From Bondage to Liberty in Religion Part 7

Man also interpreted his own relation to the G.o.ds, and theirs to him, in the same terms that defined his relations toward his fellowmen. He recognized the fact that some of his fellowmen sometimes did him an injury, or committed some offense against him; that this offense or injury aroused in him a spirit of resentment, a desire for vengeance in kind, even to the taking of the life of the man who had injured, or seriously offended him. Man made his G.o.ds in his own image. He believed these G.o.ds to be like himself. Thus, man interpreted his own sufferings to mean that he was out of right relations with the G.o.ds; that he had personally offended them,--or, one or more of them in some way, according to the source from which he conceived some particular affliction to come. When the individual was conscious of his own innocence, he concluded that some of his ancestors had grievously offended the G.o.d, who relentlessly pursued his posterity and inflicted on them the penalties due for the sins of this ancestor. Hence the doctrine of inherited or original Sin. Man then set about to devise some means to appease the wrath of the G.o.ds, and thus restore harmonious relations with them. A volume might be written here, but we _must_ proceed with the next proposition.

All religion is therefore one in its ultimate purpose, and objective end: To attain to its ideal, or harmonize with its objective. In other words: To attain unto right relations with G.o.d. Lest I be misunderstood, I will repeat: It is immaterial what this G.o.d may be, Jehovah, Allah, Nirvana or Jove; Person, Principle, or Abstract Ideal.

It is that which man _in his mind_ sets before him, toward which he aspires and strives to attain. Remember that what we _think_ G.o.d to be, that is what G.o.d is to us.

We have now reached the point where divisions arise, where religion branches out into religions. "Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high G.o.d? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"

"What must I do to be saved?" This has, in one form or another, at one time or another, been the burden of almost every soul among men. How can man attain unto right relations with his G.o.d? This is the great question of the ages. _Keep in mind_ that it is immaterial who or what this G.o.d may be, how crude or how refined, from the lowest fetish to the highest spiritual conception, the fundamental question remains ever the same: How shall man get right with his G.o.d? What must man do to be saved?

To answer this question has been the purpose of every system of religion known to mankind, and every sect, order and denomination known to every system. And here is where confusion begins. Some one evolves a formula, means, or method that he believes meets the case. Some others are persuaded to accept it and the sect grows. In the mean time some other person has evolved another; and some other still another, and so on, and on, and on, _ad infinitum_; all having the same purpose in view, and each claiming to be the _only right one_, or at least, the _best one_. And it is immaterial how erroneous, crude, or even barbarous one may look to the devotees of the other; in fundamental purpose they are all the same. The Hindu mother who casts her babe into the Ganges as food for the crocodiles, as a sacrifice to her G.o.ds, does it with as sublime a motive as any Christian mother ever bowed before the altar of her own church,--and for the same purpose: To get right with her G.o.d. The Pa.r.s.ee wife, who burns herself to ashes upon the funeral pyre of her dead husband, does it for the same purpose: To get right with her G.o.d. The devotee who throws his body before the wheels of the Juggernaut to have it crushed as an act of devotion, does it for the same purpose: To get right with his G.o.d. The devout Mohammedan who bows himself to the earth five times a day, and says his prayers with his face towards Mecca, does it for the same purpose: To get right with Allah. The savage who repeats his incantations to his fetish that he has probably made with his own hands, does it for the same purpose: To get right with G.o.d as he conceives him. The Chinese that burns his sticks before the image in his Joss-house, does it for the same purpose: To get right with his G.o.d. And so on _ad infinitum_, the same central purpose running thru it all, whether Hindu or Pa.r.s.ee, Buddist or Janist, Confucian or Shintoist, Jew or Gentile, Mohammedan or Christian, Catholic or Protestant, Methodist or Baptist, Presbyterian or Lutheran, Calvinist or Arminian, Unitarian or Trinitarian, one and all, have one and the same ultimate object: To get into right relations with G.o.d, each according to his own conception of G.o.d, and what he understands to be his will concerning him. However, in the more rational interpretation of religion in these later times, the element of fear of punishment hereafter has been almost, if not entirely eliminated; and the religious objective is made the highest, n.o.blest, purest, and best possible life in this world, for _its own intrinsic worth_, and without any reference to any future life, resting firmly in the faith that he who lives right cannot die wrong.

Hence, religion does not consist in creeds, dogmas, or beliefs; nor in forms, ordinances, ceremonies, or sacraments, as I was early taught to believe. But these are, one and all, but so many varying _forms of expression_ which religion takes. They are all only so many different ways, means and methods religion takes to attain to its ultimate purpose and aim. They are only so many different paths which different men take in their search for G.o.d.

And is there but _one_ true path to G.o.d, while all the others only lead to h.e.l.l? And if so, _which_ is the right one? Ah, herein lies the fruitful source of most of the world's tragedies and sufferings! It was this that burned John Huss, Savonarola and Bruno. It was this that lighted the fires of Smithfield and hung helpless, silly women in New England, as witches. But thank G.o.d, it is abating and the dawn of a better day is in sight.

I have long since come to believe that all who honestly, sincerely, and diligently seek G.o.d will ultimately find him, in some way, at some time, when G.o.d sees best to reveal himself, no matter what method may be pursued. I do not mean that all methods are equally good; no, not by any means. The quest for G.o.d may be helped or hindered, advanced or delayed, accordingly as the methods of search may be correct or erroneous. But I do mean to say that I do not believe the Infinite G.o.d, who knows the hearts of men, and will ultimately judge them by this standard, will forever hide, and deny himself to any, in whose heart He sees honesty, purity, and sincerity of purpose and motive, because in their finite judgment, they were unable to intellectually determine just which was the right, or best way;--and this, whether the searcher be Hindu, Chinese, Pagan or Pa.r.s.ee; Hottentot or Arab, savage or philosopher; Christian, Mohammedan or Buddhist; or any one else on earth. "Man looketh upon the outward appearance; but G.o.d looketh upon the heart." And they that diligently, honestly and earnestly seek after him will find him,--somewhere, somehow--in this life or some other, And when found, it will not be "in far-off realms of s.p.a.ce," but in one's own heart.

"The outward G.o.d he findeth not, Who finds not G.o.d within."

THE BIBLE

From the foregoing it is quite clear that religion is not something miraculously revealed from heaven, handed down in a package already bound up, complete and finished, ready for use; but that in its origin, essence and purpose it is natural and common to all humanity alike.

Its present status is but the result of its progressive development, from its crudest forms in early humanity, to the present day. While forever remaining one and the same in its origin, essence and purpose, it has undergone changes in its forms of expression, its means and methods, in all ages as mankind has progressively developed upward.

What we call the great systems of religion, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, and others are but so many different forms of expression thru which religion manifests itself in human life; and the various sects and denominations in all these systems are but further subdivisions in these forms of expression, according to different desires, tastes and opinions among different people. Hence, religion was not produced by the Bible, nor is it in any way dependent upon the Bible as a source of authority, but just the opposite.

Religion was long before the Bible and itself produced the Bible; and the Bible derives its sole authority from religion.

Here is perhaps as good a place as any to answer the question that has often been asked me: "If the Bible is not the ultimate source of authority in religion, what and where is it?" Just the same to you and me today that it was to Noah, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, apostles, and all others in all ages. "But were not these men divinely inspired?" No more than you or I _may be_, even if we are not in fact.

This subject will be fully elucidated when I come to treat specifically of inspiration and revelation in the next subdivision. The answer to this question about the source of authority in religion is clearly indicated in the very definition I have given of religion, and I only make it more specific here to avoid any misunderstanding of my position on it. If "religion is a natural impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive upward"; if it is the "zest of Life"; if it is "that _inner urge_ in all humanity that ever pushes it onward and upward"; these natural impulses themselves const.i.tute the sole source of authority in religion. Thomas Paine once said: "All religions are good that teach men to be good." To which might well be added: That religion alone is best which teaches men to live the best lives. Life, not creed, is the final test of religion. To perceive what is right and what is wrong, to cleave to the right and avoid the wrong, is the highest, n.o.blest and best expression of religion. Now, there is no single universal standard of right and wrong that is universally the same in its application to human life, in all ages, at all times, and under all circ.u.mstances and conditions. Life is progressive; and as it moves on new conditions arise, new relations develop, new problems present themselves, and new and changing standards come with them. For example, human slavery and polygamy were both practiced in the days of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon, and for centuries afterwards; and according to the Bible, with the divine sanction and approval. The simple facts are, that according to the standards of those ages, according to the social development of the race at that time there was no moral turpitude in those practices. But who would dare defend them now? And yet these, or most of them--and I say it reverently and sincerely--were doubtless _good men_, judged by the standards of their time; and devoutly religious.

Coming directly now to the answer to the question: The ultimate, final authority in all matters of religion is the _individual conscience_, the inner light, that law written in the hearts of all men, aided and a.s.sisted by all the light of the present day, which includes all the light of the past that has come down to us, both in the Bible and from all other courses, history, science and the record of human experiences generally interpreted and applied by human reason. That "natural impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive upward"; that "inner urge that ever pushes him onward and upward," will not only start him in the right way of life, but will remain with him and guide him to the end, if he will but hear and obey its voice, interpreted by reason.

The reader will recall the opinion I reached concerning the Bible after my special course of study and the process of reasoning that followed it. But after fifteen years of continued study I changed my opinion about it again. When I took a different perspective I got a different view. First, I was confronted with the fact that _the Bible is here_.

And while all my inherited opinions as to its origin, meaning and purpose were gone forever, the second question remained unanswered: _How came it here_? After all these years of study and investigation I found an answer to this question satisfactory to myself, which I have already indicated above, but will here more fully elaborate as a part of my New Confession of Faith.

The Old Testament is but a record preserved and handed down to us, first of events, legends, opinions and beliefs that existed in crude form as traditions, long before a line of it was written; and thereafter, for a period covering approximately a thousand years, it is a record, tho evidently imperfect, of the progressive development of the Jewish race, nation and religion, which are so inseparably bound together that they cannot be separated. Let us go a little more into detail. No one claims that a line of the Old Testament was written before Moses. (And it is here immaterial whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not. The Jews believed he did.) Yet the Jewish system of religion, at least in its fundamental features, had been in existence since Abraham, some five hundred years before, to say nothing of previous peoples back to Noah, or even to Adam and his sons. Yet none of these had any Bible whatever. If it is claimed by any one that Moses was the originator of the Jewish system, it leaves Abraham and all his posterity, down to the time of Moses, but pious pagans. But according to the record, Moses added nothing to the _principles_ of religious worship as practiced by Abraham and the other patriarchs. He simply reorganized, systematized, refined and somewhat elaborated the ancient system of worship, and at most reduced it to regularity and order.

It was quite natural that Moses should then reduce to writing the traditions and practices of his people, and make a more or less complete record of their laws, regulations, and civil and religious inst.i.tutions; and especially of that system of religious worship which he had not originated, but organized, systematized and reduced to more perfect order, so that all this might be preserved for the benefit of the people thereafter. This was the beginning of the sacred literature of the Jews which, when completed in its present form, was called the Bible--meaning simply, The Books.

After this, tho the Jewish system of religion, according to the Jews themselves, was finished and complete, they had but five books of written scripture,--the Pentateuch. Yet thirty-four additional books were afterwards written and added to these. Can these later books be quoted as _authority_ for that which existed, in some instances, a thousand years before they were written? Certainly not. But the facts are plain. The system of religion already existing, but continually progressing, gave rise to these subsequent books, which are merely a record of the progress, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, practices, etc., of this peculiar and intensely religious people.

Thus we see that the Old Testament is a _growth_ produced by, and recording the historic development of the Jewish race, nation and religion. It is simply the _literature_ of a people. Its various parts were written by representatives of the people themselves, many of whose names are unknown, at various times covering a period of a thousand years, under many varying conditions and circ.u.mstances. It records in part their history, traditions, legends, myths, their beliefs, superst.i.tions, hopes, fears, ideals and aspirations; and the legendary deeds of their national heroes, just as we find them in the literature of ancient Greece, Rome, England or Scandinavia. It contains books of law, ritual, maxims, hymns, poetry, drama, letters, sermons, denunciations, rebukes, warnings, arguments, anecdotes and biography. No literature on earth is more multifarious in its contents. That it contains many contradictions, errors, inconsistencies and incredible statements is nothing to its discredit from this viewpoint of its origin. The wonder is that there are not more. But that it contains only what the various writers of its different parts, at the time they wrote, honestly thought and _believed_ to be true, may be freely admitted without in the least derogating from its true value, or adding supernatural sanct.i.ty to it.

The Old Testament considered simply as a collection of ancient Jewish literature, reveals to us to-day many of the stages in the national, racial and religious evolution of ancient Israel, just as the literature of any nation or people reveals the same thing concerning them,--no more and no less.

Turning now for a moment to the New Testament: Is it the source and authority for Christianity? Or just the reverse? Which was first of the two? That which goes before is the cause of that which comes after,--not the reverse. If Christianity is to be considered as a separate and distinct system of religion, based upon divine authority, the system was finished, full and complete with the resurrection and ascension of Christ--for the argument's sake, admitting these to be facts. Hence Christianity would have existed as a fact just the same, whether a line of the New Testament had ever been written or not. As a matter of fact, not a line of it was written for twenty-five or thirty years after these events, and it was not completed for a hundred years thereafter. Therefore the New Testament did not produce Christianity; nor is it the authority upon which it is based, but just the opposite.

Christianity produced the New Testament and is the authority upon which it is based.

So the New Testament, like the Old, is just literature,--no more. It records what the authors of its various parts, in the light of their time, and with the knowledge they possessed, as common, fallible, mortal men like ourselves, honestly thought, felt, hoped and believed was the truth. It gives us the only historical sketch we have of the origin and early development of that system of religion that in one form or another now dominates a third part of the human race. And as such it is the most valuable book the world possesses today. But it is no more the "infallible Word of G.o.d" than the Old Testament, Herodotus, Josephus, Plato or Plutarch.

The conclusion of the whole matter is: The Bible is not the supernaturally inspired, infallible word of G.o.d, given by him as the source and final authority for religion, outside of which and since its close there is no more revelation; but it was written by fallible men of like pa.s.sions with ourselves, who wrote,--not as they were infallibly and inerrantly guided by the Holy Spirit, but--as they were moved by the same impulses, pa.s.sions and motives that have moved men in all ages to write their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, hopes, fears, aspirations and views of life. Thus, as has already been said, the Bible is a _product_ of religion instead of being its source and authority. Thus the literature of the Jewish race and the early Christians _grew_. In course of time the thirty-nine books containing our present Old Testament were brought together in one collection. We do not know just when. Afterwards the twenty-seven books of our New Testament were collected in the same way. Age and tradition first embalmed them in an air of sanct.i.ty; and then superst.i.tion made of them a fetish. Until this "spell" is broken there can be no hope of anything like unity in the religious world. Until this fetish of a "once for all divine and infallible revelation, completed and handed down from heaven" is abandoned, there will continue to be "diversities of interpretation," and consequently divisions, controversies, bickerings, persecutions and recriminations will continue among mankind, and wars will continue among nations.

It may be said here that all the other sacred literature of the world, the Bibles of other systems of religion, the Zend Avesta, the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Koran, and others, had their origin in exactly the same source and manner as did our Bible; and attained sanct.i.ty and authority among their respective followers in exactly the same way.

But we need not go into it in detail.

But when we return to our first proposition, that all religion in its origin, fundamental essence and ultimate purpose is not only one and the same, but is _natural_ and common to all humanity; that its processes are a continual revelation in nature and human experience in man's continuous progress onward and upward in the scale of human attainment; and that the Bible, and all other literature of its kind, merely records a part of these processes and revelations in nature and experience, by which we are able to read the footprints of human progress in the past, and that these various writers, mostly unknown, merely recorded what they saw, felt, believed or understood at that time to be the truth; then all these difficulties of interpretation and sources of division vanish, and these books take on a new value and importance that they never otherwise attain.

With this view of its origin and purpose the Bible readily takes and holds its place as the most remarkable and invaluable book the world has ever known, or perhaps ever will know. It becomes at once an inexhaustible treasure-house of knowledge indispensable to the world's highest thought and progress,--knowledge which cannot be obtained anywhere else. In this view its many contradictions, discrepancies, errors of fact, and incredible statements become at once of little force and easily accounted for; and when we consider the various ages in which its parts were written, the many different authors of its different parts, the standards of human knowledge and attainment in these times, the wonder is that there are not more. The Bible is thus the greatest book of _religious instruction_ that the world knows, or ever has known. It contains inexhaustible treasures of religious thought, feeling, emotion and experience, of every conceivable type and variety, which makes it indeed "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." It is an inexhaustible mine of the richest and purest gold, fused in the fires of human experience in many ages. But the gold is mixed with the sand and dirt and rocks and rubbish of the human frailties and weaknesses of the ages in which it was acc.u.mulated in this mine. The pure gold must be separated from this dross in the crucible of _present day_ human intelligence, reason and experience. It is like a great river that has wound its course thru many countries and as many different kinds of soil, receiving tributaries from many different sources and directions.

It contains much pure water; but it is impregnated with the sand and dirt and mud of the channels thru which it has pa.s.sed. It must be filtered and these elements eliminated before it can be put to its highest and best use. As a great book of religious instruction it contains riches in human experience and inspiration from which any and all may draw something to fit their particular case and need. But to get the highest value, each must separate the gold from the dross, the pure water from the sand and mud, according to his particular case and need. Used in this way and for this purpose, the Bible will doubtless remain the world's greatest book of religious instruction and inspiration. But to persist in the claim, in the light of present-day knowledge, that the whole of it is a divine revelation, supernaturally given from heaven, and infallibly and inerrantly true, is to perpetuate confusion and discord among men, and cause the wisest and best among them to discredit it altogether, as many of them have already done.

But to reverence it for what it really is, a record of the religious evolution of the most intensely religious nation of antiquity, a great race that has contributed more to the religious life of the world than any other, is a credit to the intelligence of any one. To enshrine it in superst.i.tion, and make it a fetish, is idolatry.

INSPIRATION AND REVELATION

I am a strong believer in inspiration. But I believe it to be, like religion, natural, in a greater or less degree, to all peoples, in all ages and at all times; and _not_ something miraculous and supernatural, limited to a select few, of a single race, in a long past age, and since then has forever ceased. It is perhaps hard to define inspiration according to this view of it. Like religion, its very simplicity and universality eludes any exact definition; especially by one person for another. That it has often been manifest in much greater degree in some persons than in others; and in these much stronger at some times than at others, is not to be doubted for a moment. It is no more a uniform condition than human attainment in intelligence and character are uniform.

The simple dictionary definition will perhaps be adequate for our purpose,--at least as a starting point: "The inbreathing or imparting of an idea, emotion, or mental or spiritual influence; the elevating, creative influence of genius; also, that which is so inbreathed or imparted." It is that elevation of mental conception usually produced by intense concentration of mind, deep earnestness of thought, intense interest and zeal in a special subject or cause, or by some objective environment. A few simple ill.u.s.trations will convey my meaning better than any lengthy metaphysical a.n.a.lysis. One night a long time ago, some sage philosopher was looking out upon the heavens, contemplating the beauties of the stars in their majesty and glory. These _inspired_ a train of thought in his mind that found utterance in the nineteenth Psalm: "The heavens declare the glory of G.o.d, and the firmament showeth his handiwork...." This is inspiration if there ever was such a thing; and yet there is nothing miraculous or supernatural about it. It is as natural as the raindrops that fall from the clouds.

On another occasion some devout and intensely religious saint, but at the same time probably a great sufferer from some adverse fortune, beheld a shepherd taking care of his sheep, providing for them food and water, caring for the sick and lame and nursing them back to strength, leading them out to pasture thru the narrow defiles of the mountains, amidst many dangers, yet guarding them diligently against all. And this sight gave rise to reflections on the divine providence that found expression in that sublime and beautiful Twenty-third Psalm:

"The Lord is _my_ shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside still waters; He restoreth my soul."

What is there in all the world's literature more inspired and more inspiring than this? And yet it is no more miraculous nor supernatural in its origin than the shepherd caring for his sheep.

Inspiration is simply a condition or state of mind. It is purely psychological in its nature, and may be produced by a great variety of causes; but is not supernatural. To some extent, and in some degree, but by no means always equal, it has been common among all peoples of the past; and at all periods of their history. Specimens of it have come down to us in this age, enshrined and preserved in the literature, music and art of these peoples. It is as common among men today as it ever was in any past age. It is embodied in some degree, in most, if not all the literature, art and music of all ages; but by no means to the same extent in all. There are pa.s.sages in Dante, Goethe, Shakespeare, Milton, Browning, Emerson, Carlyle, Bryant, Longfellow, Lowell, and a thousand others, ancient and modern, that are just as much the products of inspiration as the Twenty-third Psalm or the Sermon on the Mount. But no one would pretend to say that _all_ that these men wrote was equally inspired, or of equal value.

What then is to be the test of inspiration? How are we to know what is inspired from what is not? There is no absolute and infallible test.

The rule I have generally followed is what may be termed, the test of reproduction. The test of the perfect life of an oak is the production of an acorn that will produce another oak. The test of all complete and perfect animal life is its power to reproduce itself in the perpetuation of its own species. The test of inspiration is whether or not it reproduces its kind:--Does it inspire? Who can read the Twenty-third Psalm, or the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Lost Sheep, or the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians without feeling the spirit of inspiration in his own soul? Therefore these must be inspired, because they inspire others. Who can read Emerson's essay on Spiritual Laws, or The Over-Soul, and not be inspired? or Longfellow's Resignation? or Bryant's Lines to a Water-fowl, or Thanatopsis, and not be inspired? Then these must have been inspired, or they could not inspire. Who today can sing the Star Spangled Banner, Geo. F. Root's Battle Cry of Freedom, or Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the Republic, without feeling a thrill of inspiration that stirs the very depths of the soul? Then, these must have been inspired. Time and s.p.a.ce fail me to mention even any of the great orators of history from Demosthenes to Woodrow Wilson, who by the power of their eloquence have been able to so inspire men to action as to change the course of empires and the destiny of nations. The secret of all this is that these men were themselves inspired,--not by some miraculous supernatural influence,--but by the natural intensity of their own earnestness, sincere devotion to, and all-absorbing interest in the cause they espoused, until they _lost themselves_ in their cause, and became thus inspired, and inspired others.

Yes, inspiration is as common and potent in the world today as it ever has been in any age of the past. Its spirit still "enters into holy souls, making them friends of G.o.d and prophets."

Just a few words about Revelation will suffice. Revelation has been generally looked upon as almost synonymous if not identical, with inspiration; or so intimately connected with it that they could not be separated. What might be distinctively called revelation was the product, or out-put of inspiration. Whatever truth may still remain as to these relations, since we have seen that inspiration is not something miraculous and supernatural, but purely and wholly natural, there can be no such a thing as revelation in any miraculous or supernatural sense. And yet, all that man has ever learned, accomplished, attained to, or achieved is a revelation. Man, with all his boasted knowledge and achievement, has never created anything; all that man has ever done, at his best, has been to discover and utilize things and forces that are as old as the universe itself. All the discoveries he has ever made, all the knowledge he has ever gained, all that he has ever accomplished or achieved, has been the result of a continuous, unfolding revelation from the dawn of time to the present day; by which he has been able to discover, utilize and appropriate to his own use and benefit, that which has existed, in one form or another, eternally--all of which is a revelation, divine, but not miraculous.

A few centuries ago Copernicus gave us a new view of the universe.

This was revelation. But the universe had existed in exactly the same form and relations since "the morning stars sang together." A little later Newton revealed to us the law of gravitation. This was the first man ever knew of it. But the law had existed just the same since the chaos was first reduced to cosmos. The potential power of steam as a mechanical force was just as great in the days of Noah or Abraham as it is today. But it remained for Robert Fulton, but a little over a century ago, to apply it to practical use; and this was just as much a divine revelation as the call of Abraham, or the vision of Moses on the Mount. The same is true of electricity. All the multifarious uses to which it has ever been applied, were just as potent in the days of Shalmanezer or Solomon as they are today. Every discovery and new use to which it has been applied since the day that Franklin drew it from the clouds and corked it up in a bottle, has only been so many new divine revelations; as much so as the vision of Paul before the gate of Damascus, or John on the Isle of Patmos. In fact more so.

And on _ad infinitum_. All the progress man has ever made or ever will make is only the result of this divine revelation ever unfolding itself to him, just as fast, and no faster than he is able to appropriate and use it. Thus G.o.d reveals himself to man, not miraculously, but naturally and _thru nature itself_, just in proportion to man's ability to understand, receive and appropriate it. Jesus is quoted as saying: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Howbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth." Did that spirit of truth ever come? And if so when, if ever, was it withdrawn? He said in another place that it should remain forever. Yes, I believe that same spirit of truth is still in the world today and has been ever since man has been here, guiding men into the way of truth just in proportion to their ability to receive it. And also, all truth is divine, because all truth comes from the same source--G.o.d. The truth concerning the universe, the laws of nature in the material world are thus just as divine, as are the moral laws governing man in his social relations, or those governing his relations to G.o.d. And the great store-house of Nature has not yet revealed even an infinitesimal part of her infinite riches for man's use and benefit, that are yet to be revealed as man progresses onward and upward. Instead of having reached the zenith of man's discoveries and achievements, and therefore a finished revelation, we have not yet pa.s.sed the dawn. The heavens still declare the glory of G.o.d; but the scientist, philosopher, and astronomer of today sees much more in them than does the savage, or did the author of the Nineteenth Psalm. And as man goes on he will see more and more of G.o.d in Nature, and understand him better, until the final fruition of his hope and faith is reached. Inspiration and revelation are thus both living realities, as much so now as at any time in the past, and will continue so while mankind continues to inhabit this planet.

All the progress, achievement and attainment mankind has ever made, from the days of the Cave Man and the Stone Age to the present time, are but the products, results, fruits of this inspiration and revelation, that has ever impelled and led mankind onward and upward.

I firmly believe that the future holds in store a civilization, social status, human achievement, intellectual and moral attainment on this planet, as far above the present as this is above that of the Cave Man; and as inconceivable to us now as this was to him; and all this will be but the product, result, fruit of this eternal, never-ending process of inspiration and revelation that has brought mankind to where he is today.

CHAPTER VIII

JESUS OF NAZARETH

We have now reached the most interesting, if not the most vital part of this Confession of Faith. Thus far I have said almost nothing about the Man of Nazareth. "What then shall I do unto Jesus, who is called Christ?" The temptation is very great here to elaborate at some length upon my views of this, the most unique character in all history. I would like to give my views in full, with all the arguments, pro and con, as to his personality, character and mission. But this would extend this work to an undue length. Some day I may write it more fully in another book. I must be content now to give as briefly as possible the conclusions I have reached, without going into any very detailed arguments to support them.