A NEW INTERPRETATION OF RELIGION
What is religion? This over which men have waged the fiercest
controversies known to human history; that has been the source of more
strife and bloodshed than any other single cause known to mankind; and
perhaps, in one way or another, more than all other causes combined,
previous to the recent World War. It will be remembered that I said
after finishing my special course of study on the origin, authorship,
history and character of the Bible and the processes of reasoning which
it inspired, "that I gave the whole thing up, inspiration, revelation,
church and religion, as a farce and a delusion, as 'sounding brass and
tinkling cymbals'; and cast it all into the scrap-heap of superstition,
legend, fable and mythology." But after several years of study and
observation I changed my mind again. I found that what I had always
been taught and understood to be religion was not religion at all, but
only a _form of religious expression_. Creeds and beliefs I found were
not religion, but the products of religion. That subtle emotional
experience which I had always been taught was religion, I found was
itself but a form of religious expression. I learned that religion was
not something one could "get," by repentance, faith, prayer, etc., as I
had been taught and taught myself for years; but something every normal
human being on earth had by nature, and could not get rid of.
Then what is religion? While it is the simplest thing on earth, it is
yet perhaps the hardest to define; especially by one person for
another. Its very simplicity eludes definition. In trying to define
it I shall use in part the definitions given by others, as these are
more expressive than any words of my own that I can frame: "Religion
essentially consists of man's apprehension of his relation to an
invisible power or powers, able to influence his destiny, to which he
is necessarily subject; together with the feelings, desires and actions
which this apprehension calls forth." Another definition that is
perhaps more direct and simple than the above is this: "Religion is an
impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive
upward. It is a yearning of the soul in man to transcend its own
narrow limits, and to soar to the heights of supreme excellence, where
it may become identified with the noble, the lofty, the divine."
Another has said that "Religion is simply the zest of life." To these
I will add that I understand religion to be that _inner urge_ in all
humanity that pushes it onward and upward; that inspires in man the
desire to rise above his present station and attainments, and improve
his condition; that spirit within man that has lifted him from the
lowest savagery to the highest attainments in civilization, refinement
and culture that man has yet reached; and will still lead him on to
heights yet invisible and undreamed of.
This _inner urge_ is common to all humanity, different only in degree,
and not in kind. It is possessed by the lowest savage, tho often in
latent form, yet capable of being touched and aroused into life and
action, as thousands of modern examples attest, as a result of some
form of missionary effort. From the time that man first emerged above
the brute, stood erect, looked up, beheld the phenomena of nature about
him, thought, and recognized that _somehow_ and _somewhere_ there was a
Power above, beyond and greater than himself; and conceived in his own
mind, however crude, the first faint spark of an aspiration to improve
and better his condition, man became a religious being, and has been
such ever since, varying only in degree, not in kind.
All religion is therefore one and the same. There may be many
religions. But back of all these is religion. Religion is one in its
origin. It is a part of the fundamental essence of human character.
It is inseparable from the faculties of thought, reason and will. It
is one and the same with these. Man without these faculties of
thought, reason and will would not be man at all, but a brute. So
without this _inner urge_, and the faculty of _aspiration upward_,
which I have defined as the very fundamental essence of religion, man
would still only be a brute. He would not be man at all. Religion is
one in its origin because it is an essential characteristic of all
human nature.
All religion is one in that it recognizes SOMETHING above man. I use
this word advisedly. If I had said, "Because all men recognize the
existence of God, or a Supreme Being," I would have been misunderstood
and the statement challenged. Men have become so habituated to calling
all other men atheists who do not accept their particular definition of
God, that I omit the word entirely until I can further define my
meaning. Because Voltaire did not believe in the God of Moses and the
Pope, he was dubbed an atheist, altho he was a devoutly religious man,
and built a chapel at his own expense on his estate and dedicated it
"to the worship of God." Man instinctively recognizes _something_
above him. It is immaterial by what name this may be called; whether
Jehovah, Elohim, Allah, Heaven, Nirvana, or Jove; nor what attributes
we give it, whether we call it Person or Principle, the Great Unknown
or the Ultimate Cause; or whether it be a mere abstract Ideal, the
creation of one's own fancy; it is still that "_Something_" which man
recognizes as above him, toward which he aspires and hopes to attain.
Man also instinctively recognizes that he sustains some sort of
personal relationship to this "Something," that for want of a better
name, we call God. It is necessary in this connection to repeat what
we have already said: That very early in the history of the human race
man was led to this conclusion, concerning his relationship and
obligation to God, thru his effort to interpret and solve the problem
of evil, or his own sufferings from it, and his ultimate death. The
only possible method he had of interpreting these problems was drawn
from his own nature and experience. He knew himself as being alive, as
a conscious individual, capable of exercising will and exerting force.
Thus when he heard the roaring thunders, saw the clouds floating
overhead, and the flashes of lightning among them, felt the force of
the wind and the falling rain; in fact all the phenomena of nature and
life about him, including his own aches, pains, diseases, suffering,
and the ultimate death of his kind, he could only interpret these
things in terms of living personality, some great, powerful individual,
or individuals behind, and directing it all. These became man's first
gods.
Man also interpreted his own relation to the gods, and theirs to him,
in the same terms that defined his relations toward his fellowmen. He
recognized the fact that some of his fellowmen sometimes did him an
injury, or committed some offense against him; that this offense or
injury aroused in him a spirit of resentment, a desire for vengeance in
kind, even to the taking of the life of the man who had injured, or
seriously offended him. Man made his gods in his own image. He
believed these gods to be like himself. Thus, man interpreted his own
sufferings to mean that he was out of right relations with the gods;
that he had personally offended them,--or, one or more of them in some
way, according to the source from which he conceived some particular
affliction to come. When the individual was conscious of his own
innocence, he concluded that some of his ancestors had grievously
offended the god, who relentlessly pursued his posterity and inflicted
on them the penalties due for the sins of this ancestor. Hence the
doctrine of inherited or original Sin. Man then set about to devise
some means to appease the wrath of the gods, and thus restore
harmonious relations with them. A volume might be written here, but 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 God. Lest I be
misunderstood, I will repeat: It is immaterial what this God may be,
Jehovah, Allah, Nirvana or Jove; Person, Principle, or Abstract Ideal.
It is that which man _in his mind_ sets before him, toward which he
aspires and strives to attain. Remember that what we _think_ God to
be, that is what God is to us.
We have now reached the point where divisions arise, where religion
branches out into religions. "Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah,
and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with
burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with
thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I
give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the
sin of my soul?"
"What must I do to be saved?" This has, in one form or another, at one
time or another, been the burden of almost every soul among men. How
can man attain unto right relations with his God? This is the great
question of the ages. _Keep in mind_ that it is immaterial who or what
this god may be, how crude or how refined, from the lowest fetish to
the highest spiritual conception, the fundamental question remains ever
the same: How shall man get right with his God? What must man do to be
saved?
To answer this question has been the purpose of every system of
religion known to mankind, and every sect, order and denomination known
to every system. And here is where confusion begins. Some one evolves
a formula, means, or method that he believes meets the case. Some
others are persuaded to accept it and the sect grows. In the mean time
some other person has evolved another; and some other still another,
and so on, and on, and on, _ad infinitum_; all having the same purpose
in view, and each claiming to be 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 gods,
does it with as sublime a motive as any Christian mother ever bowed
before the altar of her own church,--and for the same purpose: To get
right with her God. The Parsee wife, who burns herself to ashes upon
the funeral pyre of her dead husband, does it for the same purpose: To
get right with her God. The devotee who throws his body before the
wheels of the Juggernaut to have it crushed as an act of devotion, does
it for the same purpose: To get right with his God. The devout
Mohammedan who bows himself to the earth five times a day, and says his
prayers with his face towards Mecca, does it for the same purpose: To
get right with Allah. The savage who repeats his incantations to his
fetish that he has probably made with his own hands, does it for the
same purpose: To get right with God as he conceives him. The Chinese
that burns his sticks before the image in his Joss-house, does it for
the same purpose: To get right with his God. And so on _ad infinitum_,
the same central purpose running thru it all, whether Hindu or Parsee,
Buddist or Janist, Confucian or Shintoist, Jew or Gentile, Mohammedan
or Christian, Catholic or Protestant, Methodist or Baptist,
Presbyterian or Lutheran, Calvinist or Arminian, Unitarian or
Trinitarian, one and all, have one and the same ultimate object: To get
into right relations with God, each according to his own conception of
God, and what he understands to be his will concerning him. However,
in the more rational interpretation of religion in these later times,
the element of fear of punishment hereafter has been almost, if not
entirely eliminated; and the religious objective is made the highest,
noblest, purest, and best possible life in this world, 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 God.
And is there but _one_ true path to God, while all the others only lead
to hell? 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 God, it is abating and the dawn of a
better day is in sight.
I have long since come to believe that all who honestly, sincerely, and
diligently seek God will ultimately find him, in some way, at some
time, when God sees best to reveal himself, no matter what method may
be pursued. I do not mean that all methods are equally good; no, not
by any means. The quest for God may be helped or hindered, advanced or
delayed, accordingly as the methods of search may be correct or
erroneous. But I do mean to say that I do not believe the Infinite
God, who knows the hearts of men, and will ultimately judge them by
this standard, will forever hide, and deny himself to any, in whose
heart He sees honesty, purity, and sincerity of purpose and motive,
because in their finite judgment, they were unable to intellectually
determine just which was the right, or best way;--and this, whether the
searcher be Hindu, Chinese, Pagan or Parsee; Hottentot or Arab, savage
or philosopher; Christian, Mohammedan or Buddhist; or any one else on
earth. "Man looketh upon the outward appearance; but God looketh upon
the heart." And they that diligently, honestly and earnestly seek after
him will find him,--somewhere, somehow--in this life or some other, And
when found, it will not be "in far-off realms of space," but in one's
own heart.
"The outward God he findeth not,
Who finds not God within."
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 constitute the sole source
of authority in religion. Thomas Paine once said: "All religions are
good that teach men to be good." To which might well be added: That
religion alone is best which teaches men to live the best lives. Life,
not creed, is the final test of religion. To perceive what is right
and what is wrong, to cleave to the right and avoid the wrong, is the
highest, noblest and best expression of religion. Now, there is no
single universal standard of right and wrong that is universally the
same in its application to human life, in all ages, at all times, and
under all circumstances and conditions. Life is progressive; and as it
moves on new conditions arise, new relations develop, new problems
present themselves, and new and changing standards come with them. For
example, human slavery and polygamy were both practiced in the days of
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon, and for centuries
afterwards; and according to the Bible, with the divine sanction and
approval. The simple facts are, that according to the standards of
those ages, according to the social development of the race at that
time there was no moral turpitude in those practices. But who would
dare defend them now? And yet these, or most of them--and I say it
reverently and sincerely--were 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
assisted by all the light of the present day, which includes all the
light of the past that has come down to us, both in the Bible and from
all other courses, history, science and the record of human experiences
generally interpreted and applied by human reason. That "natural
impulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive
upward"; that "inner urge that ever pushes him onward and upward," will
not only start him in the right way of life, but will remain with him
and guide him to the end, if he will but hear and obey its voice,
interpreted by reason.
The reader will recall the opinion I reached concerning the Bible after
my special course of study and the process of reasoning that followed
it. But after fifteen years of continued study I changed my opinion
about it again. When I took a different perspective I got a different
view. First, I was confronted with the fact 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
institutions; and especially of that system of religious worship which
he had not originated, but organized, systematized and reduced to more
perfect order, so that all this might be preserved for the benefit of
the people thereafter. This was the beginning of the sacred literature
of the Jews which, when completed in its present form, was called the
Bible--meaning simply, The Books.
After this, tho the Jewish system of religion, according to the Jews
themselves, was finished and complete, they had but five books of
written scripture,--the Pentateuch. Yet thirty-four additional books
were afterwards written and added to these. Can these later books be
quoted 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 circumstances. It
records in part their history, traditions, legends, myths, their
beliefs, superstitions, hopes, fears, ideals and aspirations; and the
legendary deeds of their national heroes, just as we find them in the
literature of ancient Greece, Rome, England or Scandinavia. It
contains books of law, ritual, maxims, hymns, poetry, drama, letters,
sermons, denunciations, rebukes, warnings, arguments, anecdotes and
biography. No literature on earth is more multifarious in its
contents. That it contains many contradictions, errors,
inconsistencies and incredible statements is nothing to its discredit
from this viewpoint of its origin. The wonder is that there are not
more. But that it contains only what the various writers of its
different parts, at the time they wrote, honestly thought and
_believed_ to be true, may be freely admitted without in the least
derogating from its true value, or adding supernatural sanctity to it.
The Old Testament considered simply as a collection of ancient Jewish
literature, reveals to us to-day many of the stages in the national,
racial and religious evolution of ancient Israel, just as the
literature of any nation or people reveals the same thing concerning
them,--no more and no less.
Turning now for a moment to the New Testament: Is it the source and
authority for Christianity? Or just the reverse? Which was first of
the two? That which goes before is the cause of that which comes
after,--not the reverse. If Christianity is to be considered as a
separate and distinct system of religion, based upon divine authority,
the system was finished, full and complete with the resurrection and
ascension of Christ--for the argument's sake, admitting these to be
facts. Hence Christianity would have existed as a fact just the same,
whether a line of the New Testament had ever been written or not. As a
matter of fact, not a line of it was written for twenty-five or thirty
years after these events, and it was not completed for a hundred years
thereafter. Therefore the New Testament did not produce Christianity;
nor is it the authority upon which it is based, but just the opposite.
Christianity produced the New Testament and is the authority upon which
it is based.
So the New Testament, like the Old, is just literature,--no more. It
records what the authors of its various parts, in the light of their
time, and with the knowledge they possessed, as common, fallible,
mortal men like ourselves, honestly thought, felt, hoped and believed
was the truth. It gives us the only historical sketch we have of the
origin and early development of that system of religion that in one
form or another now dominates a third part of the human race. And as
such it is the most valuable book the world possesses today. But it is
no more the "infallible Word of God" than the Old Testament, Herodotus,
Josephus, Plato or Plutarch.
The conclusion of the whole matter is: The Bible is not the
supernaturally inspired, infallible word of God, given by him as the
source and final authority for religion, outside of which and since its
close there is no more revelation; but it was written by fallible men
of like passions with ourselves, who wrote,--not as they were
infallibly and inerrantly guided by the Holy Spirit, but--as they were
moved by the same impulses, passions and motives that have moved men in
all ages to write their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, hopes, fears,
aspirations and views of life. Thus, as has already been said, the
Bible is 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 sanctity; and then superstition made of them
a fetish. Until this "spell" is broken there can be no hope of
anything like unity in the religious world. Until this fetish of a
"once for all divine and infallible revelation, completed and handed
down from heaven" is abandoned, there will continue to be "diversities
of interpretation," and consequently divisions, controversies,
bickerings, persecutions and recriminations will continue among
mankind, and wars will continue among nations.
It may be said here that all the other sacred literature of the world,
the Bibles of other systems of religion, the Zend Avesta, the Vedas,
the Upanishads, the Koran, and others, had their origin in exactly the
same source and manner as did our Bible; and attained sanctity and
authority among their respective followers in exactly the same way.
But we need not go into it in detail.
But when we return to our first proposition, that all religion in its
origin, fundamental essence and ultimate purpose is not only one and
the same, but 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 accumulated 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 passed. It must be
filtered and these elements eliminated before it can be put to its
highest and best use. As a great book of religious instruction it
contains riches in human experience and inspiration from which any and
all may draw something to fit their particular case and need. But to
get the highest value, each must separate the gold from the dross, the
pure water from the sand and mud, according to his particular case and
need. Used in this way and for this purpose, the Bible will doubtless
remain the world's greatest book of religious instruction and
inspiration. But to persist in the claim, in the light of present-day
knowledge, that the whole of it is a divine revelation, supernaturally
given from heaven, and infallibly and inerrantly true, is to perpetuate
confusion and discord among men, and cause the wisest and best among
them to discredit it altogether, as many of them have already done.
But to reverence it for what it really is, a record of the religious
evolution of the most intensely religious nation of antiquity, a great
race that has contributed more to the religious life of the world than
any other, is a credit to the intelligence of any one. To enshrine it
in superstition, and make it a fetish, is idolatry.
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 illustrations will convey my meaning better
than any lengthy metaphysical analysis. One night a long time ago,
some sage philosopher was looking out upon the heavens, contemplating
the beauties of the stars in their majesty and glory. These _inspired_
a train of thought in his mind that found utterance in the nineteenth
Psalm: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth
his handiwork...." This is inspiration if there ever was such a thing;
and yet there is nothing miraculous or supernatural about it. It is as
natural as the raindrops that fall from the clouds.
On another occasion some devout and intensely religious saint, but at
the same time probably a great sufferer from some adverse fortune,
beheld a shepherd taking care of his sheep, providing for them food and
water, caring for the sick and lame and nursing them back to strength,
leading them out to pasture thru the narrow defiles of the mountains,
amidst many dangers, yet guarding them diligently against all. And
this sight gave rise to reflections on the divine providence that found
expression in that sublime and beautiful Twenty-third Psalm:
"The Lord 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 passages in Dante, Goethe,
Shakespeare, Milton, Browning, Emerson, Carlyle, Bryant, Longfellow,
Lowell, and a thousand others, ancient and modern, that are just as
much the products of inspiration as the Twenty-third Psalm or the
Sermon on the Mount. But no one would pretend to say 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
space fail me to mention even any of the great orators of history from
Demosthenes to Woodrow Wilson, who by the power of their eloquence have
been able to so inspire men to action as to change the course of
empires and the destiny of nations. The secret of all this is that
these men were themselves inspired,--not by some miraculous
supernatural influence,--but by the natural intensity of their own
earnestness, sincere devotion to, and all-absorbing interest in the
cause they espoused, until 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 God and prophets."
Just a few words about Revelation will suffice. Revelation has been
generally looked upon as almost synonymous if not identical, with
inspiration; or so intimately connected with it that they could not be
separated. What might be distinctively called revelation was the
product, or out-put of inspiration. Whatever truth may still remain as
to these relations, since we have seen that inspiration is not
something miraculous and supernatural, but purely and wholly natural,
there can be no such a thing as revelation in any miraculous or
supernatural sense. And yet, all that man has ever learned,
accomplished, attained to, or achieved is a revelation. Man, with all
his boasted knowledge and achievement, has never created anything; all
that man has ever done, at his best, has been to discover and utilize
things and forces that are as old as the universe itself. All the
discoveries he has ever made, all the knowledge he has ever gained, all
that he has ever accomplished or achieved, has been the result of a
continuous, unfolding revelation from the dawn of time to the present
day; by which he has been able to discover, utilize and appropriate to
his own use and benefit, that which has existed, in one form or
another, eternally--all of which is a revelation, divine, but not
miraculous.
A few centuries ago Copernicus gave us a new view of the universe.
This was revelation. But the universe had existed in exactly the same
form and relations since "the morning stars sang together." A little
later Newton revealed to us the law of gravitation. This was the first
man ever knew of it. But the law had existed just the same since the
chaos was first reduced to cosmos. The potential power of steam as a
mechanical force was just as great in the days of Noah or Abraham as it
is today. But it remained for Robert Fulton, but a little over a
century ago, to apply it to practical use; and this was just as much a
divine revelation as the call of Abraham, or the vision of Moses on the
Mount. The same is true of electricity. All the multifarious uses to
which it has ever been applied, were just as potent in the days of
Shalmanezer or Solomon as they are today. Every discovery and new use
to which it has been applied since the day that Franklin drew it from
the clouds and corked it up in a bottle, has only been so many new
divine revelations; as much so as the vision of Paul before the gate of
Damascus, or John on the Isle of Patmos. In fact more so.
And 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 God 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--God. The truth concerning the universe, the laws of
nature in the material world are thus just as divine, as are the moral
laws governing man in his social relations, or those governing his
relations to God. And the great store-house of Nature has not yet
revealed even an infinitesimal part of her infinite riches for man's
use and benefit, that are yet to be revealed as man progresses onward
and upward. Instead of having reached the zenith of man's discoveries
and achievements, and therefore a finished revelation, we have not yet
passed the dawn. The heavens still declare the glory of God; but the
scientist, philosopher, and astronomer of today sees much more in them
than does the savage, or did the author of the Nineteenth Psalm. And
as man goes on he will see more and more of God in Nature, and
understand him better, until the final fruition of his hope and faith
is reached. Inspiration and revelation are thus both living realities,
as much so now as at any time in the past, and will continue so while
mankind continues to inhabit this planet.
All the progress, achievement and attainment mankind has ever made,
from the days of the Cave Man and the Stone Age to the present time,
are but the products, results, fruits of this inspiration and
revelation, that has ever impelled and led mankind onward and upward.
I firmly believe that the future holds in store a civilization, social
status, human achievement, intellectual and moral attainment on this
planet, as far above the present as this is above that of the Cave Man;
and as inconceivable to us now as this was to him; and all this will be
but the product, result, fruit of this eternal, never-ending process of
inspiration and revelation that has brought mankind to where he is
today.