A grammar of belief; a revaluation of the bases of Christian belief in the light of modern science and philosophy

.-<h^

ilB^

^ <^^ »

©i IfUrf

DIBBLE

Modern

.^w^^pr-

-^■'"•''v -■'*'

* -^ VS •'.

A7. Z2

LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

PRINCETON, N. J.

BR 125 .D5 1922
Dibble, Charles Lemuel.
A grammar of belief

A GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

SECOND EDITION

A GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

A Revaluation of the
Bases of Christian Belief in the Light of

Modern Science and Philosophy -~-^

JAN 7 19J
CHARLES LEMUEL DIBBI>^^£5!ML^

Attorney at Law

BY AX. V^>

MOREHOUSE PUBLISHING CO.
MILWAUKEE, WIS.

A. R. MOWBRAY & CO. Ltd.
LONDON

Copyright, 1922

BY

Morehouse Publishing Co.

MODERN INQUIRIES IN RELIGIOUS
THOUGHT FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS.

The members of a group of seven clergy, ministering to
college students, associated with the Department of Re-
ligious Education of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in
forming policies for religious work among students, have
jointly examined the manuscript of this book, and desire
to bring it to the attention of clergy and teachers of col-
lege and university students, with the hope that it will be
found to meet a need.

Rev. LeRoy S. Burroughs, Ames, Iowa.

Rev. John T. Dallas, Hanover, N. H.

Rev. Cyril Harris, Ithaca, N. Y.

Rev. Harris Masterson, Houston, Texas.

Rt. Rev. William G. McDowell, Jr., Auburn, Ala.

Rev. F. C. F, Randolph, Columbus, Ohio.
Rev. Ronalds Taylor, College Park, Md.

FOREWORD.

When a boy goes to college, what happens to his inter-
est in religion? Well, in the first place, he certainly doesn't
lose it. No one who has sat before an open fire with a cir-
cle of college men and heard the discussion range through
all things in heaven above and in the earth beneath and in
the waters under the earth, can doubt their interest in re-
ligion.

That is precisely why so many of them become agnostic.
If they didn't care, they might go on repeating with thought-
less lips old platitudes, without ever wondering whether the
new learning was going to fit them. It is because they do
care enough about religion to require that it shall be true,
that they turn from it when it seems to be discredited.

Generally, the young man, and the young woman, too,
comes to college with no adequate idea of religious doc-
trine. He has probably never concerned himself about it.
If he has thought to inquire, the chances are that he has
been answered after the manner of half a century ago. For
most people seem to think that old ideas, like old clothing,
are good enough for boys. When he gets to college be learns
that the world was not made in seven days, and that his
great grandfather resembled an ape, and that Moses did
not write the first five books of the Bible. The professor
hasn't time to explain to him that God can work as well in
a million years as in seven days, and that a man's ances-
tors are not nearly so important to him as his descendants,
and that you don't have to know the author of a book to
tell whether or not it is worth while.

The college man sees theology, — the old theology, — for-
ever on the defensive with science, and forever losing
ground. Thinks he, if religion is real, why remain on the
defensive? Why not meet science on its own ground, and

viii GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

base theology, like science, upon the facts of experience?
This is exactly what modern theologians have been doing;
only the college man doesn't know where to look for them.

Ever since my own undergraduate days I have felt re-
sentment that the Church did not help me to reconstruct
my ideas about religion so as to harmonize them with what
I was learning in the class-room. And so, without any spe-
cial fitness for the task, being a practising lawyer, I have for
several years been trying to assist the students of a nearby
college to make this reconstruction. In that effort, the out-
line that follows has gradually developed. I have tried to
give the student a new orientation, a new way of looking at
things both religious and scientific. I have tried to take the
house of his religious life off its insecure foundations and
place it on a new base, without injuring any essential parts
of the building.

Modern developments in science and philosophy have pro-
foundly changed men's viewpoint toward religion and have
invalidated many of the arguments formerly relied upon in
support of the doctrines of Christianity. Properly under-
stood, however, science and philosophy have not overthrown
Christianity, but have confirmed it. Science and theology
appear to be in confiict only because we have misunder-
stood their scope. Neither is absolute in the sense of being
unrelated to the human intellect and reason ; both are
evolved to classify and explain experience, the one physi-
cal, the other spiritual. Neither a doctrine of theology nor a
law of science is a fiat imposed by authority or inexorable
necessity ; but each is a formula whereby w^e summarize the
facts of experience. Both the law and the dogma are finally
tested by the results achieved through their application.
Hence every dogma must be held to be valid which fulfills
the following requirements : if it is congruous with the legiti-
mate conclusions of science; if it epitomizes and mediates
religious experience; if it evokes right action. A frank
revaluation in this light of the bases of belief is the pur-
pose of this course.

Being neither a professional theologian, nor a profes-
sional scientist, I have endeavored to maintain an open mind
as to the conclusions of both. There is, as it seems to me.

FOREWORD ix

a distinct advantage in tliis viewpoint. It ought to be
possible for one not a specialist in either science or theology,
but sympathetic with each, to effect a more disinterested ap-
praisal of both and of the relations between them. He can
come at the problem without any of the preconceptions
current in either field and ought to be able to get a better
perspective. At any rate, such a viewpoint ought to ap-
proach more closely to that of the "ultimate consumer,*' to
whom these discussions are addressed.

This position, on the other hand, lays one under the
obligation of humility as to the particular material dealt
with. I cherish no illusions of infallibility. I can hardly
hope to have avoided error in statements either scientific or
theological. I trust, however, that such errors will not
seriously impair the usefulness of this outline. What I have
endeavored to provide is not matter, but method, and of the
validity of that method, as I have outlined it above, I am
profoundly convinced. It ought to be possible, on the other
hand, for the leader and members of the group to make
the corrections or additions which appear to them to be de-
manded ; while still using this method of presentation as
a point of departure from which to formulate their own
view. Indeed such conflict in ideas between text and dis-
cussion group will be found to stimulate interest and will
result in independent and worth-while conclusions.

While these discussions were originally worked out for
college students, I have found that the demand for some
systematic presentation of the relation between science and
religion is equally insistent on the part of nearly all men and
women today, — certainly of all those who look below the
surface. To all such inquirers this book is dedicated.

Although I assume responsibility for whatever appears
in this outline, I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to
the Rev. Paul Micou of the Episcopal Department of Reli-
gious Education and to the "Student Inquirers," a group
of student pastors of the Episcopal Church, for their ad-
vice in its preparation and for making possible its publi-
cation ; to the Very Rev. B. F. P. Ivins, D.D., Dean of Na-
shotah House, for the inspiration to undertake this work;
and to the Rev. Frank Gavin, Th.D., of Nashotah House,

X GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

to the Rev. Stanley M. Cleveland of Madison, Wis., and to
the Rev. Burton S. Easton, D.D., of the General Theological
Seminary, for their exceedingly valuable suggestions.
Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1922.

NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION

Some minor changes have been made in the text of this
edition and additional suggestions for collateral reading
have been included in the notes.

It is suggested that one reading the book individually,
and not as a basis for group discussion, will do well to adopt
the Chinese method of beginning at the back, and to read
first the essays in Part II. These will be found to present
more fully the underlying theory and method of approach
employed in the discussions and will lay a foundation for
them.

Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1923.

PART I.

DISCUSSION TOPICS.

A.— WHY BELIEVE? (The Philosophy of The-
ism.)

I. Quo Vadis? Problem: Can Society pros-
per without vital religious belief? Whither is soci-
ety headed ? The importance of vital religious belief
to society and to the individual. Present day diffi-
culties of belief. Essentials of vital religious belief ;
it must not contradict science and common sense ; it
must epitomize religious experience; it must evoke
right action. Can belief again be made vital?

II. The Warfare of Science With Theology.
Problem: Has science banished religion, and if
not, how may theology be reconstructed? The story
of the losing fight of a theology based on
mistaken premises. The gradual contraction of the
notion of special interference of Providence in the
fields of cosmogony, meteorology, anthropology, med-
icine, history, biology, and psychology. Causes of
agreement between Aristotelian natural philosophy
and scholastic theology. Are causes of disagreement
unavoidable, or may science and theology again be
harmonized ?

III. The Grammar of Science. Problem:
Are matter and material laws the only ob-
jective reality? Relativity and subjectivity of the
basic concepts of science. The mind a telephone ex-

2 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

change. Percepts, concepts, space, time, motion,
matter, cause and effect, natural law.

IV. The Grammar of Theology. Problem:
How far may we trust our intuitions? The

inside of the telephone exchange. Mental tendencies
or "senses". The sense for rationality, the basis of
science. The sense for right and for reverence, the
basis of religion. The religious evaluation of the
universe. Specific religious experience. Dogma.

V. The Will to Believe. Problem: When
belief and disbelief are both j^ossible, which should
we choose? The loom of thought. Understanding
and hypothesis. Practical hypotheses and our at-
titude toward them ; belief, doubt, and denial. The
legitimacy of belief. Credulity.

VI. The Idea op God. Problem : Has modern
science made it impossible to believe in a
personal (lod? Practical importance of the ques-
tion. History of the idea of God. May we believe
in a personal God ; do science or philosophy deny
God? tihould we believe in a personal God; affirma-
tive arguments. The relation of God to the ma-
terial universe and to man.

VII. The Will. Problem : Is the human will
really free, or is our conduct pre-determiued? Ob-
jections to freedom of the will, religious, philosoph-
ical, and scientific. Are these objections unanswer-
able? Does science negative moral freedom? The
teaching of philosophy and ethics. May the will be
conditioned and yet be free?

VIII. Life Eternal. Problem : Has modern
science made this belief untenable? If tenable,
can it be said to be more than a mere possibility?
History of the idea of immortality. May we believe
It; does science or philosophy deny it? Should we
believe it; affirmative arguments.

DISCUSSION TOPICS 3

B. WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST? (Chris-
tian Dogma.)

IX. The Creating God. Problem: Has' the
theory of evolution substituted Natural Force for
God as the creator of the material universe and of
man? Theory of special creation. Theory of evolu-
tion. The philosophy and theology of evolution.
Miracles.

X. The Revealing God. Problem: If the
Bible is not infallible, how can it be said to be in-
spired by God, >since God does not err? Fallibility
of the Bible. History of the idea of Biblical infal-
libility. What is inspiration? The inspiration of
the Bible.

XI. The Nicbnb Idea of God. Problem: Is
the dogma of the Trinity intelligible, and, if so, has
it any practical bearing? Definition. History of
the development of the dogma. The meaning of "per-
son". The dogma in terms of modern thought. The
concepts of transcendence, immanence, and human-
ity ; their necessity to an adequate idea of God.

XII. Jesus the Man. Problem: Does his-
torical criticism leave us any assurance of the facts
of Jesus' life; and, if so, what do we gather of it?
Present conclusions as to the records. Brief survey
of his life, death, and resurrection. His conception
of his messiahship and the conception of his disciples.

XIII. What Think Ye op Christ? Problem:
If Jesus was man, how can he be said to be
divine in any other sense than men in general? How
is the Divine Life to be accounted for? The inter-
pretation of the primitive Church and its develop-
ment. A modern restatement.

XIV. The Judging God. Problem: If man is
the creature of his heredity and environment, why

4 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

should God hold him to account; does not mod-
ern science conflict with the idea of hell? Moral re-
sponsibility. Conscience. What is crime, and what
steps do we take to protect ourselves from it? What
is sin, in its objective and subjective aspects, and
what steps does God take to eradicate it? Heaven
and Hell.

XV. The Atoning God. Problem: If God is
both loving and omnipotent, why does he permit
sin, pain, and sorrow? The answers of philosojjhy,
— utilitarian, epicurean, stoic, skeptic, atheist,
pessimist. The answer of "Christian Science". The
answer of Christianity, — eternal life and atonement.
The meaning of atonement.

XVI. The Loving God. Problem: Is inter-
communion possible between God and man ; and how
can God answer prayer without violating natural
laws? The subconscious. Conversion. Prayer, its
nature and effect. Christian mysticism. Spiritual
healing, its possibilities and limitations.

XVII. The Life Worth While (Christian
Ethics). Problem: If I deal justly and prac-
tice charity, have I not fulfilled my whole duty?
The eternal question, "What is the chief end of
man?" The answer of Christianity. The duties of
life, — toward God, toward my neighbor, toward my-
self. Results of over-emphasis of either sort of duty,
as shown by history. The reward of life.

XVIII. The Idea of a Church. Problem:
Why should I join the Church? If I live a
Christian life, is that not all that is required? The
Catholic and Protestant ideas of the Church. The
history of corporate religion. Value of the organic
idea. The Church as the Beloved Community. The
Church as the Body of Christ. Limitations on the
authority of the Church.

DISCUSSION TOPICS 5

XIX. The Idea of a Sacrament. Problem:
If God is everywhere, of what advantage is a
sacrament? The Catholic and Protestant ideas of
a sacrament. The history of sacrificial and sacra-
mental religion. The value of public worship. The
value of sacraments. Baptism. Eucharist.

XX. The Idea of a Ministry. Problem: Is
it needful, or right, that anyone should represent
God to me, or me to God? The history of priest-
hood. Value of a priesthood. Limitations. Eoman
theory. The Apostolic Succession.

XXI. The Development of Doctrine. Prob-
lem: Is not Christianity largely a syncretism of
other religions and a corruption of the teaching of
the Master ; and how are we to get at the real essence
of Christianity? Influences from without. Devel-
opment within. The deposit theory. The theory of
development. How may we distinguish between
true development and corruption? The value of
authority.

XXII. Present Day Problems. What has the
Church to contribute in the social crisis, and
how may she best do it? What should be her re-
lation to politics, to economic and social questions,
and to philanthropy? The problem of the reunion
of Christendom ; is it advisable, is it possible, would
it be permanent? The method and terms of reunion,
various proposals. What will the Church of the fu-
ture be? What element might each of the present
divisions of Christendom contribute?

J GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

PART II.

Essay I. The Relevancy of Religion.

Essay II. Dogma.

Essay III. The Grammar of Theology.

Essay IV. The Nicene Idea of God.

Essay V. Nature and Religion.

PART III.

Suggestions to the Leader of the Discussions.

PART I

A.— WHY BELIEVE?
The Philosophy of Theism.

DISCUSSION I.

QUO VADIS?

1. Whither is society tending? The World War
and possibility of recurrence. Increase of crime.
Social unrest. Economic and political instability.

2. Whither is religion tending? Churches de-
serted. Shortage of clergy. Loss of influence. Loss
of vital religious belief.

Problem: Can society prosper without vital re-
ligious belief?

3. What is religion?

a. Definition. Keligion is belief in, reverence
towards, and effort to establish right rela-
tions with, a Supernatural Power or Powers.

b. Three elements: belief, intellectual; rever-
ence, emotional; and effort to establish re-
lations, practical.

c. Necessity of all three elements : they corres-
spond to the three departments of human ac-
tivity, lacking which any religion would be
one-sided. The last two are admittedly es-
sential, but it is the fashion to belittle the
function of belief. This is a fallacy. Belief
is the backbone of religion.

10 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

4. Function of religious belief.

a. In relation to conduct. Belief in divine aid
gives us self-confidence and courage. Be-
lief in immortality makes us plan for etern-
ity, instead of for time. If assured of only
five years of life we would plan differently
than if assured of twenty. If assured of im-
mortality we plan for continuous develop-
ment here and hereafter, gain a proper per-
spective, and lose selfish motives.

b. In relation to happiness. Our anxieties are
quieted and our life made normal. Man is
incurably religious and is restless till he finds
rest in God. Belief in a God of love, wisdom,
and power makes life worth while. The
saintly men whom we know are the happy
men.

c. In relation to society. Society is composed
of individuals; and their right conduct and
happiness, their proper adjustment and nor-
mal functioning, constitutes social well-being.
The social necessity of religion is proved by
its universal acceptance. "If there were no
God, it would be necessary to invent one,"
says Voltaire. Hence it is that religion has
always normally been regarded as an affair
of the whole community (Disc. XVIII). Its
most primitive manifestation was tribal rites
and its highest development in civilized
communities takes the form of collective
worship, organization and service.

5. The reason why belief is not seen to have a prac-
tical bearing is because we have not tried it. We do
not really believe, except occasionally. In the old
days, when belief was vivid, it was a mighty force.
Can it be made vivid again? Can it be presented

QUO VADISf 11

SO that men shall really believe all the time? That
attempt is the purpose of this course. ( See the essay
entitled The Relevancy of Religion in Part II.)

6. Present day hindrances to belief.

a. Advancement of science, so as to seem incon-
sistent with religion.

b. Great commercial and material development
has created a materialistic atmosphere.

c. Emphasis by some theologians on antiquated
methods of presentation. It is no longer pos-
sible to foreclose discussion in this, or any
other field, by an appeal to authority.

7. Purpose of the course.

a. To define the scope of science as not incon-
sistent with religion.

b. To define the scope of theology as not incon-
sistent with science.

c. To restate the fundamental doctrines of the-
ology, deriving them from the facts of relig-
ious experience, as the laws of science are
derived from the facts of material experience.

d. The motto of the course:

^^A doctrine is not a fiat hut a formula/^
Fiat money is printed paper which the gov-
ernment tells me is worth a dollar, or a ruble.
If my patriotism, or fear, is strong enough,
I will accept it at this value. But, when I
try to pass it on to you and to say that it is
worth so much, because I, or the government,
say it is, I will have considerable difficulty.
The analogy to fiat religious doctrine is ob-
vious. Valid doctrines, however, are worth
one hundred cents on the dollar, because
based on religious experience.

12 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

e. Every doctrine must fulfill these require-
ments (see essay, The Grammar of Theology,
infra, especially pp. 161-162) :

(1) It must be congruent with the legitimate
conclusions of science.

(2) It must epitomize and mediate religious
experience.

(3) It must evoke right action.

It is the purpose of this course to examine
the fundamental doctrines of Christianity
and determine whether they meet this crite-
rion. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

DISCUSSION 11.

WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY;
SCIENCE TRIUMPHANT.

(In connection with this Discussion, see Discus-
sions IX and X.)

1. History of the conflict and gradual retreat of
theology before science in the various fields.

a. Cosmogony — Geocentric vs. Heliocentric.

b. Medicine — Incantations and Charms vs. Anti-
toxins.

c. Meteorology — The God of the Storm vs. Sun
Spots.

d. Anthropology — The Fall of Man vs. The Rise
of Man.

e. Ethnology — Genesis vs. The Monuments.

f. Philology — The Tower of Babel vs. Grimm^s
Law.

g. History — Bibliolatry vs. Historical Criticism,
h. Biology — Special Creation vs. Evolution.

i. Psychology — The Soul vs. Consciousness.

Problem: Has science banished religion; and, if
not, how may theology be reconstructed?

2. The causes of early agreement between natural
philosophy and theology.

a. The theology of the Bible and contempora-
neous natural philosophy were both built on

13

14 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

the facts of nature, as then observed and ex-
plained.

b. Both natural philosophy and theology used
the a priori method. Significance of name,
natural philosophy.

c. Both relied implicitly upon authority: the-
ology on the sacred books; natural philoso-
phy on the statements of recognized author-
ities— e. g. Aristotle (physics), Galen (med-
icine). Roger Bacon was persecuted, as well
as John Hus.

d. Neither employed the method of experiment.
Both merely collected and catalogued facts,
without attempting to investigate causal re-
lations.

3. Causes of later disagreement.

a. Science was forced by the growing dis-
crepancy between its theories and the ob-
served facts to break with authority. It first
tolerated, then espoused, the method of ob-
servation and experiment.

b. Theology retained the old method, since the
power of authority was stronger in its field
and the facts upon which it is based were less
susceptible to experiment. In time it quite
forgot that its doctrines were derived from,
or have any basis in, the facts of religious
experience, and regarded them as established
by arbitrary divine fiat.

4. Present position of science.

a. Method. Induction from observation and
experiment to a general formula or law. A
priori method used only for working hypoth-
esis.

WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY 15

b. Underlying theory. Phenomenal results have
phenomenal causes which are discoverable.
Phenomena are capable of rationalization,
i. e. of statement in scientific laws.

c. Conclusions. As a result of the application
of the theory of cause and effect to the ob-
served facts, through the method of experi-
ment, science has reached the conclusion that,
in the whole range of phenomena, change oc-
curs by evolution and not by special creation,
and that the whole universe is continually
developing.

5. Present position of theology.

Doctrines, like scientific laws, have grown up by
working from observation and experiment to a gen-
eral formula or dogma. (See Part II, Dogma.)
The individual in determining for himself what he
shall believe should use the same method as the
scientist. He should use the dogma as a work-
ing hypothesis. He should then test this hypothesis
by noting what has been its effect upon those who
have held it throughout the history of Christianity
and among his acquaintances (method of observa-
tion), and he should then try it out himself, assume
that it is true and act upon it (method of experi-
ment). It was by these methods that Romanes con-
verted himself from agnosticism. (See Part II, The
Relevancy of Religion.)

6. Harmony is being restored between science and
theology.

a. Science is recognizing its limitations, and is
ceasing to philosophize. (See Essay by
Heniy Fairfield Osborn, Nature and Relig-
ion, in Part 11.)

16 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

b. Theology is recognizing its limitations, and
is defining its new viewpoint so as not to in-
vade the field of science. Some of the books
setting forth this new viewpoint will be found
in Part III.

c. Theology is employing in its own field the
same underlying theory and method as sci-
ence. (See §4.)

7. Conclusion.
Theologians have fought for five hundred years
to defend the theory of miraculous causation and
the a priori method, as against the theory of phe-
nomenal causation and the method of experiment,
and have been defeated in one field after another.
At every stronghold which they have defended they
have asserted that, if this were forced, religion
would be discredited. Small wonder if people are
now beginning to take them at their word. It is a
tribute to the power and ultimate validity of religion
that it is still alive, when its doctors have been giv-
ing it up for five hundred years. The leaders of the-
ology have abandoned outworn methods and recog-
nize that a doctrine is not a fiat but a formula, and
they are restating theological doctrines, deriving
them from the observed facts of spiritual experience.
When this readjustment shall have been effected, it
is not too much to hope that religious beliefs will
again obtain universal assent.

DISCUSSION III.

THE GRAMMAR OF SCIENCE.

1. All we know of the outside world is the sense
impressions which come to us. Each of us is like
a telephone operator, chained to her switch-board
and unable to see beyond her office, knowing only
what the persons using the telephone tell her.

2. We assume that the sense impressions are
caused by something and that what they tell us is
valid, as far as it goes. But we know that our senses
are incomplete. For example : there are light waves
and sound waves beyond those which affect our eye
and ear ; we cannot perceive the waves used in wire-
less telegraphy; and we know that the dog's sense
of smell is more acute than ours.

3. A sense impression is called a Percept.

4. As soon as we perceive any object we at once
add to our sense impression various other sense im-
pressions stored up in our memory about similar
objects, and from these immediate and stored-up
sense impressions we form a mental image. This
mental image is a Concept. We think in concepts
and we remember concepts. We do not think or re-
member percepts as such.

5. A Phenomenon is a succession of mental
images or concepts.

6. The Real universe is the sum total of the sense
impressions, or percepts, which we have, or which we
might have.

IS GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

7. The Conceptual universe is the sum total
of the mental images or concepts, which we have, or
might have, — in other words, the sum total of phe-
nomena.

8. Our real universe is continuous and is always
moving, doing something. Our conceptual universe
is discontinuous and static, always standing still.
That is, each concept is considered by itself as stand-
ing still and the universe as a whole is merely the
aggregate of these isolated concepts. It is because
of these interstices between concepts, so to speak,
that our conceptual universe does not exactly cor-
respond to the real universe. The growth of knowl-
edge of phenomena tends constantly to fill in these
interstices and hence our conceptual universe con-
stantly approaches more closely to reality. Owing,
however, to our mental makeup, the two can never
exactly correspond.

9. Scientists have confessed themselves to be
wholly unable satisfactorily to define matter as
an objective entity. For example, Clerk Maxwell, the
physicist, writes {Matter and Motion) "We are ac-
quainted with matter only as that which may have
energy communicated to it from other matter and
which may in its turn communicate energy to other
matter. Energy, on the other hand, we know only as
that which in all natural phenomena is continually
passing from one portion of matter to another." This
reminds us of the story as to the definitions given by
a Christian Scientist: — ''What is mind? No matter.
What is matter? Never mind." The most satisfac-
tory definition is that of John Stuart Mill {Logic ,
Bk. I, chap. 3.) : ^'MATTER is the permanent possi-
bility of sensation/^ This definition, it will be per-
ceived, is wholly subjective, — entirely an affair of
perception.

THE GRAMMAR OF SCIENCE 19

10. Space is our mode of knowing co-existing
concepts apart. Pearson, Grammar of Science, p.
1G3.

11. Time is our mode of knowing successive con-
cepts apart. Pearson, p. 181.

12. Motion is a combination of the two modes.
It is a change in the relative position of two con-
cepts with change of time. Pearson, p. 182. There
is no such thing as absolute motion ; the motion of
one thing is always relative to some other thing.

13. Force is a measure of how one portion of
matter moves relatively to another portion, this
measure depending partly on the individual char-
acter of the first (its mass) and partly on the at-
tention it is paying to the presence of the second
portion (its acceleration due to the second portion).
Pearson, p. 304. More briefly, force is change in
the momentum of a body incident to the presence of
another body. Example, the force of gravitation.

14. Energy is the capacity for doing work.

1.5. Thus we see that all the fundamental ideas of
science are purely subjective and relative.

16. Cause and Effect. When we have two
or more concepts in succession, we call the former
concept the cause and the latter the effect. The
cause does not necessitate the effect; it merely pre-
cedes it. For example ; as a ball is thrown, its posi-
tion at the first instant of its course does not neces-
sitate its position at the second instant. Now, if
the ball hits a window, the position of the ball at the
window does not necessitate that the glass of the
window should fly in pieces, any more than the posi-
tion of the ball at the first instant necessitated its
position at the second instant. The presence of the
ball is the cause of the breaking of the window, but
does not necessitate it. ''Were our perceptive organs

20 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

sufficiently powerful, science conceives that we
should see, before the impact, particles of window
and particles of ball moving in a certain manner and,
after the impact, the same particles moving in a very
different manner. We might carefully describe these
motions; but we should be unable to say why one
stage would follow another. Thus, scientifically, the
idea of necessity in the stages of the sequence, or the
idea of enforcement, would disappear." Pearson,
p. 118.

There is, we may be sure, a real cause behind phe-
nomena, as it were a vertical causation, operative
ceaselessly. But this causation is a matter for meta-
physics. Science concerns itself only with hori-
zontal causation, which is simply sequence.

The difference may be illustrated in this way:
Suppose two persons to be playing checkers, and the
observer to be a fly that has lighted on the board.
Suppose, now, that to this fly the checkers were vis-
ible, but the players invisible. The fly would ob-
serve that, whenever a white checker moved into a
square in front of a black checker, leaving a vacant
square behind it, the black checker would jump over
the white checker and the white checker would dis-
appear from the board. The fly, observing that this
sequence was invariable, would say that the move-
ment of the white checker in front of the black
checker caused the black checker to jump over it.
The fly would be quite right. But he would not have
explained why the black checker jumped. The mo-
tion of the checkers corresponds to scientific, or
what I have called horizontal, causation ; while the
lifting of the checker by the invisible hand corre-
sponds to metaphysical, or what I have called verti-
cal, causation.

THE GRAMMAR OF SCIENCE 21

17. A Natural Law is a Formula which Des-
cribes the way in which one concept follows an-
other. For example ; the law of gravitation describes
how one concept called the earth moves with
relation to another concept called the sun. The law
of gravitation does not make the earth move around
the sun ; it does not even tell us what does make the
earth move in that way. It simply describes the way
in which the earth moves. Natural law answers the
question, How? not the question, Why?

18. It is the purpose of science to describe these
phenomena or successions of concepts which occur
to our minds, and to lay down formulas which will
describe such succession. Science does not concern
itself with the actual constitution of the universe,
or even with our immediate sense impressions; but
only with the mental images or concepts which we
form. Therefore, when we say that science discovers
natural laws, all we mean is that science formulates
statements, or formulas, which describe the way in
which our concepts follow one another.

19. We have no reason to doubt that in the main
our senses are telling us the truth, so far as they go.
We have no reason to doubt that there is a Some-
thing {Ding an sicJi, noumenon) out there, behind
the procession of phenomena, which is ceaselessly
moving and changing; and that for this motion and
change there is a Somewhy (energy, power, elan).
But this What and this Why are purely matter
of metaphysics. Scientists are learning that the field
of science lies only in the investigation of sequence
of phenomena. Science answers the question. How?
not the question. Why?

DISCUSSION IV.

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY.

(See essay on this subject in Part II.)

1. So far we have studied the way in which mes-
sages come to the telephone operator. But we have
neglected to inquire what goes on inside the ex-
change.

2. In the first place we know that the girl does not
simply connect up subscribers. She herself does
something about each message, — or rather all the
messages except those which result in what we call
reflex action. She sorts the messages and puts away
a copy of each in its proper pigeon hole, which we
call the memory. She gives such orders over the
wire as she conceives that the information which
she has received necessitates. In other words, hers
is not an automatic telephone.

3. In short, there are two ways of knowing things,
— from the outside and from the inside. External
objects we know from the outside alone. But our-
selves we know from both the outside and the inside.
The formulas which express our experiences from
the outside, received by sense impressions, we call
laws of nature; the formulas to express our expe-
rience from the inside we call doctrines of psychol-
ogy, philosophy, or theology. The inside information
carries more weight ; since we know our own mental
processes at first hand, while our outside informa-

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 23

tiou, whether of the world or of our bodies, we get
only through sense impressions.

4. In considering what goes on inside the ex-
change, we note, first of all, that the operator is af-
fccted by every message which comes to her. No
message does she receive with entire indifference.
It makes her glad or sad, it gives her pleasure or
pain, comfort or discomfort. The message has this
effect, not alone by reason of what it contains; but
by reason of what she, herself, is. For instance, any
observed fact which fails to fit in with our rational
scheme of cause and effect, gives us discomfort until
it is "explained" ; any act or happening which seems
to us unjust arouses indignation. This inherent ten-
dency, or set, of the mind, which is the subjective
factor in affection (psychological), we will, for
want of a better name, call a "sense".

5. Every human being has, among others^ the fol-
lowing "senses" :

a. A sense for self-preservation.

b. A sense for love ; a tendency to want compan-
ionship; a desire to have others like me and
an equally strong desire to like others; an
inherent abhorrence of a loveless universe.

c. A sense for loyalty, akin to the sense for love.
This is the tendency which makes man a so-
cial being.

d. A sense for rationality ; the desire to arrange
sense impressions in logical sequence; the
desire to relate things in sequence of cause
and effect; an inherent abhorrence of a hel-
ter-skelter universe.

e. A sense for activity ; a tendency to take some
action in regard to each sense impression.

24 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

f. A seuse lor purpose; a tendency to ask, when-
ever anything hapi)ens^ "AVhat is it doing
that for?" An inherent abhorrence of a squir-
rel-cage universe.

g. A sense for right; a tendency to say, "I
ought".

h. A sense for justice; an inherent abhorrence
of injustice and of an unjust universe.

i. A sense for reverence ; a tendency to look up
to some other being, human or supernatural,
as an ideal.

j. A sense for beauty.

G. These "senses" are not in themselves guides of
conduct. Our sense for self-preservation does not,
for instance, tell us what conduct will make for the
well-being of the organism. That is for the intellect.
The sense for self-preservation is the force which
drives us to make the decision ; and, when the de-
cision is made, to shape our conduct by it. Likewise,
our sense for right, — which is what w^e call con-
science. Any sense impression which violates any
one of these senses or tendencies gives us discomfort
or pain.

7. Each one of these senses is equally postulated
of our consciousness. We have no more right to
ignore our sense for right than our sense for ration-
ality. We should reject as false, or at least incom-
plete, any explanation, whether of a particular phe-
nomenon or of the universe as a whole, which vio-
lates either our sense for rationality or for right.

8. There is, however, another aspect of reality of
which we must take account. The universe, whether
we regard it as an external entity or a procession of
mental images, is not supine. If I go into a dark
room, not knowing that a chair is there, I hit it

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 25

nevertheless. Now, the rationalist claims that phe-
nomena do prove amenable to the demands of his
sense for rationality; in other words that there is
a rational order in the universe independent of any
tendency of his to find it there. The same thing,
however, is true as to our sense for right and for
justice. We hold that the universe is in the main
righteous. It is true that there is apparently much
sorrow and sin. But it is also true that there is
apparently much irrationality. At the basis of
every system of science lies an antinomy. The re-
ligionist believes that apparent evil would, if our
knowledge were complete, appear to be good. The
rationalist, likewise, believes that apparent antin-
omy would, if his science were complete, appear
to be rational. So both science and religion end,
as they began, in an act of faith.

9. Science is, in the main, based upon our sense
for rationality, our sense for activity and our sense
for purpose.

10. Keligion is, in the main, based upon our sense
for right, our sense for justice, our sense for love
and our sense for reverence. Keligion is the attempt
so to live as to satisfy these "senses". Theology is
the attempt so to explain phenomena as to satisfy
these "senses."

11. Now it so happens that a given phenomenon,
or sense impression, may at first sight fail to satisfy
both our sense for rationality and our sense for
right. In other words, some law of nature may ap-
pear to contradict some deductions of our religious
consciousness. For instance, science may seem to tell
us that all our actions are predetermined, whereas
we feel that they ought to be free. We should not,
in such cases, determine off-hand to satisfy our sense
for rationality at the expense of our sense for right;

26 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

we should rather endeavor to find some explanation
which would satisfy both; and until such explana-
tion appears we should at least reserve judgment.

12. Keligion, however, is or claims to be, more
than a way of regarding the outside world. It
claims to have data of its own, a religious experience
parallel with sensuous experience. This experience
should be tested and analyzed by the same methods
employed by science.

Let us analyze in this way the experience of sub-
jective answer to prayer. This experience is either
what it purports to be, a true intuition from God,
or it is the result of self-suggestion. If the latter
were the case one would expect that the answer
would be in accordance with the expectation, or the
wish, of the person who prayed ; but it is very often
not in accordance with either. A second objection
to the self-suggestion theory is that, upon that hy-
pothesis, the strength with which a belief is held,
rather than the character of the belief, should count.
We ought not to find any strong tendency in favor
of the selection and survival of particular underly-
ing conceptions. Now, we find in the study of com-
parative religion that certain conceptions, for ex-
ample Incarnation and Atonement, are continually
cropping up, which indicates that they have great
survival value. It is very difficult to resist the con-
clusion that the particular beliefs, just because of
their character, have worked better than other be-
liefs. If so, then the answer to prayer would appear
to be in some manner objectively determined.

13. Religious systems vary, just as do scientific
systems, through differences both in experience and
in the deductions made from experience. We hold
to Christianity, rather than to Mohammedanism, be-
cause we believe, both that it embodies more valid

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 27

religious experience, and that its doctrines are more
accurate deductions from that experience, than those
of Mohammedanism.

14. Conclusion.

A natural law is an explanation and classification
of the facts of sensuous experience so as to satisfy
our sense for rationality. A doctrine of theology
is an explanation and classification of the facts of
both sensuous and religious experience, so as to sat-
isfy our religious senses. Neither is a fiat imposed
by authority or inexorable necessity; but each is a
formula whereby we resume the facts of experience.
We can no more live without theology than without
science. Every man has, willy-nilly, a theology. It
is the purpose of this course to find an explanation
of the facts of experience which shall satisfy our
senses for right, justice, love, and reverence.

DISCUSSION V.

THE WILL TO BELIEVE.

1. The texture of thought. We are all weavers.
Our yarns are percepts and intuitions; the loom,
our nerves and brain; the pattern, our senses for
rationality, activity, right, love, justice, and rever-
ence; the finished product, our systems of science,
philosophy, and religion. Our product is partly
conditioned and partly free. We may not choose
our yarns; but we may choose our pattern.

Problem: When belief and disbelief are both pos-
sible, which should we choose?

2. An explanation of a phenomenon or act is a
statement of its relations to other phenomena or
acts. The explanation is instinctively constructed
by the mind in accordance with certain inherent
tendencies or "senses," — such as the sense for ra-
tionality, right, justice, etc.

3. An hypothesis is an explanation of a phenome-
non or act, which satisfies some, but not all, of our
mental tendencies, or "senses".

4. An option is a choice between hypotheses.

5. A live, or practical, option is one having a bear-
ing on human conduct.

6. Belief is the acceptance of an hypothesis which
satisfies one or more, but not all, of our mental ten-
dencies, or "senses".

7. Douht is the refusal to accept such hypothesis.

THE WILL TO BELIEVE 29

8. In all cases of practical options, doubt is, there-
fore, equivalent in effect to denial, since it results
in the same conduct. For instance, if I doubt that
I can swim a stream, I will not make the attempt,
and the result is the same as though I was sure that
I could not do so. In such cases I should adopt
the hypothesis that will result in conduct most bene-
ficial.

9. Most options concerning religious hypotheses
are practical options. In such cases, therefore, we
ought to believe. The world honors the adventurer
rather than the timid creature who waits for some-
one else to try first.

10. Belief is legitimate only in making a choice
between two hypotheses, both of which have reason-
able evidence to support them. It should not lead
us wildly to override evidence, or to affirm that for
which there is no evidence. This is credulity.

11. In some cases the very act of belief or disbe-
lief may create the condition which justifies it. To
the lover the question as to whether or not his love is
requited is a practical option. Believe, and his as-
surance will go far to create its response. Doubt,
and — "Faint heart ne'er won fair lady." Belief
and doubt may often both be objectively right.

12. Conclusion. The theory of knowledge devel-
oped in Discussions III, IV and V, and which lies at
the basis of the argument in all the subsequent lec-
tures, may be recai)itulated as follows :

a. We have certitude only of our own existence
and mental processes.

b. The outside universe we know only as a series
of sense impressions.

c. We instinctively arrange phenomena, and

30 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

state their relations to other phenomena or
acts. Out of such arrangement arise our
concepts of matter, time, space, motion, force,
energy, and cause and effect.

d. We make these arrangements, or explana
tions, of phenomena in accordance with cer-
tain inherent tendencies, or "senses", — such
as the sense for rationality, right, justice, etc.
Each of these senses is equally postulated
of our consciousness. The senses for ration-
ality, etc., are the basis of science. The
senses for right, justice, etc., are the basis of
theology.

e. Hence the scientist, like the theologian, must
at the very outset of his reasoning, make an
act of faith, namely that there is an external
reality behind his sense perceptions and
that his arrangement and explanation of
phenomena corresponds to such reality. The-
ology is no more subjective than science. All
science as well as all religion, rests on a rea-
sonable exercise of the Will to Believe.

f. No explanation of phenomena is valid which
does violence either to our scientific sense or
to our religious sense, and it is our duty to
seek an explanation satisfactory to both.

g. In the event that no such explanation is
found, it is our duty to hold final judgment
in abeyance, but to act upon that hypothesis
which will result in conduct most beneficial.

h. Within the limits defined, it is not only our
right, but our duty, not to await absolute
demonstration, but to so construct our uni-
verse as to satisfy our religious as well as
our scientific sense, and then to act boldly on
that belief.

DISCUSSION VI.

THE IDEA OF GOD.

1. Practical value of belief in God.

a. Historical — All peoples in all ages have be-
lieved in a Supernatural Power or Powers.

b. Individual — Our own hearts register a de-
sire to believe in such a Power, and belief
gives high ideals and courage to pursue them.

c. Social — Unbelief has always resulted in de-
cadence. "If there were no God, it would be
necessary to invent one/' Voltaire.

Problem: Has modem science made it impossible
to believe in a personal God?

2. Two ideas of God.

a. Worship of ancestors, heroes and rulers.
Prevailing type among the North European
races, such as the Teutons and the prehistoric
Nordic invaders of Greece and Italy; devel-
oped into the classical mythologies of Greece
and Rome. This type was probably at the
basis of the Hebrew religion.

b. Nature worship. Prevailing t^pe of most
Mediterranean races, such as the indigenous
races of Greece and Italy, developing later
into the "mystery religions".

c. Development of the Ruler God type. Victory
of one nation over another established the

32 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

superiority of the Kuler God of the victors
over the Ruler God of the vanquished. Po-
litical consolidation thus led to the idea of
a God superior to all other Gods and fi-
nally to the conception of one God, ruler
of the whole earth. We can trace this de-
velopment in the Old Testament.

d. Development of the Nature God type. At
first the Greeks saw a God in every tree and
every river. But systematization of mate-
rial phenomena into one universe led to the
conception of One God immanent in all Na-
ture.

e. Both ideas found place in Christendom. In
the West the Roman idea of God as a Despot,
Transcendent and Absent from the material
universe, predominated. Matter was base and
godless and operated in general automati-
cally. God only intervened occasionally by
way of miracle. In the East the Greek idea
of God as immanent in Nature prevailed.
Matter was his garment and all phenomena
were manifestations of him. The former con-
cept was that of Augustine, the latter that
of Paul.

3. May we believe in a Personal God?

a. The concept of a Despot God is in conflict
with science.

b. The concept of a Nature God is not in conflict
with science. Science merely describes the
succession of phenomena ; it does not explain
why they come. It is not in conflict with the
theory that they are the direct action of an
eternally creative God.

c. May this God be personal? Not in the sense of

THE IDEA OF QOD 33

human personality, for that involves limita-
tions. But because God is not personal, it
does not follow that he is impersonal, for by
that we mean less than personal. We may
hold him to be more than personal. Because
we deny that he resembles a human being,
we do not affirm that he resembles a stone.

d. Science does not conflict with the idea of an
immanent, super-personal God.

e. At the same time the notion of a wholly im-
manent God is incomplete. A transcendent
God is one who is outside of Nature and can't
get in ; an immanent God is inside of Nature
and can't get out. (See Disc. XI and Essay,
Nicene Idea of God, in Part II.) The true
God cannot be subject to either limitation.

4. Should we believe in a Personal God?

a. Since this is a practical option, and since be-
lief in God is conducive to a more perfect life,
we should believe. Suspension of judgment is
morally and ethically equivalent to denial.

b. But belief in God rests not alone on balanc-
ing of probabilities. There are positive evi-
dences of his existence; and, since we look
at life both from within and from without,
we may find these evidences both in our own
nature and in the external universe.

c. Evidences from within.

i. Belief in God is a postulate demanded by
our mind quite as imperatively as belief in
the objective existence of an orderly material
universe. Our senses for right, justice, and
reverence are quite as imperative as our
sense for rationality; and both senses are
equally fundamental and valid.

'M GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

ii. The existence of Human Intelligence pre-
supposes the existence of Divine Intelligence.
We cannot suppose that our minds are the
highest psychic element in the universe. Our
sense for rationality refuses to conceive the
psychic to be uncaused, or to be caused by
the non-psychic. The result is a "function"
of (resembles) the cause. As the Psalmist
expresed it, "He that formed the ear, shall
he not hear?"
d. Evidence from without. While the theory of
special creation obtained, it was possible to
argue the existence of God from every ab-
normal phenomenon. Since we have come to
see that there is no abnormal, the evidences of
God in phenomena are harder to see. It ap-
pears at first sight to be more difficult to
demonstrate the agency of God in the normal.
The air would be difficult to detect, if we
were unable to produce a vacuum ; and there
is no vacuum from God. Nevertheless, we
are able to see that God is demonstrated
through the whole course of nature, as fol-
lows:

i. Our interpretation of the phenomenal uni-
verse requires us to postulate a Power work-
ing for righteousness. The old argument for
God proceeded from the postulate that the
visible universe was good and well-ordered.
We know that, to appearances, the universe
is not all good. But our sense for right and
for justice still demands that we find a moral
purpose in it ; that in some way the apparent
evil is working out a greater Good. But
the achievement of such greater Good re-
quires the work of some Power for Righteous-

THE IDEA OF GOD 35

uess. Ill other words, the visible universe
iiidicates the existence of God, not because
it is good, but because it ought to be good,
ii. The course of evolution, as we observe it
in the kirge, seems to indicate a directed pro-
gress toward higher life. In other words,
it seems to show that what we conceive ought
to take place is taking place. Such progress
can, it seems to me, be explained only by the
existence of God.

iii. Evolution, also, as we observe it in par-
ticulars, seems to be inexplicable on the
theory of natural selection of haphazard va-
riations. Scientists are coming to agree that
variations do not appear to be always hap-
hazard, but tend often, and perhaps usually,
in the same direction. More, they are in
pretty general agreement that many varia-
tions, which eventually result in a distinct
improvement in type, are not in themselves
of any assistance to the organism in the
struggle for existence, and hence their sur-
vival and fnrther development cannot be ex-
plained by natural selection. In short, va-
riations seem to display the operation of
some intelligent Power. (See Disc. IX.)
e. The evidence from religious experience. The
motto of science is Experientia docet. If
we use the method of experience, or experi-
ment, we note that those who have believed in
the existence of God, who have acted upon
that belief, who have lived as they thought
God desired them to live, and who have re-
lied upon his aid, have appeared to receive
aid from on high. (James, Varieties of Re-
ligious Experience.) In other words, those

36 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

who act on the belief in God, do achieve re-
sults as if by the action of God. (See Disc.
XVI.) No better proof is possible of any
theory, either of theology or of science.

5. Conclusion. We find that science does not pre-
clude belief in a personal, or super-personal, God ; so
that, even if there were no evidence of God, we ought
to believe, since the option is a practical one. But
we find, further, that there are positive evidences
of God, both within and without us. In short, the
dogma of the existence of God satisfies our three
criteria; it is not in conflict with science; it epit-
omizes religious experience; it evokes right action.
Mere intellectual assent, however, is of no practical
benefit. We must "practice the presence of God," —
learn to speak to him and give him an opportunity to
speak to us. We must so live as one in the presence
of God. So doing we shall achieve an intuition of
God which is more than argument, and for which
argument can but clear the ground. (See Disc.
XVI.) "Whoso doeth the will of God shall know of
the doctrine.''

DISCUSSION VII.

THE WILL.

1. Definition.

The will, or willing, is the initiation of deliberate
activity.

Problem: Is the human will really free, or is
conduct pre-determined ?

2. Objections to Freedom of the Will.

a. Theological. Contrary to omniscience and
omnipotence of God. Renders prophecy im-
possible. Doctrine of predestination.

b. Philosophical. Violates causation and spells
anarchy. Theory of determinism.

c. Scientific. Opposed to what biology teaches
of heredity; what sociology teaches of envi-
ronment; what psychology teaches of the
mechanism of willing (force of habit, sugges-
tion, etc.) ; and what anatomy teaches of ef-
fect of lesions and mal-formations of the
brain.

3. Arguments for Freedom of the Will.

a. Philosophical. Since there are arguments
both ways, this is a Practical Option; and
we should believe in freedom, if such belief
will be beneficial to us.

b. Theological. Our sense for justice demands
that, if we are accountable for our actions,

38 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

we must be free to choose. No real religion
is possible, if we are but machines.

c. Scientific. Neither the teachings of biology,
anatomy, psychology, nor sociology force us
to the conclusion that our conduct is com-
pletely determined. (See the notes covering
this Discussion in Part III.)

d. Ethical. Belief that our actions are pre-de-
termined would lesult in libertinism.
Without free-will there is no possibility of
moral value judgments, praise and blame.

e. Experience. We feel free. That's all there
is about it for most of us. As said before,
we know ourselves from the inside better than
from the outside (Disc. IV). When our acts
are not free, as in case of hypnotism, we rec-
ognize the fact. It is like the parable of the
ass midway between two exactly equal
bundles of hay — would he starve?

f. Experimental. We find that those who as-
sume that the will is free and act thereon,
who in other words perform the experimeni
of freedom, do in fact find that the theory
works. This is the final test of any theory
In short, Ave can accept the theory of abso-
Iv.te determinism only by entirely disregard-
ing all the '^inside" evidence, backed up as
it is by experiment.

4. In the absence of rational reconciliation of the
arguments for and against Freedom of the Will we
must believe hoth that the will is determined, or at
least conditioned, and that it is free; since we can-
not, on the one hand, disbelieve in an omnipotent
God and an orderly universe, nor can we, on the
other hand, distrust ourselves.

THE WILL 39

5. Suggested rational reconciliation.

a. Theological. God does not rule but overrules.
God's will controls every phenomenon except
such as are controlled by the wills of his crea-
tures. God has limited himself to that ex-
tent. But self-limitation is not a contradic-
tion of omnipotence. He wills that man
should be free, yet provides coimter-checks,
so that freedom shall not spoil the divine
plan. Abuse of freedom injures only the man
himself. Example. Assume it to have been
God's plan that democracy should triumph
in Europe. That might have been brought
about, either by the gradual democratization
of Germany, or by her overthrow. Germany
chose not to be democratized, but to fight.
That very spirit on her part intensified the
spirit of democracy in the other countries,
united them against her and nerved them to
efforts of which they would not otherwise
have been capable. God's result was at-
tained, yet the chain of causation was not
broken. The very acts which sought to
thwart God's will were the cause of its at-
tainment. The pre-eminent example of such
overruling is found in the Crucifixion and its
consequences.

b. Philosophical. Indeterminism is not lawless.
It does not violate causation ; only the cause
does not completely contain the effect; some-
thing is added. A real creation is taking
place at every moment. The result is pre-
determined within limits, but not absolutely.
Insofar as we exercise free will we are actu-
ally partners with God in the work of crea-
tion.

40 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

c. Scientific. There is no evidence that heredity
and environment absolutely control the
individual, we are entitled to hold that they
merely set limits to his development.
There is no evidence that anatomy absolutely
controls thought. Indeed many psycholo-
gists, as Wm. James, regard the brain as an
organ for releasing or transmitting mental
energy, rather than creating it (Disc. VIII).
It is, for example, impossible to explain mem-
ory as a matter of physiological changes
stored up in the brain cells (see Bergson,
Mind Energy), The limits within which
the will of any individual is free we may call
his "zone of freedom" (Disc. XIV).

6. Conclusion.
The dogma that the will is conditioned, yet free
within limits, is not in conflict with science, it most
certainly does epitomize our religious experience and
evoke right action; hence it fulfills our criteria of
validity. In practice we find that, if we act as
though the will ivere free and exercise it in a certain
direction, we may extend its freedom in that direc-
tion. If we act as though the will were not free, we
forge new chains. Let us hold ourselves lords of our
destinies and we shall find that we are freer than
we think .

DISCUSSION VMI.

LIFE ETERNAL.

1. History of the belief. Burial with food and
tools in the Stone Age in Europe indicates this be-
lief. Inscriptions show it well developed in primi-
tive Egypt. Also in China, and among American
Indians, — in short in all times and races. Among
Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans it became attenuated,
but not entirely lost. One source of strength in
early Christianity was the faith that Christ had
brought life and immortality to light. This indi-
cates that it answers a fundamental need of the
human heart.

Problem: Has modern science made this belief
untenable? If not untenable, can it be said to
be more than a mere possibility?

2. Position of science. The power of thought
grows with the growth of the brain and nervous sys-
tem. Particular phases of thought are localized in
particular portions of the brain, — as hearing, speech,
motor activity, memory, — are inhibited by local
injuries, and affected by general bodily conditions.
Hence science affirms that thought is a function
(mathematical) of the brain. (See dictionary defi-
nition of function, mathematical.)

3. What is a "function" ? There are three sorts :
production, release and transmission, — examples,
steam produced by the action of heat on water; la-

42 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

teut energy of gunpowder released by the striking of
hammer on cartridge ; sunlight transmitted by glass.
The office of the brain may be the release or trans-
mission of thought, rather than its creation. No phi-
losopher and no careful scientist would now sup-
port the dictum of Biichner that the brain secretes
thought as the liver secretes bile. The brain may
canalize thought, or be the means whereby thought
is brought to bear on matter. An injury to the
brain may not result in the absence of thought, but in
inability to express thought. If this be so, then
death would not spell the destruction of the soul.
Science, therefore, cannot, and does not, deny the
possibility of personal immortality.

4. This question is a Practical Option, and, there-
fore, even if the possibilities are even, it is our duty
to believe; since belief admittedly results in practi-
cal benefit (Disc. V).

5. Our sense for right, for justice, for love, for
self-preservation, all demand belief in immortality.
These demands are just as fundamental as our sense
for rationality, and no scheme of things is valid
which does not take them into account. The ancient
Hebrews endeavored to satisfy our sense for justice
by finding the divine reward and punishment in this
life. The books of Job and Ecclesiastes demon-
strate their failure, and display the inevitable re-
sult,— pessimism. Hence the later Hebrews were
forced to accept belief in immortality. Our sense for
love demands immortality for the loved ones; our
sense for self-preservation demands immortality for
ourselves. Our sense for perfection demands the
objective possibility of a "better". These senses
must answer to objective reality (Disc. IV).

6. To suppose matter to be the creator of mind is
to put the cart before the horse, since we can only

LIFE ETERNAL 43

know of matter through mind. The materialistic
philosopher is like the snake which, beginning with
the tail, ate himself up.

7. What we know of psychology indicates, it seems
to me, that thought is transmitted, rather than cre-
ated, by the brain. It is impossible, for example,
to explain memories as stored up physically in the
brain cells like plates in a photograph gallery. The
mechanism of recollecting seems rather to be the sup-
plying of a channel through which the superphysical
memory may be brought to light. (See Bergson,
Mind Energy.)

8. Applying the method of experiment, which is
the method of science, we find that this belief works ;
that on the whole those who have made the most of
their lives have been those who were convinced that
they were immortal and who lived the immortal life
here.

9. Conclusion.

Science does not preclude belief in immortality.
Judged by the other tests which we should apply to
any theory, this theory appears to be demonstrated.
But, as said before, arguments can merely clear the
mind of supposed objections. This done, we shall
find a sort of intuition of immortality emerging —
and if we then live in accordance with this intui-
tion, we shall find it growing to absolute certainty,
— to the certainty that inspired the Christian mar-
tyrs to face death, not only with fortitude, but with
eagerness. Our faith will then be vital, — the only
sort worth while.

B— WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?
The Philosophy of Christian Doctrine.

DISCUSSION IX.

THE CREATING GOD.
1. The theory of special creation.

a. Statement of the theory. That God specially
created each heavenly body and afterward
each form of living being and left them to
develop through forces inherent in them-
selves, except as he might and did intervene
and suspend the operation of such forces by
way of miracle.

b. History of the theory. Originally the rela-
tions between phenomena were imperfectly
understood. Phenomena were largely re-
garded as independent and self-subsisting.
Hence the existence of each demanded a sep-
arate creative act. When some new, or un-
usual, phenomenon appeared, a special cre-
ative act was presumed, — that is, a miracle.
Miracle, therefore, as formerly understood,
was only a special case of special creation,
a special creative act performed in the course
of time. With primitive man the field of
miracle was very wide. All happenings
which were unusual, and of which the ante-
cedents were not clearly apparent, were as-

THE CREATING ODD 45

cribed to special intervention of Deity. As
these antecedents became known, the field of
direct intervention of Deity became more and
more restricted (Disc. II), until by the nine-
teenth century it was confined to original cre-
ation and a score or so of Biblical miracles.

2. The theory of evolution.
a. Statement of the theory.

i. That every material phenomenon is related
to an antecedent material phenomenon and
that such relations are uniform, — or, as com-
monly stated, that all material things evolve
from material causes in accordance with
natural laws.

ii. That the various forms of life are the re-
sults of a growth from the homogeneous and
generalized to the heterogeneous and special-
ized,
b. Basis of the theory.

i. Evidence from comparative zoology and
anatomy.

ii. Evidence from comparative embryology,
iii. Evidence from paleontology,
iv. Experimental evidence in variation and
mutation of species.
Problem: Has the theory of evolution substituted
naural forces for God as the creator of the ma-
terial universe and of man?

3. The philosophy and theology of evolution.

a. While the theory of evolution, as outlined
above (§2), is firmly established, the method
of evolution is still in doubt. As now under-
stood by scientists it differs widely from that
set forth by Darwin. He ascribed all evolu-
tion to the operation of natural selection
upon minute, haphazard variations. Scien-

4(1 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

tists are now coming to hold that the varia-
tions are not always minute and are not us-
ually haphazard. Often a new variety ap-
pears as the result of a single mutation. And
a careful study of variations seems to show
that they occur often, perhaps usually, in a
given direction. This appears strikingly in
the study of the evolution of particular or-
gans. Thus, the eye appears to have devel-
oped from the skin cells of the face by a con-
catenated series of changes, none of which
by itself would have been of any use to the
organism in the struggle for existence. More,
it requires a similar development, all in the
same direction, of the cells over a very wide
area; and should the development of one
group of cells not keep pace with the others,
the eye would be useless. ( Bergson, Creative
Evolution, pp. 60-97.) To us it seems that
this directive Power is a personal God, act-
ing by way of what we have called "vertical"
causation. "He that formed the eye, shall he
not see?"

b. The same conclusion is reinforced by the
growth of the individual. Organs appear and
reach their full development in the foetus,
which are only useful after birth. Some in-
sects in the pupa stage undergo a breaking
down of organs and most of the body is re-
duced to a jelly, out of which new organs are
formed, so that the later stage does not ap-
pear to be a lineal development from the
larval stage, but a fresh start.

c. Biologists have demonstrated that acquired
characteristics are not transmitted to the off-
spring (although this doctrine was never held

THE CREATING OOn ^7

by Darwin, but was proposed by Lamarck) ;
but that specific changes in the organism
arise through modifications in the germ
plasm. It follows that environment does not
directly produce modification of species or
affect the course of evolution.

d. While the theory that variations in species
are produced by the operation of natural se-
lection on minute variations has been modi-
fied and supplemented as outlined above, it
by no means follows that natural selection is
uo longer regarded as a factor in evolution.
Only its function is now regarded as largely
negative. It weeds out the unfit and hence
gives a chance for the free development of the
fit. It explains the survival, rather than the
arrival, of species.

e. The evolutionary conception, although it
originated in the field of biologj^, has been ap-
plied to astronomy, anthropology, sociology,
history, and religion, and it appears to gov-
ern all.

f. The theory of evolution does not banish God,
for it is purely descriptive; it concerns the
manner in which development takes place,
not why it does so. The statement that the
tadpole grows into the frog does not in the
least tell us why he grows.

g. In short, there are two sorts of cause. One
sort is merely the physical antecedent of the
phenomenon, the other is the metaphysical
power that produced the change (Disc. III).
The statement that every material phenom-
enon is related to an antecedent material
phenomenon and that such relations are uni-
form, does, indeed, exclude purely supernat-

48 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF ,

ural elements from causation in the hori-
zontal plane ; but no amount of investigation
in the horizontal plane can make it possible
for us to cancel the necessity for the vertical
causation. And this vertical causation, our
religious senses assure us, can be none other
than God. If, as we maintain, phenomena are
not wholly determined by their antecedents,
then God is actually continuing the work of
creation day by day. And we, in so far as we
exercise free will congruently with the Di-
vine Will, are also engaging in the work of
creation.

4. Miracles.

A miracle, as formerly understood, is merely a
particular act of special creation; it is the inter-
calation of a purely supernatural term into a series
of phenomena. We now hold that such special acts
are impossible, or perhaps we should say unimagin-
able. But this impossibility relates, not to the act-
uality of the alleged happening, but simply to the
explanation of it. A miracle should be defined as
an act which calls into play forces with which we are
unfamiliar. Death would be a miracle, if it hap-
pened only occasionally. Until we know more of the
laws of nature, particularly in the field of psychol-
ogy, we cannot be dogmatic. Each supposed miracle
is to be judged on its own evidence.

The evolutionary theory has substituted a dy-
namic for a static universe. It has not abolished
God ; but it has ennobled our conception of him. It
has given us an immanent and eternally creative
God for an absentee and arbitrary God. God still
acts in the world; but his action is a push, instead
of a pull.

DISCUSSION X.

THE REVEALING GOD.

1. The Bible is not infallible.

a. It is historically inaccurate. Examples : Lan-
guages were not given at Babel, nor the Law,
complete, on Sinai. Both grew.

b. It is scientifically inaccurate. Examples:
There is no water under the earth ; and the
sun did not stand still at Gibeon; the whale
did not swallow Jonah.

c. More serious, — it is, in part, ethically imma-
ture. Example, the command of Jehovah to
kill all the Canaanites; the imprecatory
psalms ; the law ''an eye for an eye."

d. Most serious, — it is, in part, spiritually in-
sufficient. Example, Ecclesiastes, the book of
an agnostic and a pessimist.

Problem : If the Bible is not infallible, how can it
be said to be inspired by God, since God does
not err?

2. The doctrine of Biblical Infallibility is almost
as modern as that of Papal Infallibility.

a. Christ did not regard the Bible as infallible.
Example, "It was said by them of old time, —
but I say".

b. St. Paul did not so regard it. "The Law

50 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

(i. e. the first five books of the Bible) has
been a child's slave to bring us to Christ."

c. The early Church did not so regard it. In
fact the early Church exercised its discretion
in selecting the books of the New Testament,
and, to some extent, in accepting the books
of the Old Testament.

d. In the Middle Ages the authority of the
Bible was augmented; but prior to the Re-
formation it was screened and mitigated by
the doctrine of an infallible Church, which
not only determined what books should be
accepted, but explained and interpreted the
books, so as to mitigate the literal meaning.
The Bible was accepted, not on its own au-
thority, but on the authority of the infallible
Church.

e. At the Reformation the reformers for
the most part denied the infallibility of the
Church, leaving the infallible Book as the ul-
timate authority.

3. What is inspiration?

It is not the Books, but the writers of the Books,
who were inspired. The inspiration of the Books,
then, is a special instance of inspiration in general.
Inspiration may be defined as the operation of the
Divine Spirit in the soul of man. This operation
may be ordinary, as in daily strength and counsel
imparted intuitively, or extraordinary, as in the
visions and experiences of mystics. The latter form
is spoken of as revelation. While more striking,
we are taught by St. Paul that it is not more val-
uable than the ordinary form. Neither form of in-
spiration is an infallible guide. Obviously "ordin-
ary" inspiration is often choked and distorted by

THE REVEALING GOD 51

the mind of the recipient, and supposed revelations
may sometimes be insane delusions. St. John recog-
nized this and warned that we must "test the spirits,
whether they be of God'\ The test of inspiration is
laid down by Christ, as also by St. Paul : "By their
fruits ye shall know them.'^

4. The inspiration of the Bible.

a. Not all inspired persons wrote. Example,
Jesus.

b. Not all inspired books are in the Bible.

c. The books of the Bible are in part a record
of revelations, as the Apocalypse of St. John
and some of the prophetic writings, and in
part a record of "ordinary" inspiration, as
the historical and wisdom books.

d. Judged by the criterion which our Lord laid
down, all the books are not equally edifying.
This indicates not an imperfection in God,
but in the writer. The Spirit must needs act
through a human mind and soul. He comes
to us "as through a glass darkly".

e. In general the Books show a progressive de-
velopment in ethical and spiritual value.
They may be said to be the record of a
developing receptivity to inspiration. There-
in lies their greatest value. They show God
at work, not static as in the Koran. They
show the gradual ennobling of religious con-
cepts through divine influence. The author-
ity of the Books of the Bible rests on their
own inherent value, not on external author-
ity and wholly regardless of questions of au-
thorship.

5. Conclusion.

So understood, the Bible becomes more valuable

52 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

to us; as it no longer forces our submission, but
wins our allegiance by satisfying, in the main, the
very highest religious ideals of the race. The writers
become real men, instead of stained-glass-window
saints. They are no longer mere receiving instru-
ments, recording automatically a celestial message.
We read what they have written in the light of the
problems that confronted them, — problems much like
our own, — and we gain a new appreciation; the
Bible means more to us, because we understand it
better.

DISCUSSION XI.

THE NICENE IDEA OF GOD.
(For a fuller discussion see Part II.)

1. Definition.

The Trinity is usually defined as the Godhead in
one Substance and three Persons.

2. Ordinary interpretation.

The ordinary Christian either construes this to
denote three individualities united with some unde-
fined nexus, or he dismisses the doctrine from his
mind as something quite beyond rational processes.
In the first case he lapses into practical tri-theism.
In the latter case he regards the doctrine as an en-
cumbrance, about which the less said the better. The
concept is either grotesque or vacuous. In either
case it fails to meet the criterion of a formulation
of the facts of religious experience. It is not seen
to have any practical bearing whatsoever.

Problem: Is the doctrine of the Trinity intelligi-
ble; and, if so, has it any practical bearing?

3. Development of the doctrine.

a. Development of the concepts of God the
Father and of God the Spirit in Old Testa-
ment.

b. The Logos concept.

c. The dispute as to the relation between these
concepts. Arius vs. Athanasius.

54 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

d. The question at Mcaea was not whether
Christ was divine, — all parties agreed to
that, — but whether or not there were three
Gods. The chief concern of Athanasius and
of the Council was the affirmation of the
unity of the Deity.

4. Language of the dogma.

That there is one substance (substantia, ovo-ta)
but three persons (personaeyVwocrTdcreLs). The Eng-
lish words absolutely misrepresent the original.
Suhstantia and ova-ca mean "being". The word per-
sona in Koman Law meant "an aggregate of legal
rights and duties". A citizen might have several
personae; for example, as father, as guardian, as gov-
ernor, as trustee. What the Early Church Fathers
sought to express was that the nature of the Deity,
while essentially one, is complex, three-sided in
function. God in essence is one, but in his revela-
tion of himself he has three aspects, manifestations,
capacities, or functionings. This complexity of func-
tioning corresponds to some real complexity of be-
ing ; but there are not three individualities. The em-
phasis was upon the unity, since it was the dis-uni-
tarian idea of Arius which called forth the doctrine.

5. Practical aspects of the doctrine.

All three concepts are necessary to a well-bal-
anced idea of God.

a; A God transcendent only (Father) is con-
trary to modern science, which requires an
immanent God. (Discs. VI and IX.)

b. A God immanent only (Spirit) tends to pan-
theism.

c. A God humanistic only ( Son ) becomes a mere
super-man, whom we maj' love but not wor-
ship.

THE NICENE IDEA OF OOD 55

6. Conclusion.

It is the peculiar glory of Christianity that it
has retained all three concepts and held the balance
between them. The doctrine of the Trinity is both
intelligible and practical.

DISCUSSION XII.

JESUS THE MAN.

1. Conclusions of historical criticism as to the
Gospel records.

First came oral tradition, reduced to writing in
the Logia (45-55 A. D.) and Mark (60-70 A. D.).
Matthew was compiled from these two (70-80 A. D.).
Luke, also, was built on these two, together with
other sources, chiefly concerning the Infancy (70-80
A.D.). John was a philosophical essay based on
the Synoptics, with, perhaps, other sources (about
100 A. D.). Our earliest complete existing manu-
scripts date from the fifth century. But there are
numerous manuscripts of portions of the Gospels
from the fourth century and fragmentary materials
from the third.

Problem: Does historical criticism leave us any
assurance of the facts of Jesus' life; and, if so,
just what did He do and how did He regard
Himself?

2. Proofs of authenticity.

a. External. Approximate agreement of all ex-
isting manuscripts gives assurance that we
have the hooks as originally written. The im-
mediate and universal acceptance of the
hooks by the Christians of the time when the
books were written gives assurance that they
faithfully reproduced the existing and ac-

JESUS THE MAN 57

cepted oral traditions. The remarkable ac
curacy with which oral traditions were in
those days transmitted for long periods of
time gives assurance that the narratives of
the life of Jesus were not substantially al-
tered in the thirty years between his cruci-
fixion and the writing of Mark and the Logia.

b. Internal. The narrative of the life possesses
consistency impossible to fiction. If the say-
ings were invented, the inventor must have
been a religious genius as great as Jesus.
The narratives contain many passages in
which the theology is more primitive than
that of the time when the gospels, in their
present form, were written. The divergences
between the several gospels, and the occa-
sional discrepancies in different parts of the
same gospel, furnish strong evidence of the
absence of invention or collusion. In short,
the internal evidence is conclusive as to the
substantial historical accuracy of the Synop-
tic narratives.

3. Life of Jesus.
Beginning his ministry in Galilee he traveled
about teaching and healing souls and bodies. He
taught by story and homely epigram. He healed by
bringing to bear, with consummate knowledge of
the soul, the laws of suggestion to clear away the
obstacles that hindered the healing power of God
from flooding in. Causes of hostility to him (among
others) : Pharisees, because, while he observed the
Law, he taught an ethics superseding it. Saddu-
cees : because they feared he would start a rebellion.
How would he get on to-day in these respects?

58 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

4. Death.

a. Trial and Crucifixiou. The Sanhedrin had no
power of trial or sentence in capital cases;
but was empowered to indict accused per-
sons, and present them for trial to the Pro-
curator. It appears, although the record is
rather scanty, that they examined Jesus on a
charge of blasphemy, and then presented him
for trial on a charge of treason. If Pilate
observed any of the Roman criminal proce-
dure in the trial, the record does not show it.
b. The place of the Cross. At first the Incar-
nation and the Resurrection, rather than the
Death, were regarded as the great redeeming
acts. Later the Cross was over emphasized
in the effort to find an analogy to the Jewish
sin offering. Yet we should not go to the
other extreme of regarding the Death as un-
important. Symbolically it set the seal upon
the new covenant. (Every treaty required a
sacrifice to give it validity. Gf. a-rrovSaC , the
Greek word for treaty, which is the plural of
o-TTovSiJ, meaning libation. Note, also, that
sacrifices ratified God's covenants with Noah,
Abraham, and Moses.) Actually it empha-
sized and formed the dramatic climax to the
Life, without which the Life and Teachings
would have lost much of their force. (See
Disc. XV.)

5. Resurrection.

a. Proofs. Paul, writing twenty years later,
says that Jesus was seen by about five hun-
dred, most of whom were then alive. This
could not have been delusion, since the ele-
ments of delusion were lacking ; his followers
were not expecting to see him, in fact they

JESUS THE MAN 59

had all forsaken him and fled. Furthermore,
such a delusion, extending to so many per-
sons, at different times and widely separated
places is unheard-of. There can be no doubt
that they were all thoroughly convinced of
the reality of their experience. There is no
other way to account for the wonderful
change which came over them: the cowards
became martyrs,
b. The place of the Resurrection. Paul gives the
* Resurrection the central place in the scheme
of redemption. Christ by his death had con-
quered the flesh and by his rising in a spir-
itual body had made it possible for us to
put on immortality. For Paul, this change to
immortality takes place during this life and
is brought about by Faith and the gift of the
Spirit; and for the man who has been so
born again the Law has lost its force. Man
becomes literally a new creature.

6. The Messiahship.

a. Jewish expectations. There were two main
types of Messianic expectation, based on dif-
ferent lines of prophecy. One was of a hu-
man being, descended from David, a quasi-
military conqueror using earthly armies, but
endowed with strength by God. The other,
based on Isaiah and the apocalypses (Dan-
iel, Enoch, etc.) was of a super-human be-
ing, angel or quasi-divine, who should come
from heaven with angelic hosts; a belief
nearly identical with the expectation of the
Second Coming now entertained by Adven-
tists. Neither expectation included the ele-
ment of a suffering Messiah. (Is. 53).

60 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

b. Jesus' conception. Jesus seems to have real-
ized completely his special mission first at
the time of his baptism. Without doubt he
considered that this mission had to do with
bringing in the Messianic kingdom. His con-
ception of the Messiah corresponded with
the more exalted of the Jewish expectations
above stated, plus the element of achievement
through suffering, — the Messiah must first
suffer before he is proclaimed from on high.
This conception was compatible with an in-
definite postponement of the moment of such
proclamation. Besides, he saw clearly that
the Jews stood in need of much preparation
before they should be fit to take part in that
kingdom. They must in the first place learn
that Love and not the Law was to be the rul-
ing principle. EQs ethical precepts can be
best understood when we remember that they
were intended as the constitution of the com-
ing Messianic Kingdom. "Of such and such
is the Kingdom of God.'' When he should
have brought the Jews to an acceptance of
this constitution, then, and not till then,
would God proclaim it. But "of that day

and that hour knoweth no one neither the

Son ; but the Father".

Until that time, it appears to have been a
matter of indifference to him whether the
Jews should regard him as the Messiah, or
merely a forerunner of the kingdom. In
fact there were advantages in remaining, so
to speak, incognito, until God should pro-
claim him. He could better accomplish his
social regeneration, if his followers were not
dazzled by the immediate prospect of renown ;

JESUS THE MAN 61

and he would be much less likely to incur
the hostility of the Romans, thereby bringing
on a crisis prematurely. Consequently, while
he did not deny his Messiahship, he never
openly affirmed it, until upon his trial, when
he no doubt realized that then or never must
he declare himself in no uncertain way. He
had, to be sure, disclosed it secretly to his
disciples, after Peter had stated his belief;
but he had enjoined them that they should
tell no man. So much in doubt were the San-
hedrin as to his Messianic claims that, up to
the time of his open declaration before them,
they rested their charge of blasphemy only
on testimony of his assertion that he would
destroy the temple.

Toward the close of his life he realized
that the hostility of the Jews would end in
his death ; and he relied upon his disciples to
carry on the preparation for the Kingdom,
assuring them that, when their work was
accomplished, he would return to earth and
assume his throne. They understood him as
promising that this consummation ("the con-
summation of the age," not "the end of the
world," as the King James version translates
it) would be shortly accomplished.

DISCUSSION XIII.

WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?

1. Modern emphasis on the humanity of Jesus.
Orthodox theology has always taught that Jesus

had a complete human nature. Kecent thought has
served to emphasize the logical deduction from this
doctrine, — that his was a human mind, as well as
a human body, — a mind subject to the scientific limi-
tations of the time, as well as a body subject to in-
firmity. He was neither omnipotent nor omnis-
cient. "He could do no mighty work there and he
marveled because of their unbelief." "Of that day
and hour knoweth no one.... neither the Son, but
the Father."

Problem: If Jesus was a man, how can he be
said to be divine in any other sense than men
in general?

2. Development of Christology.

To understand the problem it is necessary to trace
the development of the Christian teaching about
the nature of Christ, called Christology.

a. Primitive Christology. The disciples appear
to have accepted the fact of Jesus' Messiah-
ship almost from the first, but to have been
in doubt as to its nature throughout his life
and for long after. During his life we find
them continually uncertain as to which of
the Jewish conceptions they should hold, con-

WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST 63

tinually asking as to how and when the King-
dom should be proclaimed and what sort of
Kingdom it was to be. After the Resurrec-
tion, however, they seem to have come to a
fuller understanding of Jesus' interpretation
of his mission (Disc. XII, 6b). This inter-
pretation they adopted, with this addition,
that the proclamation of Messiahship, to
which Jesus had looked forward, they held
to have been given in the Resurrection. "Born
of the seed of David according to the flesh,
he was declared to be the Son of God with
power, according to the spirit of holiness, by
the resurrection of the dead" (Rom. 1:3,4).
After his Ascension they momentarily ex-
pected his return with the angelic hosts to
set up his earthly kingdom, which should be
of Jews and ruled hy Jews, but jor all men
who cared to come in and submit themselves
to Jewish Law.

b. Pauline Christology. Paul adopted the idea
of the Palestinian Christians, except that his
Messiah had less of earth and more of heaven.
The drama of redemption he transferred
from earth to heaven. The Kingdom was of
and by, as well as for, all men. A place
therein was assured to Jew and Gentile,
alike, by Faith and not by the Law. This
Kingdom becomes in PauPs thought the
Church, which is an organism, the living
body of Christ (Disc. XVIII). To Paul the
Messiah partakes in some way of the nature
of God; but he does not attempt to define
this relation. Some of his language is sus-
ceptible of an Arian interpretation. In his
later writings (e. g. Colossians) he adopts

64 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

the Logos theory in all but name. That the-
ory, originating in the Stoic philosophy, was
developed by Philo, an Alexandrian Jew
(about 20 B. C. to 54 A. D.) He attempted
to explain the problem of evil by supposing
the world to have been created, not directly
by God, but through the Word (Adyos) which
emanated from God. A similar doctrine
was also current among the Palestinian
Rabbis, in which they gave the Word the con-
notation of the self-expression of Deity.

c. Johannine Christology. Building on Paul,
John develops the relationship of Christ to
the Father by a further development of the
Logos theory. John, with Philo, affirms, "In
the beginning was the Word and the Word
was with God." But John adds, "and the
Word was God.... and the Word hecame
flesh and dwelt among us." The Logos of
Philo was neither God nor man. The Logos
of John was both, thereby being a real Me-
diator.

d. The problem of the two natures. Neither
Paul nor John explain how Jesus could be
both really God and really Man. From the
second century attempts were made at so-
lution. Gnostics and others considered his
manhood unreal; and Nestorians and others,
his Godhead. Others held that he was part
of the time man and part of the time God.
Arius taught that the divine nature of Christ
was not God, but a being like God. The ortho-
dox Church finally contented itself with the
affirmation that he had the two natures, yet
in one ego or self, without attempting to ra-
tionalize their relationship further.

WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST 65

3. Christology an attempt to formulate the relig-
ious experience as to Jesus.

This bit of history shows that the Christology of
the Church was not taught it by Jesus, although his
life furnished the data from which it was developed.
Nor did it flash forth in a burst of revelation. But
it was laboriously worked out in order to answer the
question, "What think ye of Christ?" Considering
Jesus, — what he did, what he said, how he lived, —
his followers asked themselves, "How shall we ac-
count for this life? Though born of woman, of mind
and body such as ours and subject to our infirmities ;
yet never man spoke as he spoke, never man lived so
close to God, or brought others so close to God, never
man so convicted us of sin, never man so conquered
death. Can we say that such a life was merely hu-
man?" The Christology of the Church was the at-
tempt to answer this problem. Can we, with all
these things in mind, and with the additional knowl-
edge which they did not have, of the tremendous
influence of this life upon history, can we answer
otherwise than as the Church has answered?

4. Suggested explanation of the two natures.

While the Church has never set forth a for-
mula or dogma expressing the relationship of the
two natures in detail, it has permitted individuals
to make the attempt. Perhaps, therefore, a few
suggestions may not be presumptuous.

God, in what I have termed his man-ward aspect
and manner of functioning (Disc. XI), is conceived
of as the perfection of human virtues: perfect love,
perfect justice, perfect mercy, — and without any hu-
man vices, — in short, an ideal human nature.

Hence, we conceive of God as actuating all good
endeavors. "All good gifts and all perfect gifts are

0)6 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

from above." All noble deeds are, hence, in a sense
the acts of God.

God, also, inspires all high and noble thoughts.
Said Kepler, as he contemplated his theory of the
motion of the stars, "I am thinking the thoughts of
God after him". All prophetic utterances are in a
sense the words of God.

When the good man acts and the prophet speaks,
it is in a sense God who acts and speaks. Yet the
good man and the prophet "see as through a glass,
darkly". Their imperfect humanity obstructs the
divine activity and refracts and colors the divine
message. This distortion varies. Each of us
has times of transparency and times of opacity.
Most of us are in general sadly opaque.

Jesus, alone, by reason of the fact that his hu-
manity was perfect, was at all times perfectly trans-
parent to the divine influence. He might at any
time have sinned, but in fact never did. Jesus
never willed other than the will of God, and therein
lay his point of contact with the Divine. In him at
all times God acted and spoke. In him we behold
God.

The distinction between the two natures in Jesus
is, rather, a distinction in our own point of view.
In his manward aspect he manifested manhood per-
fectly, and not merely a being like man ; in his God-
ward aspect he manifested God perfectly, and not
merely a being like God.

But it will be said, wherein, then, is the person-
ality of Jesus unique? Is not the difference between
his personality and ours one of degree merely and
not of kind, — quantitative rather than qualitative?
I answer that the difference is both of degree and of
kind. The distinction belongs to the philosophy of
a bygone day. Modern science and philosophy are

WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST 67

coming to agree that all difference is quaDtitative.
A microscopic increase or decrease in the secretion
of a ductless gland spells idiocy. An almost im-
perceptible variation in the structure of brain and
nerve differentiates the mental processes of men and
monkeys. Yet, surely the differences between seer
and idiot, man and monkey, are also qualitative.

A radio receiving instrument that is only approxi-
mately in tune to the wave-length transmitted emits,
at best, only a confused buzzing; when the tuning
becomes exactly correct the message suddenly be-
comes intelligible; the difference is qualitative. So,
too, is the difference between perfection and any
approach to it. The perfect human life, alone, is
divine ; and that life Jesus, alone, has lived.

5. Conclusion.

Neither the doctrine of the Trinity nor the doc-
trine of the Incarnation can be laid aside as non-
essential, or quietly consigned to oblivion, without
changing Christianity to something else. To apol-
ogize for or belittle them means to apologize for our
religion. Nor need we apologize. The dogma of the
Trinity keeps before our minds the three-fold ac-
tivity and being of God, as both transcendent, im-
manent and humanistic, and saves us from the pan-
theism of Buddhism and the austerity of Judaism
(Disc. XI). The doctrine of the Incarnation re-
minds us that God not only may express, but has
expressed, himself in terms of perfect human nature.
It forever prevents the divorce of religion from
ethics and saves us from the immoralities of the
Greek religions.

Other religions possess ethical codes as lofty as
ours and have organizations, rituals, and rites anal-
ogous to ours. But none has so brought God to

68 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

man and raised man to God, — has so made easy the
approach to God, which is the purpose of religion
(Disc. I), — as has Christianity. Christianity has,
also, in its idea of the Church as the extension of
the Incarnation, included and perfected the corpor-
ate element which found its place in all primitive
religions, and without which the religion of the in-
dividual becomes self -centered (Disc. XVIII).

DISCUSSION XIV.

THE JUDGING GOD.

1. Factors in human conduct.

a. Heredity. Each human organism contains
certain capacities and certain limitations
which it cannot transcend. The criminal
and the saint are largely born, not made.
Much crime is due to inherent criminal ten-
dencies. Like insanity and feeble-mindedness,
such tendencies are mental derangements or
insufficiencies and are largely the result of
bodily derangements, such as malformation
of organs, or abnormal secretions in the
ductless glands. We cannot gather grapes
from thorns.

b. Environment. Within the limits set by hered-
ity human conduct is powerfully modified
by environment, — including food, shelter,
associations, education. "As the twig is bent,
the tree's inclined.''

Problem: If man is the creature of his heredity
and environment, why should God hold him to
account?

2. Moral responsibility.

a. The question of moral freedom lies at the
basis of all systems of ethics except the util-
itarian. Answered in the negative all the
glory of sacrifice departs; the soldier dying

70 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

for his country, the martyr for his faith, are
mere puppets.

b. As stated in the discussion on Freedom of
the Will, we are justified in holding that
each man has at every moment a "zone of
freedom," a real choice between alternatives.
What these alteratives shall be is determined
by our past, — heredity, environment, past
conduct. (See Disc. VII and the notes on
that discussion in Part III.)

c. By deliberate and consistent choice of alter-
natives we gradually shift our "zone of free-
dom" either for better or worse. We are
morally responsible for the use which we
make of our "zone of freedom".

3. Conscience.

Conscience is the inherent sense for right, the
urge which impels us to ask the question, "Ought
I to do this?" Conscience does not answer this
question, but leaves it to the intellect. Conscience
is, to be sure, absolute in that in all stages of human
development it has impelled man to act in accor-
dance with his fundamental senses, such as for love,
justice, and reverence. But what conduct these
senses may demand of us has evolved with our evolv-
ing social relations. In any particular case the
judgment as to what course of action is right under
the circumstances is worked out by the intellect.
The judgment of the intellect is conditioned by
heredity, environment, and past conduct. The
taboo of the African savage and the Code of Justin-
ian are both answers to the same question. When
the intellect has formed its judgment of right and
wrong, conscience again steps in and impels us to
carry it out, or makes us uncomfortable if we do not

THE JUDGING GOD 71

do SO. Conscience is the bailiff, who brings the
parties litigant before the bar of the intellect and
enforces its judgment when made (Disc. IV and
essay, The Grammar of Theology, in Part II).

4. Sin.

a. Subjectively, sin is the determination to act
contrary to conscience, to violate the sense
for right, or to fail to act up to one's oppor-
tunities ; it is the deliberate shutting oneself
off from God.

b. Objectively, sin is the doing of some act in
violation of one's sense for right, when the
alternative lies within the "zone of freedom."

c. From the viewpoint of anthropology the ca-
pacity for sin is a development from primitive
innocence, a necessary stage in the progress
from un-morality to morality.

5. Punishment for sin.

a. Subjective, i. The deliberate choice of the
lower of two alternatives within the zone of
freedom shifts that zone lower and makes
it harder to choose the higher alternative
the next time. ii. The deliberate violation
of the sense for right causes discomfort, re-
morse, iii. Deliberate shutting oneself off
from God makes it harder to get into com-
munion with him. iv. Good habits free the
will, because the habit makes the minutiae
automatic and frees the conscious mind for
higher things. A good habit does away with
alternate judgments of right and wrong
which w^e pronounce on our actions. When
the conduct is alternating between two
courses attention is centered upon the con-
flict, and since the will is closely allied with

72 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

attention, it, too, is involved in the conflict.
Hence an evil habit enslaves the will.

b. Objective. Action taken against the will
of God (i. e., the inherent tendency of the uni-
verse) sets the whole force of the universe
against the sinner. The universe is continu-
ally sloughing off that which runs counter
to the course of evolution.

c. Punishment for sin is not imposed arbitra-
rily, or externally, but is a "function,'^ or re-
sult, of the sin itself. It is imposed by the
sinner upon himself. The judgment on a
man is the resultant of his acts of choice pro-
duced to infinity. The effect increases in
geometrical ratio, unless checked.

6. Salvation.

Salvation is such a way of life as permits the
normal functioning of the individual, the coordina-
tion and legitimate functioning of all his "senses'\
Such a functioning does away with all conflict be-
tween his various tendencies, abolishes "complexes''
(in the Freudian sense), results in a unified person-
ality, and sets the individual free to give the best
that is in him to the service of the Community.
Since our "senses" include the sense for love, for
reverence, and for activity, our salvation is not com-
plete unless it includes satisfaction of these senses,
which satisfaction can only be attained through par-
ticipation in, and service for, the Beloved Commu-
nity. (See Koyce, Problem of Christianity ; also Disc.
XVIII.) In this way, and not in any arbitrary, or
wooden manner, participation in the Beloved Com-
munity is essential to complete salvation. It does not
follow that those who have fallen short of achieving
this ideal when death overtakes them are to be for-

THE JUDGING GOD 73

ever excluded from the Beloved Community. We may
not doubt that their eyes will then be opened and
that they will yet make their way into the Blessed
Company of All Faithful People.

7. Heaven and Hell.

Since the life hereafter is but a continuation of
the present life, the consequences of sin carry over
into the next world. Both heaven and hell have their
beginnings here. Since, however, the opportunity
for communion with God appears to be greater in
the next world than here, so the power to appre-
ciate him, or the lack of it, will be more keenly felt.
The sharpest sting of hell, both in this world and the
next, is unpreparedness in the face of opportunity.
"Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest
are these, ^It might have been'."

Since our sense for justice demands that punish-
ment be remedial, we may hope for a chance of
amendment in the hereafter; but it will involve a
painful regaining of the ground lost on earth. Heaven
we regard, not as a cessation of struggle, but as a
removal of the present hindrances to achievement
(Disc. XV., §3). Heaven and hell inevitably follow
from the freedom of the will. If I am really free, I
have power to turn in either direction.

8. Human criminal law.

a. Objects.

i. Corrective. Reformation of the individual,
ii. Protective. Deterring the individual from
the commission of other crimes by confine-
ment. Deterring others from the commission
of crime by the example and fear of pun-
ishment.

b. Method of accomplishment.
Imprisonment and probationary oversight.

74 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

Both are necessary and are effective within
limits. There is a mistaken tendency among
theoretical criminologists to belittle the cor-
rective and deterrent effect of punishment.
One school would turn the prisons into
schools; the other into homes for the feeble-
minded. To a limited extent both are right ;
but the element of punishment must be pre-
served.

c. Limitations.

i. No human tribunal can assess moral re-
sponsibility, since it cannot know all the
facts nor determine in how far the criminal
act was the result of heredity or environment.
"Judge not that ye be not judged."

ii. Even in its judgment as to proper meas-
ures for the protection of society it is liable
to err.

iii. Criminal law has not addressed itself to
the problem of raising the zone of freedom
by remedying maladjustments of heredity
and environment.

iv. It cannot appeal to the religious nature,
which furnishes the most powerful incentive
to amendment. It cannot bring the sinner
to God, as does the Church in teaching and
sacraments. This element the Church must
supply.

V . The consequences of an act of condemna-
tion are to definitely consign the condemned
to a pigeon-hole, largely artificial, since
"there is so much bad in the best of us,'' and
to cramp the soul of the condemned in the
narrow quarters of his own misdeeds, there-

THE JUDGING GOD 75

by preventing, as far as we can, his rehabili-
tation.

vi. This is not God's way of dealing with us.
Parable of the Unmerciful Servant and of
the Wheat and Tares. His way is to treat
us sinners as potential saints.

vii. Judgment is not creative, but loving hope
is creative, it works, — the man tends to be-
come what we expect him to be.

viii. Conclusion. While criminal law is
necessary for the protection of society, it has
very limited power for good. What it lacks
the Church is in duty bound to supply.

DISCUSSION XV.

THE ATONING GOD.

Problem: If God is both loving and omnipotent,
why does He permit sin, pain, and sorrow?

1. The answer of philosophy.

a. Utilitarian. All ideals are the products of
self-interest and what we call sin is merely
violation of standards set up by society for
its self -protection.

b. Epicurean. The ideal is to obtain the
greatest enjoyment; and hence there is no
such thing as sin, and we have it in our
power to abolish sorrow from our lives.

c. Stoic. The ideal is duty. We must accept
pain and sorrow, without attempting to ex-
plain them, and, by adherence to duty, rise
above them.

d. Skeptic. We must give up the problem as
forever insoluble.

e. Atheistic. Since sin, pain, and suffering are
very real, we must conclude that there is no
God.

f . Pessimistic. There is no problem, because the
world is inherently bad, — whence pain, sin, and
sorrow are quite to be expected.

g. Buddhistic. Since sin, pain, and suffering
arise out of human desires, we should strive

TEE ATONING GOD 77

to conquer our desires. Perfect bliss, Nirvana,
will be attained when we shall have banished
desire.

h. None of these answers satisfies us. Each
violates one or more of our inherent tenden-
cies, or senses. We instinctively refuse to
accept such a universe as they present. Fi-
nally, none has worked when put to the test.
None furnishes a sufficient motive for con-
duct.

2. The answer of Christian Science.

There is no such thing as sin, pain, or sorrow;
our experience of them is mere delusion. This sys-
tem is faulty both in theory and in practice. In
theory, because if sin, pain, and sorrow are merely
mental phenomena, then so also are goodness, plea-
sure, and happiness. Psychology has demonstrated
that an excess of any pleasurable sensation becomes
pain. Excess of any virtue is a vice. Furthermore,
this philosophy is an attempt to gratify our sense for
justice at the expense of our sense for rationality,
which is as false as the other extreme (Essay, The
Grammar of Theology , in Part II). This theory
tends toward a supercilious attitude toward those
in poverty, pain, or sin. It also disregards totally
the corporate element in religion. Therefore, in
practice, while the Christian Scientists have done
well to emphasize the possibilities of the mystical
life, they have given a cold shoulder to charitable
enterprises and movements for social and industrial
betterment (Disc. XVI, §6d).

3. The answer of Christianity.

Pain, sorrow, and even sin are necessary evils in
a universe of progress and of moral values. The
problem finds its solution in the Life Eternal, which

7S GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

furnishes an opportunity to progress beyond them,
and in the Incarnation and Atonement, which fur-
nish the means to do so. This we will try to show.

a. Pain and sorrow. Progress is purposeful
movement, not running around in circles.
Since it is a movement, it involves struggle.
Since it is purposeful, it involves an ideal.
Now, unless there were inequalities, we could
form no conception of an ideal. Unless
we can see a better, we cannot con-
ceive of a best. For example, some men have
better eyesight than others, and hence we can
form the conception of vision more keen than
any of which we know, in short, perfect vi-
sion; and we all wish that we might more
nearly approximate that ideal. But no one
wishes that he might see out of the back of
his head, — although that would be a very
useful accomplishment, — because there are
none of us who can see any better in that
direction than any of the rest of us. If we
were all on a dead level, whether intellectu-
ally or morally, we could form no conception
of intellectual or moral progress. But in-
equality necessarily involves a lesser good,
a certain amount of pain and suffering for
those who lag behind. Pain is the concomi-
tant of a losing fight. For example, the body
is continually beset by the bacteria of dis-
ease, it continually struggles. So long as it
is winning there is no pain. But the moment
the bacteria get the upper hand pain ensues, —
a cry for reinforcements. On the other
hand, if the organism is completely defeated,
pain ceases. Therefore, struggle is an inev-
itable concomitant of progress, and pain is

THE ATONING QOD 79

an inevitable concomitant, not of all struggle,
but of struggle against too great odds, an evi-
dence of partial, but not total, defeat. Pain
and sorrow are neither good nor evil in them-
selves, but only as we react to them, — evil, if
we lie down under them ; good, if we use them
as warnings and agencies to train and harden
us for further struggle. A life of ease pre-
sents no attraction,— our sense for activity
demands that we should be ceaselessly striv-
ing and achieving. (Essay on The Grammar
of Theology. Part II.)

b. Sin. This presents a graver problem. Yet
its existence does not stamp the world as evil.
Sin is the deliberate choice of the lower of
two alternatives presented to consciousness
(Disc. XIV) . Sin is, therefore, the inevitable
concomitant of free-will. Now, free-will is
the permanent possibility of doing good.
Without it there could be neither sin nor
righteousness. You cannot eat your cake
and have it. A world of free-will without sin
is not only impossible, but unimaginable.

c. The solution. Are not pain, sorrow, and sin
too great a price to pay for progress and free-
will? Does the joy of those who succeed
compensate for the tears of those who fail?
Would not a world of sinless stagnation be
preferable? The Buddhist says, yes. But, be-
fore you agree with him, remember that the
heaven of the Buddhist must by inevitable
logic be Nirvana. Yet, would pain, sorrow,
even sin, be too great a price to pay, if it
lay within the power of each of us to progress
beyond them? To this you will reply that
in this brief life it most certainly does not

80 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

lie within our power to rid ourselves of pain,
sorrow, and sin, and that our wills are so
fast bound by heredity and environment that
even an eternity were of no avail. Yet, what
if a way were found to overcome these hin-
drances and to set each one of us, who will,
upon the path of progress? This is the so-
lution of Christianity, — an Eternal Life in
which to grow and an Atonement which
furnishes the means to do so.

Problem: How can the death of Christ effect
atonement?

4. Atonement.

a. Meaning of the word. Atonement does not
mean buying off an angry God, or changing
God's intention. Atonement is at-one-ment,
rapprochement, reconciliation with God, a
realignment of the human will so as to be
in harmony with the divine.

b. The religious experience of atonement. The
necessity for atonement, the feeling that all
is not right between the self and God and
that some outside agency is needed to adjust
this relationship, is an element in religious
experience well-nigh universal. There is also
a very widespread conception that this ad-
justment can only take place through the un-
merited suffering of the outside agent. We
find this idea cropping up in the most di-
verse religious systems. Among the Hebrews
the agency was an animal that was sacrificed.
In the various "mystery" religions it was the
head of the religion : Serapis, Mithra, Dio-
nysos, or Orpheus. The wide spread and
persistence of this idea is evidence that it

THE ATONING QOD 81

contained an element of objective reality.
Now, in the early days of Christianity the
adherents of these religions came over to
Christianity almost en masse, which indicated
that, though their former religion taught
them the aspiration for atonement, it did not
give them the reality. During the entire his-
tory of Christianity it is a fact of universal
Christian religious experience that men who
felt themselves fast bound in sin and misery
have been set free by putting themselves
in effective relation to Christ. The fact
of such transformation will not be ques-
tioned. It was this experience in Paul which
made him a convert to Christianity, and the
fact of Atonement is the very center of his
theology. This same experience has come to
such men as Augustine, Francis of Assisi,
John Bunyan, and in lesser degree to all
Christians.

c. Theories of Atonement. Efforts to explain
the religious experience, to rationalize it, have
been made all through Christian history.
But no such theories have been regarded as
de fide. Orthodox theology simply affirms
the fact, and says that in some way Christ's
life, death, and resurrection (not his death
alone) avail to effect atonement with God.

5. A suggested explanation of the fact.

a. The life of Christ, by showing us that God's
nature may be expressed in terms of human
nature, brings God down to us, and, by fur-
nishing us a pattern of right living, tends to
raise us to God. But his life would not have
been a perfect pattern had he not undergone

82 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

all our pains and temptations, even to death
itself. The higher personality must always
undergo suffering, sympathy^ with the lower,
must enter into his sufferings, in order to
raise him.

b. God has always offered and does offer at-one-
ment with himself, whereby if we would ac-
cept the offer, we might overcome sin. But
man often wills not to accept the offer. Man's
will needs outside help to break through the
crust, which is the result of his heredity or
environment, or of his own wilful misdeeds.
This help he finds sometimes in a friend, some-
times in a great shock, or sorrow. Now, in
Jesus we find the supreme friend and in his
death the supreme tragedy.

c. From the point of view of the individual in
relation to society. (See Royce, Problem of
Christianity, Lectures V and VI.) A sinful
act always has an element of self-indulgence
at the expense of the group (family. Church,
city, or State) to which the sinner belongs and
into whose life he has entered, — his Beloved
Community. He has set back its well-being,
has proved a traitor. The Community may
not know of his act ; but he knows it and con-
demns himself. In the effort to make amends
for his wrong he may perform many good
acts, but after all they are no more than his
duty and they can never undo the effect of
his traitorous act. Even though the Com-
munity may forgive him, he does not forgive
himself. His remorse can only cease, if,
somehow, his traitorous act should, in spite
of evil intention, turn out to be for advan-
tage to his Community. The sinner now is

THE ATONING GOD 83

brought to know the life and death of Christ.
He perceives that his sin is of a piece with
that of the men who nailed Him to the cross,
and so that his sin had a part in it. But the
life and death of Christ have been a blessing
to his Beloved Community. So the repentant
sinner at last is freed of his remorse and lifts
up his heart to God. It was precisely this
that led Augustine to exclaim of his own sin-
ful past, 0 felix culpa!

d. All of these elements, doubtless, enter into
the fact of the Atonement. Yet all of them
together seem inadequate to explain the facts
of Christian experience, the immeasurable
redemptive value of the life and death of
Christ. Tremendous are the consequences of
sacrifice, of unmerited suffering and death.
Arnold von Winkelried, gathering to his
heart the Austrian lances, opened the road
to liberty for the Swiss. John Brown's soul
marched from Harper's Ferry to Appomat-
tox. Edith Cavell and the victims of the
Lusitania vanquished Germany. The blood
of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
H^owever it may operate, whether through
subjective influence alone, or whether per-
chance through unknown forces which it re-
leases into activity, this much we know, that
vicarious suffering does redeem ; and therein
lies the Christian's answer to the riddle of
the universe.

DISCUSSION XVI.

THE LOVING GOD.

Problem: Is intercommunion possible between
God and man; and how can God answer prayer
without violating natural laws?

1. Importajiee of problem.

This is the vital question in religion. Unless it can
be answered in the affirmative, the question of the
existence of God is merely academic and has no
practical bearing. It was the hunger for communi-
cation with God which accounted in large part for
the rapid spread of Christianity in the first two
centuries. The Koman world, which had sought this
end through the "mystery" religions in vain, found
it in Christianity. The burden of Paul's message is
that unity is established between God and the
believer. Today we see an exactly parallel move-
ment in the rapid spread of Christian Science, New
Thought, and other cults; due, perhaps, to the fail-
ure of the orthodox churches to bring out the mes-
sage of Paul.

2. Possibility of intercommunion from the view-
point of science.

Psychology teaches us that the human mind is
a mountain, most of which is submerged in uncon-
sciousness. Between the Conscious and the Sub-
conscious there is constant intercourse. The Con-
scious continually sends down mental images and

THE LOVING GOD 85

their accompanying emotions, to be stored in the
almost perfect memory of the Subconscious. To it,
also, come a multitude of sense impressions which
are never apprehended by the Conscious. The Sub-
conscious governs all reflex and habitual bodily pro-
cesses. Man never becomes truly proficient in any
manual or mental work until it is largely controlled
by the Subconscious. The Subconscious is con-
stantly sending up vague, forgotten memories, col-
ored by emotion, when these are suggested by some
mental image in Consciousness. Hence most of our
emotions and desires and all the mechanisms which
condition conduct arise in the Subconscious. There
genius has its birth. Through it even the bodily
processes are powerfully influenced.

It is coming to be believed that human minds
may communicate subconsciously ( telepathy ) .
Whether this is true or not, there is no scientific
reason to deny that the Divine Spirit may so com-
municate, if we put ourselves in an attitude to re-
ceive the message. Whether or not such communica-
tion does take place ought to be susceptible of
proof out of the facts of religious experience.

3. Theology affirms that the proof is to be found
in the answer to prayer and in the mystical appre-
hension of God by the soul. Consider these in turn.

4. Prayer.

a. Theory of prayer. We are not to suppose
that prayer changes the purpose of God ; but
that he has ordained prayer as one of the
train of causes leading to the accomplishment
of that purpose. The answer to prayer is
not a thwarting of natural law.

b. Effect of prayer, subjective. It is a fact
of universal experience that prayer has a
beneficial effect upon the person praying,

86 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

sustains and strengthens his good intentions,
and heartens him when discouraged. It
brings into play the powerful forces latent
in the Subconscious. The materialist will
say that this effect comes from within the
Self by auto-suggestion. But the evidence
seems to show that this explanation will not
account for the facts. ( See Essay, The Gram-
mar of Theology, in Part II.) Rather, we may
affirm that, when the human spirit opens it-
self to the divine influence, a powerful ele-
ment for good comes into the Subconscious
from above.

c. Effect of prayer, objective. It is, for the
reasons stated above (§2), not in conflict with
science to hold that prayer opens an avenue
likewise for the operation of the divine power
in the souls of other men, and hence influ-
ences their conduct. If we may communi-
cate subconsciously by telepathy with other
men, this would almost necessarily follow.
The saints of all ages testify to the objective
efficacy of prayer and modern instances
abound.
5. Christian Mysticism.

a. Theory of mysticism. Prayer is talking to
God. Mysticism is letting God talk to us.
If God hears us, it ought to be possible for
us to hear God. Here, again, there is no
scientific reason why this should be impos-
sible. The communication, if it exists, may be
understood as taking place through the Sub-
conscious. Whether or not such communi-
cation exists ought to be ascertainable from
the facts of religious experience.

b. The mystical experience, — subjective reality.

THE LOVINO GOD 87

Jesus was in constant communication with
the Father and taught his followers that
they might be also. The early Church was
filled with persons who testified to this ex-
perience. Unusual persons, making unusual
effort, have, in all ages, achieved a vivid ex-
perience of communication with God, —
sometimes auditory or visual, sometimes
merely an indescribable awareness of His
Presence: Paul, John of Patmos, Plotinus,
Augustine, Theresa, Joan of Arc, Juliana
of jSIorwich, Francis of Assisi, Suso, Sweden-
borg. Cotton Mather, George Fox and other
Quakers, Jonathan Edwards. This ecstatic
mystical experience is not peculiar to Chris-
tianity, but has occurred in much the same
form among Hindus, Mohammedans, — in
short in almost all religions. The faithful
in all ages have felt this Presence, though
to less marked degree. The subjective reality
of their experiences cannot be questioned.
But materialists affirm that they were self-
induced delusions. Is this explanation ten-
able?
c. The mystical experience — objective reality.
These experiences appear to have objective
reality, for the following reasons :
i. They bear for the experiencer a certitude
as great as sensational experience and have
the same quality, — he does not question their
objectivity.

ii. They are orderly and self-consistent
and are not irrational, like a dream or a de-
lusion.

iii. Although such experiences have occurred
to men of all times, races, and religions, their

88 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

content (what they appeared to tell of the
unseen world) has been strikingly similar,
iv. The great mystics have not been unbal-
anced visionaries, but have often been persons
of keen and analytical minds (Paul, Augus-
tine, Thomas Aquinas), or of unusual execu-
tive ability (Francis of Assisi, Theresa, Ig-
natius Loyola, Joan of Arc), — persons very
unlikely to suffer delusions.
V. Such experiences, in a less marked degree,
have come to most of those who have put
themselves in an attitude to receive them,
vi. The results of such experiences have been
almost invariably good. Far from creating
introspective dreamers, they seem to result
in increased sympathy and efficiency. The
great mystics whom I have named have been
great largely because of their experiences.
The profligate Augustine and Francis be-
come saints, the peasant Joan becomes a
great general. All these thought that they
had experienced God, and the result was as if
they had done so. There is no more reason
for doubting the objective verity of their
experiences than that of any experience of
the senses.

6. Manner of praying effectively and of achiev-
ing communion with God, as described by
the mystics.

a. A right will. In normal persons this is of
gradual growth. In persons where the lower
nature is in control a violent emotional storm
(conversion) is sometimes required to put
the higher will in control. The attitude of
both prayer and contemplation must be "Thy
will be done".

THE LOVING GOD 89

b. Contemplation. The practice of quiet wait-
ing for God, getting rid of any distracting
thoughts, so as to leave an avenue for God
to enter, is essential.

c. Asceticism. The great mystics have practiced
this rigorously. A certain amount is needed
by us all.

d. Sacraments. All the Catholic mystics make
use of the sacraments. The Quakers, and of
course non-Christian mystics, do not. This
indicates that sacraments are not essential
to this experience; although, for the Quak-
ers, the Silent Meeting has practically sacra-
mental value. It should be noted, however,
that the Catholic mystics have possessed
greater practical efficiency. It would appear
that the sacraments and the notion of the so-
cial nature of religion which they connote, —
the corporate system of which they are a
part, — act as a fly-wheel to restrain unregu-
lated mysticism and make it an engine of ef-
ficiency. Mysticism among the Buddhists, the
Sufis, or those Christians who have not de-
veloped a sense of the corporate nature of
religion, tends to take the form of quietism.
At any rate, it takes more than ordinary
spirituality to be a good Quaker. For most
of us, immersed in material things, some ma-
terial aid is felt to be required to bring about
a realization of the presence of God. In short,
the Church and sacraments conduce to a
normal life; they tend to make the mystic
practical and the practical man mystical.
To anyone who takes part in public worship,
and especially in a sacrament, with a belief
in its objective efficacy, there comes a special

90 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

sense of the presence of God that steals away
his troubles and perplexities and makes the
rough places plain. So that, to him, such
worship becomes as necessary to health of
mind as is regular exercise to health of body.

7. Spiritual healing.

a. It is a fact of religious experience that health
of mind, or soul, and health of body are in-
terrelated, and that an agency which pro-
motes a healthy mind, will, through the Sub-
conscious, benefit the body. If man may put
himself in touch with God to the betterment
of his mind, or soul, such relationship must
necessarily tend to heal the body, also.

b. It is a fact of religious experience that this
result does take place, as attested by spiritual
healing in all ages; Jesus, the Apostles,
Francis of Assisi, shrines, relics, Christian
Science, Emmanuel Movement.

c. The methods used and theories advanced vary
greatly. Often no conscious appeal is made
to the religious nature. But the result is the
same in all cases: the sick soul is cleared of
the obstacles that prevent the divine power
from flooding in.

8. Conclusion.

Belief in the objective efficacy of prayer and af-
firmance of the objective verity of direct experiences
of God are not contradicted by science ; they are sub-
stantiated by religious experience ; and they do pow-
erfully conduce to a higher life. The love of God
is constantly awaiting the opportunity to express
itself in human lives; and it is a fact of religious
experience that we may put ourselves in a position
to receive it and may thereby bring health to our

THE LOVING OOD 91

souls and bodies and profoundly influence other
men. This is the reward of religion. Thus does it
achieve its aim of establishing effective relations
with God (Disc. I). Without this it becomes a cheer-
less system of stoical ethics. Why should we put
off to the next world what we may measurably enjoy
in this? It is the supreme function of religion and
of the Church today to say to those who have "lain
down" under sin, pain, sorrow, or economic pres-
sure,— and this includes us all at times, — in the
words of Peter and John : "Silver and gold have I
none; but what I have that give I unto thee; in the
name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and
walk."

DISCUSSION XVII.

THE LIFE WORTH WHILE.

(Christian Ethics.)

1. What is the chief end of man? This age-old
question has received various answers:

a. Epicurean. The well-being of self (selfish).

b. Stoic. The performance of duty (cheerless).

c. Utilitarian. The advancement of the race
(materialistic).

In this lecture we consider the answer of Chris-
tianity.

2. It is frequently asserted that the entire message
of Jesus consisted in a few precepts for the con-
duct of the individual in private and toward his fel-
lows and that other elements in the teaching and
practice of the Church are additions and perversions.

Problem: If I deal justly and practice charity,
have I not fulfilled my whole duty?

3. Historically considered this view is entirely er-
roneous. Jesus' message was social, not individual.
As is stated in Discussion XII, he continually pro-
claimed that his mission was to prepare the world
(or perhaps the Jewish Nation) for the Messianic
Kingdom. His ethics were not merely moral pre-
cepts, but the constitution for the Coming State.

4. Fundamental law of Christian Ethics: "Thou
shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart and

THE LIFE WORTH WHILE 98

with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with
all thy mind J and thy neigJibor as thyself.'^

a. Underlying principle, not the Law, but Love
(Disc. XIV §8).

b. Objects of duty : God, my neighbor and my-
self.

c. Spheres of activity: emotional (soul and
heart ) , intellectual ( mind ) , practical
(strength), (See Disc. I, §3).

5. Duty toward God : To worship and adore and
do the will of God out of love for him, and not pri-
marily for the good of others, or our own salvation.

6. Duty toward my neighbor: To labor in love
for the material and spiritual well-being of others,
doing unto them as we would they should do unto
us, regarding ourselves as members one of another
and all as joined into a Beloved Community (Disc.
XVIII).

7. Duty toward ourselves: To make the best
possible use of our bodies, minds, and spirits for
development both here and hereafter.

8. Results of overemphasis upon one duty.

a. Toward God. The men of the Middle Ages
built great cathedrals and sacrificed them-
selves in the Crusades and in the monastic
orders; but were careless of social and indi-
vidual morality.

b. Toward self. The evangelical reformers
made salvation an individual matter. They
minimized objective worship on the one hand
and neglected the well-being of humanity on
the other.

c. Toward my neighbor. The present age builds
hospitals and social settlements; but va-

94 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

cates its churches and considers personal re-
ligion old-fashioned,
d. As to each of these duties our motto should
be, "This ought ye to have done and not to
leave the other undone'\ To perform one
duty completely involves performance of the
others also.

9. Spheres of activity.
We cannot completely love or serve God, or our
neighbor, or ourselves, without doing so with our
whole being, emotional, intellectual and practical.
Our love, reverence, and service must be heartfelt,
intelligent, and active, or it is incomplete (Disc.
I 53).

10. The reward of life is more life, wider oppor-
tunity for development and usefulness here and
hereafter.

DISCUSSION XVIII.

THE IDEA OF A CHURCH.

1. Introduction.

No philosophy of Christianity is complete with-
out taking account of the idea of a Church, for that
institution in one form or another is universal in
Christendom. We find today three opinions about
a Church. Some regard it as useless. Those who
regard it as valuable have two opinions as to its na-
ture. The purpose of this lecture is to evaluate the
idea of a Church in the light of history and of
present experience.

2. The organic idea of the Church.

The Church is a divine organism, contemplated
by Christ and developed under the guidance of the
Spirit, possessing and administering peculiar chan-
nels of intercourse between God and the individual.
We may call this the organic conception.

3. The aggregate idea of the Church.

The Church in the broad sense is the collective
name for all those who profess belief in Christ and
attempt to practice a moral life. In the particular
sense a Church is a voluntary association of indi-
vidual Christians, uniting for their spiritual culture,
the evangelization of other men, and the propagation
of certain doctrines. There is no moral obligation to
belong to a Church. If the Church purports to be
more than this, it is a hindrance to the individual,

96 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

interposes itself between man and God, and repre-
sents a corruption of the purely spiritual religion
taught by Jesus. We may call this the aggregate
conception.

Problem: Why should I join the Church? If I
live a Christian life, is that not all that is re-
quired?

4. The corporate religious experience.

a. Primitive corporate religion. The earliest
form of religion was tribal worship. In fact
some students of comparative religion con-
tend that the act of tribal worship preceded
and produced the individual religious con-
sciousness. (Pratt, The Religious Con-
sciousness, Chap. I.) At any rate, the tribe
was the unit and not the individual.

b. Hebrew corporate religion. Probably, at first,
tribal. Gradually the national sanctuary at
Jerusalem eclipsed the local ^'high places"
and the nation became the religious unit.
The individual had religious significance pri-
marily as a member of the Jewish nation.
Every Jew was ipso facto 3l member of the
religious community.

c. Greek corporate religion. In classical times
the religious unit was the tribe (</)rA^). At

the time of Christ the real religious con-
sciousness of the Greeks was centered in the
"mystery" religions. Here for the first time
in the history of Europe religion was dis-
sociated from the tribe or nation. The po-
litical organism was replaced by a purely re-
ligious organism. Those initiated into the
mysteries were regarded as in touch with, or
incorporated into, the mystical body of the

THE IDEA OF A CHURCH 97

god. They attained immortal life by partak-
ing of his immortality.

d. Primitive Christian corporate religion.
Jesus built upon the Hebrew idea. He planned
to reform and extend the Jewish Church-
State ( Disc. XI ) . His ethical precepts were
the constitution for the coming Kingdom.
The Greek converts brought in the idea of
the mystical body. The acceptance of this
conception was furthered by the rejection of
Christianity by the Jews. The result was a
fusion of the two ideas into the Christian
idea of the Church as the Body of Christ, the
extension of the Incarnation, and the suc-
cessor to the Hebrew Church-State. This
Body first called itself The Community
( a Koivw^t) . It would never have occurred
to any early believer that he might be a Chris-
tian and not a "member" of the Church.

e. Later development of Christian corporate re-
ligion. The first self-conscious act of the new
Community, as distinct from the Jewish na-
tion, was the Council at Jerusalem (about
A. D. 46). From about that time the Com-
munity began calling itself Church (eKKXrjma) .
This was several years before any of
Paul's epistles were written and about twenty
years before the first Gospel (Mark).

About the development of the ministry
there is great uncertainty. (See Disc XX.)
Of one thing we may be certain, however;
the change, if any, in the form of government
involved no change in the idea of the nature
of the Church. For, had such a change
been involved, we should have had evidences
of it in the writings of the period, as we have

08 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

of the controversy involving the extension of
the Church to the Gentiles.

The testimony of such writings as we
have is all in support of the organic theory.
''For as the body is one," says Paul, "and
hath many members, and all members of
the body, being many, are one body; so also
is Christ. For in one spirit were we all bap-
tized into one body Now ye are the body of

Christ and severally members thereof." The
same idea is expressed by John in the simile
of the vine and the branches. And in the
Shepherd of Hernias (early second century),
we read, ''The Church was created before
all things ; therefore is she aged ; and for her
sake the world was framed."

The name Catholic came into use in the
first half of the second century ; but there was
no substantial change in the conception of the
Church from the Council at Jerusalem to
the Diet of Worms. Since the word Catholic
has been in use so long in connection with
Churches which maintain the organic theory
of the Church, that theory is commonly
called the Catholic (but not Roman Catholic,
see §4g) theory,
f. Effect of the Reformation on Christian cor-
porate religion. Luther set out, not to found
a new Church, but to reform the old one. He
strove for years to give his followers bishops.
In Sweden his purpose was accomplished
and the Church of that country is Catholic
in theory and government and Lutheran in
theology. In England the Church remained
Catholic in theory and government and com-
posite in theology. It has called itself Prot-

THE IDEA OF A CHURCH 99

estant because it agreed with the Protestant
Churches in opposing certain doctrinal,
ethical, and governmental features in the
Koman Church. The Calvinistic reformers
originally held the Catholic idea of the
Church, but contended that the government
should be through presbyters and not bish-
ops,— or in other words that every clergyman
should exercise the functions of bishop and
presbyter. However, the strictly Protestant
Churches soon receded from the "organic"
idea of the Church to the "aggregate" idea
(§2).

g. Roman theory (Formulated by the Council
of Trent, 1563 A.D., and later) . The Church,
as a body, is the hierarchy ; the laity are not
conceived as entering into its life, but rather
as receiving grace from it. The Roman
Church, also, regards communion with the See
of Rome as essential to Catholicity.

h. Eastern and Episcopal theory. The Eastern
Churches (Greek, Russian, etc.) and the
Episcopal Churches (English, American, and
Colonial) adhere to the Catholic idea. They
regard the Church as consisting of both
clergy and laity. They hold the Catholic
Church to consist in all those national
Churches which adhere to the Catholic idea
of Church, sacrament, and doctrine, and safe-
guard the same through government by bish-
ops of apostolic succession.

. Value of the organic idea of the Church.

a. Historical. As stated above, the organic idea
of religion is the primitive conception the
world over and has persisted in one form or
other in most religions. In Christendom this

100 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

idea was universal until after the Reforma-
tion, and is still held by the great majority of
Christians. The persistence of the idea dem-
onstrates its very great survival value and in-
dicates its validity. The Church after twenty
centuries is here today and must be accounted
for.

b. Psychological basis, i. The sense for love
and for loyalty is inherent and demands sat-
isfaction (Essay, The Grammar of Theology,
Part II). Man is a social animal. This
social tendency he satisfies by grouping him-
self with others into a Community. Every
man is better for being a loyal member of ^a
lodge, athletic team, college, or city. He is
more himself, because he has satisfied all
his inherent tendencies (Royce, The Philoso-
phy of Loyalty). This tendency seeks satis-
faction in corporate religion; and any relig-
ion which leaves this element unsatisfied
is unnatural (Disc. I), ii. The Beloved Com-
munity creates an atmosphere hostile to ma-
terialism and favorable to spirituality. The
unconscious influence of the thought and
ideals of the Community upon the individual
are very strong, iii. Man demands a tangible
object of loyalty. Christ furnished this ob-
ject while on earth and the Beloved Commu-
nity does so as the extension of his life
(Royce, The ProMem of Christianity).

c. Practical, i. The Church fosters regular
habits of worship, ii. It counteracts the
tendency to look upon religion as a matter
of individual salvation and furthers the social
gospel. Sin becomes treason to the Beloved
Community, iii. In accomplishing results it

THE IDEA OF A CHURCH 101

presents the advantage of the army over the
mob.

6. The Beloved Community as the Body of Christ.

a. The Beloved Community is an organism in
a real sense and not by mere analogy, i. The
individual, like the cell, has his individual
life, but also imparts something to the whole
and receives something from it. No man, or
cell, liveth unto himself ; and no man, or cell,
dieth unto himself, ii. The normal function-
ing of the individual and of the cell are neces-
sary to the health of the whole, iii. The life
of the whole is built out of the life of the cells
and individuals that compose it, yet it tran-
scends them. A body is more than the sum
total of the cells which compose it.

b. This organism is the Body of Christ, i. The
Church carries on the work of Christ (^'Go ye
into all the world and proclaim the Good
Tidings to all nations"). It is the extension
of the Incarnation, ii. The Church has all
the power of Christ. He empowered his
apostles to heal the sick, pronounce forgive-
ness of sins, and to do ^'greater works than
I do".

7. The Church and the individual.

a. The function of the Church. The Church life is
not superposed on the individual religious
life, it is that life upon its social side. The
Beloved Community is the embodiment of the
social religious life of the members. Its field
is parallel to the private religious life. In
the private religious life of the members it
aims merely to foster right relations with
God. A high personal morality and religious

102 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

feeling is possible without membership in the
Beloved Community; but it is incomplete
and is difficult to maintain.

b. Limitations. The Beloved Community does
not, or should not, intervene between the indi-
vidual and God in the private religious life.
The individual has complete freedom of con-
science and opinion, although the Community
may properly, for its protection, regulate the
outward acts and expressions of its members.
The Roman Church overrides these limita-
tions; but Rome is no more an argument
against the idea of a Church than was Prussia
an argument against the idea of a State. The
Episcopal and Anglican Church is Catholic
in its insistence on the idea of the Church
as a divine organism; it is Protestant in
its insistence on the right of private judgment
and individual religious life. The balance
must be maintained, however difficult that
may be, since both elements are demanded by
our religious nature.

8. Conclusion.

On the practical side, if it be true that our duty
to God demands adoration, then it is a moral duty
to make that adoration in public. And if our neigh-
bor and society in general need religion, then it is
our duty to belong to and actively further the only
institution engaged in propagating it, — quite apart
from any feeling which we may have that church-go-
ing does not in our particular case seem indispens-
ible to religious growth, or that "we can be just as
good without going to Church".

It is true that the individual may, and often does,
achieve a very high morality and a very close ap-
proach to God without belonging to the Beloved

THE IDEA OF A CHURCH 103

Community. But he is still not in the fullest re-
lation to God, because he has left out the social side
of his nature. He who loses his life shall find it.
One cannot fully live the life worth while, cannot
fully realize his possibilities, without losing his
life in the life of the Beloved Community. (Royce,
Problem of Christianity; also supra, Disc. XIV, §6,
and Disc. XVII.) The Beloved Community is not
superposed on the individual, or interposed between
the individual and God, it is the individual upon his
social-religious side.

DISCUSSION XIX.

THE IDEA OF A SACRAMENT.

1. Value of public worship.

People go to church for two reasons, both legiti-
mate: To produce an effect in themselves (subjec-
tive) and to worship God (objective).

a. Subjective value.

Psychological benefit to the worshiper is
sought and obtained by sermons and hymns
and the atmosphere of devotion (pure sub-
jective). It is also sought and obtained by
prayer to God for strength and guidance (ob-
jective-subjective j .

b. Objective value.

The worshiper, also, goes to church for the
purpose of adoration and to petition for the
accomplishment of objects desired.

c. Conclusion.

The second motive is higher than the first,
because more unselfish. Furthermore, the
subjective result cannot properly be obtained
unless the primary purpose of the worshiper
is objective (Pratt, Religious Consciousness ,
pp. 298-307). Theoretically, both of these
results could be obtained through private
devotions; but instinctively men, even those
who do not hold the organic theory of the
Church, realize that these purposes can be

THE IDEA OF A SACRAMENT 105

better accomplished in company with their
fellows. A Church is a good place in which
to pray.

2. Sacraments. In Christianity certain particular
acts of public worship, regarded as peculiarly sol-
emn, are called sacraments. There are two main
opinions as to their nature and value. In this lec-
ture we shall evaluate these ideas in the light of
the religious experience of the past and the present.

3. The ''efficient" idea of a sacrament.

A sacrament is an "efficient" symbol, an outward
and visible sign whereby the divine influence is medi-
ated to the individual, so as to result in some special
religious value. In this definition the phrases "di-
vine influence" and "religious value" are intended
as the equivalent of the objective and subjective con-
notations of the phrase "spiritual grace." (See
Webster and Standard Dictionaries, titles Sacra-
ment and Grace.)

4. The "representative" idea of a sacrament.

A sacrament is a "representative" symbol, a me-
morial, a representation or a ratiflcation by the
worshiper of a relationship between God and the
individual. (See Webster and Standard Diction-
aries, title Sacrament.)

Problem: If God is everywhere, of what advan-
tage is a Sacrament?

5. Sacramental religious experience.

a. Primitive systems. In religions of the Ruler
God type (Disc. VI) the means of atonement
took the form of a sacrifice, a propitiation.
In religions of the Nature God type it took
the form of a ceremony whereby the believer
was restored to unity with the divine nature.

106 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

These rites are to be found in every race and
time ; they are co-extensive with religion and
are always the function of corporate, rather
than private, religion.

b. Hebrew sacrificial religion. The classical
Hebrew religion was of the Ruler God type.
Many, though not all, of the sacrifices were
for atonement. The Hebrews also practised
baptism for cleansing from sin, perhaps al-
lied to the lustrations for purification before
sacrifice.

c. Greek sacramental religion. The Greek
"mystery" religions were of the Nature God
type. The ceremony of initiation was a bath,
whereby the believer was grafted into some
sort of unity with the deity. Thereafter he
partook from time to time of ritual meals in
which it was conceived that he drew nourish-
ment from the divine life, renewed his contact
with deity. These ceremonies were called
"mysteries" (Disc. XV).

d. Primitive Christian Sacraments. The prim-
itive Church was built upon the sacraments.
B. W. Bacon, a Protestant and somewhat
radical historical student, says, in Jesus and
Paul, "This ^gospel', so far as it found vis-
ible expression, was embodied, after the man-
ner of ancient religion, not in books but in
symbolic ritual. Christianity consisted in
the ordinances and their interpretation. . .
The Nazarenes, or Christians, were the people
who practiced the rites of baptism and the
Supper Such, then, was the true ^begin-
ning of the Gospel', The sacraments came
first, the literature came afterward. It grew
up around the sacraments, interpreting and

THE IDEA OF A SACRAMENT 107

enforcing their lessons. The first disciples
did not appeal, as we do, to two witnesses,
the Spirit and the Word, but to three: the
Spirit outpoured from heaven, and the water,
and the blood." In these sacraments the
Church built upon both the Hebrew and the
Greek ideas. Its baptism was both a washing
away of sin (Hebrew) and a new birth in the
Spirit (Greek). Its Eucharist was both a re-
presentation of, thanksgiving for, the sacrifice
of the Cross (Hebrew), and a partaking of
the divine nature (Greek),
e. Later Christian history. The theory and
practice of the sacraments underwent (no
change until about 1000 A. D. when the ma-
terialistic doctrine of Eucharistic Transub-
stantiation arose in the West. This doctrine
followed from a crude and wooden interpre-
tation of sacraments, whereby they were re-
garded as in the nature of magical charms.
In reaction from this view Calvin and
Zwingli enunciated the theory which I have
called the "representative" theory and which
obtains in most Protestant Churches. The
tendency to minimize the sacraments was ac-
centuated by the Calvinistic theory of Pre-
destination, teaching as it did that man's
salvation is individual and that nothing
which he or the Community can do will alter
his destined fate. They thus became of little
or no religious significance and have been
almost discontinued in some churches.
6. Value of sacraments.

a. Historical. The early origin and the per-
sistence of the sacramental idea demonstrates
its very great survival value and points

108 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

to its validity; this is a fact of religious ex-
perience that demands explanation.

b. Psychological. The consciousness of sin and
of the need of atonement is universal. Man
has always sought a means of achieving
atonement and a pledge to assure him there-
of (Discs. I and XV). He has always given
expression to this need in solemn corporate
acts. Experience shows that in Churches
where the sacraments are minimized, all pub-
lic worship tends to lose its objective aspect
and comes to center around the sermon.
The Church tends to become an ethical or phi-
lanthropic society (Pratt, Religious Gon-
sciouness. pp. 298-307).

c. Practical. Since we are not pure spirit, but
have material bodies, it follows that we al-
ways use material means for producing ma-
terial results. The spoken or written word,
for instance, is an "efficient'' symbol, or ve-
hicle, of the thought conveyed. So, also, is
a piece of music. These all have quasi-sac-
ramental value. A sacrament is a divine
word, or means of communication. The mod-
ern man, immersed in material things, needs
a material aid to get out of this environment
and to find "God in particular". While all
acts of worship have quasi-sacramental value,
the Church has restricted the use of the
word to those in which the divine element is
of predominating importance. The difference
is perhaps one of degree ; but the difference is
so great as to amount to a difference in kind.
(See Disc XIII, §.)

d. Limitations. A sacrament is not a charm
which will confer a benefit regardless of

THE IDEA OF A SACRAMENT 109

the spirit in which it is received. A right at-
titude and intention on the part of the re-
cipient is absolutely essential. Otherwise
sacramental observance would be magic.
In the Eucharist the material elements are
not God, but are means by which God is made
apparent to the worshiper. It is not they,
but God, who is worshiped. Otherwise such
worship becomes idolatry. Disregard of
these limitations has often led to grave
abuses.

7. Baptism.

This is the sacrament of initiation into the
Church, thereby putting the recipient in the way
to receive the spiritual grace (i. e. psychological
value) coming later and in ever-increasing measure
through participation in the life of the whole. It
is a birth into a new life (regeneration). Just as
the new-born babe does not at birth come into fulness
of life, so baptism is merely a beginning, — a promise
of grace to come. It has the additional significance
of being a solemn certification by the Fellowship
(Church) that it agrees to receive the candidate into
its body "as a little child".

8. The Eucharist.

In this sacrament the whole Church "shows
forth" the death on the Cross, and gives thanks for
it and for all blessings. In Paul's thought it is the
symbol of the unity of the Beloved Community, or
rather the nexus whereby that unity is achieved and
maintained. Since the loaf, — the body of Christ, —
represents the Church, the worshiper, by partaking
of it, in a very real way partakes of the common life
of the Church, which is Christ (I Cor. XI and XII).
We may express this thought in modern language as
follows: If, as we maintain, there is help and

110 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

strength for the individual in the association and
life of the Beloved Community, and if the physical
aspect in this sacrament opens our minds (puts us
en rapport, so to speak) to that influence, then it
does really convey to us a share therein. The
Church, also, affirms that Christ is really present
in this sacrament.. Now, it is true that God is
present everywhere; but he is not present for us
unless we perceive him. For example, if you and
I are in the same room and a curtain is stretched
between us, we are not in each other's presence. So
this sacrament draws aside the curtain between
the worshiper and God. This curtain drawn aside,
the worshiper may, and does, make the deepest act
of adoration, or objective worship, because in this
sacrament he approaches spiritually closest to God.

DISCUSSION XX.

THE IDEA OF A MINISTRY.

1. Introduction.

Like Church and sacrament, we find a ministry
throughout Christendom; and this fact must be
taken into account. Here again we find two main
ideas as to the office of a minister; and it is the
purpose of this discussion to evaluate them in the
light of religious experience.

2. The "appointive" idea of a minister.

A minister is one designated by the people as
preacher or pastor; and ordination is the official
certification that he is fitted and authorized for
those duties.

3. The "priestly" idea of a minister.

A minister is one set apart by the whole Church
to constitute the organ through whom it represents
God to man and man to God. He is the medium
through whom the corporate worship is offered to
God and the divine influence residing in the whole
organism is conferred upon the individual. This is
substantially the definition of a priest (Standard
Dictionary) ; and, accordingly, where this idea ob-
tains, the minister is commonly called a priest. This
theory holds that the Church, as a body, is the great
Priest, and it bestows some of its functions, par-
ticularly, upon certain men in the sacrament of or-
dination. The men so set apart perform their func-

112 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

tions, of which the chief is the administration of the
sacraments, not as individuals, but as representa-
tives of the entire Church. The administration of
every sacrament is the corporate act of the whole
Church.

Problem: Is it needful, or right, that any one
should represent God to me, or me to God?

4. Eeligious experience of priesthood.

a. Primitive priesthoods. From the earliest
times, whenever men have realized the cor-
porate nature of religion and have given ex-
pression to it in solemn corporate acts,
they have set apart certain men to lead in
the performance of such acts.

b. Hebrew priesthood. The priests, an heredi-
tary caste, offered the sacrifices as representa-
tives of the whole nation.

c. Classical Greek and Latin priesthood. The
same idea obtains here. The chief priest was
originally the king. In Athens under the
republic he was still called apx^^ jSaa-LXevs-
In the "mystery" religions the priesthood was
not hereditary. There were no sacrifices^ but
the priest led the mysteries.

d. Primitive Christian. The name priest was
not at first used, probably because the new
religion wished to emphasize its abandon-
ment of the Hebrew idea of a sacrificial
priesthood. The manner of administering the
sacraments in the first century is uncertain.
When the curtain lifts in the second century
we find Elders, or Presbyters, performing
this function and corresponding in all but
name with the sacramental priesthood of the
"mystery" religions. Whether this practice

THE IDEA OF A MINISTRY 113

obtained from the first, or whether originally,
as some historians conclude, each member
of the congregation in turn administered the
Eucharist, is in controversy. If the latter
theory be true, however, it is not true to say
that there were no sacramental priests.
Rather, all were priests (''He made us to be
a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and
Father." Rev. 1:6). In the white heat of
early enthusiasm the Spirit manifested him-
self in all. As this enthusiasm cooled, it be-
came necessary for the Christian Fellowship
to crystalize and apportion its functions to
stated individuals. The name priest first
came into use in the third century. It has
continued ever since, except as it was dropped
by the Protestants at the Reformation.

e. The three-fold ministry. Deacons were insti-
tuted in apostolic times to administer the
funds. The origin of diocesan bishops is ob-
scure. The apostles exercised general super-
vision without territorial restriction. In the
apostolic age the words Mshop and presby-
ter were practically synonymous. Whether
diocesan bishops arose through designation
by the apostles, or through the elevation to
primacy of one member in the several boards
of presbyter-bishops, is debated. Most his-
torians hold the latter view. The question is
not important; in either case the three-fold
ministry developed in the Church, under the
guidance of the Spirit, as the best available
means for conserving and imparting the cor-
porate life, and has so continued since. At
the Reformation the reformers in all the
countries except England and Sweden were

114 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

obliged to do without bishops. Protestant
Churches have been of two types as to polity :
the presbyterian type, in which the presbyter
exercises a certain amount of authority, and
the congregational type in which the minister
is merely the chosen leader of the congrega-
tion.

g. Conclusion. The persistence of the idea of a
priesthood in all religions and especially in
the history of Christianity indicates that this
idea has survival value and hence finds its
basis in some fundamental principle of re-
ligious experience.

5. Value of a priesthood.

a. Individual. Whenever, by example or pre-
cept, we endeavor to help another, or show
him a better way, we are performing a
priestly act, we are representing God to man.
Whenever we pray for another we are repre-
senting man to God. Practically all of our
duties upon our social-religious side, as
members of the Beloved Community, are, or
should be, priestly duties. Hence, in a very
real sense the Church is a community of
priests. We owe most of the good that is in
us to some such act of another. We instinc-
tively crave the mediation of others, the cup
of cold water given in the name of a prophet.

b. Social. A priesthood is absolutely essentia]
to an organic religion. No organism can ex-
ist without organs. It very shortly becomes
essential that the Beloved Community should
set apart certain men for the exercise of the
peculiarly priestly functions. If it does not
do so, the whole idea of the Community as an
organism very soon disappears.

THE IDEA OF A MINISTRY 115

c. Limitations. The priest represents us to God
only on the corporate side. He does not, or
should not, in any way intervene between the
individual and God, except to aid and encour-
age the individual to find his own means of
approach. Nor must he become a crutch for
the individual.

6. Roman theory of priesthood.

The Roman Church, and it alone, holds a rather
different view of the priesthood than that stated. It
holds that the priest derives his authority, not
through the whole Church, but through and by com-
mission of the Pope as Vicegerent of God on earth.
This seriously impairs the representative idea.
Rome, also, in practice, although not perhaps in
theory, disregards the limitations stated in §5c.

7. Is the Apostolic Succession worth insisting on?

It is often argued that the three-fold ministry is
not primitive, — therefore it is not essential and
should be abandoned in the interests of unity. This
does not follow. If the system is not primitive
(about which opinions differ), it was a very early,
normal development. Unless God entirely aban-
doned his Church after the first century, the system
must surely be said to have his sanction (Disc.
XXII). Theoretically the system is not essential
to the Catholic idea of a Church. But without epis-
copacy it would be as difficult to maintain a coher-
ent Church on a large scale as it would be to main-
tain an efficient State under a system of pure democ-
racy. As a matter of fact we find that those who
have dropped the episcopal form of government have
very soon lost the ideal of the Church as an organic
unity. That ideal, it seems to me, we must at all
cost maintain.

116 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

8. Practical considerations.

In the last three lectures the attempt has been
made to demonstrate the necessity of the corporate
idea in Christianity, including the three ideas which
we find correlated, namely an organic Church, an ef-
ficient sacrament, and a priesthood. It should, how-
ever, be noted that the Communions holding that
idea have not always in practice produced a superior
type of Christian experience. In the first place few
Christian bodies present a perfect example either
of the organic, or the aggregate, type. The
Eastern and Western Churches, quarreling for a
thousand years over the word filioque in the Creed,
or the Anglican Church, repelling the Wesleys, can
hardly be said to display perfect Catholicity. On
the other hand very few Protestant Churches are
purely individualistic. Furthermore, other virtues
or vices in the life of the particular Communion may
counterbalance its shortcomings or excellence in re-
spect to the corporate ideal. So that it has often
happened that Churches utterly lacking in that re-
spect have developed a surpassingly high standard
of personal excellence. Nevertheless, the organic, or
Catholic, idea appears to be best fitted to satisfy the
social instincts of mankind.

9. Conclusion.

The Beloved Community is a true organism, hav-
ing a life built up out of the lives of its members,
yet transcending them, as the life of the body tran-
scends the lives of the cells. Participation in the
life of that Community is essential to the fullest
self-realization. The sacraments are efficient, rather
than representative, symbols, — they actually do
something, — because they actually do convey to the
recipient a share in the corporate life of the Beloved
Community, which is God. An organism must de-

THE IDEA OF A MINISTRY 117

velop organs through which it may function. Hence
the Beloved Community has developed a priesthood
through whom, as its representatives, and hence as
the representatives both of God and man, the Com-
munity performs its priestly function of represent-
ing God to man and man to God.

DISCUSSION XXI.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE.

1. The fact of influence from without.

a. It is unquestionable that Christianity is built
upon the foundation of the Hebrew religion,
i. Jesus said, "I come not to destroy but to
fulfill." ii. His ethics were not a new depar-
ture. He did not reject Jewish ethics; but
appealed from the current legalism to the
best Hebrew prophetic and raj)binical tradi-
tion, iii. His theology, notably as to God,
immortality, sin, and atonement, was based
upon Jewish theology, correcting and ampli-
fying it.

b. It is, also, unquestionable, although not so
generally admitted, that Christianity in the
first centuries built into its structure many
elements from the current Greek religions:
such as certain conceptions of atonement, in-
carnation, church, sacraments, and ministry
(see Discussions on those subjects).

c. It is, also, demonstrable that Christianity
has from time to time, subsequently to the
apostolic age, adopted, consciously or uncon-
sciously, new elements, chiefly, but not al-
together, ceremonial, from its religious and
social environment: observance of December
25th as the Feast of Nativity (the primitive
Church celebrated the Epiphany, rather than

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 119

the Nativity) from the Roman Saturnalia;
government by provinces and dioceses from
Roman law; symbolic use of the cross from
Egyptian religion.

2. The fact of development within.

a. Dogmatic development. The dogmatic defini-
tion of the facts of Christian religious ex-
perience developed gradually, as the need
was felt to make explicit that which was be-
fore implicit. The course of development was
in general this: Attention would become
focused upon some particular field of reli-
gious experience and various tentative efforts
would be made to rationalize this experience,
that is to relate it to the other facts of Chris-
tian experience and to the general body of
accepted doctrine, religious and philosophi-
cal. The various explanations were discussed,
their respective insufficiencies pointed out,
and eventually a definition was worked out
which met with general approval. In this
way, for example, Trinitarian and Christolog-
ical doctrine developed (Disc. XI and XIII).
Sometimes, as in those cases, the final defi-
nition was arrived at by a General Council;
sometimes, as in the case of Eucharistic doc-
trine, by a consensus of theologians. In ar-
gument and definition the writers made use of
ideas then current in the philosophy and
science of their day ; but the facts with which
they dealt were facts of essentially Christian
experience.

b. Institutional development. The Church has
always exercised great freedom in bringing
into being new organs for carrying on its
work. Sometimes, but not always, these

120 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

represent a practically new departure, as in
monasticism (although monasticism had its
antecedent in the unregulated solitary ascet-
icism of the hermits).

Problem: Is not Christianity largely a syncret-
ism of other religions and a corruption of the
teaching of the Master; and how are we to get
at the real essence of Christianity?

3. Two theories of Christian truth.

a. Truth a deposit. According to this view
Christ enunciated a body of doctrine and laid
out a pattern of institutions; his teachings
were supplemented by statements of his apos-
tles as contained in the epistles, under verbal
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and such teach-
ings alone constitute true Christianit}- ; any
additions are corruptions. This is the tra-
ditional theory, both of Protestants and Cath-
olics; although it would hardly seem to be
consistent with the Catholic theory of the
Church as a living, and hence, a developing
organism.

b. Truth a growth. According to this view
Christ not only taught, but ivaSj the Way,
the Truth, and the Life. He had many things
to tell his apostles that they could not then
'^bear". Christ's work was only begun ; and
he had promised that the Spirit of Truth
should lead his followers into all truth and
that he, Christ, should be with them unto the
"consummation of the age". According to
this view Christian truth, like the Christian
Church, is a body, capable of development,
and not an aggregate of more or less unre-
lated precepts.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 121

4. Objections to the deposit theory.

a. When you have stripped off the "accretions"
you have practically nothing left. The in-
vestigations of Harnack, who made the at-
tempt in this manner to get at the essence
of Christianity, led him to conclude that it
consisted mainly in ethical precepts. Very
many critics have contended that most, even
of these, were not original with Jesus. It is
as though one should try to find the head
of a cabbage by stripping off the leaves, or
to deduce the physical properties of water by
a study of oxygen and hydrogen. The truth
is that in living processes one plus one never
equals two. It has been pointed out by Berg-
son {Creative Evolution) that biologists have
made the same mistake, in endeavoring to get
at the essential difference between plants
and animals by investigation of the original
and least differentiated forms. At that stage
the two forms are indistinguishable. As
Bergsou points out, it is the fullest devel-
oped, and not the least developed, form which
is significant. "By their fruits ye shall know
them."

b. You can never be sure of what your "deposit"
consists. You are betting the validity of your
doctrine on the authenticity of particular
texts and upon the assumption that the doc-
trine therein contained was not imported
from some non-Christian source. You are
constantly in peril of being convinced that
the text in question was a mistranslation or
interpolation, or that the writing in which it
was contained was not written by the man
whom tradition has named as the author.

122 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

c. This theory reduces Christianity to a museum
of ecclesiastical antiquities. Every living
thing grows.

d. It does not permit of variation to accommo-
date religion to changing social environment.
Where this view obtains the life of the Church
is cramped within the trammels of a bygone
age. Development is forcibly postponed;
and when it comes, as it must come, it con-
stitutes a complete break with the past.

e. This theory is in conflict with the modern
view that all history is a record of develop-
ment. It is a cynical view of Christian his-
tory which rejects nineteen-twentieths of it
as hopelessly corrupt and bids us dig for
vestiges of the golden age in the dust of Pal-
estine. Such an opinion is the reductio ad
absurdum of the deposit theory and of the
inorganic view of the Church to which that
theory is related.

5. Organic theory of development.
The course of development of Christian doctrine
can be justified and explained only on the theory
that the Church is an organism. If the Church were
merely an aggregate of individuals holding certain
doctrines deposited with them, then it would follow
that any addition to that deposit would be illegiti-
mate and it would always remain an enclave. Hence
such changes would be unjustifiable. But we find
that such elements as have come into Christianity
from the outside have not remained foreign, but have
been baptized into Christianity and have been di-
gested by it. For instance, the Christian Mystery
was transformed and glorified from its baser pro-
totype. The Church, like the human body, draws
sustenance from its surroundings, and like the hu-

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 123

man body, it has shown a tremendous power of di-
gestion and assimilation; while still retaining its
essential nature intact. Again, like the human body,
it eliminates any material harmful to its life. Ele-
ments out of line with the main stream of develop-
ment, after being relegated to heretical bodies, have
finally passed into oblivion. There are no Gnostics
or Arians today. Unless we are prepared to say
that the Spirit acted only for one brief period in
Palestine, and that he was wholly absent among
heathen nations before that time, and from Chris-
tianity since that time, we cannot regard the devel-
opment of doctrine otherwise than as his continuous
work. Says Augustine (Retract. I, 13,) : "The very
thing which now the Christian religion sets forth is
from of old and was never wanting since the begin-
ning of the human race ; so that, when Christ himself
came in the flesh, the true religion, which already
existed, began to be called Christian."

6. Process of development.

Insofar as some historians describe the process
of development as conscious and deliberate they ap-
pear to be for the most part in error. The elements
may be described as follows :

a. Similarities to other religions may frequently
be explained as not borrowings at all, but
simply coincidences. Example, the festival
of Easter coincides with certain pre-Chris-
tian festivals in honor of the annual vernal
phenomenon of generation, or the universal
generative principle. Yet the date of Easter
was derived, not from such festivals, but from
the date of our Lord's resurrection, the Jew-
ish Passover ; and the occasion of the festival
is found wholly in that event.

124 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

b. Other similarities are due to the parallel, but
unrelated, development of certain basic relig-
ious ideas common to many religions. Thus,
the monastic systems of Buddhism and Chris-
tianity both arose out of a universal religious
tendency to asceticism and developed along
strikingly analogous lines ; but there seems to
be no evidence of adoption from one religion
to the other.

c. In many instances, however, a real genetic
relationship may be traced. Yet, even in
such instances, there was in general no con-
scious appropriation of ideas. What hap-
pened was rather that converts to Chris-
tianity unconsciously carried over the lan-
guage and modes of thought to which they
had been accustomed and applied them in de-
scribing and explaining the facts of Chris-
tian religious experience. Thus with the
Eucharist. Instituted with the enigmatical
words, "This is my body; this is my blood,''
the sacrament, whatever it may have meant
to the earliest believers, must inevitably have
been rationalized by the Greeks in line with
the sacramental meals of their own religion.
It was for them the Christian Mystery. This
idea, while a development, was thoroughly
in line with the earlier conceptions regard-
ing the sacrament; hence it was taken into
the body of Christian doctrine. Other non-
Christian ideas which sought entrance, such
as the doctrines of the Gnostics, were found
to be opposed to the genius of Christianity,
and were rejected by the Church. They were
supported for a time by small bodies of here-
tics and finally tapered off into oblivion.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 125

d. In a few instances, such as the symbolic use
of the cross, there was deliberate borrowing.
But this was done only with non-essentials,
where it seemed that a worthy custom or
idea should be allowed to do duty in the ser-
vice of Christ.

e. It is sometimes said that Paul took the ethi-
cal precepts of Christ and on them built a
sacramental religion. We have tried to show
in the past three Discussions that the sacra-
mental elements obtained in Christianity
from the first. In the matter of the Eucharist,
above referred to, it is evident from PauPs
letter to the Corinthians that the Mystery
connotation was already well known to them
when Paul wrote. His purpose in that letter
is not to establish, but to regulate it. I be-
lieve it to be demonstrable that Paul's service
to theology in every field which he touched
was rather in sj^stematizing and giving prac-
tical application to the doctrine of the Church
than in modifying the doctrine itself (save
probably in the doctrine of Justification by
Faith rather than by the Law) .

7. It does not follow that change is always true
development. It may be corruption. So the
problem of this lecture may be restated as follows:

Problem: How may we distinguish between true
development and corruption?

8. Criteria of true development.

a. It must not run counter to the spirit of the
Master's life and teaching, as gathered, not
from particular texts, but from the whole
record. For this purpose the study of origins
is not only permissible, but necessary.

126 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

b. It must be congruous with the genius of
Christianity, the whole course of valid de-
velopment up to that time. It must be a log-
ical deduction from the main stream of prior
doctrine.

c. It must not misinterpret, or leave out of ac-
count, any facts of Christian religious expe-
rience, and it must at the same time interpret
them in the language and spirit of the age.

d. It must work. It must tend to produce a
higher type of Christian life, both individual
and social.

9. The value of authority.

The view of doctrine taken in these discussions
does not involve lawless disregard for authority.
Says Dean Inge {Faith and its Psychology, p. 106) :
"Though we cannot for a moment admit that infalli-
bility resides in the decisions of any man, or council,
present or past, it would not be easy to over-estimate
the advantages of tradition in matters of Faith.
Each age is liable to be carried away by some domi-
nant idea, which soon becomes a superstition.
Authority has a steadying influence, forbidding us
to ignore doctrines which for the time are unpopular
and preserving to some extent 'the proportion of
Faith.' In these high matters the dead as well as
the living have a right to speak; and respect for
authority is the courtesy which we pay to the voices
of 'famous men and our fathers that begat us'.''

10. Conclusion.

Doctrine has developed gradually throughout
Christian history to epitomize and explain the facts
of Christian religious experience. The facts have
remained the same, but our explanation, our ability
to appreciate them, if you will, has developed. This

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 127

development, like all good works, we conceive to
have been effected through the inspiration of the
Spirit. But, since the Spirit was working through
human agencies, the infallibility of the results ob-
tained is not guaranteed. However, the authority
of a general concensus in favor of some doctrine
is very great. The doctrine may admit of further
development or reinterpretation ; but the chances of
total error are reduced to a minimum.

Since the Church is an organism, both its doctrine
and its institutions are constantly developing, —
otherwise the Church would be dead. It is not a
museum of ecclesiastical antiquities. It is fruitless,
therefore, to attempt to make the Church of today
conform to the standard of the sixteenth century,
or of the tenth, or of the first. It cannot bring back
the past, or live again the inner life of those times,
and conformity to them in outward appearances
only is faithlessness to their ideal. (See the essay
entitled The Relevancy of Religion in Part II.)

I trust that by a little I may have helped to make
it appear that the dogmas here dealt with are not
in conflict with science and that they do embody
the Christian experience of the ages, the mtnd of a
living Church.

If they do embody religious experience, they have
satisfied one of the scientific tests of truth, namely
the test of observation, — they fit all the observed
facts. But there remains one scientific test that
each man must apply for himself, namely the test
of experiment. The true scientist is never satisfied
to take the results of another's observation, he must
test them himself. Now each individual must, if he
be honest, try these doctrines in his own life, be-
fore he may either finally affirm or reject them. It
was in this way that Waggett persuaded Romanes,

128 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

who was then agnostic, of the truth of Christianity.
It was hardly fair, he said, that Romanes, a scientist,
should refuse to apply the method of experiment to
Christianity. Romanes agreed to make the experi-
ment, and in a year became convinced. If one will
honestly live for a year, as if believing in God and
in the future life, in the Incarnation and Atone-
ment, and in an organic Church and efficient sacra-
ments, the result of the experiment may be awaited
with confidence.

DISCUSSION XXII.

PRESENT DAY PROBLEMS.

The following topics are suggested for this final
Discussion.

1. What has the Church to contribute to the social
crisis? Should she advocate specific changes in so-
cial or industrial organization? Should she sup-
port specific remedial legislation ?

2. "What should be her attitude toward preven-
tion of war? Should she endeavor to effect a Truce
of God by threatening, as did the British labor
unions, to lay the country under an industrial inter-
dict, if war were declared unwarrantably? Is war
always sinful?

3. What should be her attitude toward philan-
thropy? Should she engage in institutional work
systematically, as a means of recruiting members;
or should she only do so in an emergency and until
some other agency should take up the work ? Should
the healing of the sick be one of her functions?

4. The reunion of Christendom. Is it advisable;
or would it, if accomplished, result in bigotry and
stagnation? If reunion is effected, how may these
results be avoided? Is reunion possible and would
it be permanent ? The method and terms of reunion :
— ecclesiastical alliances (such as the Federal Coun-
cil of Churches) ; spiritual accord and intercommu-
nion between independent organizations (as between
the Anglicans, Swedish, and Eastern Churches) ;

130 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

constitutional amalgamation. The Lambeth pro-
posals. What will the Church of the future be?
What element might each of the present divisions
of Christendom contribute?

PART II

THE RELEVANCY OF RELIGION.

Religious doubt today is quite as much pragmatic
as intellectual. For one man who regretfully puts aside his
religion because it seems to be at variance with modern
science and philosophy, there are five to whom the problem
never presents itself in the light of what William James
would call "a practical option", — who feel that religion has
no appreciable effect upon the conduct of the individual, or
the welfare of society, and that we are as well off without it.
Such views are held by very many men and women of the
highest integrity and the most sincere devotion to the service
of society. To them the issues which Christians have de-
bated and for which martyrs have shed their blood, even
the great fundamental questions of the existence of God and
of immortality, seem to be of small practical importance,
and religion itself to be irrelevant.

Such men are impressed by the discrepancy between the
ideals of Christianity and the conduct of individual Chris-
tians, by the failure of the Churches to make themselves
felt in the cause of civic righteousness and social betterment,
by the disproportion between the labor and wealth expended
upon the Churches and their influence in the world. On the
other hand they take notice of the tremendous efficiency of
welfare associations having no religious affiliations. Desir-
ing to use their effort where it will be most immediately
effective, they align themselves with such associations.

Another class, while acknowledging the value of reli-
gion in general, are unable to attach any practical impor-
tance to particular doctrines, or systems. All religious sys-
tems, say they, are working to the same end, so why concern
oneself with their differences? A good Methodist and a
good Presbyterian, a good Catholic and a good Protestant,

134 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

nay, a good Buddhist and a good Christian, all alike are
serving their fellow man and doing the will of God. If re-
ligious beliefs are to be measured by their fruits, how can we
discriminate between them?

Let us be perfectly frank about this. There is a grave
discrepancy between the ideals of Christianity and the con-
duct of Christians ; the Churches are not exerting the influ-
ence which one might expect of them ; the non-religious
associations are tremendously effective; Buddhism does pro-
duce its saints. And so the problem which these questioners
present is by no means trifling. Yet it seems to me that a
thoughtful analysis of each of these classes of objections in
turn will show that, after all, religion is relevant and be-
lief does matter.

In all questions concerning the conduct of the indi-
vidual it must be remembered that religion is only one factor,
and sometimes a very small factor. All the vast weight of
heredity and all the influence of environment, his home, his
business, his education, tell tremendously in the conduct of
the individual; and in all these respects no two men are
alike. Hence comparison between individuals is absolutely
worthless; the value of religion to the individual can only
be determined by a comparison of his conduct before the
element of religious belief was brought to bear upon him
and his conduct afterward. Here the evidence is overwhelm-
ing. From Augustine and Francis of Assisi to the men of
today described by Harold Begbie in his Twice Born Men,
tales which can be matched by any priest, or preacher, or
Salvation Army lassie, the power of religious belief to break
down old habits and regenerate the sinner is demonstrated.
That there is today so high a standard of morality among
those of no religious belief is perhaps to be explained by the
fact that they got their early training from God-fearing
parents and that the Churches are still able to set the stand-
ard for the nation. At any rate, if modern civilization shall
be able permanently to conserve morality in the absence of
the religious motive, it will be an achievement absolutely
unique in history.

True it is that non-religious welfare associations some-

THE RELEVANCY OF RELIGION 135

times outstrip the Cliurches in their efforts for social and
civic betterment. Yet is it not true that most of the sup-
port for these associations and most of the workers em-
ployed in them are members of Churches? And, after all,
is it the duty of the Church to engage directly in these en-
terprises, or rather to inspire its members to do the work
through outside agencies? The question is not by any
means easy to answer. Of a certainty, if there is work
of this sort pressing to be done and no other agency to un-
dertake it, the Church must not, like the priest and the Le-
vite in the parable, pass by on the other side. When, how-
ever, the city or state government, or some charitable or-
ganization, can be induced to take charge, should not it be
allowed to do so?

The first hospitals, the first schools, and the first alms-
houses in Western Europe and America, were maintained
by the Church. And its honorable preeminence in this re-
gard it has never lost. There is, however, in all welfare
work, apart from religion, an element of futility.

Reginald Campbell, the gifted English divine, when lec-
turing in this country shortly before the Great War, out-
lined the developments which he regarded as necessary
to the welfare of this country. "You must have," said
he, "prohibition of the liquor traffic, equal suffrage for
women, and adequate wages for labor. These things are
necessary to your well-being and I predict that they will
come. Yet, when all these reforms have been achieved, your
country will be not much the better for them. Nothing
will solve your problems but a new appreciation of religion.
You cannot have a new earth until you have a new heaven."

The fulfilment of this prophecy is startling. Pro-
hibition and woman suffrage have been written into the Con-
stitution, and until recently the wages of labor have been,
not only high, but exorbitant. Yet prohibition does not pro-
hibit; the votes of women have not apparently been cast
very differently from those of the men ; and labor was any-
thing but wise in spending its unhoped-for increment.

Half the w^orld starves and all the world is rent by na-
tional and racial suspicions, jealousies, and hatreds. Were
it not for sheer exhaustion, the nations of Europe would
again be flying at each other's throats. We in America sit

136 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

smugly by, thanking God that we are not as other men, re-
fusing to lift a finger to help our brothers, hugging our-
selves that we are well out of the mess, and fondly imagin-
ing that we can stay out. Meanwhile, hooded gangs of
cowards, some of them by day the first citizens in their
communities, override our land, intimidating the defenceless,
and out-matching the cruelties of the Spanish Inquisitors.
The millenium is as far off today as it ever was in all
history.

Right here is the crucial question. Either modern civili-
zation is well-founded and delectable, or at the worst in
need of only slight amendment, such as we may apply
through our welfare associations and peace treaties, or
else it is sick unto death and needs a drastic remedy. If
we are well pleased with civilization as it is, then religion
will make no appeal to us.

It is, indeed, just this self-satisfaction which is the
greatest hindrance to religious belief to-day. The natural
forces, of which but yesterday we stood in awe, are now be-
come our menials ; we have conquered a continent and
enormously increased our wealth ; we have given education
and the suffrage to everyone and have made the world safe
for democracy ; why should we not feel adequate to solve all
our problems unaided ! We have lost the feeling of awe, the
sense of dependence, the realization of sin, and the conviction
that salvation must be achieved through suffering, ideas
which have lain at the foundation of all religions since the
Stone Age. Our latest cult is based upon the total denial
of sin and suffering.

Self-suflficiency is absolutely fatal to religion. "I am
come," said the Master, "to call, not the righteous, but sin-
ners to repentance." No man, nor nation, can be truly re-
ligious to whom there does not come, at least now and
then, a terrific sense of impotence and unworthiness, the
mood to say with fearful heart the Dies Jrae.

One would think that the World War and the disorders
that have followed it would sufficiently warn us of the
dangers of this false security. But perhaps the warnings
will be unheeded. Christianity has reestablished a fallen
civilization once and it may have to do so again.

THE RELEVANCY OF RELIGION 137

The other class of objections goes, not to the importance
of religion in general, but to the value of specific doctrines.
All religions, so the argument runs, have the same goal, to
establish right relations between man and God and, as a
corollary, between man and man; all religions alike meas-
urably succeed ; while in all religions the great body of be-
lievers, though differing sharply in matters of doctrine, go
on sinning the same sins. From this it is deduced that it is
the intensity of conviction, rather than the nature of the
belief, which counts; that one belief is as good as another.
If this be true, and it is held very widely to be true, then
there is no basis for a science of religion, such as has been
attempted in these essays; for I have attempted to deduce
the beliefs of Christianity, not from external authority, but
from the facts of religious experience.

It should be noted in the first place that it is exceedingly
diflacult to evaluate specific beliefs on the basis of their ef-
fect upon the believer, since they are never found in the
pure state, but always as contained in a mixture with other
beliefs. Thus the belief in and practice of a mystical ex-
perience of God produces one result in the Quaker and quite
another in the Roman Catholic mystic, to say nothing of the
Buddhist. Even as to whole systems of belief the inquiry is
complicated by questions of race, customs, civilization, and
other non-religious influences. The Irish Roman Catholic
is a very different man, even in religious life, from his
brother of Italy.

The tendency of these other influences to obscure the in-
fluence of religious ideas varies, of course, inversely with
the strength of conviction behind the religious idea. Bergson
has pointed out that the efforts of biologists to differentiate
between the plant and the animal by taking the least devel-
oped species in each kingdom as a criterion, has proved un-
successful, since at that low point in development there is
actually no distinguishing feature; and that the difference
must be studied as it achieves its goal in the highest and
most differentiated species in each kingdom. So in religion.
The sinners of all religions are identical; it is only the
saints who are different.

138 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

To be sure the saints of all religions are alike in this,
that they are all good men. But their goodness, while of
the same degree, is of very different type. For example.
Savonarola, John Wesley, and Billy Sunday all led great
revivals, yet their aims, methods, and results differed
widely, largely owing to their differences in religious belief.
Francis of Assisi and General Booth were both lovers of
the poor, yet the Franciscan Friars and the Salvation Army
have little in common in their method of operation.

Differences of belief often outweigh identity of race and
environment. Part of the Hindus are Brahmans and part
Mohammedans. The former believe in a heaven consisting
of absorption into the Godhead ; they are mystics and paci-
fists. The latter believe in a warrior's heaven ; they are sol-
diers. The Puritan religion changed the easy-going, beef-
eating Englishman of Elizabeth's Merrie England to the
stern, hard-hitting Covenanter of Cromwell.

Now, in these essays and discussions the effort is made to
evaluate the doctrines of Christianity both on the basis of
the religious experience which produced them and of their
practical effect. For example, in connection with the doc-
trine of the Trinity it is pointed out, both that we instinct-
ively think of God as transcendent, immanent, and humanis-
tic, and also that those religions which have shut out any
one of these characteristics from their idea of God have in
turn distorted the lives of their followers. Those whose God
is transcendent merely, a distant monarch speaking his will
amid the thunders of Sinai, such a God as the English Puri-
tans and the modern Germans conceived of, tend inevitably
themselves to become cold and heartless and cruel. On the
other hand, the Buddhist, believing in a God who is imman-
ent only, becomes a dreamer, a quietist, looking for no
greater bliss than total extinction, or absorption into the
divine, impersonal essence of the universe.

In like manner, the doctrine of the Incarnation, the cor-
ollary of the doctrine of the Trinity, expresses the belief
that God not only may be described in terms of perfect hu-
manity, but that he has actually so manifested himself. The
doctrine was evolved, — so to speak, forced upon the con-
sciousness of Christendom, — as the only tenable explanation

THE RELEVANCY OF RELIGION 139

of the facts in the life of Jesus. Behold, now, how it reacts
again upon the lives of those in whose minds it is accepted.
It softens for us the austerity of the Hebrew idea of God
and the cruelty of the Mohammedan idea. Beyond a doubt
the career of the barbaric Germans who conquered imperial
Rome would have been vastly different had they been fol-
lowers of Mohammed. Unquestionably, the ideal of the
gentle Jesus did much to tame them and to hasten the res-
toration of Europe.

Nor is the force of this ideal by any means exhausted.
Well does Nietzsche, to whom the ethics of Christians are
an abomination, seek by ridicule and invective to discredit
their Master. There is ho hope for his ethics of force so
long as Jesus remains the ideal. It is not by accident that
Christendom, with all its faults and with its many failures
to live up to its ideal, has led the world in works of mercy
and charity.

When, now, the inquiry concerns present day differences
of belief within Christendom itself, between its two great
systems, we discern an equally close analogy between belief
and conduct. The differences in doctrine do bear fruit in
corresponding differences in practice. Far be it from
me to draw odious comparisons, or to allot to either system
unqualified praise or blame. In neither system is the issue
clear-cut; in each we find a group of beliefs, of some of
which we may approve and some of which we may disap-
prove. Yet, by and large, we may distinguish between Cath-
olics and Protestants in their conceptions of the Church, and
of sacraments.

The Catholic regards the Church as a divine organism,
possessing a sanction beyond that of the will of the indi-
vidual members, while to the Protestant the Church is a
voluntary association of individuals. The result of these
beliefs is that, while we find in the Protestant Churches a
constant tendency to split, in the Catholic world schisms
have come only through explosions which have shaken the
Church to its very base. Individually, the Protestant will
change his aflSliation with the greatest facility, while the
Catholic will cling to his through thick and thin. An ag-
nostic from Protestantism will regard the Christian faith

140 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

with easy-going tolerance, while the former Catholic will
repudiate it with bitter hatred. This devotion to the
Church as an institution makes for tremendous efficiency
in the Catholic system, an efficiency which, however, seems
to 'be overdone when it develops into the absolutism of the
Roman Church.

Similarly, the greater weight which the Catholic at-
taches to the sacraments colors his whole life. It is
apparent in the increased devotion and reverence to be
observed in his churches, where, as says Pratt in his Re-
ligious Consciousness, one realizes that the worshipers feel
that something Is really being done between themselves and
God. It sometimes seems that, while the Catholic is in
danger of seeking for God nowhere but in church, the
Protestant is in the opposite danger of seeking God every-
where in general and finding Him nowhere. So we find
that in their works of charity, though both equally abound,
their methods are entirely different. The Protestant is apt
to subordinate the religious element in his welfare work,
the Catholic to accentuate it. In the Protestant hospital
are white-uniformed nurses, in the Catholic black-habited
nuns.

Specific religious beliefs do affect and color our con-
duct tremendously. In the religious synthesis of the fu-
ture we must have both the loyalty and spirituality of the
Catholic and the sturdy independence of the Protestant.

When all is said and done, however, the value to the in-
dividual or to society, of religion, or of any particular re-
ligious doctrine, cannot be determined by dissecting it under
the microscope. As Bergson points out, we can get no ade-
quate knowledge of life except from within life. Religion
is either a vital process or it is nothing at all. How is one
to determine the effect of Christianity on society unless
society lives it; and this experiment has never been made.
How is one to determine the effect of Christianity upon
the individual unless he tries the experiment upon him-
self; and this experiment he can and should make. Only
so can he be true to the scientific spirit.

I mean by this experiment not only a conformance to
the ethical standards of Christianity, but a provisional ac-

TEE RELEVANCY OF RELWION 141

ceptance of each and every doctrine, no matter how unreas-
onable they may appear. Above all, I mean, to act upon
them : to practice prayer in the attitude that the prayer
will be answered ; to attend upon the Eucharist in the at-
titude that Christ is really present therein; to observe
Good Friday in the attitude that Christ did really die and
that in some way our own sin was concerned in that
death; to celebrate Easter in the attitude that Christ
did really rise from the dead and that in some way He has
broken the power of sin and death and enabled us like-
wise to conquer them. I say, is it not the only fair thing
to do, to give Christianity a trial, a thorough trial ; not
merely to dabble in it, but to throw oneself into its very
life for a space of time, say for a year ; to accept provision-
ally all its doctrines as true and to enter into its devotional
life as if they were true.

If then, at the end of the allotted time, Christianity
should still seem to be false or irrelevant, the experiment
would have been at least well worth trying. The outcome
of the experiment, however, if it is made in good faith, is
not likely to be disappointing.

DOGMA.

When Pilate, on trial before Jesus, seeking to justify
himself, propounded the riddle, "What is Truth?" he voiced
a question as old as the human mind. The ansv/ers have
been many, yet each fresh insight into the scheme of things
propounds the question anew, and no answer has ever re-
mained undisputed. For to answer this question correctly
involves, not only finding the Truth, but knowing it when
we have found it.

During the past century this question has been asked
again, perhaps with more insistence than ever before. The
skeptics, which class includes not only agnostics, but also
those who rely on religious authority, have given up the
quest as a vain undertaking. But the rest of us are still
convinced that it ought to be possible to give a reason for
the faith that is in us. And because theology in these lat-
ter days has not always had an answer ready, she has
seemed to be discredited.

The trouble with theology has been that s^ie inherited
from Thomas Aquinas the theory that the world is divided
into two kingdoms, the kingdom of Nature and the kingdom
of Grace. God, to be sure, reigned in each. But, while he
ruled the kingdom of Grace in person, he had let out the
kingdom of Nature, after creating it, to his vicegerent,
Natural Law. Man lay on the border between the two, his
body in one, his soul in the other. Yet that boundary was
perfectly distinct.

Such a theory worked admirably in the tidy little world
in which Aquinas found himself. On one hand it gave
seemingly unlimited scope for scientific investigation, while
on the other hand it set free the religious consciousness to
soar to heights limited by no trammels of human reason.
This Kingdom of Grace was not by any means lawless.
It was governed, however, not by Natural Law, but by

DOOM A 143

the direct fiat of the Almighty, as revealed in the Bible
and Church, a fiat answerable neither to human reason
nor human conscience.

The only trouble was that no sooner had Aquinas laid
out these kingdoms than men began moving the boundary
posts. The first scattered squads of invaders did not greatly
tax the prisons of the Holy Ofl5ce; but before long the
scientists began coming over by regiments. First this out-
post and then that one gave way ; and the history of theology
in the past five hundred years has been one of prolonged
retreat. With every stronghold which they defended the
theologians have insisted that, if this be given up, re-
ligion falls. Small wonder if people at last began to take
them at theiT word.

The past half century has been a period of bewilderment ;
the nouveaux riches of science have sometimes indulged in
wilful image-breaking ; while the nouveaux pauvres of theo-
logy have been feverishly cutting over their old clothes,
trying to make them hold out over the winter. The result
has been a chaos of intellectual and, what is worse, of
moral, values.

The friends of religion were at a loss. Each new pro-
nouncement of science seemed to deal them another blow.
They knew not where to stand. One held to this theory,
another to that. The preachers finally gave it up. When
half of their congregations believed that their grandfathers
were monkeys and the other half were equally assured that
they were descended from clay images, it was obviously
diflScult to preach a satisfactory sermon on the Creation.
If these opinions could have been segregated in separate
denominations, the case might have been more tolerable;
at least the mud-slinging might have gone on in the time-
honored way across ecclesiastical fences. But this new align-
ment cut straight across all the Christian bodies. So the
preachers concluded that the pews no longer cared for their
doctrinal sermons ; a conclusion in which there was much
practical wisdom, but which w^as always exactly half true.

Out of this chaos a new synthesis has been gradually
shaping. It has become apparent that it is fatuous to deny
the legitimate conclusions of science. It is equally apparent

144 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

that, despite all mishandling by foes and friends, religion
is still very muda alive and must be taken into account in
the scheme of things. The kingdoms of the Angelic Doctor
have been frankly abandoned. It has come to be seen that
God and Nature are not mutually exclusive; that Nature
is not godless, nor God unnatural. The facts of religion
are in nowise impunged, only our ways of explaining them.
Since the turn of the century we have achieved a new
orientation both of science and theology. For the first time
in ten centuries they talk the same language.

The outlines of this new synthesis have now been fairly
well established. Yet, strangely enough, the preachers seem
to be reluctant to proclaim it. This is not by reason of any
lack of sympathy with the new viewpoint, as most of them
will frankly admit in private. It seems to be rather for
fear of unsettling the convictions of those in their flocks
who have been trained in the old notions. Reversing the
advice of Saint [Paul, they feed milk to the aged. For this
excess of caution there was much reason fifty years ago.
There is none today. The generation coming up refuses to
be bottle-fed.

For five hundred years the Church has been on the de-
fensive. In every divinity school it has taught apologetics.
Its defenders have struck valiant blows; but they have
fought like men with their backs to the wall. Now, at
last, it is on the offensive. The champions of the new or-
thodoxy write with a vigor and reality and self-assurance
as refreshing as a cold plunge after a tepid bath. They
have rediscovered the origin and sanction of dogma. They
have demonstrated that dogma is not something imparted
arbitrarily by authority, as to which the consequences of
disbelief are to be felt mostly in the world to come; and
they have demonstrated that dogma is evolved to classify
and explain the facts of religious experience. Dogma, as
has been said by W. G. Peck, is dominating conviction;
and, like any profound conviction, it flowers naturally
forth in human conduct. In short, a dogma is not a fiat,
but a formula.

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY.

Imagine, if you will, a telephone operator, housed up
from birth in a little room with neither door nor window.
All day the messages come in over the wires from every part
of her city. Sometimes the messages give her bits of in-
formation, not requiring action on her part ; they tell her of
a beautiful river, a tree, or a band playing, or perchance
they describe the outside of the exchange, how the wires
are carried and what sort of instruments are at the other
end of the line. Sometimes they tell her of a fire, and these
she connects with the fire department and orders it to the
scene. Perhaps a murder is being committed, and she calls
out the police.

But she does much more than receive and transmit mes-
sages, for hers is no automatic telephone. Of every message
the operator keeps a copy, which she files in a pigeon-hole
in which are other like messages.

Herein is a parable of ourselves. Our information of
the outside world all comes to us over our nerves. These
sense impressions we call percepts. We take their word
for it as to what is going on in the world. When the mes-
sages come in which call for any activity, we send out
orders over the wire. We relate all our percepts with
similar percepts received in the past and out of them we
abstract the part which we deem essential. This abstract
image, or concept, we file away in the memory, along with
previous similar concepts. For instance, I see a piece of
cloth with red and White stripes and with white stars on a
blue field. I do not remember all the little details as to
material, texture and color; I relate this percept of a piece
of cloth to other similar percepts stored in my memory,
which I have called flags, and so I remember it.

146 GRAMMAR OP BELIEF

The outside world, as it is made up for me, consists in
the sum total of these concepts.

I distinguish between concepts in several ways. I dis-
tinguish between those which are simultaneous ; and the
measure of their distinctness I call space. I distinguish
between those which are not simultaneous ; and the meas-
ure of their distinctness 1 call time. I arrange them in
groups and call the groups phenomena. I note that some
groups always follow other groups ; and I call the precedent
group cause and the subsequent group effect.

To return to our telephone operator. She is never indif-
ferent to the messages that come in. Every message affects
her. One makes her glad, another makes her sad. One
gives her pleasure, another pain. Some make her very
angry. Now and then, when she gets angry enough, she
pulls out the plug and refuses to answer any more calls on
the offending line. Sometimes, when business is dull, she
falls to musing as to what the messages really mean, whether
her informants are telling her the truth, how she came
there, what the exchange is for, and whether, if it is des-
troyed, she is going to come out alive. In musing thus she
takes account, not only of what the messages tell her of
the outside world, but of what she knows of the inside of
the exchange and of how she works. In other words, she
constructs a philosophy of life.

Now, in any philosophy of life it should be noted, first
of all, that I have information of myself, both from the in-
side and from the outside. For example, a snake lies be-
fore me and 1 reach out and touch it. I see the snake and I
see and feel the motion of my hand through the air and then
I feel the snake. So much I know of my action from the out-
side. But that is only half the story. I am also aware of
willing, or intending, the motion of my arm ; and, when
my hand touches the snake, I am aware of a feeling of fear
and of loathing. These things I know from the inside only.

Of the two aspects of reality the inside is the more
intimate. I know my conscious mental processes immediately.
In fact these processes only possess for me absolute logical
certitude. The outside world I can never know except

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 147

through the sense impressions that come to me. It is logi-
cally impossible to prove that I am not the whole of the
universe. I know, furthermore, that my senses are incom-
plete and often contradictory. For example, a rapidly re-
volving wheel appears to have nothing hetween the rim
and the hub, but my sense of touch reveals the existence
of spokes. There are waves of light and sound beyond
those that affect my eye and ear; 1 cannot perceive the
waves used in wireless telegraphy; and I know that the
dog's sense of smell is more acute than mine. I, however,
make the assumption that there is an objective Something
behind the sense impressions and that what they tell me
is valid as far as it goes. Such an assumption is perfectly
legitimate; yet, it is, after all, an act of faith.

My sense impressions tell me, among other things, of the
existence of other human bodies, who appear to conduct
themselves as I conduct myself. I have, therefore, the
right to assume, and I do assume, that if 1 could get inside
of them, I should find that the inside view of them cor-
responds to the inside view of myself, or rather that their
inner aspect bears the same relation to their outer aspect
as does mine. Here again I make an act of faith which
is i^erfectly legitimate.

Yet, while I may and ought to believe in the existence
of the outside universe, and reason about it, I must reason
from the inside out and not from the outside in. To re-
sume the picture of the telephone girl, she must begin with
what she herself knows of the inside of the exchange, not
what someone tells her over the wires.

The first thing to observe about myself is that 1 never
receive any message with indifference. It makes me glad
or sad, it gives me pleasure or pain, comfort or discomfort.
This effect, in the lingo of the psychologist, is affection.
The message has this effect, not alone by reason of what
it contains, but by reason of what I myself am. A beauti-
ful piece of music tiirills me with pleasure. Yet there is
nothing, intrinsically, in a certain series of vibrations to
account for this effect, and I should be hard put to it to
explain just what there was in the music which gives me

148 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

this emotion. This inherent tendency, or set, of the mind,
which is the subjective factor in psychological affection,
we will, for want of a better name, call a "sense".

I find, first of all, that I have a very strongly developed
sense for self-preservation. If I shonld be chained to the
railroad track, a train bearing down upon me would cause
not only discomfort, but abject terror.

I have, also, a sense for love, a tendency to want com-
panionship, a desire to have others like me, and an equally
strong desire to like others. This sense is fully as strong
as the sense for self-preservation. Indeed, in the mother
it frequently overpowers the sense for self-preservation and
she willingly and gladly courts death for the sake of her
offspring.

Closely akin to the sense for love, perhaps a corollary
of it, is the sense for loyalty. Man is, we say, a social crea-
ture. He is incomplete without the give and take of asso-
ciation with his fellows. "He that saveth his life shall
lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find
it." Man evaluates his fellows largely by this standard.
All the world loathes a traitor.

The next item of mental baggage of which I take note
is a sense for rationality, the urge or tendency to arrange
my concepts in logical sequence of cause and effect. I have
an inherent abhorrence of a helter-skelter universe. I will
not rest for long content, as has been said, with mere cos-
mic weather.

I find also a sense for activity, an impulse to do something
about my world. The matter cannot be better stated than
has been done by William James in his Sentiment of Ration-
ality :

"It is far too little realized how entirely the intellect
is built up of practical interests. The theory of evolution
is beginning to do very good service by its reduction of
all mentality to the type of reflex action. Cognition, in this
view, is but a fleeting moment, a cross section at a certain
point of what in its totality is a motor phenomenon. In
the lower forms of life no one will pretend that cognition
<s anything more than a guide to appropriate action. The

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 149

germinal question concerning things brought for the first
time before consciousness is not the theoretic 'What is
that?' but the practical 'Who goes there?' or rather, as
Horwicz has admirably put it, 'What is to be done?' —
'Wa8 fang' ich an?' — In all our discussions about the in-
telligence of lower animals, the only thing that we use is
that of their acting as if for a purpose. Cognition, in short,
is incomplete until discharged in act; and although it is
true that the later mental development, which attains its
maximum through the hypertrophied cerebrum of man,
gives birth to a vast amount of theoretic activity over and
above that which is immediately ministerial to practice,
yet the earlier claim is only postponed, not effaced, and the
active nature asserts its rights to the end.

"When the cosmos in its totality is the object offered to
consciousness, the relation is in no whit altered. React on
it we must in some congenial way. It was a deep instinct
in Schopenhauer which led him to reinforce his pessimistic
argumentation by a running volley of invective against the
practical man and his requirements. No hope for pessimism
unless he is slain !"

Let us go behind the scenes of this Punch-and-Judy
show of ours once more. We find another sprite pulling on
the wires, — a sense for purpose. When the savage in the
jungle sees a bough suddenly waving, he not only asks,
"Who goes there?" and "What shall I do?" but "What is it
doing that for?" Our primitive ancestors all asked this
question; and it was by virtue thereof that they got to be
our ancestors. The others left no descendents ; but per-
ished in the flower of their youth. And so we steadfastly
refuse a squirrel-cage universe.

If I have not wearied you with this analysis, I bid you
look again behind the scenes. We find yet another sense, the
sense for right. No sooner does man say, "I am," than he
begins to say, "I ought". Coincidently with the rise of self-
consciousness came the sense of responsibility. From the gray
drawn of history man beats upon his breast and cries, Pec-
cavi. The taboo of the African savage, like the Code of
Justinian, is an answer to the question, "What ought I to

150 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

do?" The mental tendency, or urge, which drives us to ask
this question, and which makes us uncomfortable until we
have answered it, is the sense for right.

There is yet another sense of which we must take ac-
count. And here I would give you a story told by William
James in The Dilemma of Determinism.. A man, he says,
was recently on trial for murder of his wife. He testified
that she bored him, and so to get rid of her he inveigled her
into a desert spot and shot her four times. As she lay on
the ground she looked up to him and said, "You didn't do
it on purpose, did you, dear?" "No," he replied, "I didn't
do it on purpose," as he raised a rock and smashed her
skull. The prisoner, said James, was given a mild sen-
tence and left the court-room well satisfied with himself.

I confess that, often as I have read this story, I can not
read it without seeing red. I have an insensate desire to
go out and find that man and put an end to his miserable
existence. His act, and even the telling of it, seems to
blaspheme all that I hold sacred. Now, why does such a
proceeding create in us a red rage? Because it does violence
to our sense for justice.

We find ourselves, also, with a tendency to look up to
some other being, human or supernatural, as an ideal. We
want always to be pursuing the gleam. It bores us ever to
quite arrive. We want a touch of awe in our universe.
What may I call this but a sense for reverence?

This catalogue does not by any means exhaust our in-
herent senses. There is, for example, our sense for beauty,
that mysterious something within us which tunes our ear
to the music of the spheres, and which has baffled all at-
temps at analysis. But that sense does not concern us here.

Now, it should be noted that these senses are not, in
themselves, guides of conduct. Our sense for self-preserva-
tion does not, for instance, tell us what conduct will work
for the well-being of the organism. We have no infallible
monitor to warn us against lobster salad at midnight. That
is for the intellect to determine by the method of trial and
error. The sense for self-preservation simply asks the
question and stands over us till we answer it. The case is

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 151

not otherwise with our sense for right. It drives us to ask
of every act of ours, "Ought I?" The African savage
makes one answer, the Roman lawyer another. The signif-
icant thing is the question, not the answer. The conscience
is not a judge. It is rather a bailiff who brings the parties
litigant before the bar of the intellect, and who, when the
intellect has pronounced judgment, proceeds to enforce it.

Let us now apply these ideas to our philosophy. Our
datum is, as we have seen, the percepts that come flooding
in upon us. The first thing we do to these percepts is to
arrange them. Without arrangement we could not even
begin to remember them. Try for yourself how hard it is
by a sheer effort of memory to retain and recall a jumble
of unrelated facts. Our memory experts tell us that we must
associate our ideas. We 'are to associate the name of Mr.
Smith with his fire red hair, the name of Mr. Jones with
his Roman nose, the name of Mr. Brown with that old-
fashioned watch fob that he wears.

But we not only seek to remember, we seek to under-
stand. The moment we seek to pass from Wissen to
Kennen, the moment we seek to understand or comprehend
a thing, at that moment we begin to synthetize it by identity
with, or difference from, other things.

Now, this grouping, whether for the purpose of remem-
bering or for the purpose of understanding, goes on congru-
ently with one or other of these senses of which I have
been speaking. The scientist takes the results of his
experiments. He feels uneasy, for he cannot "understand"
them, which is to say that they do not fit in with any other
facts; they do not satisfy his sense for rationality. He
tries them in this way and that way; he turns them over
and about; he may find that they don't belong where he
thought they did, or that he will have to rearrange his whole
series to accommodate them. At last, however, they fit
snugly with the other facts of his experience in a rational
series of cause and effect. A bell rings somewhere within
him ; he now "understands" his fact, and his sense for ra-
tionality is satisfied.

So with the lover. His fair one is coy. Yesterday she
wrote to him. To-day she refuses his invitation to a dance.

152 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

He turns all these things over in his mind ; she loves me,
she loves me not. He rests not till he knows her ansv^rer.
All other judgments are suspended. What care I, says he,
how fair she be, if she be not fair to me. And if, at last,
she bids him hope, the stars of heaven sing for joy. If per-
chance, she refuses his suit, does he thereby conclude that
there is no reality which corresi)onds with his sense for
love? Perhaps, for a time; but not for long. Regretfully
he turns his back and goes on searching, inveterate lover
that he is, sure that somewhere, somehow, the universe
holds for him a love that answers his. And when he finds
that love, as surely he will if he pursues his quest, the bell
rings, and he, like the scientist, is content, for he has satis-
fied his sense for love.

Why is it, as I have said, that the human race has from
age to age mulled over the problem of evil ? There is no prob-
lem of good. It is because we expect the universe to be good
and not bad. Yet why should we expect this? Solely be-
cause a universe inherently bad does violence to our sense
for right and our sense for justice.

But, it may be said, you are making man the measure of
all things. Yes, frankly, I am, for I have no other measuring
rod. Aut Caesar, aut nullus. The only alternative is in-
tellectual nullity. "But," say you, "there is the external uni-
verse ; why not use it for the measuring rod ; here at least
you have objective reality and are not dependent on sub-
jective ideas." Please go back now with me to the begin-
ning and recall that all we know of the outside universe is
our sense impressions. Remember that there is no logical
refutation of solipsism, and that we have arrived at the
conclusion that there is an objective reality behind these
sense impressions by an act of sheer faith. Now just for a
moment let me ask you why we make this act of faith :
why not remain in solitary grandeur, the monarch of all
we survey. Simply because, like Alexander Selkirk, we
find solitude intolerable, it violates our sense for love. Also
because w^e find inactivity intolerable. We want something
to push against. A universe that does not hit back violates
our sense for activity.

And so you make the assumption that there is an out-

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 153

side universe and that it will be found to satisfy our sense
for rationality. But, having called it into being in order to
satisfy certain mental tendencies, you can not logically stop
there. It is all or none. I Insist that we should reject as
false, or at least as incomplete, any explanation of phe-
nomena which violates our sense for right, or for justice,
or for love, or for reverence, just as we reject an explana-
tion which violates our sense for rationality.

But, you say, you are reasoning with a shovel. You
have lumped together all sorts of things and called them
"senses," you have got primary, congenital instincts and ac-
quired characteristics all together in one category. 1
might counter by asking you, what is an instinct. But I
won't stop over verbal niceties, because the fundamental
difficulty is that you have grabbed up the wrong yard-
stick again. You persist in measuring my mental tendencies
by the external universe. This leads you round and round
in a circle.

In my childhood I was much impressed with the fable of
a snake that ate up everything in sight. Finally, when all
other provender failed, the snake began on his own tail
and continued until he had eaten himself up.

Now that is exactly the case with the materialistic phi-
losopher.

The truth of the matter is that in any system of philos-
ophy you have got to start somewhere. I prefer to proceed
from the known to the unknown ; from the thinker to the
thing thought about. So it makes no whit of difference at
what stage these mental tendencies of ours have arisen, or
whether they are simple or composite. Of course, you
can't box off the mental life into this or that cubby-hole,
and speak of a sense for right as distinct, for Instance,
from the sense for justice. The divisions are arbitrary, just
as are all categories of science or philosophy; but they do
in the main describe our mental equipment. I take the nor-
mal, adult human being as I find him.

But, says the materialist, why take the adult; why not
take the child? You do not find all your "senses" in the
child. To this I would reply, in the first place, wiiy stop
at the child? Why not go back to the embryo, to the germ,

154 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

back further yet to the ancestor, and so on and on. Useful
as the study of origins may be, there are many fields in
which it is of no assistance. The oyster does not tell me
much about my soul. We judge the mind, as says William
James in his Varieties of Religious Experience, by its fruits,
not by its roots.

I would make further reply to the materialist with a tu
quoque. If the sense for love, for right, or for justice, are
developed during life under the stimulus of the environment,
so also is the sense for rationality and even the sense for
self-preservation. The infant has no fear, nor any tendency
to avoid that which will injure him. On the contrary, any
father of children will tell you that they seem to have a
positive mania for self-destruction, and have to be watched
constantly to keep them from doing away with themselves.
The child develops a sense for love probably before the
sense for self-preservation and certainly before the sense
for rationality. That sense is, in fact, among the last to ap-
pear upon the scene.

To be sure, our mental tendencies develop during life.
It would be too much to expect that we, like Athene, should
spring full armed from the brain of our parent. But if
modern biology has taught us anything, it has taught us
that all the great mainsprings of conduct correspond to a
mysterious potentiality inherent in the very germ. There
is no plant but was seed. If we innately lacked the capacity
for love or reverence, no training could put it there. There
are, in the modern garden, no trees of the knowledge of
good and evil. Anyhow, I, for one, cannot but feel that
the very fact that our spiritual equipment has been shaped
in the rough and tumble with environment, makes it a
worthy instrument whereby to take account of that en-
vironment.

Returning to the fray, your materialist will contend that
we have no right to use liiese senses as a measuring stick,
because they vary in different individuals and are in some
individuals lacking in part, and we have no philosophical
bureau of standards. Here, of course, he is in a measure
right. It is precisely because of this that we have these
differences in systems of philosophy. It is because some

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 155

men deliberately throw away one or all of ttie measuring
sticks that they arrive at different conclusions. But should
we, for that, throw them all away? To do that would be to
abandon all philosophy, even the materialistic, and to say
with the skeptic, "I doubt even that I doubt". From such
mental hara-kiri the Lord deliver us.

The fact is that the variations in mental equipment are
not so great as our materialist imagines. They are prob-
ably not so great as the variations in physical equipment.
Physical color blindness is at least as common as mental;
yet, for that, we do not refuse the evidence of our senses.
If we are building a house, we do not wait to send our
foot-rule to Washington and our compass to Annapolis for
correction. The business of our eternal salvation presses;
we must go on with what tools we have. We do, however,
get rid of the workmen whose measuring rods are too
far at variance from the average. Those who lack the
sense for rationality we confine in lunatic asylums. Those
without the sense for right and for justice in prisons.

At any rate, the rationalist need not in this respect adopt
an air of superiority, as though the sense for rationality
were better standardized or more universal than the sense
for right or justice. The lunatic asylums are just as full
as the prisons.

There is, however, another aspect of Reality of which
we must take account. The universe, whether we regard it as
an external entity or as a procession of mental images, is
not supine. It hits back. If I go into a dark room, not know-
ing that a chair is there, I crack my shins on it nevertheless.
Now the rationalist claims that with his measuring rod he
can explore the universe to its limits and find his way back
in safety, and that his calculation will come out even;
whereas the moralist is continually cracking his shins and
finding that his measuring rods are incommensurate with
Reality.

The truth of the matter is, however, that the rationalist's
measuring rod is by no means perfectly commensurate with
Reality. At the bottom of every system of science lies an
antinomy. Take, for example, the concept of the ether,
which was hit upon to explain the transmission of light.

156 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

Light, on this hypothesis, is conceived as waves in ether.
Now, since light is transmitted without diminution to any
distance, however great, it must follow that the medium is
perfectly elastic, that is to say, perfectly rigid. Any sub-
stance which is in the least mushy will eventually obliterate
a wave motion. Sound, for example, does not travel far,
because it is transmitted through the air, which is not per-
fectly elastic. So, then, the ether must be more rigid than
steel. On the other hand, the heavenly bodies in passing
through the ether are not in the least slowed down, there
is absolutely no friction. Hence the ether must be more
tenuous than any material substance. Take an example
nearer home. There is a relationship between bodily states
and mental states, so that changes in consciousness corres-
pond to changes in brain structure. Yet no rationalist or
materialist can in the least translate movements of atoms
or molecules into sight or hearing, much less into love or
hate. The rationalist does not, however, on that account
throw away his measuring rod, nor ought he; but he uses
it so far as he can and seeks ever a synthesis in which at
last his method will be completely justified. Thus, science
ends, as it began in an act of faith.

The case is not otherwise with religion. The moralist,
like the rationalist, comes to grief right often in exploring
Reality. He finds that his measuring rods will not always
fit. He starts out to find a good universe and a righteous
universe and he finds much sorrow and much sin. Not so
much, however, by far, as the pessimistic school would have
us believe. J. Arthur Thomson, the eminent student of
comparative biology, in his recent work entitled The System
of Animate Nature, has done good service in dispelling the
notion that nature is one long struggle for the right to be,
a ruthless fight to the death. Struggle, indeed we do, both
brute and man. But who wants to be wafted to the skies
on flowery beds of ease? And more often than not, both
with brute and man, — and increasingly so with man, — the
struggle, as Thomson points out, is merely the effort of
the individual to adjust himself to the environment.

The religionist proposes remedies for this maladjust-
ment, which he bids us use, confident that in the larger

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 157

synthesis, which must include the Hereafter, his method
will find justification. And so religion, like science, ends
in an act of faith, a sublime and radiant Sursum corda.

Reviewing thus material phenomena in the light of our
religious senses, we seem to come inevitably to the con-
clusion that the world is moral and hence that there is a
God, and that man is moral and hence a really free agent,
and that there is a life eternal to redress the wrongs in
this. These and other doctrines of theism would seem to
be established by a correct evaluation of material phenom-
ena alone.

Religion, however, is, or claims to be, much more than
a way of regarding the external world. It claims to have
data of its own, as well as a method, distinct from science.
It asserts that it has an insight into Reality, a religious
experience. It aflirms, not only that God is, but that He
is the rewarder of all who trust in Him.

Now, if such be the case, the religious experiences ought
to be tested and analyzed by the same methods which are
employed by science. No more should be claimed for them
than the evidence warrants. If they shall prove not to be
capable of establishment, religion is not thereby overthrown,
since it rests secure upon our well-warranted and inherent
tendency to find a religious rationale of the universe. "We
ought, still, to say with Job, "Though He slay me, yet will I
trust in Him". But if the religious experience proves to be
true, it furnishes convincing experimental justification of
this rationale.

Without examining the whole field of religious phenom-
ena, let us confine ourselves to the experience of subjective
answer to prayer, which is crucial to the whole matter. It
will, of course, be agreed on all sides that prayer powerfully
affects the one who prays. It gives him courage and clear-
ness of vision, dispels doubts and shows him a way out of an
impasse in his affairs ; it produces within him a sense of
the immediate presence of God ; in very many cases it cures
a bodily ailment. The phenomena of religious experience
may be found in any book on religious psychology, notably
William James, Varieties of Religious Experience, George
Albert Ck>e, The Psychology of Religion, and James B. Pratt,

158 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

The Religious Consciousness. Wtiile the facts are not in
dispute, they are, owing to their subjective nature, peculiarly
difficult to evaluate. A very keen analysis has been made
by Will Spens in his lectures entitled. Belief and Practice,
to whom I am very largely indebted for what follows.

There is one very obvious difference between religious
experience and the physical experiences which we seek to
systematize in scientific study. If you go into a dark room
you will knock your shins against a chair, which happens to
be there in your path, entirely irrespective of your belief
as to the existence, presence, and nature of the chair. On
the other hand, the effect of your prayers, or of your parti-
cipation in the sacraments, is very largely dependent on your
expectations; more than that, it is not probable that the
effects will be considerable if your expectation is merely
pragmatic. You will probably not obtain spiritual benefit
apart from some ultimate conception as to the basis of the
benefit On that distinction has been based the charge that
religious experience is simply the outcome of self-sugges-
tion. The facts must, therefore, be analyzed to determine
whether they display elements which can not be so explained.

The fact that religious experience, in general, involves
more than an antecedent expectation, that it depends on a
belief as its basis, is an argument against the self-sugges-
tion theory. It becomes a very strong argument in view of
the unexpectedness of grace, in view of the fact that, while
the experience is in accordance with underlying belief, it is
very often not in accordance with the particular expectations
that were in the mind of the individual concerned. It is a
phenomenon of the spiritual life, a phenomenon to which
many writers have drawn attention, and which few stu-
dents of that life would hesitate to affirm, that prayer for
grace is commonly not answered in accordance with the ex-
pectation of the answer. The grace supplied, or the fruit
of the grace sought, is found to be different from that ex-
pected, although as effective, or more effective. This is a
fact that cuts right across the view that the experience in
question is simply the outcome of expectation. It implies
that, while not only expectation but some definite belief as

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 159

to its basis are a normal condition of spiritual experience,
expectation is not the cause of that experience.

Rejoinder may be made to this argument that the phe-
nomenon is still explicable on the hypothesis of self-sugges-
tion, in the view that the original ideas had undergone
transformation while in the subconscious. iPsycho-therap-
ists aflarm that an id^e fixee may take a form entirely un-
expected when echoed back into consciousness; just as,
if you should let down a fish box containing a tadpole,
you might be surprised on hauling it up to find a frog.
The answer to that objection would seem to be that, if you
let down the fish box several times, each time with a tadpole
in it, and it came up containing now one sort of fish and now
another, you would be fairly justified in assuming that the
fish came in from the outside, rather than that the tadpoles
had developed in such discrepant ways. Now this is exactly
what happens in religious experience ; the circumstances
from which relief is sought being the same and the prayer
being the same, the answers will be, not only unexpected,
but various. When a prayer for guidance results, as such
prayers often do result, in an intuition leading toward a
course of conduct that runs counter, not only to the expecta-
tion of the one who prays, but to his dearest wish, the possi-
bility of such an intuition arising by self-suggestion is
small. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the
answer came from without.

The evidence is, of course, cumulative. The experience
of a single individual is not decisive. The weight of the
testimony of experiments in all ages, races, and religions
is very great indeed.

A second objection to the self-suggestion theory is still
broader. If belief is not merely a condition of spiritual ex-
perience, but its source, then we ought to find that any
belief which produced expectations of spiritual experience
and was strongly held, should produce that experience. We
should find the significant factor to be, not so much the
character of the belief which underlay expectations, but the
strength with which the belief and the expectations were
held. We ought not to find any strong tendency in favor of

160 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

the selection and survival of particular underlying con-
ceptions.

Now, we find in the study of comparative religions that
certain conceptions, for example the conception of an Incar-
nation and Atonement, are continually cropping up in dif-
ferent directions and in different forms. The varied exis-
tence of these doctrines is not to be explained by the sur-
vival of a common primitive religion held by some stock
from which different nations sprang. In the first place,
there is no evidence to support a theory of the common
origin of all religions. But, even if that were so, these ideas
could hardly have had such universal survival, unless the
ideas had had some special effectiveness. It is very dif-
ficult to resist the conclusion that the particular beliefs, just
because of their character, have worked better than other be-
liefs.

It seems to me that we are bound to say, that wTiile spir-
itual experience may not be possible without belief, it is
not merely dependent on expectation, but depends on the
conformity of underlying beliefs to particular types. In
the measure in which the beliefs approximate these types,
in that measure they appear to possess a special effective-
ness, which has given them survival value. Our attitude and
efforts appear to be so oriented by certain beliefs as to make
possible experience otherwise unattainable, — the underlying
belief has a special relation to Reality, it is in some manner
objectively determined.

These considerations fortify the conclusion as to the ex-
istence of God which may be derived from the external uni-
verse, with experimental proof of a peculiarly intimate na-
ture.

But it may be objected that the religious experience is
not uniform and the dogmatic systems derived from it
vary greatly. The case, however, is no better for science.
The detection of Hertzian waves is a matter of yesterday.
Neptune has swung around the sun from all eternity and we
found her only a century ago. Surely we do not differ from
the Hottentot more in religious than in scientific experience.
There is not more difference between Mohammedanism and
Christianity than between pre-Darwinian and post-Darwin-

THE GRAMMAR OF THEOLOGY 161

Ian biology. Newton taught the corpuscular theory of light.
We hold the undulatory, because it better epitomizes the
facts of experience. Einstein appears to have demonstrated
that it, too, is at fault and will have to be modified. We
regarded electricity first as a fluid, then as waves in the
ether, now as a fluid again, but a very different sort of
fluid than our first conception.

I believe it to be demonstrable that all religious expe-
rience is at base very similar. We are prone to forget
this, because we have been taught the differences, rather
than the similarities, between our faith and others. Yet
there are, of course, differences both in religious experience
and in accuracy of deduction. We hold to Christianity,
rather than Mohammedanism, both because we are convinced
that it embodies more valid religious experience, including
the unique experience of Jesus and the experiences of his
followers throughout the ages, and also because we feel that
its doctrines epitomize and explain religious experience more
accurately than those of Mohammedanism.

Whether in the field of what we call material phenonena,
or in the field of What we call spiritual phenomena, there
is a scientific exi)erience and there is a religious experience,
— an outside and an inside view of the same phenomena.
It follows that the two systems, natural law and dogma,
operate on different planes, so to speak. They take account
of different aspects of Reality. Neither may legitimately
contradict the conclusion of the other upon its own plane.

Natural laws are formulas worked out to epitomize the
facts of scientific experience. Thus the laws of gravitation
are formulas which describe the motion of one body in the
presence of another. But they do much more; they enable
us to repeat for ourselves the experiments performed by
another. Expressed more technically, the natural law medi-
ates scientific experience.

So with dogma. A religious doctrine to be valid must
fulfil four requirements. First, it must be congruous with
the legitimate conclusions of science. Truth is one, and our
conclusions and explanations in one field of experience may.

162 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

and should, be tested by what we learn in other fields.
Secondly, it must epitomize and explain religious expe-
rience, not only the limited experience of any of us as in-
dividuals, but the experience of the human race as a whole.
It must, also, mediate religious experience. It must enable
us to repeat in our own lives the religious experience out
of which the doctrine grew. For example, the doctrine
of the Incarnation enables us to bring home to ourselves
the personality of Jesus, so that he will produce in us that
devotion with which he inspired his first disciples. Finally,
the doctrine must evoke right action; it must work.
If any doctrine, when put to the test, shall be found
to lower the ethical tone of the believer, then we have a
right to assume that it is false, or at least incomplete. The
dogma of the Trinity is a conclusion drawn from our ex-
perience that God is at once transcendent, immanent, and
humanistic. It also mediates religious experience. In the
light of that dogma we revere him as transcendent, we
commune with him as immanent, and we love him as hu-
manistic. A theology lacking either of these elements leads
to a religious life which lacks them also.

This, then, is the grammar of theology, the underlying
principles on which it is based. It is not based on arbit-
rary dogmas imposed by authority. It is built up to epit-
omize and explain and mediate religious experience. It is
the science of the religious life.

THE NICENE IDEA OF GOD.*

Three men sat in the library of their club, — a Priest,
a Lawyer, and a Captain of Infantry, home on leave. As
they looked into the fire billowing up from logs on the
hearth the Captain broke the silence.

"Peculiar thing, Parson, the absolute religious faith of our
boys over there, coupled with comparative disregard for
Churches and creeds. The world is fast becoming a huge
revival meeting. The men in the trenches have stood for one,
two, or three years in the anteroom of God. Many times a
day a comrade's name is called and he has marched through
the door. They live always in the Presence. No wonder
they are changed.

"What a mental explosion must have taken place to
have broken down Anglo-Saxon reserve and produced such
diaries and letters as we are getting from the men in the
trenches.

"Meanwhile, the families of those wiio have gone beyond
are striving to break down the barrier. They feel sure that
they can do this by the aid of mediums, and perhaps they
are right. At any rate, they, too, have found peace for their
souls. The significance of this for organized Christianity
is that they, like the men in the trenches, are not beholden
for their religion to the Churches. Spiritualism, they fer-
vently hold, is their sufficient religion.

"They are storming heaven; but they are doing without
the oflficial guides. I tell you this new religion is more
dangerous to your Churches than the old-time agnosticism.
A man with an idea is a dangerous character.

"I feel just as the rest do about your theology ; yet in a
way I regret that you cannot adapt the old teachings to this
new spirit. For I tell you that, unless someone brings bottles,

'Reprinted by permission from The Billical Worlds November, 191'8.

164 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

this new wine Is going to be drunk to intoxication, or else
allowed to run away and be lost."

"Where would you begin your reconstruction?" inquired
the Priest.

"Right at the beginning," said the Soldier. "Do away
with such a contradiction in terms as a Trinity. The God
for me is an Invisible King, a Captain of the Host, not an
Abstraction. I think Wells has shown the absurdity of any
other concept."

"Mr. Wells would be more convincing," replied the Priest,
"if he appeared to understand what the doctrine of the
Trinity really means. We have never understood it to mean
what he says it means. But passing that, it seems to me
that Mr. Wells is much nearer to the Christian theology than
he knows, for the God of whom he conceives is in fact none
other than the Second Person of the Trinity. The trouble
with Mr. Wells is that he became so impressed with his
discovery that he has entirely overlooked the other two Per-
sons. His conception of the nature of God is, therefore, one
sided. The three elements are essential to a well-balanced
idea of the Deity."i

"Aren't you rather severe on the gentleman for what you
call his misconception of the Nicene dogma of the Trinity?"
replied the Soldier. "If he has misconceived it, aren't you
theologians to blame? Who knows what it means, anyhow?
I will confess that I have had much the same idea about it
as Wells."

"Then," said the Priest, "neither you nor Wells should
condemn it until you have informed yourselves as to what
it really is."

"Where would you have me go," replied the Soldier,
"to find that out? 1 have delved into ancient tomes and sat
through modern sermons, and the purport of them all is
something like this: 'God is three persons and one being;
three natures and one God. What this means we do not
know, and it is impious to inquire. The Trinity is a mys-
tery ; but so is the constitution of matter, so is the nature of

*See The Meaning of Mr. Wells' New Religion, by Ber-
nard Iddings Bell, Atlantic Monthly, November, 1917.

THE NICENE IDEA OF GOD 165

life, so is the law of gravitation. Since we cannot know,
we must believe.' "

"Such a statement,*' continued the Soldier, "contains
several fallacies. In the first place, the assertion that one
equals three and three equals one is not a 'mystery'. It is
plain untruth. It is the negation of a fundamental axiom
of logic, that the whole is greater than a part. Accepted,
all logic is turned topsy-turvy and all intellection becomes
at once impossible. Secondly, the statement that 'since we
cannot know, we must believe,' while right enough within
limits, is not applicable to this proposition. We cannot, must
not, believe the incredible ; and I submit that God does not
ask it of us. We cannot reason about the unreasonable. In
short, faith is not the antithesis of knowledge, but its com-
plement. Faith is not opposed to reason. A mystery is be-
yond knowledge, but it is not beyond reason ; much less is it
contrary to reason. Faith is not, as the little girl in the
story said, believing something that you know is not so.

"To put it differently, our present sciences are disjointed
segments of a curve, not yet complete enough to enable us
to plot the curve in entirety, but sufficient to enable us to
surmise its bearing in a general way. We can say which
of several curves may contain these segments, or rather,
wMch curves cannot contain them. The function of the
sciences is to extend these segments. The function of
philosophy and theology is to construct the hypothetical
curves which will contain these segments ; not to evolve
new curves out of thin air. As the sciences push out into
the hitherto unknown, the hypothetical curves are tending,
it is fair to assume, toward an ever closer approximation
to reality. Knowledge and reason are not, in the main,
faulty, but merely incomplete.

"It follows that the dogma of the Trinity, while not
wholly comprehensible, ought not to be incredible or un-
reasonable."

"1 will grant you all this," said the Priest, "but, really,
the dogma of the Trinity is neither incredible nor unreason-
able. You must not be led to condemn it by isolated utter-
ances of preachers."

166 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

"As to that, I appeal unto Caesar," returned the Soldier.
"We will pass over the utterances of preachers, who, I
grant you, are not always theologians. I will rest my case
on the Quicunque Vult, the so-called Athanasian Creed.
Tf that does not, in effect, affirm that one equals three and
three equals one, then I lose. Or I will take the famous
analogy of the trefoil, ascribed to Saint Patrick, — I submit
that this analogy portrays God as a sort of spiritual Siam-
ese triplet."

"No, no, no," interjected the Priest, "the Church does not
undertake to define the manner of union ; it simply affirms
the tri-unity and authorizes the believer to theorize about
it as he likes."

"If that be true, it is a severe indictment," rejoined the
Soldier. "It means that the Church propounds a riddle and
refuses to give the faithful the key. It requires them to
keep their minds a vacuum on this dogma which lies at the
very basis of Christian theology. Nature abhors a vacuum.
The mind soon fills with all sorts of grotesque concepts.
The Church is in duty bound, if it has a rational idea of the
Trinity, to make it known."

"You do the rank and file of Christians an injustice," said
the Priest, "Their idea of the Trinity is neither grotesque
nor vacuous."

"Is it not, then?" replied the Soldier. " I affirm that my
idea of the dogma is grotesque ; and you insist that Wells's
is. Both of us, I submit, are men of fair intelligence. But
do not stop with us. Go out and inquire at random of a
dozen of your flock. Ask them what they make of the
Quicunque Vult. Then ask them what, if any, inspiration
they gain from it.

"This ought not so to be. Christianity boasts that, unlike
the ancient philosophies and heathen cults, its tenets furnish
inspiration and practical aid in good living. If the best
that can be said for a dogma is that it is harmless, then why
cumbereth it the ground? Get rid of it."

During all this the Lawyer had been sitting on the edge
of his chair, trying in vain to get the floor. At last he broke
in:

THE NWENE IDEA OF GOD 167

"You are right that the dogma should he got rid of, if
It is grotesque or meaningless. But I judge that the Parson
has found it to be neither. Yet I grant you that he has
done nothing to define the relations between the persons of
the Trinity ; and unless that is done, no matter how greatly
the dogma may appeal to the sympathies, it cannot gain
acceptance. Perhaps he feels that it would not become his
cloth to engage in such a controversy; or perhaps he has
himself been content not to think the problem through to
the end. I believe, however, that the Church must think it
through and must define the interrelation of the persons
in terms of modern thought. I was at first inclined to be-
lieve, with you. Captain, that this could not be done. But
further study has convinced me, not only that the dogma may
be reasonably defined, but that, as originally promulgated,
H was essentially reasonable, and that the unreasonable
elements were imported into it later. If you like, I will
explain myself."

The others settled themselves in their chairs and allowed
the Lawyer free rein.

"In construing a statute, or a decree of a court," he be-
gan, "the jurist observes two fundamental canons. First, he
must interpret the language in the light of the particular
facts in the controversy or situation which it Is framed to
meet. Secondly, he must give to the words employed their
accepted and usual meaning at the time and place of the
pronouncement. Let us apply these canons here.

"The germs of the concepts of the First and Third Per-
sons are found in the Old Testament. The normal Hebrew
idea of God corresponded to the First Person, but was an-
thropomorphic. The Hebrews, consequently, thought that
when He sought to enter the human soul He must needs at-
tenuate Himself, that is, become a spirit (ruach=Trv€VfjLa=
spi7'itus='hveeze') . Thus the prophets, in speaking of a
theophany, say, 'The Lord appeared unto me ;' but in speak-
ing of an inspiration they say. 'The spirit of the Lord (i. e.,
the Lord in spiritual form) came upon me.' There does not
appear to have been any tendency to hypostatize this con-
cept of the spirit of the Lord.

168 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

'The Logos concept originated among the Alexandrine
Jews. It was introduced to relieve the Oeator of responsi-
bility for a sinful world. The creative act was conceived
of as performed by, or through, the Logos, who was an
emanation from God and *of like substance'. The three
concepts thus existed in embryo at the time of Christ.

"When the early Christians were making a formula to
express the relationship between the divine nature of Jesus
and the Godhead, they made use of this Logos concept. They
also brought over the concept of the Holy Spirit.

"A dispute now arose among them as to the interrelation
of the concepts of Father, Word, and Spirit, in particular
of the two former. The undeniable fact that Jesus had
a human nature distinct from Deity tended subconsciously
to make for a concept of the Word as a Being separate from
the Father, and inclined the Arians to the pre-Christian
dogma of distinctness, if not disparity, between the two.

"On the other hand, the Athanasians argued, and rightly,
that such a doctrine destroyed the idea of the Unity of God
and tended toward the vagaries of Gnosticism and the
grossness of polytheism.

"Modern Unitarians, and with them, Mr. Wells, assume
that the Arians affirmed the unity of God by denying the
divinity of Jesus. As a matter of fact the Arian contro-
versy had nothing whatever to do with the nature of Jesus.
Both parties affirmed that Jesus was divine. The Arians
claimed that Deity consisted of three 'like' entities; that
is, that the three were distinct, but that all partook of the
nature of Deity. The Athanasians contended that Deity is
one. It is to the eternal credit of Athanasius that the
Christian religion is not tritheistic.

"Viewed, then, in the light of history, the chief concern
of the Council of Nicaea wias evidently the affirmation of
the unity of the Deity; and its language, if ambiguous,
should be so construed.

"Turn now to the words themselves. That portion of
the creed formulated by the Council ( the Nicene Creed as we
now have it is the result of modifications made at the Coun-
cil of Constantinople some half a century later) which has
to do with the relation between the First and Second Per-

THE NICENE IDEA OF GOD 169

sons, reads as follows: 'And (we believe) in one Lord, Jesus
Christ, the son of God, begotten of the Father, only begot-
ten, that is to say of the being (oiffias) of the Father, God
of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten,
not made, One-in-deing {dfioovalop) with the Father, Creator

of all things both in heaven and on earth But

those who say, "There was when He was not" and "Before
He was begotten He was not" and that "He came into exis-
tence from nonexistence," or who profess that the Son of
God is of different substance or being, iripas iiroffrdffeus
^ oixTias {ex alia subsistentia aut substantia), or that He is
created, or changeable, or variable, are anathematized by
the Catholic Church.' (Note that those who say that the
Son is irepas viroaraaem from the Father are anathematized.)

"The two key words are inrSffTacris and oi<rla. LiddelL and
Scott's Greek Lexicon defines virbcrraais as follows : 'Founda-
tion ; substance ; in philosophy and theology it denotes ac-
tual existence, as opposed to semblance, the real nature of
a thing as opposed to its outward form (the Ding an 8ic7i),
sometimes used as practically synonymous with o^o-ta; in
later theology it was limited in sense to the special char-
acteristic nature of a person or thing, directly opposite to
omla (generic nature), and it was so used to translate the
Latin persona.''

"The word ovaia is defined by the same authority as:
'Being: existence, in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle
the word signifies essence, true nature, also bei/n,g as op-
posed to not being; in later Greek scientific works, a primary
substance, an element.'

"The two words were, then, at the time of the Nicene
Council, practically synonymous ; and they appear to have
been so used in the last clause of the Creed, which I have
quoted. Indeed vTrSaraais which was later employed to
translate the Latin persona, is etymologically the same word
as substantia, which is the Latin equivalent for ovala. The
word viroffraais did not mean persona at the time of the
Council of Nicaea, much less did it correspond to the Eng-
lish word person.

"Viewed, then, in the light both of history and linguistics,
the Nicene Creed is concerned solely with aflarming the unity
of the Godhead. It presupposes, to be sure, that the God-

170 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

head is complex ; but it does not affirm the complexity, much
less undertake to define it. In fact, the Athanasians were
at once accused by the Arians of Sabellianism, that is of
denying that the Godhead is complex.

"It was probably to defend themselves against this ac-
cusation that the later Athanasians formulated their idea
of the nature of the complexity of the Godhead. This step
was first taken by the Latin, not the Greek, fathers not long
after the Council of Nicaea. They gave utterance to the
formula that God is of three personae.

"Now, this word persona meant originally an actor's
mask (from per-sonans). In the fourth century, and be-
fore, the word was employed in legal terminology to de-
note 'an aggregate of legal rights and duties.' Thus, a cor-
poration had a persona; but a slave had none. A citizen
might have several personae, for example, as tutor (guar-
dian), fiduciarius (trustee), and so on. The use of the
Avord in the fourth century was restricted to this legal
sense, and it very rarely had any other connotation. It was
this legal term which the Fathers used in defining the com-
plexity of the nature of Deity. Very evidently the great
truth w^hich they were struggling to express was that the
nature of Deity, while essentially one, is complex, three-
sided, in function. God in essence is one; there is but one
center of consciousness and of will in the Deity. But in his
revelation of himself he has three aspects, manifestations,
capacities, or functionings — as Father, as Son, as Holy
Spirit. The three aspects are simultaneous and co-eternal;
they inhere in the very nature of God. In the concept of God
as Father we have the aspect of transcendence; in the con-
cept of God as Holy Spirit, the aspect of immanence. In the
concept of God as Son we have God on the humanistic, or
spiritually anthropomorphic, side; we have, that is to say,
the aspect of God which is capable of adumbration in terms
of the human personality."

At this point the Soldier broke in : "That is a very
pretty theory ; but I can quote you commentators who are
dead against it, and who state with the assurance of
authority that the distinction of Persons is far more funda-
mental than this."

THE NTCFJME IDEA OF COD 171

"1 grant you that," retorted the Lawyer. "On the other
hand, many of the more thoughtful of the orthodox author-
ities are in substantial accord with this theory. But I take
it that the Catholic Church derives its dogmas from coun-
cils, not from commentators."

"The corruption in the interpretation of the dogma crept
in like this," continued the Lawj^er. "The Greeks c{is+
about for a word to translate persona. Unfortunately, they
chose vTroaraais, which up to that time had had the mean-
ing of suhstance, rather than irp6<rcoTrov , which was almost the
exact equivalent of pet'sona. How they came to employ this
word I will not undertake to say. We know that Arianism
had its principal strength in the East, and that Easterns,
who after the Council of Nicaea conformed outwardly, re-
mained at heart Arians or semi-Arians. Perhaps they con
trived in this way to accomplish their ends by indirection. A I
any rate the word, which had been the synonym of ovaia,
now became its antonym. But, like all adopted children,
tlie word did not altogether lose its early traits. It connoted
something far more fundamental than persona. The Greek
word, in turn, reacted upon and modified the Latin concept.

"When the mediaeval English theologians came to write
the dogma in English, they did it yet worse disservice.
They made no attempt to find equivalent words, but merely
transliterated the words. Substantia became sut)-stance;
persona became person. God, so the translation runs.
is one substance and three persons. Suhstance is bad
enough ; it has a material connotation, and has traveled far
from the Greek ovcria (being). But person is a mere parody
on the original. It denotes in English a distinct, individual,
sentient being, or center of consciousness, a meaning which
the Latin word never had so long as Latin was a spoken
language. English-speaking Christendom should rid itself
of this fantastic verbal incubus."

"With all this," said the Soldier : "I can quite agree.
But have you not, in effect, evacuated your trenches to the
Unitarians, leaving only dummies and Quaker guns to con-
ceal your retreat?"

"Not so fast," rejoined the Lawyer. "It is true that I
have, like the Unitarians, emphasized the Unity of the

172 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

Deity, but by a totally different process. They have come
at Unity by hacking away two elements in the divine nature,
the transcendent and the anthropomorphic, leaving the im-
manent only. I have arrived at Unity, — rather, I believe, I
have brought out what the Catholic faith has always im-
plied,— by retaining all three » elements, but compacting
them, making the distinction of Persons one of functioning
rather than Of being."

"But why do you limit the number of Persons to three?"
rejoined the Priest. "God acts in an infinite variety of
ways ; and if the distinction be one of function, you should
have an infinite number of Persons."

"That does not follow at all," answered the Lawyer.
"The distinction of Persons is not a distinction of functions,
but of modes of functioning. The distinction is fundamen-
tal, since the three modes are, to a large extent, incongru-
ous. A God who is immanent only might function in a
variety of ways and still be but simple in nature. But a
God who is at once immanent, transcendent, and humanis-
tic, simultaneously and eternally, cannot be other than
complex."

"Your explanation may seem rational," answered the
Priest, "but it is certainly not orthodox. You will remem-
ber that the theories of Sabellius and the other so-called
Miodalists, which correspond exactly to yours, were held to
be unorthodox."

"If the view which I urge correctly epitomizes and ex-
plains man's Inherent thought about God, then it ought to
be accepted, regardless of what some of the theologians of
the past may have thought about similar views. But, since
I undertook to prove that my view does really represent
the Nicene opinion, you have a right to an answer to your
question. I differ from the Medalists, because they taught
that the three modes of functioning were assumed and laid
aside by the Deity at successive points in time; that he
functioned first as Father, then during the Incarnation as
Son, and finally after the Ascension as Holy Spirit. Or,
as some of them held, that the difference lies more in our
apprehension of God than In what He is or does. Now I,

THE NICENE IDEA OF GOD 173

on the contrary, have been urging the view that these modes
of functioning are co-eternal and inhere in His very nature.
It is of the very nature of God to be immanent, to be trans-
cendent, and to be humanistic. It is as unthinkable that he
should ever for a moment cease to exist upon these three
planes as that he should ever cease entirely. Htence the
complexity is not simply one of outward manifestation, but
represents a real complexity of being. As to what that
complexity is I know as little as I know of the real nature
of myself, or of any other living thing.

"Now, this solution of the problem accords with modern
modes of thought in all spheres. We see our universe no
longer as static, but as kinetic. The evolutionary viewpoint,
which found place first in biology, has taken possession of the
fields of psychology, history, sociology, economics, philoso-
phy; in short, of every field of thought. We have come to
see that nothing is static, everything is in flux. When, for
purposes of analysis, we study a thing without reference to
its past or future, or its interrelation with the whole uni-
verse, we are mere anatomists, poring over a cadaver. We
have discovered that it is neither so easy nor so profitable
as we once thought it to know what a thing *is'. We realize
that all we need to know of a thing, perhaps all we can
know, is how it acts. We are consequently taking less and
less interest in ontology and more and more interest in
function.

"So, in theology, it is the way in which God deals with
his universe which is, after all, of importance. In that re-
spect man has always instinctively thought of God in three
aspects, and always will. God acts transcendently ; he Is
above and beyond nature; he creates and rules it. God
acts also immanently: he is in nature, and most of all in
the heart of man, if man will but seek him there. God
acts, also, anthropomorphically in a spiritual sense. That is
to say, the divine mind is comparable to the human mind.
We feel sure that the attributes of the human mind, such
as love, mercy, justice, are to be found in perfection in the
divine mind. In this aspect God is capable of expression
in terms of perfect humanity.

174 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

"Historically speaking tlie doctrine of the Trinity was
evolved to explain the life of Jesus. Considering Jesus, —
what he did, what he said, how he lived, his followers asked
themselves. 'How shall we account for this life? Though
born of woman, yet never man spoke as he spoke ; never
man lived so close to God, or brought others so close to God ;
never man so convicted us of sin; never man so conquered
death. Can we say that such a life was merely human?'
This question the early Church answered unanimously in
the negative. The hypothesis of simple humanity did not
fit the facts. The problem then confronting Christendom
was what to think of the God-like element in the Life?
Was it an angel who lived in Jesus, or a Being like God, or
was it God himself? All three theories contended for recog-
nition. Arius held the second view. Athanasius W'ith in-
spired insight realized that such a doctrine, if adopted,
would reduce Christianity to tri-theism. On the other hand,
it was obvious that the God-like characteristics displayed
in the life of Jesus were not those of a transcendent Cre-
ator, nor yet of an immanent superpersonal Spirit. Here
was displayed an aspect of Deity of which the world had
till then not been aware, an aspect, however, which enorm-
ously enriched man's experience of God. So Athanasius con-
vinced the Church of the truth of the idea of God which
found expression in the Nicene Creed.

"Yet, while historically it was the fact of the Incarna-
tion that necessitated the doctrine of the Trinity, that doc-
trine finds its deeper sanction in its profound agreement
with all human experience of God. It is hard for us to
think about God without conceiving him in the three ways.
Possibly the human mind, under the inspiration of the
Spirit, might have thought its way through to the doctrine
of the Trinity, even had not tlie Incarnation forced the
issue. The Logos theory of Philo and the Memra (Word)
doctrine of the [Palestinian rabbis, two parallel but inde-
pendent lines of thought which were current about the
time of Christ, indicated a general tendency in the direction
of an affirmation of the triune nature of Deity.

"Contradictory though they appear to be, these three
ideas of God have entered willy-nilly into the theologic

TJJE NIOENE IDEA OP OOD 175

thinking of every race and creed since the beginning. Some-
times, to be sure, one or other of these ideas has been magni-
fied so as to eclipse the others ; but the eclipse is never quite
total, and, such as it is, the result is achieved by sopbisti-
cated reasoning, not by instinctive feeling.

"Conceive a God of but one Person, one mode of func-
tioning, and you will see how distorted the picture is.

"Picture God as transcendent only. He sits in majesty
above the heaven of heavens. He formed the material uni-
verse and set it spinning, as a clock-maker makes a clock
and winds it up. He is not immanent; if he interferes at
all, it is to frustrate and annul the processes of nature.
He is not humanistic ; he cannot be touched with the feel-
ing of our infirmities; the homely virtues of our human na-
ture are not for him. He is the German Thor, the God of
the destroyers of Belgium.

"Picture God as immanent only. Not being transcendent,
he (or shall I say It?) is caught in the toils of matter
as a fish in a net. Not being humanistic, he is impersonal.
He doeth good ; he also doeth evil, since he is All. Evil,
indeed, is but an undeveloped good. His ethic is quietism ;
his reward. Nirvana. He is the God of Buddha.

"Picture God as humanistic only. Such is the God of
Mr. Wells. He is strong, but not almighty ; good, but not
perfect ; wdse, but not omniscient. We may love, respect,
and pity him ; we cannot fear him. He is not the Lord of
men and angels ; he holds not the keys of heaven and hell.
Above him stands the Veiled One. He is Zeus prostrate
before Anank6.

"An adequate idea of God demands the three concepts.
In all well-balanced theologies they exist, at least implicitly.
It is the peculiar glory of Christianity that it formulated
what was before implicit, and has succeeded fairly well in
maintaining a balance between the three.

"Yet Christianity is failing today to bring this truth
home to the masses by shrouding it in the verbiage of a
past age and permitting, if not fostering, an obscurantist
interpretation repellant to the modern mind.

"Instead of the trefoil let us picture our idea of God by
that other symbol, the triangle. So understood, the idea

176 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

ceases to be grotesque or meaningless and becomes the
formulation of age-old truth, implicit in the very foundation
of theologic thinking, a mystery still, as it always will be,
but a reasonable, nay a necessary, mystery."

NATURE AND RELIGION

By Heney Faiefield Osboen.

(Note: The following article is reprinted by permis-
sion from The Churchman of June 24, 1922. The author
is the well-known paleontologist and author of The Origin
and Evolution of Life and of Men of the Old Stone Age in
Europe, This article illustrates the present attitude of
men of science toward religion, and registers the change
wliich has taken place in their attitude since the closing
years of the nineteenth century. The italics and capitals
are Dr. Osborn's.)

May I call the attention of the readers of The Church-
man to a change of attitude on the part of leaders of
scientific thought xn Great Britain and in the United
States which I believe marks the opening of a new era
in both science and theology. I give first a number
of citations from Nature (Sept. 2, 1920), the official me-
dium of British scientific opinion, entitled "The Unity
of Science and Religion":

"The Cardiff meeting of the British Association will
be marked . . . because of two noteworthy events.
One was the suggestion . . . that the time had come
for a new Challenger expedition for the exploration of the
oceans, and another was the enlightened sermon, which
we print in full elsewhere, delivered by Canon E. W.
Barnes, a distinguished mathematician, who is both a Fellow
of the Royal Society and a Canon of Westminster. We
do not hesitate to say that not for a long time has such
a conciliatory attitude been presented to men of science
by a leader in the Church as is represented by Canon
Barnes' address. The position taken up in it is one upon
which the two standards of science and religion can be
placed side by side to display to the world their unity
of purpose. For Science and Religion are twin sisters,

17S GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

each studying her own sacred book of God and building
a structure which remains sure only when established upon
the foundation of truth."

The writer goes on to say that the day of bitter con-
troversy between dogmatic theology and often no less
dogmatic science is past and gone, and that no one would
wish to recall it. He continues :

"The scientific view of religion, now accepted by men
of science and Churchmen alike, is that religion is the
spiritual life of the individual, and subject to development.
Progress is possible here as elsewhere, and in fact the
history of the forms of religion shows a gradual purifi-
cation and emancipation advancing with the gradual re-
finement of experience. The goal, as a reviewer has
said in these columns, is a union of God and humanity,
and the end must be the concrete realization of unity in
life and purpose for which, as for the unity of the world
as object of the sciences, the reality of the Divine im-
manence is the only sure ground . . . Whatever the
end may be, we are urged to the quest by that something
within ourselves which has produced from a primitive
ancestry the noblest types of intellectual man, and regards
evolution, not as a finite, but as an infinite, progress of
development of spiritual as well as of physical life."

In this connection I also quote from a recent work by
a pupil of William James, the greatest philosopher America
has produced :*

"It is a rather odd fact that a word so repeatedly on
the lips of men and connoting, apparently, one of the most
obvious phenomena of human life should be so notoriously
diificult of definition as is the word Religion .
The truth is, I suppose, that 'Religion' is one of those
general and popular terms which have been used for cen-
turies to cover so vague and indefinite a collection of
phenomena that no definition can be framed which will
include all its uses and coincide with everyone's meaning
for it. Hence all definitions of Religion are more or less
arbitrary and should be taken rather as postulates than
as axioms. In this sense I shall myself propose a tenta-
tive definition of Religion, not at all as a final or complete
statement, nor because I think it of any great importance,
but because I intend to write a book about Religion, and

*The Religious Consciousness (Chap. 1). By James B. Pratt.
The Macmillan Co., New York.

NATURE AND RELIGION 179

it therefore seems only fair that I should tell the reader
in advance, not what the word means, hut what I am
going to mean hy the tvord. The definition which I pro-
pose is the following: Religion is the serious and

SOCIAL attitude OF INDIVIDUALS OR COMMUNITIES TOWARD
THE POWER OR POWERS WHICH THEY CONCEIVE AS HAVING
ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER THEIR INTERESTS AND DESTINIES."

It is not the definition of religion to which I would
call attention, but the recognition on the part of several
leading men of science that the religious state of mind is
a reality and that the spiritual life is an essential and im-
portant part of man. The importance of the spiritual side
of man and of spiritual values has been expressed recently
by one of the leaders of American scientific thought, Pro-
fessor R. A. Millikan, distinguished physicist of the Uni-
versity of Chicago :*

"From my point of view there are two things of im-
mense importance in this world, two ideas or beliefs upon
which, in the last analysis, the weal or woe of the race
depends, and I am not going to say that belief in the possi-
bilities of scientific progress is the most important. The
most important thing in the world is a belief in the reality
of moral and spiritual values. It was because we lost
that belief that the world war came, and if we do not
now find a way to regain and strengthen that belief, then
science is of no value. But, on the other hand, it is also
true that even with that belief there is little hope of
progress except through its twin sister, only second in
importance, namely, belief in the spirit and the method of
Galileo, of Newton, of Faraday, and of the other great
builders of this modern scientific age — this age of the
understanding and the control of nature, upon which, let
us hope, we are just entering. For while a starving man
may indeed be supremely happy, it is certain that he can-
not be happy very long. So long as man is a physical
being, his spiritual and his physical well-being cannot
be disentangled. No efforts tow^ard social readjustments
or toward the redistribution of wealth have one thousandth
as large a chance of contributing to human well-being as
have the efforts of the physicist, the chemist, and the bio-
logist toward the better understanding and the better
control of nature."

*Th0 Significance of Radium. By R. A. Millikan. Science^
July 1, 1921, pp. 1-8.

180 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

This was first brought to my own mind in a scientific
way through my experiences in exploring the caverns of
central and southern France, and witnessing the work of
man inspired by something akin to our spiritual nature,
at a relatively remote period of human development. As
a consistent evolutionist I am naturally a believer in the
very gradual growth of the spiritual and religious side of
man. Two years ago I talked this question over with an
intelligent divine in the Roman Catholic Church. He
was inclined to fix 15,000 years as the period in which
the religious nature of man first manifested itself. We
need not be concerned, either with fixing a period for the
beginning of the religious and spiritual life or for the
equally mysterious question of where the development of
the religious and spiritual life may lead us. To my mind
the main thing for human progress is the recognition by
all men that man has a spiritual and religious nature
which we must take account of in our studies of the evolu-
tion of man, past, present, and future. I take it that this
is about as far as most of my scientific confreres are ready
to go at present. This attitude is profoundly different
from that which I encountered as a student of biology
and philosophy in Cambridge University forty years ago.
I recently met in England the sole survivor of the brilliant
group of men who dominated British thought toward the
end of the nineteenth century; as soon as we touched on
religion and philosophy I observed that all the embers of
the long gone period were fanned into flame, and that I
was speaking with a naturalist of the past type, not of
the present and future.

In 1863 a prophetic letter was addressed by Charles
Kingsley to Frederick Dennison Maurice:

"I am very busy working out points of Natural Theology*
by the strange light of Huxley, Darwin, and Lyell. I
think I shall come to something worth having before I
have done. But I am not going to reach into fruit this
seven years, for this reason: The state of the scientific
mind is most curious; Darwin is conquering everywhere,
and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and
fact. The one or two who hold out are forced to try all
sorts of subterfuges as to fact, or else by evoking the odium
theologicum. . . . But they find that now they have

NATURE AND RELIGION 181

got rid of an interfering God — a master-magician, as I
call it — they have to choose between the absolute empire of
accident, and a living, immanent, ever-working God."

In his conception of the true relation between our
knowledge of nature and our religious sentiments, Charles
Kingsley was sixty years ahead of the Church of his
day. If his influence had prevailed we would have been
spared sixty years of vain controversy between science
and theology.

PART III

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER
OF THE DISCUSSIONS

INTRODUCTORY.

It is the purpose of these discussions to make a somewhat
thorough analysis of the philosophical and practical basis
of the ideas current in Theism and Christianity, and to en-
deavor so to evaluate them as to show their compatibility
with modern scientific concepts. The task is not easy, nor
can the outlines in the nature of the case be expressed so
that he who runs may read.

As stated by P. N. Waggett in Religion and Science, when
he was asked why he did not write a sixpenny tract in de-
fense of Christianity, he replied that there was no sixpenny
defense for Christianity. The argument to be worth while
at all for college students, must strike down to the very
basis of their philosophy. It is believed, however, that tht
outlines are not so abstruse as to baffle the college student,
certainly not after the first collegiate year. The ideas
which are discussed, he will find to be the same that he has
met with in his college lecture room. At any rate, I have
been able to use these discussions to advantage with college
and normal school students, groups of mature persons who
have not had a college education, and even with high school
students; although for this purpose they need much adap-
tation.

Any harmonization of science and theology may pro-
ceed from one of two points of view. It may be approached
through the consideration of the particular sciences, taking
up each in turn and showing how the concepts involved in
each science may be and should be related harmoniously to
the Christian system; or we may start from the side of
theology, interpreting its doctrines in the terminology of
modern science and philosophy.

186 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

In this course the latter method has been adopted for two
reasons. In the first place I feel myself entirely unqualified
to discuss intelligently all the concepts in the field of the
modern sciences, and in the second place such a discussion,
if it were possible, would, after all, have given the student
merely a fragmentary and unrelated theology. It seems to
me preferable not to attempt, in such a course as this, to do
more than establish in the student a new point of view, a
new orientation, a new method whereby he can go on to
draw his own deductions as to particular sciences.

Tlie leader, however, may find that for his particular
group some modification of this method is necessary, and
may find it advisable to particularize somewhat as to the
scientific concepts.

It has been very commonly found to be the case, espe-
cially among college students, that the doubts are not so
much intellectual as pragmatic. The student does not find
himself in the position of wianting to believe in the teadh-
ings of Christianity and being withheld only by its supposed
conflict with science. Rather, he is not persuaded that re-
ligion is at all w^orth while bothering about, that it does
not count for much in the lives of its adherents nor exert
any appreciable influence on society, and that in any event
particular doctrines cannot be said to do so. To these ques-
tions the present volume is not, of course, primarily ad-
dressed. In fact these questions will not perhaps find their
answer upon the printed page at all. The conclusive argu-
ment must be ad hominem. Every man must solve this
problem for himself, with whatever aid can be afforded to
him in friendly counsel, since it is primarily a problem not
of the intellect but of the will, not of the head but of the
heart. Nevertheless, it is possible to present some con-
siderations as to the value of religion, and this has been
attempted in Discussion II and in the essay entitled The
Relevancy of Religion.

The method of development of each particular discussion
is substantially the same. In the first eight it is necessary
to clear away possible objections from the point of view
of science. For example, in the discussion upon Immortality
one must first demonstrate that there is no valid scientific

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 187

objection to belief in immortality. Tbat done, we next pro-
ceed to develop the positive side of tbe argument out of
the facts of human religious experience, first stating what
the experience is, and then what deductions or doctrines
can reasonably be drawn from it. In the discussions from
IX to the end, there is no such apparent conflict with science
to be dealt with, and, consequently, the method of develop-
ment in these lectures begins with the religious experience
and deduces from it the doctrine. In each outline the para-
graph entitled "conclusion" will be found to embody the
general viewpoint and spirit of the discussion. It is be-
lieved that a fairly consistent observance of this method
of procedure will result in driving home to the student the
viewpoint, that doctrine is after all only an orderly state-
ment of a conclusion from the facts of religious experience.
In connection with each discussion, the leader should
bring out the practical bearing and effect of the particular
doctrine discussed. (See essay entitled The Relevancy of
Religion, Part II). I have endeavored to indicate this
practical bearing in a general way ; but the discussion will
usually be found to involve an argument ad hominem,
which cannot well be foreseen.

As to the method and spirit of the leader no finer dis-
cussion has appeared than that of Father Waggett above
referred to. One can hardly do justice to the subject with-
out having first made himself familiar with that book. At-
tention is especially called to Chapters 2, 3, 6, and 7. Any
particular warning is perhaps needless, that the method of
argumentation which Father Waggett calls the method of
anathema is perfectly fruitless in a course of this sort. Ab-
solute frankness and open-mindedness is essential.

A few suggestions as to the use of this outline. The out-
line is in part a guide book through the literature referred
to in these notes. The leader certainly, the student if he will,
should be familiar with these books, for obviously the out-
line is merely a skeleton, and unless supplemented by this
outside reading, will appear to be full of arbitrary and un-
reasoned assertions. I have not developed the argument
except where it departs from the authorities referred to.
This in part accounts for the fact that some discussions

188 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

are presented in a more skeletonized form than others. The
fuller treatment was deemed necessary in some instances
where an adequate treatment did not appear to be at hand
in any available book on the subject. I would not have it
thought, however, that I endorse all that will be found in
these authorities, nor in any of them. For example, one
can admire the skill with which Karl Pearson demonstrates
the subjective nature of the basic ideas of science, without
following him in his systematic skepticism. So far as i>os-
si'ble, however, I will endeavor to point out in these notes
just where, in my opinion, the several writers are not alto-
gether to be relied upon.

I have sought to pin the discussions down to earth by
stating in each outline some question which the student
will be asking himself. The practical bearing of the prob-
lem and of the solution given in the lecture ought to be
emphasized. If theology be not practical, there is really
no occasion to bother about it.

This outline is merely a suggestion. One using it will
no doubt omit much that may not prove useful for his pur-
pose and add much in places where the treatment does not
seem to him to be adequate. He will above all clothe it with
flesh and blood from his own rich experience and breathe
into it the breath of life.

The discussions may, of course, be split up at will. I
have found it possible to complete the entire course in just
about the length of the ordinary school year.

When the number of discussion periods is limited, so as
to preclude covering the entire course outlined, it has been
found very satisfactory to cover the first four discussions
and then to take the vote of the group as to which of the
others should be discussed. Every group will be found to
have its own peculiar problems and point of view.

I should strongly advise that at each period the leader
should first complete what he has to say and then allow a
short time for open discussion. The other method, of taking
the whole course as a series of discussions, has the ad-
vantage of appearing more spontaneous and drawing out
the students to make their own conclusions, but seems to
me to have one or two serious objections. In the first place

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 189

the discussion is very apt to go off at a tangent and at the
end of the period no conclusion has been arrived at. In the
second place, if the group is a large one, the discussion is
fairly likely to be monopolized by two or three to the ex-
clusion of the others, and their interest will be lost.

It has been suggested that the interest of the students
might be increased by assigning some particular aspect of
the subject involved in each outline to particular students
to investigate and report upon to the class. I have never
tried this. I doubt if such investigation would be fruitful
in advance of tbe discussion ; but the leader might at the
close of each period assign particular features of the dis-
cusion to be reported upon further at the next session,

DISCUSSION I.

The important portions of this discussion are sections 3
and 5. The student must first be convinced of the tremen-
dous practical bearing of theology before he will be per-
suaded to devote his time to the remainder of the course.

The subject of "Modern Doubt" is discussed from the pop-
ular standpoint, in Chapter 1, of Richard L. Swain's What
and Where is God? Also in the opening chapters of Percy
Gardner's Exploratio Evangelica. This book, which was
published in 1899, though in many respects valuable, repre-
sents a point of view which has been, in a measure, super-
seded. There has been a general reaction against some of
the more extreme views which the author presents. I have
endeavored to indicate in these notes, from time to time,
the extent to which I believe he may be relied upon.

As to the matter covered in Discussions I to IV read
chaps. 1-4 of Charles Gore's Belief in God.

At this time attention should be called to William Kelly
Wright's A Student's Philosophy of Religion (Macmillan,
1922). It is extremely valuable to the leader of a discus-
sion group. It deals with the history, psychology, and
philosophy of religion and of some of the principal specific
religious beliefs. Upon each point the author summarizes
the divergent opinions, both past and present, and then
states his own opinion. A valuable bibliography follows
each chapter. The book is condensed yet most readable,
and should prove invaluable as a book of reference. It

190 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

illustrates the new and sympathetic viewpoint of philosophy
toward religion ; such a book would not have been written
twenty years ago. But one caveat needs to be observed.
The author's definition of religion as man's effort to con-
serve social values is too utilitarian. To be sure, religion
has always had this result, as the author points out from
time to time ; and this result is strong proof of its validity.
Yet certainly this end was not the principal factor in any
religion, nor was it ever a conscious factor at all.

NOTE ON THE RELATION OF BELIEF
TO CONDUCT.

The man in the street is prone to say that it makes no
difference what you believe in religious matters; that it is
what you do that counts. Of course the latter part of this
assertion is unquestionably true, but it is astonishing that
such i>eople fail to see that conduct is largely conditioned
by belief. This is the more astonishing in view of the almost
superstitious faith which is current today in secular edu-
cation as the cure-all for the ills of society. Yet the opinion
of the man in the street has some justification in view
of the notion which has obtained in some quarters as to the
function of belief in the scheme of salvation.

The Reformation, upon its dogmatic side, consisted
largely in a reaction against the overemphasis which had
been current in the everyday theology, although not in the
careful definitions of the Church, as to the efficacy of exter-
nal religion, the efficiency of works. This reaction took two
main courses. With Luther it resulted in the doctrine of
justification by faith alone; with Calvin it resulted in the
doctrine of predestination. According to the Lutheran the-
ology, the all-important element in salvation was reliance by
the individual upon divine grace. According to the Cal-
vanistic theology, grace was a free gift of God bestowed ac-
cording to his absolute wiJ, regardless even of any seeking
by the individual; certain men were predestined for salva-
tion and others for damnation and the outcome of that
lottery could never he determined durmg the life of the i/ndi-
vidual, nor could he change it by any act of his.

The tendency of both these lines of thought was to min-
imize the Importance of right conduct, to postpone salva-

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 191

tioii to the next world. Hence in the common thought of
the followers of these two theologies, although doubtless not
in the thought of the founders, there arose a feeling that
a sort of magical efficacy resided in the act of submission
to the divine will, in a formal assent to, and affirmation
of, the existence of God and his overruling power, the di-
vinity of Christ and his saving grace. The consequences
of such a formal affirmation would be apparent in the next
world, but not necessarily in this. These ideas became part
of the religious atmosphere of the seventeenth, eighteenth,
and nineteenth centuries, and were shared to a great ex-
tent by members of Churches which did not acknowledge
the spiritual leadership of Luther or Calvin.

It is this false and magical view against which modern
opinion has reacted. The reaction has gone to the other ex-
treme of denying any potency to intellectual belief. Of
course, intellectual belief does largely condition conduct,
and hence is a factor in salvation ; but it is a factor only
insofar as it does influence conduct, and the extent of that
influence can be measured here and now and not entirely in
the next world. In the words of the Master, men do not
gather grapes from thorns.

The extent to which belief influences conduct depends
upon the vitality of the belief, the certitude with which it
is held. If our belief in immortality amounts merely to a
pious hope, it enters but little into our everyday life. If,
however, it amounts to a certitude as great as our belief in
our present existence, it will inevitably enter into every
judgment as to our course of conduct. We will plan for the
life both here and hereafter so as to bring about its full
fruition, not merely within the short span of three-score
years and ten, but within a future indeflnitely expanded;
we will relegate to its proper place the question of what we
shall eat and what we shall drink and wherewithal we shall
be clothed.

NOTE ON THE MEANING OF THE WORDS DOGMA
AND DOCTRINE.

Strictly speaking these words are not synonymous. Web-
ster's Dictionary differentiates them thus : "Doctrine is
that which is taught, put forth as true, and supported by a

192 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

teacher, a school, or a sect. A dogma is a doctrine formally
stated; a definite, established, and authorative tenet. In
their ecclesiastical application it is usual to distinguish
between doctrine, any teaching or opinion, and dogma, sudi
teaching as a part of the confession of a Ohurch."

It is, therefore, apparent that the formula which epit-
omizes the facts of religious experience, the antithesis of
a natural, or scientific, law, is not a doctrine, but a dogma.
Thus one would not, strictly, speak of the doctrine of grav-
itation or of the Trinity; but one might speak of the doc-
trine of Newton or Einstein about gravitation, or of the
doctrine of Arius or Athanasius about the Trinity. Never-
theless, the word "dogma" has acquired, wrongly as 1 be-
lieve, the connotation of a teaching, arbitrary, unreasoned,
and even unreasonable. So that, for the purpose of these
discussions the word "doctrine" has usually been employed.

DISCUSSION II.

This discussion is based on Andrew D. White's Warfare
of Science with Theology in Christendom. If i)ossible, the
leader should be familiar with this book, but if a shorter
discussion of the same subject is preferred, it may be found
in Hardwick's Warfare of Science and Religion, which is an
S. P. C. K. Publication. For the ordinary student the ma-
terial in section 1 will not require particular emphasis. He
is already all too familiar with the confiict. But students
will not infrequently be found to have no adequate idea that
there is such a confiict. In that case, for their own protec-
tion in the future, they ought to be thoroughly convinced of
the reality of the problem, even at the cost of making the
leader appear as a destructive, rather than a constructive,
critic. If it is desirable to go into this matter in detail,
one of the subjects covered by section 1 might be assigned
to each member of the group to investigate and present
to the class.

Upon the question of scientific doubt and the application
of the scientific method to dogma read Waggett's Religion
and Science, chaps. 1 and 2 of Spens' Belief and Practice,
and tlie opening chapters of Percy Gardner's Exploratio
Evangelica. Also, see the essay on Dogma and the first part
of the essay on The Nicene Idea of Ood in Part II.

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 193

NOTE ON THE PRESENT ATTITUDE OF SCIENTISTS

Thi&' is, i)erliaps, the appropriate place to express a
warning against a too sweeping interpretation of the state-
ment contained in the outline of this discussion that science
is realizing its limitations and is ceasing to philosophize.
This statement is true in the main and is, I believe, be-
coming increasingly true. Probably no scientist of the
attainments of Ernest Haeckel would today announce as
his deliberate judgment the materialistic philosophy set
forth in The Riddle of the Universe. Yet, there are, of
course, scientists, as there are theologians, who do not
recognize their limitations. In the less circumspect state-
ments of even careful scientists one also finds occasional
lapses into unguarded assertions capable of a positively
materialistic interpretation, which they would themselves
probably be the first to repudiate. Frequently in the class-
room the instructor deems it necessary to make sweeping
statements with a view to challenging the attention of the
students, or breaking down preconceptions which interfere
with their disinterested investigation of the phenomena
with which he is dealing, — statements which, if not pos-
itively materialistic, at any rate guard with incredible lax-
ity against such interpretation.

This has been the case in all the sciences which deal
with life, notably biology and psychology. Biologists, how-
ever, show an increasing tendency to acknowledge the lim-
itations of a purely mechanical explanation of vital proc-
esses, an increasing disinclination to philosophize and an
exceedingly conscientious and open-minded investigation of
phenomena. In psychology, on the other hand, the line
between physics and metaphysics is often difficult to perceive
and the temptation to overstep it is constantly present and
seems to have proved well-nigh irresis table. So that in the
subject matter covered by discussions VII, VIII, and XVI
it would be by no means fair to say that the conclusions of
most psychologists and theologians are in agreement. It ap-
pears to be the tendency of most psychologists, though by no
means of all of them, to exclude any non-mechanical element
in mentality, not only for the purposes of experiment, in
which such a procedure is quite proper, but also as an ulti-

194 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

mate philosophy. Their philosophy does not express itself
in the crudely materialistic terms of fifty years ago, that
the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile, or that
thought is an epi-phenomenon, a by-product, of fermenta-
tions in the brain, but in the more subtle dogma that the
self is completely described as the stream of consciousness.

This attitude is very easy to understand. The field of
mental phenomena has been the last stronghold of obscur-
antism and is still the happy hunting ground of all sorts
of fantastic vagaries. Scientific psychology has had a
hard fight and cannot be expected quite yet to assume the
dispassionate and judicial attitude. It owes whatever
progress it has made to the employment of the mechanical
hypothesis and the limit to the use of this hypothesis has not
yet been reached. It would indeed be unfortunate if this
line of investigation should be foreclosed. Nevertheless,
there is absolutely nothing in the results of psychological
investigation to justify the dictum that mental phenomena
are merely mechanical, a fact which is recognized by such
psychologists as James, Bergson, and others. In fact data
are accumulating which can only by constantly increasing
ingenuity be reconciled to that hypothesis. So that one may
be permitted to prophesy that within the next few years the
basic metaphysical ideas current among psychologists will
be radically modified. Meanwhile, it is suflScient to say that
the criterion of valid dogma, which I have stated to be that
it shall be congruent with the legitimate conclusions of
science, does not by any means require that it should be
harmonized with the present philosophical position of some
psychologists.

DISCUSSION III.

This discussion and the two following should be thor-
oughly understood by the students, as they lie at the basis
of everything that follows. As pointed out by Father Wag-
get in the book cited, the only prophylactic against scien-
tific doubt is innoculation with a reasonable idealistic phi-
losophy. It is that point of view which I have endeavored
to present to the student in these three discussions. If that
point of view is not grasped, the argumentation throughout

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 195

the course will fall upon absolutely deaf ears. The purpose
of this particular discussion is to jar the student loose
from the current conception of the man in the street, a con-
ception which is augmented rather than diminished by his
college lectures, that there is something particularly ob-
jective about science and the concepts that lie at the basis
of science, in comparison to the concepts at the basis of
theology. I want him to cease to think that matter is the
only ultimate reality; and hence in this discussion I have
endeavored to show the subjective and relative character of
the concepts of science. The only thorough-going discussion
of this point of view mth which I am familiar is Karl Pear-
son's Grammar of Science, especially the first eight chapters.
No one should, I believe, attempt to present this course
without being familiar with that hook. Discussion IV is
intended to present an antidote to the skeptical conclusions
of PeaTSon. These by no means follow from his argument.

DISCUSSION IV.

In this discussion the effort has been made to present
a view-point of the theory of knowledge which shall afford
a basis for an idealistic philosophy and theology. If the
student is thoroughly innoculated with such a philosophy,
he can be trusted to study his various sciences in the light
of it and make his own application of it. Hence this dis-
cussion is of prime importance, and should be given such
time as is necessary for thorough understanding. Feeling
that an outline is inadequate to present my argument, I have
written the subject matter out in full in the essay with this
title contained in Part II. In addition, both leader and
students should read the essays contained in William James'
volume, The Will to Believe, especially the essays entitled
The Sentiment of Rationality and The Dilemma of Deter-
minism. (James uses "sentiment" with the same connota-
tion with which I use "sense".) Read, also, chaps. 3 to 5
of Will Spens' Belief and Practice. See also chapter 18 of
Wright's A Student's Philosophy of Religimi.

A graphical statement of the points of similarity and
difference between a scientific law and a religious doctrine
may be given as follows :

196

A. scientific law
A religious doctrine

GRAMMAR OF BELIEF
WHAT IS IT?

is an explanation
is an explanation

ON WHAT IS IT

BASED?
of the facts of ex-
perience

of the facts of ex-
perience

HOW ARE THE
FACTS VIEWJED?
from, tlie outside

from the inside

WHAT DOES IT
DO?

so as to satisfy

so as to satisfy

DISCUSSION V.

WHAT DOES IT

SATISFY?
our senses for ra-
tionality, activity,
etc.

our senses for right,
justice, purpose,
love, reverence, etc.

The point of view of this discussion is to furnish a sort
of anchor to windward for students who are unable to
bring themselves to agree thoroughly with the philosophy
presented in the previous discussion. The outline follows
very closely William James' essay. The Will to Believe, con-
tained in the volume of the same name. It may appear
inconsistent to taper off an argument which presents a
very positive view of the validity of religious concepts
with an invitation to the student, at least whether he be-
lieves this or not, to bet his future course of life on the
possibility of its being true, — which is, in the last analysis,
what Jame^ position amounts to. As a practical matter,
however, this argument will appeal to very many students ;
and it is essentially valid, because it is an invitation to
give the religious hypothesis the test of experiment: and
that experimient cannot be performed unless the student
will hold it for true and act upon it. Some scientific men,
adopting this position, never get beyond it, holding that re-
ligion must be true and yet that the universe must be merely
mechanical. They keep their science in one mental room
and their religion in another. That position is unsatisfac-
tory; but it makes it possible for the student to perform
the experiment. Having won him so far, the leader has at

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 197

least obtained his interest to hear him to the end, and he
may then be convinced that the universe must not be merely
mechanical.

This volume of essays by James ought to be available
to the students, for his style is delightful and persuasive.

DISCUSSION VI.

The first three sections are a resum6 of John Fiske's
The Idea of God. He treats this theme more fully in Out-
lines of Cosmic Philosophy, but for practical purposes the
smaller volume is better. Fiske's ideas as to the religious
effect of the two ideas of transcendence and immanence are
valid and his general treatment of the subject is very val-
uable. Modern investigators, however, do not agree with
him as to the history of the development of the ideas. An
excellent summary of the latest scholarship will be found
in part I of Wright's A Student's Philosophy of Religion.

Sections 4 and 5 take the matter up where Fiske leaves
off and present positive arguments for belief in God. This
phase is handled with delightful adequacy in the volume
entitled The Being and Attributes of God in Francis J.
Hall's Dogmatic Theology. From the point of view of
religious experience see William James' Varieties of Re-
ligious experience. A remarkably good popular presentation
of the question of the existence of God is found in Richard L.
Swain's What and Where is God, particularly Chapter 2.
Read Chapters 2 to 10 of R. W. and Paul Micou's Basic
Ideas in Religion. Psychology of belief in God is dis-
cussed in Chapter 10 of James B. Pratt's The Religious
Consciousness. A philosophical treatment, but in enter-
taining style, is to be found in J. R. lUingworth's Person-
ality, Human and Divine and Divine Immanence. In this
connection chapter 3 of Charles Gore's Belief in God is
valuable ; although I find myself unable to agree with the
rationale of inspiration and miracles, or with the belief
in devils, as set forth in subsequent chapters of that book.
Excellent presentations of the arguments for the theistic
point of view in the light of modern philosophy will be
found in chapter 19 of Wright's A Student's Philosophy of
Religion and in Vernon F. Storr's The Argument from
Design (Longmans, Green & Co.).

198 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

DISCUSSION VII.

Read the essay entitled The Dilemma of Determinism in
TJie Will to Believe, above cited, also Chapter 18 of R. W.
and iPaul Micou's Basic Ideas in Religion. This volume is
exceedingly important for the thorough student, although
rather too extended for the average college man. See also
chapter 20 of Wright's A Student's Philosophy of Religion.

NOTE ON THE MEANING OF "NATURAL LAW."

A source of misunderstanding exists in the use of the
word "law" in the sciences. It is generally recognized that
it does not connote an ordinance or statute fixed by author-
ity, and yet this connotation is continually creeping sub-
consciously into our reasoning and must be guarded against.
There is a constant tendency to think of the phenomenon as
caused by the law, instead of the law as a description of
the course of the phenomenon,

A much more frequent occasion of loose thinking in the
sciences is due to failure to recognize that the word has a
very different meaning in the organic sciences than in the
inorganic sciences. In the latter it is a formula which epit-
omizes an invariable sequence, while in the organic sciences
it is a formula which expresses merely an average, or mean,
sequence. Thus, Newton's Laws of Motion and Boyle's Law
of Gases express sequences which occur in every indi-
vidual case and enable us to predict the course of the se-
quence with absolute accuracy. Mendel's Law of Heredity,
on the contrary, expresses merely an average sequence, based
on the prohaMlity of certain combinations of determiners ap-
pearing in the chromosomes in the germ plasm of the off-
spring. In formulas based on the actions of social groups,
such as the "laws" of economics and sociology, the indi-
vidual action is still more indeterminate and the number of
instances required to obtain a true average is exceedingly
greater. Thus, Gresham's Law by no means predicts
what any individual will do with his money, nor does the
Law of Malthus determine how many offspring he will leave.
Hence, when we speak of society being governed by economic
or social laws, we use the word in a Pickwickian sense;
we do not in the least imply that the wills of men are co-

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 199

erced, or their course of behavior predetermined, by
forces beyond their control. All that we mean to say is tlmt
in a given situation reasonable men will, more often than
not, arrive at similar judgments as to what action to pursue.

NOTE ON SCIENTIFIC DETERMINISM. The theory
of theological determinism, or predestination, which so long
beclouded religion, has been tacitly abandoned and to-day
hardly needs refutation. Philosophical determinism has re-
ceived such adequate treatment at the hands of William
James in his volume entitled The Will to Believe, that to
add anything were an impertinence. There remains, how-
ever, scientific determinism in its several forms, which de-
mands consideration.

By scientific determinism I mean the theory that hu-
man conduct is completely determined by bodily states and
external stimuli. This theory meets one in several fields:
biology, anatomy, psychology, and sociology. It would be
obviously impossible in a brief note to do more than present
a few suggestions to indicate that absolute determinism is
not a necessary conclusion from the data of any of these
sciences.

In biology, we learn that many characteristics, such as
color of hair and eyes, which develop in the life of the in-
dividual, arise out of certain "determiners" which are to be
found in the chromosome of the germ. Exactly what these
"determiners" are, or how they operate to produce the unit
characteristics in later life, has not been worked out. (The
latest conclusions are set forth in Conkling Heredity and
Environment, ana more in detail in Thos. H. Morgan's The
Physical Basis of Heredity.) Biologists expect, also, to be
able to demonstrate that the growth of every portion of the
body of the individual will be found to be related to some
specific structure or quality of the germ. This last con-
clusion is as yet hypothesis. Yet granting it to be true,
biologists will merely have gone a little further in describ-
ing the manner in which development takes place ; they will
have filled in a few of the interstices in the description of
the process. For example, the presence of the blue-eye de-
terminer in the germ is not the cause of blue eyes in the
child at the age of ten years in any other sense than are
his blue eyes at that age the cause of his having blue eyes

200 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

at the age of twenty. There is as yet no direct experi-
mental evidence that human mental characteristics arise
out of determiners in the germ ; and in the nature of the
case it will be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to ob-
tain such evidence. There is, however, abundant statistical
evidence for the inheritance of mental characteristics and
recent psychological study seems to have isolated certain
unit mental traits, which are entirely analogous to Mende-
lian characteristics. To such evidence the same conclusions
apply. If it should be demonstrated, for example, that po-
etical genius in a lad of ten answered to some antecedent
quality in the germ, that antecedent quality would not be
the cause of the lad's genius in any other sense than is his
budding genius at ten the cause of his developed poetical
ability at twenty.

In anatomy and psychology, we learn that bodily states
and mental states are interdependent. But William James —
who was, by the way, a physiologist before he became a
psychologist — has pointed out that it does not by any
means follow that the bodily state causes the mental state
(James, Human Immortality) . To be sure, the bodily state
conditions the mental state, that is to say, it sets certain
limits. But science has never demonstrated, and has no
right to conclude, that the interdependence between bodily
and mental states is absolute. The difference between a
condition and a cause may be illustrated in this way: I
desire to walk across the room. If my legs are paralyzed
I will be unable to do so ; if they are not paralyzed I may
do so. My freedom of will in that respect is conditioned on
my having normal legs. Yet the fact that I possess normal
legs does not cause me to walk across the room, since I
am still free to remain where I am.

In sociology, we learn that the influence of environment
upon the individual is very great, often overwhelmingly
great. Some sociologists contend that its influence is so
great that, given two individuals with the same hereditary
equipment, their behavior throughout life will vary abso-
lutely with environment. But for this they have not a scin-
tilla of proof, either experimental or statistical. It is
mere surmise and appears to run counter to our every-day
exi)erience.

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 201

In short, absolute scientific determinism has not been
demonstrated and cannot fairly be deduced from any pres-
ent scientific knowledge. We do know that our wills are
conditioned by many factors of heredity and environment.
But any careful scientist will aver that there is no scientific
evidence that the will is not free within limits.

The position outlined in this note has been very fully and
cogently set forth by Professor Edwin G. Conklin in his
presidential address before the American Society of Natur-
alists in 1913, and reprinted by him under the title of "Gen-
etics and Ethics" as chapter 6 of his Heredity and Environ-
ment. That chapter is exceedingly valuable at this point.

DISCUSSION VIII.

The second and third sections are based on William
James' Personal Immortality. This is a short and delight-
fully vn*itten essay and ought to be read by the students
themselves to remove the supposed scientific objections to
immortality. Coming from a physiologist and psychologist, it
should have particular weight. Another popular presenta-
tion is Chapter 11 of Lyman Abbott's The Theology of an
Evolutionist; also Chapters 5 and 6 of Swain's What and
Where is God. For a more philosophical and thorough dis-
cussion see Chapter 15 of Micou's Basic Ideas in Religion;
also Henri Bergson's Mind Energy; also chapter 22 of
Wright's A Student's Philosophy of Religion. Psychology
of belief in immortality is discussed in chapter 11 of
James B. Pratt's The Religious Consciousness; also in the
volume of essays entitled Concerning Immortality by a
group of English writers (Macmillan). It might prove of
interest at this point to devote one session to open dis-
cussion of the question of spiritualistic manifestations.
Men who were in the service during the World War will
understand what I mean by an intuition of immortality.
I observed that the recruit, after two or three months of
doubt and dread, commonly achieved an awareness of the
reality of things unseen and an assurance of immortality
which produced that calm assurance of mind that has
often been wrongly described as fatalism. The soldier was
not a fatalist, he was only a believer. I have never known

202 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

one who had achieved this faith to fall a victim to a
neurosis. A statistical study of the subject would have
been interesting.

DISCUSSION IX.

Some of us have become accustomed to take the theory
of evolution for granted. The Fundamentalist controversy
has, however, temporarily reopened the issue. The evidence
upon which the theory of biological evolution is based has
been presented in popular form, and without polemical in-
tent (the book was written in 1916), in Thomas Hunt
Morgan's Critique of the Theory of Evolution.

For a popular presentation of the theory and factors of
biological evolution see H. W. Conn's The Method of Evolu-
tion, still useful though somewhat out of date. For a
thorough discussion of the process of biological evolution
from the point of view of a thurough- going scientist, who
is at the same time sympathetic to the non-mechanical view-
point, read J. Arthur Thomson's The System of Animate
Nature. The style of this book is delightful and the sub-
ject-matter accurate. From the same point of view, present-
ing a still more anti-mechanical interpretation of evolution,
read Henri Bergson's Creative Evolution. For a thorough
discussion of the bearing of evolution upon theology, see
the first part of F. J. Hall's Creation and Man in his Dog-
matic Theology. For a popular discussion of evolution from
the standpoint of religion, read Lyman Abbott's The The-
ology of an Evolutionist, especially for this discussion.
Chapter 2. For a more thorough-going discussion. Chapters
3 to 5 of Micou's Basic Ideas in Religion. In regard to the
theory and actuality of miracles, read Chapters 9 and 10
of Lyman Abbott's The Theology of an Evolutionist; Chap-
ter 18 of Percy Gardner's Exploratio Evangelica ; and pages
443 to 451 of Micou's Basic Ideas in Religion. These ci*
tations present the matter from several angles. For th^
rationalistic viewpoint of fifty years ago, see Lecky's Growth
of Rationalism In Europe.

The glaring defect in the treatment of the subject of
miracles by Lecky, and to a less extent in the treatment
by Gardner, is that they arbitrarily accept or reject portions
of the gospel narrative solely in accordance with whether

SUQOESTIONS TO THE LEADER 203

the event descriLK\ • ,i'Jii<iLs witli iLoir a pilot i ijoiiiii of
possibility. This is pointed out by N. J. Figgis in his
Civilization at the Crossroads and by Charles Gore in
his Belief in Ood. For example, they reject the account of
the miracle of the loaves and fishes, because it appears to
be impossible. Yet the story is contained in all four Gospels.
Furthermore, the Gospel of Mark contains accounts of two
such feedings, which look like two independent traditions
of the same act, and hence add enormously to the value of
the evidence. Finally, if such an event did take place, there
must have been hundreds of witnesses living when the
evangelist wrote. This miracle, therefore, on the face of
the record, becomes one of the best authenticated facts of
Jesus' life. Such treatment of the evidence as would be
involved in regarding this account as mere allegory would
render futile any attempt to get at the facts of Jesus' life,
or indeed of any event in history. On the other hand, it does
not at all follow, as argued by Figgis and Gore, that we
are obliged to conclude that the occurrence was a miracle
in the old sense of being a clean break in the continuity of
material, phenomenal causation. It does seem to be beyond
dispute that some real occurrence lies at the basis of these
accounts; but as to just what happened and how it hap-
pened, the forces involved, we must await further enlight-
enment. The same thing may be said fOr some of the other
accounts of miracles.

This discussion should cover two periods. At the first
period some member of the group might lead a discussion
as to the scientific conclusions concerning organic evolu-
tion.

DISCUSSION X.

A complete resume of the history of the New Testament
criticism during the nineteenth century is found in Albert
Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historic Jesus.

For a semi-popular presentation of the results of Biblical
higher criticism, read articles on the particular hooks of the
Bible in Encyclopedia Britannica, also G. B. Gray's A Crit-
ical Introduction to the Old Testament, and Arthur S.
Peake's A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. For

204 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

the New Testament see also Arthur C. McGiffert's Apostolic
Age, Adolph Harnack's Chronology of Ancient Christian Lit-
erature and Chap. 8 of Chas. Gore's Belief in God. For a
popular presentation of the modern theory of inspiration
and a popular statement of present conclusions as to the
composition of the books, George Hodges' How to Know the
Bible is unequaled. From the same point of view Chapter
4 of Lyman Abbott's The Theology of an Evolutionist, also
Chapter 9 of Richard L. Swain's What and where is God.
For the psychology of inspiration read William James' Var-
ieties of Religious Experience, and Streeter and others, The
Spirit. A detailed discussion of authorship and date of
Biblical writings would lead too far afield, and is not rec-
ommended unless demanded by the group. The best of
these books for one wishing to get a general idea of the
subject of this discussion is Hodges'.

DISCUSSION XI.

The outline follows the argument contained in my essay
entitled The Nicene Idea of God to be found in Part II.
Another and somewhat variant discussion of the doctrine
of the Trinity is contained in Chapter 3 of Illingworth's
Personality, Human and Divine and Chapter 7 of his Di-
vine Immunence. The practical bearings of the doctrine
are interestingly presented in Bernard I. Bell's article, The
Meaning of Mr. Wells' New Religion in the Atlantic Monthly
for November, 1917. See also, essays 1 and II of The Spirit,
Streeter and others. A discussion of the Trinitarian doc-
trine from the point of view of theological authorities in the
past is to be found in Francis J. Hall's The Being and At-
tributes of God. With reference to Dr. Hall's entire Dog-
matic Theology it should be stated that the work is of prime
importance as presenting a very exact and scholarly com-
pendium of the authorities throughout the history of Chris-
tian thought upon all the doctrines of Christian theology.
The book is written from the viewiK>int of reliance upon
authority. This method of presentation embodies what
woul^ seem to be a viewi>oint difficult to maintain at the
present time. However, the book is exceedingly valuable
as a precise statement of the orthodox position. Any mod-
ern attempt to restate the doctrines of theology must use

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 205

this, or some similar book, as a sort of mariner's chart
The modern student, to be sure, while he will probably
arrive at the same port in the end, will vary his course con-
siderably from that of the ancient writers; but it is quite
essential for him that he should be able at every point to
measure the extent of that variance, and for this purpose
the work of Dr. Hall is quite essential.

DISCUSSION XII.

As to the authenticity of the documents see books cited
in the note on Discussion X.

No two modern writers upon the life of Jesus agree as
to details, and it would be hopeless to expect that any treat-
ment of that life would prove entirely satisfactory to all per-
sons to whom it was addressed. I have endeavored, how-
ever, in this discussion to follow what appears to me to be
the main stream of present historical conclusions. The
supplemen^ry reading to which reference is here made will
differ in many details from my conclusions, but will be the
more valuable on account of the variety of view points. The
following are suggested: Chapters 15 to 23 of Percy Gard-
ner's Exploratio Evangelica; Essay 3 of the volume entitled
Foundations by seven Oxford men. For Jewish apocalyptic
expectations of the Messiah read Robert H. Charles' Re-
ligious Development Betiveen the Old. and New Testaments.

The past thirty years have witnessed a complete change
in the views of historians as to the Jewish ideas of the
Messiah and Jesus' own conception of his Messiahship.
The rationalistic school had made out that he regarded his
mission to be primarily ethical reform, and the Kingdom
of God, which is preached, merely a purified human society.
The so-called eschatological school of critics has shown
that, as he said, "My kingdom is not of this world", and
that the apocalyptic and eschatological ideas of his time
were his also ; and that primitive Christianity was, likewise,
essentially mystical and sacramental.

With regard to Gardner's Exploratio Evangelica, my own
idea is that it fails to give due importance to these elements
and represents the old, superseded, rationalistic point of
view. A presentation of the thorough-going eschatological

206 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

interpretation of Jesus' life is to be found in chapter 19 of
Albert Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus. Schweit-
zer probably went too far. A moderate, and probably, in
the main, correct, interpretation is that contained in parts
I and II of Shailer Mathews' The Messianic Hope in the
New Testament, also in George Tyrell's Christianity at the
Crossroads and in Alfred Loisy's The Gospel and the Church.

DISCUSSION XIII.

Here again the possibilities of interpretation are myriad-
A popular presentation very much in line with my own is
contained in Chapter 4 of Richard L. Swain's What and
Where is God; also Chapter 5 of Lyman Abbott's The Theol-
ogy of an Evolutionist. A more detailed study of the devel-
opment of Christology will be found in essays 4 and 5 of
Foundations; Chapter 32 of Percy Gardner's Exploratio
Evangelica; Part III of Shailer Mathew's Messianic Hope.
For a conservative reconsideration of the problem see Will
Spens' Belief and Practice, Chaps. 6 to 8.

The sinlessness of Jesus, referred to in section four of
the Discussion, is evidenced not so much by the fact that
no sinful act is reported of him as by his own complete lack
of consciousness of guilt or of the need for contrition. He
was self-assured of perfect harmony with the will of God,
and, the justice of this assurance his followers never ques-
tioned. Upon his trial no charge was placed against him,
except that he claimed to be the Messiah. It was for this
reason that he assumed, and was accorded, the right to
proclaim God's will. **He taught them as having authority."

DISCUSSION XIV

A good popular statement of the factors in human con-
duct is contained in Edwin G. Conklin's Heredity and En-
vironment in the Development of Men. His recent book en-
titled Direction of Human Evolution is also valuable.

Upon the hereditary and environmental causes of mis-
conduct, read Charles R. Henderson's The Cause and Cure
of Crime, and B. G. Lewis' The Offender. The application
of the teachings of Christ to the problem of crime is dis-
cussed in Hugh E. "Wiillis' The Law of Social Justice.

SUQQE8TI0NS TO THE LEADER 207

DISCUSSION XV

The fact of latonement, or the realization of the need of
atonement, as a religious experience is fundamental and
practically universal. It is only when we attempt to ration-
alize this experience and explain just how the life and
death of Ciirist operated to produce atonement that we
find differences in theory. The Discussion presents one or
two aspects of the theory of atonement, and other aspects
will be found in the following citations : Essay 6 of Founda-
tions. Chapter 31 of Percy Gardner's Exploratio Evan-
gelica. Chapters 7 and 8 of Lyman Abbott's The Theology
Of an Evolutionist. Lectures 5 and 6 of Josiah Royce's
The Pro'blem of Christianity. Essay, Qod and the World's
Pain, in volume entitled Concerning Prayer (Macmillan),

DISCUSSION XVI

A scholarly discussion of the subject of this discussion
and Indeed of all the underlying concepts of Christian the-
ology from the point of view of religious experience is to
be found in Will Spens' Belief and Practice. The classic
discussion of subconscious mentality is Joseph Jastrow's
The Subconscious. For the general subject of this Discus-
sion read Essays 2 to 8 of The Spirit; William James' Va-
rieties of Religious Experience; Part II of Wright's Philos-
ophy of Religion; Chapters 15 to 20 of James B. Pratt's The
Religious Consciousness; Worcester, McComb, and Coriat,
Religion and Medicine; C. M. Addison's The Theory and
Practice of Mysticism; see also Concerning Prayer (Mac-
millan), especially the essays entitled Prayer and the Mys-
tic Vision and Prayer and Bodily Health. The life of a
modern mystic is told in The Message of Sadhu Sundar
Singh by B. H. Streeter. For one desiring to make a more
thorough study of mysticism the standard work is Evelyn
Underhill's Mysticism.

DISCUSSION XVII

Chapter 16 of Percy Gardner's Exploratio Evangelica. A
collection of essays entitled Property by a group of English
theologians.

On the social ethics of Christianity see Shailer Mathews'
The Church and the Changing Order; Walter Rauschen-

208 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

busch's Christianity and the Social Crisis, Christianizing
the Social Order; and The Social Principles of Jesus; and
Charles K. Gilbert and Charles N. Lathrop's The Social Op-
portunity of the Churchman.

DISCUSSION XVIII.

The Philosophy of Loyalty and The Problem of Chris-
tianity by Josiah Royce and Chapters 1 and 4 of James
B. Pratt's The Religious Consciousness lay the foundation
for the conception of the Church as an essential element in
the religious life and a spiritual organism. An excellent
shorter treatment is to be found in Essay 7 of Foundations.
Read also Chaps. 12 to 14 of Will Spens' Belief and Practice.
A remarkably fine interpretation of the beginnings of the
Church is contained in Essay 4 of The Spirit. Upon this
point also the entire third book of Percy Gardner's Explor-
atio Evangelica is in point, especially Chapters 26, 38, and
39, but there is much there stated with which one will differ.
But he gives far too little weight to the mystical and
sacramental elements in early Christianity. Alfred Loisy's
The Oospel and the Church is much more in accord with
recent scholarship.

For details as to Church history and doctrine con-
sult the articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica and in Hast-
ings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. The articles in
both of these are exceedingly valuable, not only for this dis-
cussion, but for all of those which follow. A very remarkable
evaluation of the Catholic theory of the Church is the recent
work of W. G. Peck entitled From Chaos to Catholicism.
Mr. Peck is a member of a group of Free Church ministers
in England, who, while convinced of the validity of the
Catholic or organic idea, have remained in their respective
Churches and are working from that point toward the re-
union of Christendom. Admirable from the same point of
view is the chapter entitled The Historic Approach in Ap-
proaches Towards Church Unity edited by Newman Smyth
and Williston Walker (Yale Univ. Press, 1919).

DISCUSSION XIX.

Upon the theory of sacraments read Charles Gore's The
Body of Christ. The first part of this book is especially

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 209

valuable. The latter portion of the book seems to me to
go too much into detail in support of particular theories
on the nature and operation of the Eucharist. See also
Will Spens' Belief and Practice, Chaps. 9 to 11. Upon the
psychological aspects of sacraments read Chapters 12 to 14
in James B. Pratt's The Religious Consciousness and Essay
7 of The Spirit; also essays 8 and 9 of Concerning Prayer
(Macmillan), being essays entitled Worship and The Eu-
charist. Upon the origin and early history of the
sacraments and their relation to the Greek mystery relig-
ions, read Chapters 26, 35, and 36 of Percy Gardner's Ex-
ploratio Evangelica. Upon the whole subject of the early
development of Church, Sacraments, and Ministry, a useful
popular treatment is James H. Ropes' The Apostolic Age,
and somewhat more extended treatment in Arthur C. Mc-
Giffert's The Apostolic Age.

DISCUSSION XX.

The concept of priesthood is discussed in the articles
under that heading in the Encyclopedia Britannica and
Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. The histor-
ical origins of the Christian ministry are discussed in J. B.
Lightfoot's Dissertations on the Apostolic Age and also in
Foundations. An interesting discussion of the subjects con-
tained in Discussions XVIII, XIX, and XX is scattered
through the volume entitled The Holy Eucharist by P. N.
Waggett.

DISCUSSION XXI.

A very good compilation of doctrinal history is George
P. Fisher's History of Christian Doctrine. Less detailed,
although more valuable in bringing out the thread of de-
velopment, is Alexander V. G. Allen's The Continuity of
Christian Thought, although colored overmuch with the
author's preconceptions. The value of authority is stated
in Essay 8 of Foundations. The whole principle of author-
ity and development in matters of doctrine is discussed by
Dean Inge in Faith and its Psychology. The point of view
of the traditional Roman Catholic theologians is stated
by John Henry Newman's Development of Doctrine, and the
point of view of the modernists in the Roman Catholic Church

210 GRAMMAR OF BELIEF

is set forth in The Progrmnme of Modernism by certain
anonymous Italians and in Alfred Loisy's The Gospel in
the Church. The point of view of the latter seems to me
to be particularly sound. As to the development of doctrine
by Paul, read Part III of Shailer Mathew's Messianic Hope
in the New Testament, where the writer brings out the
essential continuity in thought between Jesus and Paul
(which has often been denied). Mathews, however,
does very tardy justice to the corporate and organic nature
of the primitive Church (pp. 269-273) and entirely overlooks
the sacramental element, which was all-important.

DISCUSSION XXII.

Approaches toivards Church Unity, edited by Newman
Smyth and WUliston Walker; also The Proceedings of the
Lamheth Conference of 1920. Also the literature circulated
by the Secretary of the World Conference on Faith and
Order ; also the report of the Joint Committee on Reunion
appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Free
Churches of England.

A BOOK LIST

Reference has been made in the preceding notes to a
number of valuable books to be used in connection with the
several discussions. These notes do not purport to offer
a complete bibliography, and only those books are suggested
from which ideas have been gained that find a place in
the text. For general purposes, indeed, the number may
be still further reduced. For the purpose of presenting
what is, perhaps, a minimum selection, chosen with reference
to readability, I venture to propose the following twelve-
inch book list:

Karl Pearson, The Grammar of Science (first eight

chapters).
William James, The Will to Believe.

William Kelly Wright, A Studenfs Philosophy of Chris-
tianity.
John Fiske, The Idea of God.
William James, Human Immortality.

SUGGESTIONS TO THE LEADER 211

Lyman Abbott, The Theology of an Evolutionist.
George Hodges, How to Know the Bihle.
Alfred Loisy, The Gospel and the Church.
B. H. Streeter and others, Foundations.
B. H. Streeter and others, The Spirit.

ilJs^KSt

Pnnceton

n7,^l?',;,^;S™inarySpeerL,brary

1 1012 01016 1

893

'■ '»*.\

< %'9

H

't\'

V

'^K

' t.'