has just come into the field of theastronomer's telescope, so that he announces it as a new discovery.. This is what it means. 

Now let me call your attention to the fact that in the world below usthe world of the trees and the shrubs and the flowers and the plantsthis evolutionary force is working after precisely the same method thatI have just been indicating. All the fair, the beautiful things havebeen developed under this process, in accordance with this method, outof the first bare and rough and crude manifestations of vegetable life. Nothing has been thrown away that was of any value. Take it, forexample, in regard to the wild weeds which have become the oats and thewheat and the barley and the rye of the world. All the old that was ofvalue has been kept and has been developed into something higher andfiner and sweeter. The aboriginal crab-apple has become a thousandluscious kinds of fruits; and the flowers all their beauty, all theirfragrance, all their color and form? are the result of the working ofthis method of God's power that we have called evolution. Nothing ofany value is left behind in the uncounted ages of the past. All that isof worth to-day has been transformed and lifted to some higher leveland made a part of the wondrous life that is all around us. 

So, when you come to the animal life, you find the same thing. Theswift foot, the flashing wing, the beauty of color, all the wonders ofanimal life have simply been developed in accordance with this methodand under this impelling force which we call evolution, which is only aname for the working of God. 

When we come up to the level of man, what do we find? Man as an animalis not the equal of a good many of the other animals in the world. Heis not as swift as the deer, he is not as strong as the lion, he cannotfly in the air like a bird, he cannot live in the sea like the fishes. He is restricted to the comparatively contracted area of the surface ofthe land. He is not as perfect as an animal; but what has evolutiondone? It has given him power of conquest over all these, because theevolutionary force has left the bodily structure, we need expect nomore marked changes there, and has gone to brain. So this feeblest ofall the animals physically speaking he would be no match for a hundreddifferent kinds of animals that are about us is able to outwit themall, that is, to outknow, he has become the ruler of the earth. And notonly has this evolutionary force gone to brain, it has gone to heart;and man has become a being whose primest characteristic is love. Theone thing that we think of as most perfect, that we dream of ascharacterizing his future development, is summed up in his affectionalnature. Then, too, he has become a moral being. 

There are times, like the present, when it seems as though the animalwere at the top, and the affectional nature suppressed, and theconscience were ruled out of court; and yet you study the methods ofmodern warfare as compared with those of the past, you see how pity andtenderness and care walk by the side of every gun, hide in the rear ofevery battlefield to attend to the wounded and suffering. And you knowwhat talk there has been of pity for the hungry, the desire of theworld to feed those that need; and the one dominant note in thediscussion of the war all over the world has been the question as toits being right. No matter how we may have decided, whether thedecision be correct or not, the civilized world bows itself in thepresence of its ideal of right, and demands that no war shall be foughtthe issue of which is not to be a better condition of mankind. 

Evolution, then, tends to the development of brain, heart, conscience, and the spiritual nature of man. It has left nothing behind that is ofany value to us. It has transformed or sublimed or lifted all up intothe higher range of the life that we are living to-day, and containswithin itself a promise of the higher and the grander life that wereach forward to to-morrow. 

I wish now, for a moment, to illustrate the working of this in regardto some of the institutions of the world. If I had time, I could showyou that the same law is apparent in the development of the arts, sculpture, painting, poetry. I must pass them by, however. Asillustrating what I mean, let me take the one art of music. From thevery beginning man has been interested in making some sort of soundswhich, I suppose, have been regarded as music by him. Most of thosethat are associated with the barbaric man would be anything but musicto us. The music, for example, that they give in connection with a playin a Chinese theatre would not be acceptable to the cultivated ear ofAmericans. We have left behind much that the world called music. Wehave left behind any number of musical instruments. We do not now havethose that the Psalmist makes so much of, the old-time harp, thesackbut, the psaltery. I do not know, though you may, what kind ofinstruments they were. The world has completely forgotten them, andleft them out of sight. And yet no musical note, no musical chord, nomusical thought, no musical feeling, has been forgotten or droppedalong the advancing pathway of the world's progress; and in our organsall the attempts at instruments of that kind from the beginning of theworld are preserved, transformed and glorified. In our magnificentorchestras all the first feeble beginnings are developed until we havea conception of music to-day such as would have been utterlyincomprehensible to the primeval man. What I wish you to note is andthis is the use of my illustration that the advancing growth of themusic of the world has forgotten nothing that it was worth while tokeep. 

Let me give you one more illustration. Take it in the line ofgovernment. The first tribes were governed by two forces, brute forceand superstitious fear. These were the two things that kept the primaltribes of the world in order, such order as was maintained in thosefar-off times. The world has gone on developing different types ofgovernment, different types of social order. I need not stop to outlinethem for you this morning: you know what they are; and I only wish youto catch the thought I have in mind. I suppose that every time one ofthe old types was about to pass away the adherents of that type havebeen in a panic lest anarchy was threatening the world. Believers inthese types have said that it was absolutely necessary to keep them, inorder to preserve social order. Take the attitude of the monarchyto-day, for example, as towards the republic. When we attempted toestablish our republic here in this western world, it was freely saidby the adherents of the old political idea in Europe that it would ofnecessity be a failure, that there was no possibility of a stable humanorder without a hierarchy of nobles with a king at the top; and Isuppose they believed it. But we have proved beyond question that wecan have a strong government, an orderly government, without eithernobility or king. There is less government in the United States hereto-day than in almost any other country of the world, a nearer approachto what the philosopher would call anarchy. Anarchy does not meandisorder, when a philosopher is talking: it means merely the absence ofexternal government. And that is the ideal that we are approaching. 

Paul says, you know, that the law was made for wicked people, for thedisobedient and the disorderly, not for good people. How many peopleare there in New York to-day, for example, who are honest, who paytheir debts, who did not commit a burglary last night, who do notpropose to be false to wife and home, on account of the law, theexistence of courts and police? The great majority of the citizens ofAmerica to-day would go right on being honest and kind and loving andhelpful, whether there were any laws or not. They are not kept to thesecourses of conduct by the law. They have learned that these are thefitting ways of life that these are the things for a man to do; andthey despise themselves if they are less than man. In other words, thisgovernmental order, which exists as an outside force, at last getswritten in the heart and becomes a law of life. 

Now precisely the same process is going on in other departments of theworld: it is going on in religion. And now let me come to religion, andillustrate the working of the law here. The old types of religiousthought and life and practice, the first ones that the world knew, arelong since outgrown. We regard them as barbaric, as cruel. 

We have learned that there are not a million gods of whom we need standin awe. We have learned that God is no partial God. We have learnedthat God does not want us, as universal man once believed, to sacrificethe dearest object of our love. We have learned that he does not wantus to sacrifice our first-born child, as the old Hebrews used to, andthe remains of which custom are plainly visible throughout the OldTestament everywhere. We have left behind these old types of religiousthought and life; but the world has lost nothing in the process. Theworld has not left religion behind. The whole process of growth anddevelopment in the sphere of the religious life and the development ofman has been one of outgrowing crude and partial and inadequatethoughts and feelings about the universe and God and man and duty anddestiny. 

We do not care so much about ceremony as the world did once. The mostcivilized people in the world are not so given to these things in theirreligious development. We do not care so much about creed as they did athousand or five hundred years ago. We do not believe that God is goingto judge us by our intellectual conceptions of him and of our fellow-men. And I suppose it is true, always has been true as it is to-day, that the adherent of any particular form or theory of the religiouslife has the feeling that, when that is threatened, religion isthreatened; and he defends it passionately, fights for it, perhapsbitterly, feels justified in opposing, perhaps hating, those he regardsas the enemies of God and his great and sacred and religious hopes. Andyet we know, as we study the past, whether we can quite appreciate itas true in regard to the theories which I am voicing to-day, that thetruth has never been in any danger, and the highest and finest andsweetest things in the religious life have never been in any danger, are not in any danger to-day. 

Let me indicate in two or three directions. There has been a class ofthinkers, which has done a good deal of talking and writing in thisdirection, who are telling us that the poetry, the romance, the wonder, the mystery, of the world those things that tend to bring a man to hisknees and to lift his eyes in awe and reverence are passing away; thatscience is going to explore everything; that there is going to be nomore unknown; and that, when we have completed this process, one of thegreat essentials of religious thought and feeling and life will haveperished from among men. I venture to say to you that there has neverbeen a time in the history of the world when there was so much ofmystery, so much of wonder, so much of reverence, so much of awe, asthere is to-day. We are apt to fool ourselves in our thinking, and, when we have observed a fact, and labelled it, to think we know it. 

For example, here is this mysterious force that we call electricity, which is flashing such light in our homes and through our streets asthe world has never known before. The cars, loaded, are speeding alongour highways with no visible means of propulsion. We step up to alittle box, and put a shell to our ear, and speak and listen, andconverse with a friend in Boston or Chicago, recognizing the voiceperfectly, as though this friend were by our side. We send a messageover a wire, under the deep, and talk to London and all round theglobe; and we have labelled this force electricity. And, instead ofgetting down on our knees in reverence, we get impatient if ourcommunication is delayed two minutes or three. We fool ourselves withthe thought that, because we have called it electricity, we know it, wehave taken the mystery out of the fact. Why, friends, do you knowanything about electricity? Do you know what it is? Do you know why itworks as it does? I do not; and I do not know of anybody on the face ofthe earth who does. The wonder of the "Arabian Nights" is cheap andtame and theatrical compared to the wonder of this everyday workadayworld of ours, in the midst of which and by means of which we arecarrying on our business and our daily avocations. The wonder of thecarpet that would carry the person through the air who sat upon it andwished is nothing compared with the power of electricity, steam, anyone of these invisible, intangible powers that are thrilling throughthe world to-day. There never was so much room for mystery, for awe, for poetry, for romance, as there is in the midst of our commerciallife in this nineteenth century. 

This element of religion, then, is in no danger. We know nothingultimately. Who can tell me what a particle of matter is? Who can tellme what a ray of light is, as it comes from a star? Who can tell me howthe movements in the particles of air striking my eye run up into nerveand brain, and become translated into thought, into light, into form, into motion, into all this wondrous universe that surrounds us on everyhand?

Then take the element of trust. People used to think they could trustin their gods. Rebecca, for example, stole her father's gods, and hidthem in the trappings of her camel, and sat on them. She thought, then, that she had a god near her who would care for her. The old Hebrew, with an ox-team, carried his God, in a box that he called the ark, intobattle, and supposed that he had a very present help in time of need. But we have the eternal stability and order of the universe, a God thatnever forgets, a God on whom we can lean, in whom we can trust, who isnot away off in heaven, but here, closer to us than the air we breathe, a God in whom we live and move and have our being. 

And has this evolution of the religious life of the world threatenedthe stability of truth? There never was a time on earth when there wassuch a passion for truth as there is today. What means all this intenseactivity of the scientific world? these men that devote their lives tosome little fraction of the universe which they study through theirmicroscope, not for pay, to find one little fragment of the truth ofGod; these critics that are rummaging the dust-heaps of the ages inthe hope that they may find one little, bright-glittering particle oftruth in the midst of the rubbish? There never was such a passion fortruth as there is here and now. 

Are we going to lose the sense of righteousness which is the very heartof religion? There never was a time since the world began when theaverage man cared so much for righteousness, when he laid so muchemphasis on human conduct, on kindness, on help, on all those thingsthat make this life of ours desirable and sweet. The ideal of characterand behavior has risen step by step from the beginning, and is higherto-day than it ever was before. Not because men fear a whipping, notbecause they are threatened with hell in another world, not because aGod of vengeance is preached to them, because they have grown to seethe beauty of righteousness, because they know that obedience to thelaws of God means health, means sanity, means peace, means prosperity, means well-being, means all high and good and noble things. Thisrighteousness is not driven into one by blows from outside: it blossomsout from the intellect and the conscience and the heart, as therecognized law of all fine and desirable and human living. 

What are we losing, then, as the result of this growth of the world inaccordance with the law of evolution? Are we losing our hope of thefuture? The form of that hope is passing away. We no longer believe inan underground world of the dead, as the Hebrews did. We no longerbelieve in a heaven just above the blue, as Christendom has believedfor so long. We no longer believe in a heaven where all struggle andthought and study and growth are left out, where there is to be only amonotonous enjoyment that would pall upon any living rational soul. Theform of it is passing away; but there never was a time when there wassuch a great and inspiring hope, not simply for myself and my friends, not simply for my neighbors, not simply for my particular church. Therenever was a time when there was such a great hope, including humanityfor this world and for the next, as that which inspires us now. 

Nothing, then, in religion that is of any worth has the world forgottenor is it likely to forget. All the old reverences and loves and trustsand inspirations and hopes and tendernesses are here intermingled. Theyare in the highest and noblest people; and they are being carried onand refined and purified and glorified as the world goes on. 

And now let me suggest one thought more that may be of comfort to some. A great many people have been accustomed to associate so much of theirreligion with the forms of their religious expression that they fancythat the world's outgrowing these means that religion is beingoutgrown. I said, you remember, when touching upon government as anillustration of the working of the law of evolution, that governmentalforms were being outgrown just as fast as the world was becomingcivilized. If this world ever becomes perfect, government will cease tobe, in the sense of these external forms, simply because there will beno need of it; just as you take down a staging when you have completeda house. So I look forward to less and less care for the external formsof the religious life. I believe they will remain, and they ought toremain, just as long as they are any practical help to anybody; but, because a person ceases to need them, you must not think that he hasceased to be religious. When the world gets to be perfectly religious, there will be no need of any churches, there will be no need any moreof preachers, there will be no need of any of the external ceremony ofreligion. 

You remember what the old seer says in the book of Revelation, as helooks forward to the perfect condition of things. He is picturing thatideal city which he saw in his vision coming down from God out ofheaven. This was his poetical way of setting forth his idea of theperfected condition of humanity; and he said, speaking of that city, "And I saw no temple therein, for the Lord God was the temple of it. "

The external forms pass away when the life needs them no more. Take, for example, the condition of things when Jesus came to Jerusalem. Youknow how they put him to death. And what did they put him to death for?They put him to death because he preached of a time when there would beno need of any temple, no need of any priesthood, no need of any of theexternal things that they regarded as essential to religious life. Theythought he was blaspheming, they thought he was an enemy of God and ofhis fellowmen, because he talked that way. He said to the woman ofSamaria, You think you must worship God on this mountain, Gerizim, andthe Jews think they must worship him on Mount Moriah; but God isspirit, and the time will come when you will not care whether you arein this place or that, but will worship him in spirit and in truth. 

You see it was just along these lines that Jesus was preaching andworking in his day. So, when humanity becomes perfected, externalforms, that have helped mould and shape man into his perfection, willbe needed no more. They will fall off, pass away, and be forgotten; butthat will not mean that humanity has forgotten or left behind any greatessential to the religious life. It will mean simply that he has takenthem up into his own heart, absorbed them into his life. He naturallydrops them when he is no longer in need of external supports. 

This law of evolution, then, is simply the method of God's progressfrom the beginning, the same method which was to be found in thelowest, the method which has lifted us to where we are, the methodwhich looks out with promise towards the better things which are tocome. 

The one life thrilled the star-dust through, In nebulous masses whirled, Until, globed like a drop of dew, Shone out a new-made world. The one life on the ocean shore, Through primal ooze and slime, Crept slowly on from less to moreAlong the ways of time. The one life in the jungles old, From lowly creeping things, Did ever some new form unfold, Swift feet or soaring wings. The one life all the ages throughPursued its wondrous plantTill, as the tree of promise grew, It blossomed into man. The one life reacheth onward still;As yet no eye may seeThe far-off fact, man's dream fulfill?The glory yet to be. 

WHY ARE NOT ALL EDUCATED PEOPLE UNITARIANS?

THE religious opinions of the average person in any community do notcount for much, if any one is studying them with the endeavor to findout their bearing on what is true or what is false. This is true notonly of popular religious opinions, but of any other set of opinionswhatever; and for the simple reason that most people do not hold theiropinions as the result of any study, of any investigation, because theyhave seriously tried to find out what is true, and have becomeconvinced that this, and not that, represents the reality of things. 

Let us note for a moment and I do this rather to clear the way thanbecause I consider it of any very great importance how it is that thegreat majority of people come by the religious opinions which theyhappen to hold. I suppose it is true in thousands of cases that a manor a woman is in this church rather than that merely as the result ofinheritance and childhood training. People inherit their religiousideas. They are taught certain things in their childhood, they haveaccepted them perhaps without any sort of question; and so they arewhere they happen to be to-day. If you stop and think of it for just amoment, you will see that this may be all right as a starting-point, but is not quite an adequate reason why we should hold permanently, andthroughout our lives, a particular set of ideas. If all of us were toaccept opinions in this sort of fashion, and never put them behind usor make any change, where would the growth of the world be? How wouldit be possible for one generation to make a little advance on thatwhich preceded it, so that we could speak of the progress of mankind?Then, when persons do make up their minds to change, to leave onechurch and go to another, it is not an uncommon thing for them simplyto select a particular place of worship or a special organization forno better reason than that they happen to like it, to be attracted toit for some superficial cause. How many people who do leave one churchfor another do it as the result of any earnest study, or real endeavorto find the truth? And yet, if you will give the matter a moment'sserious consideration, you will see that we have no sort of right tochoose one theory rather than another, one set of ideas rather thananother, because we happen to like one thing, and not something else. Liking or disliking, a superficial preference or aversion, is animpertinence when dealing with these great, high, and deep questions ofGod and the soul, of the true or the false. 

Then I have known a great many people in my life who went to aparticular church for no better reason than mere convenience. It waseasily accessible, it was just around the corner, they did not have tomake any long journey, and did not have to put themselves out any toget up a little earlier on Sunday morning, which they would otherwiseneed to do. A mere matter of convenience! And this is so many timesallowed to settle some great question of right or wrong. Then you willfind those who select a particular church or a particular churchorganization, become identified with it, merely because on a casualvisit to the place they were taken with the minister, happened to likehis appearance, his method of speaking, the way he presented his ideas. Or perhaps they were attracted by the music. There are persons whodecide these great questions of God and truth and the soul for no moreimportant a reason than the organization and the capacity of the churchchoir. 

It is not an uncommon thing for people to attend some particular churchbecause it promises to be socially advantageous to them. It isfashionable in a particular town. I have a friend, I still call himfriend, a Boston lawyer, who told me in conversation about this subjectone day that he deliberately went to the largest church he could find, and that, if in the particular city in which he was residing the RomanCatholic Church was in the majority, he should attend that. There arethousands of persons who wish to be in the swim, and who are divertedthis way or that by what seems to them socially profitable. Think ofit, claiming to be followers of the Nazarene, who was outcast, spitupon, treated with contempt, on whom the scribes and Pharisees of hisday looked down with bitterness and scorn, and who led the world forthe sake of his love for God out into a larger truth, who made himselfof no reputation, claim to be followers of him, and let a matter offashion decide whether they will go this way or walk in some other pathI Think of the irony of a situation like that!

Then, again, there are those who attach themselves to some one churchrather than to another because, after looking over the ground, theymade up their minds that it would be to their business advantage. Theywill become associated with a set of people who can help them on in theworld. It is all very well, if there be no higher consideration, for aperson to be governed in his action by motives like these; but is itquite right to decide a question of truth or falsehood, of God or duty, of the consecration of the human soul, of the service of one's fellow-men, on the basis of supposed financial advantage? There is hardly ayear goes by that persons do not come to me, considering the questionas to whether they will attend my church. I can see in a few minutes'conversation with them that they have some purpose to gain. They wishto be helped on in the prosecution of some scheme for their ownadvancement. If they succeed, they are devout Unitarians and loyalfollowers of mine. If not, within a few weeks I hear of them as devotedattendants somewhere else, where they have been able to make theirpersonal plans a success. 

These are some of the reasons there are worthier ones than these whichinfluence the crowd. There are, I say, worthier ones. Let me hint oneor two. I do not think it is any sacrilege, or betrayal of confidence, for me to speak a name. The late Frances E. Willard, one of the ablest, truest, most devoted women I have ever known, frankly confessed to mein personal conversation that she was more in sympathy with myreligious ideas than of those of the Church with which she wasconnected, but her love, her tender love and reverence for her motherand the memory of her mother's religion were such that she could notfind it in her heart to break away. She loved the services her motherloved, she loved the hymns her mother sung, she loved the associationsconnected with her mother's life. All sweet, beautiful, noble; but, ifnobody from the beginning of the world had ever advanced beyondmothers' ideas where should we be to-day? Is it not, after all, thetruest reverence for mother, in the spirit of consecration she showedto follow the truth as you see it to-day, as she followed it as she sawit yesterday?

So much to justify the statement I made, that the average popularbelief on any subject is not a reliable guide to a person who isearnestly desiring to find the simple truth. 

Now let us come to the answer of the specific question which I havepropounded. Why are not all educated people Unitarians? I ask thisquestion, not because I originated it, but because it has been put tome, I suppose, a hundred times. People say, You claim to have studiedthese matters very carefully, you have tried to find the truth, youthink you have found it. You have followed what you regard as the truemethod of search. If you have found the truth, and if other people, using this same method and being as unbiased as you, could also findit, how does it happen that Unitarians are in the minority? Why do notall persons who study and who are educated accept the Unitarian faith?This question, I say, has been asked me a great many times; and it is aquestion that deserves a fair, an earnest and sympathetic answer. Suchan answer I am now to try to give. 

In the first place, let me make a few assertions. I have not time toprove them this morning; but they are capable of proof. The advantageof a scientific statement is that, though you do not stop to prove it, you know it can be proved any time, whenever a person chooses to takethe time or trouble. For example, if I state the truth of theCopernican system, or that the earth revolves around the sun, and youchallenge me to prove it in two minutes, I may not be able to; it maytake longer than that; but I know it can be demonstrated to-morrow ornext week or any time, because it has been demonstrated over and overagain. 

I wish now to assert the truth of certain fundamental principles; andthese principles, you note, are those which constitute the peculiarityof the Unitarian people as a body of theological believers. Forexample, that this which is all around us and of which we are a part isa universe is demonstrated beyond question. It is one, the unity of theuniverse. The unity of force, the unity of substance or matter, theunity of law, the unity of life, the unity of humanity, the unity ofthe fundamental principles of ethics, the unity of the religious lifeand aspiration of the world, these, I say, are demonstrated. And do younot see that demonstrating these carries along with it theunquestioned, the absolute demonstration of the unity of the power thatis in the universe and manifests itself through it? The unity of God?The Lord our God is one! And this is no question of speculation, it isdemonstrated truth. Now, as to any speculative or metaphysical divisionof God's nature into three parts or personalities, there is not, andthere cannot be, in the nature of things, one slightest particle ofproof. The unity is demonstrated: anything else is incapable ofdemonstration. 

Next, the Unitarian contention I say Unitarian, not because weoriginated it by any means, but simply because we first and chieflyamong religious bodies have accepted it as to the origin and nature ofman as science has unfolded it to us, thus precluding the possibilityof the truth of any doctrine of any fall. This is not speculation, itis not whim. It is not something picked up by the way, that a manchooses because he likes it, and because he does not like somethingelse. This is demonstrated truth, as clearly and fully demonstrated asis the law of gravity or the fact that water will freeze at a certaintemperature. Then the question of the Bible. The Unitarian position inregard to the origin, the method of composition, the authenticity andthe authority of Biblical books, is a commonplace of scholarship. Thereis no rational question in regard to it any more. Next, the question ofthe origin and nature of Jesus the Christ. The naturalness of hisbirth, the naturalness of his death, his pure humanity, are madeclearer and surer by every new step which investigation takes; andthere is nothing in the nature of proof that is conceivable in regardto any other theory. If any one chooses to accept it, well; but nobodyclaims, or can claim, to prove it, to settle it, to demonstrate it astrue. It becomes an article of faith, a question of voluntary belief;but there is no possibility of holding it in any other way. So as tothe nature of salvation. It is a matter of character; a man is savedwhen he is right. And that he cannot be saved in any other way isdemonstrable and demonstrated truth. 

Now, these are the main principles which constitute the beliefs ofUnitarians; and in any court of reason they are able to make good theirclaim against any corner. And, if there be no other motive at workexcept the one clear-eyed, simple desire to find the truth, there canbe no two opinions concerning any of them. 

Why, then, are not all thoughtful, educated people Unitarians? Well maythe listener ask, in wonder, if the statements I have just been makingare true. Now I propose to offer some suggestions, showing what aresome of the influences at work which determine belief, and which havevery little to do with the question as to whether the beliefs arecapable of establishing themselves as true or not. 

In the first place, let us raise the question as to what is generallymeant by education. We assume that all educated people ought to agreeon all great questions; and they ought, note now what I am saying, theyought, if they are really and truly educated, and if with a clear andsingle eye they are seeking simply the truth. But, in order tounderstand the situation, we need to note a good many other things thatenter into this matter of determining the religious path in whichpeople will walk. Now what do we mean by education? Popularly, if a manhas been to school, particularly if he is a college graduate, if he canread a little Latin and speak French, and knows something of music, ifhe has graduated anywhere, he is spoken of as educated. But is that acorrect use of language? Are we sure that a man is educated merelybecause he knows a lot of things or has been through a particularcourse of study? What does a human education mean? Does it not mean theunfolding, the development of our faculties in such a way that in theintellectual sphere we can come into contact with and possession of thereality of things, the truth? Intellectually, is there any other objectof education than to fit a man to find the truth? And yet let me giveyou a case. Here is a man, I take it as an illustration simply, notbecause I have anything particular against the Catholic Church any morethan against any other body of believers, who has been through aCatholic college, has made himself master of Catholic doctrine, becomefamiliar with theological and ecclesiastical literature; suppose heknows all the languages, or a dozen of them, having them at hisfingers' ends. Do you not see that as a truth-seeker in a free world hemay not be educated at all? He may be educated, as we say, or trainedis the better word, into acceptance of a certain system of traditionalthought, that can give no good reason for itself; for his prejudices, his loves and hates may be called into play. He may be trained into theearnest conviction that it is his highest duty to be loyal to aparticular set of ideas. 

Take the way I was educated. I grew up reading the denominationalreviews, and the denominational newspapers. I was taught that it wasdangerous and wicked to doubt. I must not think freely: that was theone thing I was not permitted to do. I went to a theological school, and had drilled into me year after year that such beliefs, about Godand man and Jesus and the Bible and the future world, wereunquestionably true, and that I must not look at anything that wouldthrow a doubt upon them. And I was sent out into the world graduated, not as a truth-seeker, but to fight for my system, as a West Pointgraduate is taught that he must fight for his country without askingany questions. 

Do you not see that this, which goes under the name of education, instead of fitting a man to find the truth, may distinctly anddefinitely unfit him, make it harder for him to find any truth exceptthat which is contained in the system which has been drilled into himfrom his childhood up and year after year? Education, in order to fit aman to be a truth-seeker, must be something different from this merelyteaching a man a certain system, a certain set of ideas, and drillinghim into the belief that he must defend these ideas against allcorners. 

A good many people, then, who are called educated, are not educated atall. I have had this question asked me repeatedly: If your position istrue, here is a college graduate, and here is another; and here is aminister of such a denomination, or a priest of the Catholic Church;why do they not accept your ideas? Do you not see, however, that thisso-called education may stand squarely in the way?

Now, in the second place, I want to dwell a little on the difficulty ofpeople's getting rid of a theory which possesses their minds, andsubstituting for it another theory. And I wish you to note that it isnot a religious difficulty nor a theological difficulty nor a Baptistdifficulty nor a Presbyterian difficulty: it is a human difficulty. There is no body of people on the face of the earth that is largeenough to contain all the world's bigotry. It overflows all fences andgets into all enclosures. Discussing the subject a little while ago, bycorrespondence with a prominent scientific man in New England, I gotfrom him the illustrations which I hold in my hand, tending to setforth how difficult it is for scientific men themselves to get rid of atheory which they have been working for and trying to prove, andsubstitute for it another theory. I imagine that there may be aphysiological basis for the difficulty. I suggest it, at any rate. Wesay that the mind tends to run in grooves of thought. That means, Isuppose, that there is something in the molecular movements of thebrain that comes to correspond to a well-trodden pathway. It is easy towalk that path, and it is not easy to get out of it. Let it rain on thetop of a hill; and, if you watch the water, you will see that it seekslittle grooves that have been worn there by the falling of past rains, and that the little streams obey the scientific law and follow thelines of least resistance. There comes a big shower, a heavy downfall;and perhaps it will wash away the surface and change the beds of theseold watercourses, create new ones. So, then, when there comes a delugeof new truth, it washes away the ruts along which people have beenaccustomed to think; and they are able to reconstruct their theories. Now let me give you some of these scientific illustrations. First, thatheat is a mode of motion was proved by Sir Humphry Davy and CountRumford before 1820. In 1842 Joule, of Manchester, England, proved thequantitative relation between mechanical energy and heat. In 1863 notethe dates Tyndall gave a course of lectures on heat as a mode ofmotion, and was even then sneered at by some scientific men for histemerity. Tait, of Glasgow, was particularly obstreperous. To-daynobody questions it; and we go back to Sir Humphry Davy and CountRumford for our proofs, too. It was proved scientifically proved then;but it took the world all these years, even the scientific world, toget rid of its prejudices in favor of some other theory, and see theforce of the proof. 

Now, in the second place, it was held originally that light was aseries of corpuscles that flew off from a heated surface; but ThomasYoung, about the year 1804, demonstrated the present accepted theory oflight. But it was fought for years. Only after a long time did thescientific world give up its prejudice in favor of the theory that waspropounded by Newton. But to-day we go back to Young, and see that hedemonstrated it beyond question. 

In the third place, take another fact. Between 1830 and 1845 Faradayworked out a theory of electrical and magnetic phenomena. It was provedto be correct. Maxwell, a famous chemist in London, looked over thematter, and persuaded himself that Faraday was right; but nobody paidmuch attention to either of them; until after a while the scientificworld, through the work of its younger men, those least wedded to theold-time beliefs, conceded that it must be true. 

The Nebular Theory was proved and worked out by Kant more than ahundred and thirty years ago. In 1799 Laplace worked it out again; butit was a long time before it was accepted. And now we go back to Kantand Laplace for our demonstration. 

Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published in 1859. But it wasattacked by scientists as well as theologians on every hand. Huxleyeven looked at it with a good deal of hesitancy before he accepted it. To-day, however, everybody goes back to the "Origin of Species, " andfinds the whole thing there, demonstration and all. 

Lyell published a book on the antiquity of man in 1863. It was twenty-five years before all the scientific men of the world were ready togive up the idea that man had been on the earth more than six or eightthousand years. 

So we find that it is not theologians only; it is scientists, too, thatfind it difficult to accept new ideas. I know scientific men among mypersonal friends who are simply incapable of being hospitable to anidea that would compel them to reconstruct a theory that they havealready accepted. Why are not all educated men Unitarians? Why do notscientific men accept demonstrated truth when it is first demonstratedas truth? It puts them to too much trouble. It touches their pride. They do not like to feel that they have thrown away half their livesfollowing an hypothesis that is not capable of being substantiated. 

Then, in the third place, there are men, and educated men as the worldgoes, who deliberately decline to study new truth; and they are men inthe scientific field and in the religious field. They purposely refuseto look at anything which would tend to disturb their present acceptedbelief. In my boyhood I used to hear Dr. John O. Fiske, a famouspreacher in Maine. He told a friend of mine, in his old age, that hesimply refused to read any book that would tend to disturb his beliefs. Professor William G. T. Shedd, one of the most distinguishedtheologians of this country, a leading Presbyterian divine, publishedso I am not slandering him by saying it a statement that he did notconsider any book written since the seventeenth century worth hisreading. And yet we have a new world since the seventeenth century, anew revelation of God and of man. To follow the teaching of theseventeenth century would be to go wrong in almost every conceivabledirection. What is the use of paying any attention to the theologicalor religious opinions of a man who avows an attitude like that?

Faraday, to come now to a scientific illustration, so that you will notthink I am too hard on theologians, Faraday belonged to one of the mostorthodox sects in England; and he used to say deliberately that he kepthis religion and his science apart. He says, "When I go into my closet, I lock the door of my laboratory; and, when I go into my laboratory, Ilock the door of my closet. " He did very wisely to keep them apart;for, if they had got together, there would certainly have been anexplosion. 

Another scientific illustration is Agassiz. Agassiz unconsciouslywrought out and developed some of the most wondrous and beautifulproofs of evolution that the world has ever known; and yet he foughtevolution to the last day of his life, simply because he had acceptedthe other theory. And he got it into his head that there was somethingabout evolution that tended to injure religion and degrade man, not arational objection, not a scientific objection, but a feeling, aprejudice. 

There is another class of people that I must refer to. Institutions andorganizations come into being, created, in the first place, as theembodiment and expression of new and grand truths; and after a Ariletheir momentum becomes such that the persons who are connected withthem cannot control their movements, and these persons become victimsof the organizations and institutions to which they belong. So, when anew truth appears, the old organization rolls on like a Juggernaut car, and crushes the life, so far as it is possible, out of everything inits way. Take, for example, and note what a power it is and what anunconscious bribe it is to those who belong to it, the great AnglicanChurch. A man's ambitions, if he has learning, power, ability, tell himthat there is the Archbishopric of Canterbury ahead of him as apossibility. His hopes, the chances of promotion and power, are withthe institution. And, then, it is such a tremendous social influence. It is no wonder, then, that men who are not over-strong, who have notthe stuff in them out of which heroes are made, should cling to theinstitution and remain loyal to it, even while they are false to thetruth that used to animate it and for which alone any institution oughtto exist. 

Let me give you another illustration. Edward Temple, late Bishop ofLondon, and who is now the Archbishop of Canterbury, had a priest ofthe established Church come to him and make a confession of holdingcertain beliefs which he knew were heretical. The archbishop said tohim frankly: As Edward Temple, I believe them, I am in sympathy withyour views. As the head of the English Church, I must be opposed tothem; and the opinions which you hold cannot be tolerated. That is whatthe influence of a great organization may come to. 

Let me give you another concrete illustration. Here is our AmericanBible Society, which publishes and circulates millions of Bibles allover the world. It is obliged, as at present organized, to print anddistribute the King James version of the Bible; but there is not ascholar or a minister connected with the organization anywhere who doesnot know at least, since the revision at any rate that in manyimportant respects the King James version is not an accuratetranslation of the original, even if that is conceded to be infallible. So that this organization stands to-day in the position of beingobliged to circulate all over the world for God's truth any number ofteachings that are simply blunders of the translator, of the copyist, or interpolated passages that have come down from the past. 

So men in every direction become persuaded that they must be loyal tothe organization. I know cases where a minister in conversation with afriend has said: So long as I remain a member of this Church, I havegot a great institution back of me, and I can accomplish so muchsocially and in every way on account of it. I know I do not believehalf of the creed, but any number of other ministers are in the samebox. And so they stay true to the organization, while truth to thetruth is sacrificed. 

One other influence that keeps so many of these old ideas alive orprolongs their existence beyond the natural term is right in here. Anynumber of men, educated, strong, prominent men, give their countenanceand influence to the support of old-time religious organizationsbecause they believe that somehow or other they are serviceable as apolice force in the world, they keep people quiet, they help preservesocial order. I have had people over and over again say that theybelieved it would be a great calamity to disturb the Roman CatholicChurch, because it keeps so many people quiet. Do you know, friends, Iregard this as the worst infidelity that I know of on the face of theearth. It is doubt of God, his ability to lead and manage his worldwithout cheating it. It is doubt of truth, as to whether it is safe foranybody except very wise people, like a few of us! It is doubt ofhumanity, its capacity to find the truth, and believe in it and live onit. Do you believe that God has made this universe so that it ishealthier for the masses to live on a lie than it is for them to liveon the truth? Is that your confidence in God? Is that the kind of Godyou worship? It is not the kind I worship. There is no danger of theignorant masses of the world getting wise too fast, judging by theexperience of the past up to the present time. There is only one thingthat is safe; and that is truth. Do you know what the trouble was atthe time of the French Revolution? It was not that the people began toreason and think, and lost their faith, as so frequently said bysuperficial historians: it was that they waked up at last to the ideathat the aristocracy and the priesthood had not only been fleecing themfinancially and keeping them down socially, but had been fooling themreligiously, until at last they broke away, having no confidence leftin God or priest or educated people or nobility or anything. No wonderthey made havoc. If you want to make a river dangerous, dam it up, keepthe waters back, until by and by the pressure from the hills and themountains becomes so great that it can be restricted no longer; and itnot only breaks through the dam, but bursts all barriers, floods thecountry, sweeps away homes, farms, cattle, human beings, towns, cities, leaving ruin in its path. Let rivers flow as God meant them to; andthey will be safe. 

So let the world learn, -- learn gradually, and adapt itself to newtruth as it learns, and there will be an even and orderly march ofhuman progress. The danger is in our setting ourselves up as beingwiser than God, wiser than the universe, and doling out to themultitude the little fragments of truth that we think are fitted fortheir digestion. The impertinence of it, and the impiety of it!

I must not stop to deal with other reasons which lie in my mind thismorning. You can think along other channels for yourselves. I havesimply wished to suggest that, in the kind of world we are living in, you may not be sure, at any particular age in history, that a set ofideas is going to be accepted by the multitude merely because they aretrue; and, because they are not accepted at once, you are not, therefore, to come to the conclusion that they are not true. Therenever has been a time in the history of the world when the truth wasnot in the minority. Go back to the time of Jesus: do you not rememberhow the people asked whether any of the scribes or the Phariseesbelieved on him? They were ready to accept him if they could go withthe crowd; but it never occurred to them to raise the question as towhether it was their duty to go with him while he was alone, as towhether two or three might not represent some higher conception of God, some forward step on the part of humanity. Consider for just a moment, let it be in literature, in art, in government, in ethics, anywhere, find out where the crowd is, and you will find where the truth is not. Disraeli made a very profound remark when he said that a popularopinion was always the opinion which was about to pass away. By thetime a notion gets accepted by the crowd, the deeper students areseeing some higher and finer truth towards which they are reaching. 

The pioneers are always in the minority. The vanguard of an army isnever so large as the main body that comes along behind after the wayhas been laid out for it. 

"Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her wretched crust. "

That is Lowell's suggestion, in that famous poem of his. If we care fortruth, we shall not wait until it becomes popular. The truth in anydirection to-day, if we had the judgment of the world, would be voteddown. Christianity would be voted down among the religions;Protestantism would be voted down in Christianity; and the highest andfinest thinkers in the Protestant churches would be voted down by themajority of the members. 

Do not be disturbed, then, or troubled, because you have not the crowdand the shouting accompanying you on your onward march; and rememberthat there must be something of heroism in this consecration to truth. I wish to quote to you, as bearing on this truth, a wonderfully fineword which I have just come across in a recent number of theCosmopolitan Magazine, the word of the Hon. Thomas B. Reed, the Speakerof the House of Representatives. He says, "One with God may be amajority; but crucifixion and the fagot may antedate the counting ofthe votes. " But, if it means crucifixion and the fagot, and we claim tobe followers of the Nazarene and worthy of him, even for that we shallnot shrink. It is our business simply to raise the question, and try toanswer it or ourselves, Which way must I go to follow the truth? Andthat way I must tread, whether it means life or death, whatever theconsequences; for the truth-seeker is the only God-seeker. 

WHERE IS THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH?

As you are aware, there are certain churches that have taken the nameof Evangelical, thereby, of course, putting forth the claim that insome special or peculiar way they have the gospel in keeping. For"Evangel" is the word translated "gospel, " "Evangelist" is a "preacher ofthe gospel, " "Evangelical" is the appropriate name for the church whoseministers preach the gospel. And the word "gospel, " as you know, translated, means good news. It is the proclamation of hope, ofsomething that the world has been groping in darkness for, a messagethat should lift the burden off the human heart, make men stronger toendure, fill them with cheer in the midst of life's difficulties anddangers, and give them a trust with which to walk out into the darknessthat lies at the end. 

A certain section, I say, of the Christian Church has appropriated thisname; and by common consent it has been conceded to it. And as usagemakes language, and the dictionaries only record the results of popularusage, why, of course, we must confess that this use of words is right. Right in that sense, I say. But I wish to go back of this popular usagethis morning, and raise the question as to whether these churches thatclaim the title are the ones to whom it peculiarly or exclusivelybelongs. I wish to put forward the claim that we, though the idea isentirely against popular thought, are really the ones who are preachingthe gospel of God, and that the liberals of the world come nearer todayto proclaiming the actual original gospel of Jesus the Christ than doany other body of Christians in the world. I wish to do this, not inany spirit of antagonism, but simply by way of clear definition, andthat we may understand where we are, and may unfalteringly andtrustingly and loyally and hopefully go on to do the highest work thatwas ever committed to human hands. 

At the outset, though it will necessitate my saying certain thingswhich I have said to you before, I must outline briefly that body ofdoctrine which goes by the name of "Evangelical. " I will not go backtwo or three hundred years to include in it such dogmas asForeordination, Election, the Damnation of non-Elect or non-BaptizedInfants, though these doctrines still remain in the creeds. I will takewhat must be considered the simpler and fairer course of confiningmyself to setting forth those beliefs which are generally accepted, andwhich are made a part of the creed of the so-called "EvangelicalAlliance" that is, an organization including representatives of all thegreat so-called Evangelical Churches. These beliefs, in brief, are thatGod created the world perfect in the first place, but that in a veryshort time it was invaded by the evil powers, and mankind rebelledagainst the Creator, and became the subjects of the devil as the god ofthis world. Then man, by thus rebelling against God, lost hisintellectual power to discern truth, became mentally unable to discoverspiritual truth, to find the divine way in which he ought to walk; andthat he became morally incapable, so that, even when the truth waspresented to him, he felt an aversion towards it, and was disinclinedto accept it. The next point is this being the condition of things thatGod began to reveal himself to the world, first, by angel messengers, by prophets, by inspired men, and that then at last, through certainchosen mediums, he wrote a book telling men the truth about theircondition, about his feeling towards them, about what they ought to do, and the destiny involved in the kind of life they should live here. After the world had been in existence about four thousand years, according to this teaching, and very little headway had been made evenamong the chosen people, the few that had been selected from the greatoutside and wandering nations, God himself comes down to earth, bymeans of a woman specially prepared to be his mother he is born withouta human father. He lives, he suffers, he dies. This, after one theoryor another, I need not go into them, to make it possible for God toforgive, and to enable him to save those who should accept the termswhich he should offer. 

Then, after his withdrawal from the earth, his Church is organizedunder the special guidance of the Holy Spirit. Its mission is toproclaim the gospel among all nations. That proclamation has gone on;but after two thousand years not a third of the world has heard thegospel, not a third of the people who walk the planet knows anythingabout the book that has been written. But they still stumble along indarkness, worshipping anything except the one only and true God. Sothat this effort up to the present time would strike us, if we judgedit as a human device, as being a sad and lamentable failure. 

The upshot of this, according to the Evangelical creed, is that thegreat majority of the world is to be permanently lost. Only a few, those who are converted or those becoming members of the true Church, connected with it sacramentally or in some way, only the few are to besaved, and the great majority outcast forever. 

This, in substance, makes up what has been called the gospel; and thosewho claim that they are preaching the gospel are preaching these thingsas true. I am well aware and I would not have anybody suppose that Ioverlooked it that this creed is undergoing very striking and markedchanges, and that a great many of those things which some of us lookupon as more objectionable are being left out of sight, and notpreached, as they used to be, though they still remain in the creeds. 

I am aware, for example, that what it is to be orthodox or evangelicalhas been reduced to very low terms as compared with those which I havejust set forth; that is to say, reduced to very low terms in certainquarters. For instance, Dr. Lyman Abbott, of Brooklyn, tells us that weneed not believe in the infallibility of the Bible any more; that weneed not believe in the old-time Trinity; that we need not believe thatJesus was essentially different from a man; we need not believe in thevirgin birth, unless we find it easy to accept it. But the two thingswhich he tells us we must believe in order to be orthodox, orevangelical, are that in some way, though he does not define how, theBible contains a special message from God to the world, and that insome way Jesus particularly and specially represents God, and that hereveals him to men, so that, when he speaks, he speaks with authority, as representing divine truth. Everlasting Damnation eliminated, Foreordination not referred to, the Trinity transformed, Infallibilityno longer insisted on, the humanity of Jesus granted, to be orthodox, according to Dr. Abbott, has become a comparatively simple thing. 

In my conversations with clergymen of other churches during the pastwinter I have discovered that there, too, among certain men, theconditions of being orthodox are a great deal simpler than they were ahundred years ago. An Episcopalian tells me it is only necessary toaccept the Nicene and the Apostles' Creeds, and that even then one isat liberty to interpret them as he pleases; that this is whatconstitutes Orthodoxy and makes one evangelical. 

But this process of eliminating the hard doctrines has not gone on inany authoritative way on the part of the Church itself. There has beenno proclamation of any such liberty allowed; and I am not aware thatthe most of these men have made any public statement in their ownchurches of these positions. It may be known through personalconversations that they hold these views; and, if they are renderinggood service, they may not be disturbed by the church authorities intheir positions. 

So much, then, for a statement as to what constitutes the EvangelicalChurch, as to what must be the message of the minister who is to preach"the gospel of Christ. "

Now I wish to call your attention for a moment to another way oflooking at these doctrines. I am not to question their truth. I simplywish to ask you to note as to whether, considering them true, we shouldbe inclined to speak of them as good news. Are they a gospel? Can wewith gladness proclaim them to men? For example, suppose God, aftercreating the world, loses control of it, an evil power comes in, hisenemy, takes possession of his fair earth, alienates from him thehearts of the only two of his children who are in existence here, andwho are to be the parents of a countless race. Suppose that is true. Isit something we would like to believe? Is it good news? Can we call itan integral part of a gospel?

Suppose, again, that God writes a book, an infallible book, and givesit to whom? To a few people, to the little company of Jews who lived onthat little narrow strip of land on the eastern shore of theMediterranean. He does not give it to anybody else. He has given, indeed, according to this theory, the Old Testament and the New toChristendom since that day. But think a moment. 

According to what we know to be true now, man was on this planet fortwo or three hundred thousand years before God revealed himself at all;and the race went stumbling on and falling in darkness, no light, nohand stretched out to help, no voice speaking out of the silentheavens, the world, apparently, absolutely forgotten, so far as God'struth was concerned. Suppose that, after two or three hundred thousandyears, God did give an infallible book to the world. As I had occasionto say a moment ago, comparatively a very small part of his childrenhave heard anything about it. And, then, what is very striking, theproofs of its having come from him are so weak that most of the wisest, the best, the noblest of the world, cannot accept any such claim on itsbehalf. Is this, if it be true, good news? Would we speak of it as agospel, something of which to be glad, something to proclaim to mankindas a cheer, a message from on high?

Once more, suppose, after the world had been in existence for two orthree hundred thousand years, God comes down, incarnates himself, wearsa human body, and does what he can to save men. If it is true, in theeconomy of the divine government, that human souls could be saved in noother way, is that good news? Would we think of it as a gospel toproclaim to mankind, that God himself must suffer, must be outcast, bespit upon, be reviled, be put to death, and that only so could heforgive one of his wandering children, and bring him back to himself?

Then, once more, suppose all this to be true, and suppose that, as theoutcome of it all, the countless millions of men and women and childrenthat have walked the earth during the last three hundred thousandyears, until the Jews received their first light from heaven, supposethat they have been lost: that is a part of this gospel. Suppose thatsince that time all the nations outside of Christendom have been lost:that is a part of this gospel. Suppose that not only this be true, butthat all people in Christendom who have not been members of churcheshave been lost. Suppose even, as I used to hear it preached when I wasa boy, that large numbers of those who were church members were notreally children of God, and would be lost. Suppose this most horribledoctrine be true. Is it good news? Could we proclaim it with any heartof courage as a part of the gospel of God?

It seems to me, then, that I am bringing no railing accusation when Isay that those Churches that claim to be Evangelical are notproclaiming a gospel to the world. But, though this be literally true, they may claim that they are delivering the message of Jesus theChrist, and that, from their point of view, this is relatively a pieceof good news, good news, at any rate, to the few who are going to besaved. So I ask you now to turn, while I examine with you for a fewmoments the essence of the gospel which Jesus proclaimed. Note itsterms. Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom ofGod, and saying: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is athand: repent ye, and believe the gospel;" that is, this proclamation ofgood news, the coming of God's kingdom. Was this the essential thing inthe gospel of Christ?

Let me ask you now to look with me for a few moments. You are perfectlywell aware of the fact that the Jews cherished a belief in the comingof a Messiah and the establishment of God's kingdom here on earth andamong men. You are not so well aware, perhaps, unless you have made astudy of it, that a belief like this has not been confined to the Jews. In many other nations a similar expectation has been cherished. We findit, for example, among some of the tribes of our North AmericanIndians. It is world-wide, in other words, in its range. It is nopeculiarity of the Jews. But let us confine ourselves a moment to theirparticular hope. It is a perfectly natural belief. It required norevelation in order for it to grow up. They believed that the God ofthe world, of the universe, was their God; that they were his chosenpeople. Do you not see what a necessary corollary would be a belief intheir ultimate prosperity and triumph? God would certainly bless andgive the kingdom to that people which he had specially selected for hisown. And so, as the coming of the kingdom was postponed, they believedthat it was because they had not complied with the divine conditions, they had not kept the law or they had not been good, they had notobeyed him. Somehow, they had done wrong; and that was the reason thekingdom so long delayed. 

Remember another thing. We have come, in this modern time, to place thekingdom away off in another world after the close of this life. TheJews had no such belief about it. They expected it to come right hereon this poor little planet of ours; and they expected that a kingdomwas to be set up which was not only to place them at the head ofhumanity, but through them was to bless all mankind. Different thinkersamong them held different views, but this in substance was the belief;and they were constantly looking for signs of this imminent revolutionwhich was to make the kingdoms of this world the kingdoms of our Godand of his Christ, that is, his Anointed One. 

John the Baptist preached that this kingdom was coming. But he wasimprisoned and beheaded, having come into conflict with the civilauthority. Jesus, then, having come from Nazareth, where he had studiedand thought and brooded over the divine will, takes up this broken workof John, and begins a proclamation of the gospel; and the one thingwhich constituted that gospel was: The kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe; accept this statement. And note that "repent" onthe lips of Jesus did not mean what we have been accustomed toassociate with it. The New Testament word translated "repent" meanschange your purpose, change your method of life. You have not been inaccord with the truth, you have not been obedient to God; turn about, come into accord with the divine law, become obedient to the divinemessage. 

Jesus taught no kingdom in any other world. He believed that thekingdom was to be here. For, even after he had disappeared from thesight of men, and this reflects in the clearest possible way the burdenof his message, his disciples expected, not that they were to betransferred to some other planet or into an invisible world to find thekingdom, but that Jesus was to come back, to return in the clouds ofheaven, and establish the kingdom here. 

The kingdom, then, that Jesus preached was a kingdom of righteousnesshere on this earth, among just the kind of people that we are. And, note, he said, This kingdom of God does not come by observation. Youare not to say, Lo here, Lo there, look for wonders. He says, Thekingdom of God is within you, or among you. It is translated both ways;and, I suppose, nobody knows which way it ought to be. I believe both. The kingdom of God that Jesus preached is essentially in us. It isalso, after it is in a few of us, among us, right here already, so faras it extends, and reaching out its limits and growing as rapidly asmen discern it and become obedient to its laws. 

Now I have been asked a great many times how I can be sure, orpractically sure, as to what sayings in the Gospels are really those ofJesus and what are traditional in their authority, what are doubtfullyhis. I cannot go into a long explanation this morning; but I want tosuggest one line of thought. And I do this because I wish it to be thebasis of a statement that Jesus has not made any of these things thatare to-day labelled "Evangelical" any essential part of his gospel atall. Jesus, for example, does not preach any Garden of Eden or any Fallof Man. Jesus says nothing about any infallible book. Jesus says not aword about any Trinity. He nowhere makes any claim to be God. Hisdoctrine concerning the future is doubtful. But one thing which I wishto insist upon is perfectly clear: the conditions of citizenship in thekingdom of God are the simplest conceivable. He says, Not those thatsay, Lord, Lord, not those that multiply their services and ceremonies, but those that do the will of my Father shall enter the kingdom. Theonly condition that Jesus ever established for membership in thekingdom of heaven is simple human goodness, never anything else. 

I am perfectly well aware that somebody may quote to me, "He thatbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth notshall be damned. " But the reply to that would be, The acknowledgedstatement to-day on the part of all competent scholars is that Jesusnever uttered those words. They are left out of the Revised Version ofthe New Testament: they are no authentic part of the story of his lifeor his teaching. 

How can we find his words? In the first place there are the greatcentral, luminous truths which Jesus uttered, the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of men, goodness as the condition of acceptance on thepart of God. And, on the theory that he did not contradict himself, weare at liberty to waive one side those statements which grew up underthe influence of later tradition, popish or ecclesiastical, and whichplainly contradict these. But the main point I have in mind is onewhich scholars have wrought out under the name of the Triple Tradition. It takes for its central thought, "In the mouth of two or threewitnesses every word shall be established. " We know that the Gospelsgrew up through a long process of accretion after a good many years. They were not written or planned by any one person; and, so far as weknow, they may not have been written by anybody whose name istraditionally connected with them to-day. If, however, we find thatthree of the four witnesses agree in reporting that he said or did acertain thing, we feel surer about it than when only one witnessreports it. And if two report, why, even then we feel a little morecertain than we do when the report is from only one. And yet, ofcourse, the three may have omitted that which only one has recorded, and which is true. But scholars have wrought out along this line whatis called the Triple Tradition; that is, they have constructed acomplete story of the life and the teaching and the death of Jesus outof the words which are common to three of the gospel writers. All ofthem tell this same story; and this story of the Triple Tradition hasno miraculous conception, it has no resurrection of the body, noascension into heaven. The miracles are reduced to the very lowestterms, becoming almost natural and easy to be accounted for. In thisstory Jesus teaches none of the things of which I have been speaking. 

I say, then, that along the lines of the very best criticalscholarship, coming as near to the teaching of Jesus as we possibly canto-day, we are warranted in saying that this which has usurped the nameof the gospel of Christ is not only not good news, but it is not thenews which Jesus brought and preached. As has been said a good manytimes, it is a gospel about Christ instead of being the gospel ofChrist. 

I am ready now to make the claim that we liberals of the modern worldare the ones who come nearer to preaching the gospel of Christ than anyother part of the so-called Christian Church. For what is it that wepreach? We preach that the kingdom of God is at hand. We preach thatthere is not a spot on the face of the earth where we are not at thefoot of a ladder like that which Jacob saw in his dream, and whichleads up to the very throne of the Almighty. Jesus taught that thekingdom of God might begin anywhere and at any time in any human heart. Note what Matthew Arnold has called the secret and the method of Jesus. He says, The secret of Jesus is that he who selfishly seeks his lifeshall lose it: he who throws it away for good and God finds it. Do weneed to go very deeply into human life to discover the profound truthof that saying? Seek all over the world for good and happiness, andforget to look within, and you do not find it. The kingdom of heaven iswithin. It is in the spirit, the temper of the heart, the disposition, the life. And the secret of it is in cultivating love and truth andtenderness and care, those things which bring us into intimateconnection with which we mean when we say, Be unselfish, and that indoing this we find our own souls. For the man who gives out of himselflove and tenderness and care, of necessity cultivates the qualities oflove and tenderness and care; and those are the ones which are theessence of all soul-building. And he who looks outside for the greatestthings of life misses them; while he who looks within, and cultivatesthe spirit, finds God and happiness and truth. 

This gospel, then, that the kingdom of God is at hand, is always readyto come, is the gospel which we proclaim. And now I wish to extend thatidea a little. The form in which Jesus held his dream of human good haschanged in the process of the centuries. We no longer expect amiraculous revelation of a kingdom coming out of the heavens to abideon earth. The form of it is changed; but the essence of it we holdstill, the same perfect condition of men here on earth and in thefuture which Jesus held and proclaimed. 

Now let me hint to you a few of the elements that make up this hope forman which we liberals proclaim everywhere as the gospel, the good newsof the coming kingdom of God. 

In the first place, we proclaim the possibility of human conquest overthis earth. What do I mean by that? I mean that man is able and he isshowing that ability ultimately to control the forces of this planet, and make them his servants. Within the last seventy-five years thisincreasing conquest has changed the face of the planet. We now usewater power not only, but steam, electricity, magnetism. All thesesecret forces that thrill from planet to planet and sun to sun we useas our household and factory drudges, our every-day servants. And itneeds only a little imagination, looking along the lines of pastprogress, to see the day when man shall stand king of the earth. Heshall make all these forces serve him. I believe that we have only justbegun this conquest. Already the wonders about us eclipse the wondersof novelist and dreamer; and yet we have only begun to develop them. What follows from this? When we have completed the conquest of theearth, when we have discovered God's laws of matter and force and areable to keep them, it means the abolition of all unnecessary pain, unnecessary pain, I say; for all that pain which is not beneficent, which is not inherent in the nature of things, is remedial. And wepreach the gospel, the coming of God's kingdom when pain shall beabolished, and shall pass away. 

Another step: We preach the gospel of the abolition of disease. We havealready, in the few civilized centres of the world, made the oldepidemics simply impossible. They are easily controlled. Nearly everyone of those that rise to threaten Europe and America to-day come fromthe religious, ignorant, wild fanaticism of Asia, beyond the range ofour civilized control. The conditions of disease are discoverable; andthe day will come when, barring accidents here and there, well-bornpeople may calmly expect to live out their natural term of years. Wepreach this gospel, then, of the kingdom of God in which disease shallno more exist. 

We preach a gospel that promises a time when war shall be no more. Atpresent wars are now and then inevitable; but they are brutal, they areunspeakably horrible. And how any one who uses the sympatheticimagination can rejoice, not over the victory, but over the destructionof life and property which the victory entails, I cannot understand. Wehave reached a time when civilized man no longer thinks he must righthis wrong with his fists or a club or a knife or a pistol. On the partof individuals we call this a reversion to barbarism. The time willcome, and we are advancing towards it, when it will be considered justas much a reversion to barbarism on the part of families, states, nations, and when we shall substitute hearts and brains for bruises andbullets in the settlement of the world's misunderstandings. We preach, then, a gospel of the coming of the kingdom in which there shall be nomore war. And then life under the fair heavens will be sweet. 

There shall be no more hunger in that kingdom. To-day see whatconfronts us, bread riots in Spain and in Italy, thousands of peoplehungry for food. And yet, if we would give ourselves to the developmentof the resources of this planet instead of to their destruction, thisfair earth could support a hundred times its present population inplenty and in peace. There shall be no more famine in that kingdom thegospel of which we preach. 

Then, when men have lived out their lives, learned their lessons, andstand where the shadow grows thicker, so that we try in vain to seebeyond, what then? We preach a gospel of life, of an eternal hope. Webelieve that death, instead of being the end, is only a transition, thebeginning really of the higher and the grander life. We cannot lookthrough the gateway of the shadow; but we catch a gleam of light beyondthat means an eternal day, when the sun shall no more go down. This webelieve. 

And we do not partition that world off into two parts, the immensemajority down where the smoke of their torment ascendeth forever, andonly a few in a city gold-paved and filled with the light of peace. Rather we believe it is a human life there just as here, that we areunder the law of cause and effect, that salvation is not a magicalthing, that we are saved only in so far as we come into accord with thedivine law and the divine life. And, if anybody says we preach an easygospel because we eliminate an arbitrary hell, let him remember wepreach a harder gospel, a more difficult salvation, not a salvationthat can be purchased by a wave of emotion or by the touch of priestlyfingers, a salvation that must be wrought out through co-working withGod in the building of human character, a salvation that is beingright. 

This is our gospel; but it is a gospel of eternal and universal hope, because we believe that every single soul is under doom to be savedsometime, somewhere. We preach the inevitable results of law-breaking, are they to last one year, five, a hundred, a thousand, a million, tenmillions? There is no possibility of heaven except as people are inperfect accord with the divine law and the divine life; for that iswhat heaven means. You can no more get heaven out of a disorderedcharacter than you can get music out of a disordered piano. Thissalvation which we preach is the constituent element of life. Youcannot have a circle if you break the conditions of a circle. Youcannot have a river if you break the conditions the very existence ofwhich constitutes a river. So of anything in God's natural world. Thereare certain essential things that go to make these what they are. Soheaven, righteousness, happiness, the constituent elements of these areright thinking, right feeling, right acting, obedience to the laws ofGod, which make them possible. 

We believe that God, through pain, through suffering, down through thewinding ways of darkness and ignorance, one year, a million years, mustpursue the soul of any one of his children until that child learns thatsuffering follows wrong, and must follow it, and that God himselfcannot help it, and so, learning the lesson, by and by turns, comesback, and says: Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am not worthy to be thy son: make me at least as one of thy hiredservants. And then the love that has pursued all the way, that has beenin the light and that has been in the dark, shall go out to meet him, and fall on his neck in loving embrace, and rejoice that he who wasdead is alive again, and he who was lost is found. 

This is the gospel we preach, a gospel of God's eternal, boundlesslove, the good news that every human being is God's child; that here onearth, co-operating with God and discovering his laws, we may begin thecreation of his kingdom now; that we may broaden and enlarge it untilit encloses the world; and that it reaches out into the limitless agesof the future. And this, as I said, is the gospel of the Christ, changed in its form, if you please, but one in its essence; for hecame, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying: The timeis fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Change your purpose, accept the message, and come into accord with the divine life. This isthe gospel that the Christ preached: this is the gospel we preachto-day. 

Do I make, then, an extraordinary claim when I say that we are theEvangelical Church, that the church which preaches the gospel is here?