Good sense in religion

Front matter

Shell -v

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

ELEVEN LECTURES

Contents

Lecture I. Reason in Religion. .... 1

Shows how one may decide what is true and what is false in Religion.

Lecture II. The Bible. . . . . . 16

Preface

This volume tries to answer the question: u If a person use Good Sense in considering the familiar and vital subjects of religion and theology, to what conclusions will he come?"

This attempt was made from the pulpit of the author's church. The people of Auburn and Lewiston were invited to come and learn "What Universalists Believed," the implication being that Universalists, by using Good Sense in Religion, had reached certain conclusions worth hearing about and worth tying to. As a result of this public invitation, the church — capable of seating 1,000 people — was filled for eleven alternate Sunday nights by members of every religious sect. Universalists, Unitarians, Congregationalists, Calvinist Baptists, Free Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Adventists, and Roman Catholics were in constant attendance. The night of the last lecture, the church was so crowded that people were turned away. At the close of the course, requests came from all sides for the lectures in book form ; and in answer to this demand they are published now, substantially as delivered. The author feels relieved of much of the responsibility which attaches to the bringing forth of another book, inasmuch as most of the burden for the issue of this one falls on the broad shoulders of an enthusiastic public.

The unexpectedly large audiences, their composite character, and the remarks made during and since the delivery of these lectures have convinced the author that religious people are not satisfied with the old and reigning theology of Christendom, and are seeking for something to take its place. A larger number of the laity of the "Evangelical" sects disbelieve, and "are rejecting the pivotal dogmas of the "Evangelical

PREFACE Vll

system of theology" than their clergy suspect. It is because of this deep-seated and wide-spread dissatisfaction, and because of the bearing of the theory of Evolution on theology, that so eminent a scientist, and so observing and candid a Presbyterian as Prof. Joseph Le Conte has declared: "We are even now on the eve of the greatest change in traditional views that has taken place since the birth of Christianity .... Not a mere shifting of line, but a change of base; not a readjustment of detail only, but a reconstruction of Christian theology " is needed and is coming. In view of such a necessary and imminent transformation, it behooves some one or some sect to come forward at once with a theology harmonious enough with the theory of physical, mental, and moral evolution and agreeable enough to the demands of Good Sense to take the place of the theology that is passing away and hold the ground permanently. The theological system outlined in this volume makes a modest bow to the public, and announces itself as the system competent to supersede the old.

The doctrines set forth herein fairly represent the advanced and dominant thought of the Universalist denomination. These lectures are the first, so far as the author knows, that give, in printed form, the teachings of progressive Universalists in a systematic manner. They enable the reader to begin at the beginning and go on to the end in his endeavor to learn just what Universalism is to-day.

The lectures on Jesus Christ, Man, and Annihilation are commended for very careful reading, especially to Universalists and to those who think Universalim lacks scriptural and scientific and philosophical foundations for its theology.

The method of quoting almost exclusively from eminent clergymen and scholars of other sects in support of positions held by Universalists or taken by the author, was adopted because of the "Evangelical" character of the audience, and to show how surely and how widely "Evangelical" preachers and leaders are giving up the Old Orthodoxy.

The author has felt more satisfied than ever with his course

Vlll PREFACE

in opposing ' ' Evangelical and Roman Catholic Christianity " since reading this declaration by the Rev. J. M. Buckley, D.D., editor of the (Methodist) Christian Advocate: " If we were to adopt the Universalist principles and methods of Scripture interpretation, we should attack the doctrines of eternal punishment, the fall of man, the vicarious atonement, and every other evangelical principle with all the vigor we could command, but with courtesy and kindness of spirit. We should consider that we were doing a service to God and humanity to induce Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and other evangelical Christians to give up their dishonoring vieivs of God and human nature.'''' As Lyman Abbott said, in closing his lectures on the "Evolution of Christianity," so I desire to say in presenting this volume to the public : " I have tried to speak with absolute candor and with absolute frankness, and if what I have said has shocked your prejudices or seemed to treat with irreverence or disregard your sacred beliefs, I pray you to excuse me. It was not my thought, but it is my thought and my deep desire to do what in me lies to make the spiritual truth that underlies the faith of Christendom clear in the language of its close of the Nineteenth Century."

Henry R. Rose.

Auburn, Mb., July, 1894.

LECTURE I

REASON IN RELIGION

" Prove all things: hold fast to that which is good." — St. Paul. "Nothing can alter the responsibility which is laid upon each soul . ' ' — Westcott.

No question is interesting and perplexing inquiring and earnest Christians so much as this one : " What is the Seat of Authority in Religion ? " by which is meant, " On whom or on what may we rely to determine whether religious doctrines offered us are true or not ? " People are be^innino; to ask : "Is there an infallible Guide for us to follow in our quest for certainty in religion? or an inerrable Book for us to consult ? or an authoritative Faculty whose decisions we can accept as final ? "

In answer to these questions three replies have been made by the three different parties in the Christian church. First came the Roman Catholics, declaring that there is an infallible Guide in religion, namely, the Church. Next came the "Evangelical" 1 Protestants, denying this claim of the Church of Rome, and holding to the infallibility of

1 Evangelical is "specifically applied to a section of the Protestant Churches who profess to base their principles on Scripture alone, and who give distinctive pre-eminence to such doctrines as the corruption of man's nature by the fall, atonement by the life, sufferings, and death of Christ, justification by faith in Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion and sanctification, and the divine exercise of free and unmerited grace.— (The Century Dictionary.)

the Bible. Then came the Liberal Protestants (the Universalists and Unitarians) , saying that there is no infallible authority of any kind in religion ; and maintaining that among all the fallible means of determining the truth, Reason is supreme.

And thus it stands to-day. There is a conflict of opinion among Christians, not only as to whether infallibility can be had in religion but as to where the highest authority is to be found.

The Roman Catholic Position. The Church of Rome holds that there is a seat of authority in religion and that it is an infallible seat, namely, the Roman Catholic Church. * The keys to the counsels of God are held by the Church and the Church alone, and whatever it announces or declares to be true ex cathedra, through its Head, the Pope, is immutably true, and there is no other court of appeal. Therefore, it refuses the Bible and the Reason any place as authorities. Cardinal Newman said :

" We indeed devoutly receive the whole Bible as the word of God, but we receive it on the authority of the Church ; and the Church has denned very little as to the aspects under which it comes from God and the limits of His inspiration. Not the Bible but the Church is to him [the Catholic] the oracle of revelation. Though the whole Scripture were miraculously removed from the world as if it had never been, grievous as the calamity would be, the Catholic would still have enough motives and objects for his faith ; whereas to the Protestant the question of Scripture is one of life and death." l

The " Evangelical " Protestant Position. The f( Evangelical " Protestant turns upon the Roman Catholic and denies his claims, saying that the Church has no authority at all in religion, and holding that the Bible and the Bible only is infallible, and that it, therefore, is

i A Study of the Sects, Lyon, p. 18.

REASON IX RELIGION 6

the seat of authority ; the court to which all appeals must be taken. He excludes the Church and the Reason, refusing to one any voice at all, and granting to the other a little say, providing it is subordinated to and in harmony with the teachings of the Bible. The infallibility of the Bible is a matter of life or death to the " Evangelical " Protestant ; if its infallibility be disproved and its fallibility and subordination proved and granted, he thinks Christianity and truth will go under and infidelity and error will clamber on top and stay there. Therefore, he pins his faith to John Calvin and iterates and reiterates Calvin's article in the Westminster Confession of Faith, as follows :

" The whole counsel of God ... is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture ; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or traditions of men."

The Liberal Protestaxt Position. The Liberal is kindlier toward the Roman Catholic and the "Evangelical" Protestant than they are toward each other or him. He frankly refuses their claim of infallibility, either for the Church or the Bible. He believes that the Church may speak some truths and with authority because they are truths; and he is sure that the Bible is to be relied upon in many of its utterances, because it, too, teaches truths ; but to the mind of the Liberal, the say-so of the Church and the teachings of Scripture are not necessarily final, nor does either constitute the Seat of Authority in religion. With Lyman Abbott, the Liberal says, "The Bible is a means of revelation rather than a final statement. We shall go back to no creed or age of the Church for the final word." The Liberal believes that God may vet reveal truths not announced by the Church nor stated in the Bible. He holds that Jesus was intentionally cautious when he said, in his last words to his disciples : "I have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all truth," a caution equivalent to a command that they and others should expect further discoveries of truth ; a reminder which finds modern expression in the advice which Phillips Brooks gave to the Yale Divinity students, as follows :

' ' Never forget to tell the young people that they are to expect more and more light and larger development of the truth which you give them. Oh the souls which have been made skeptical by the mere clamoring of new truth to add itself to that which they have been taught to think finished and final ! "

The Liberal believes in perpetual inspiration and progressive revelation, and he will not be surprised if the lapse of time develops something new and great concerning God, and duty, and destiny. The Liberal knows no infallible seat of authority in religion save God himself. God is the fountal source of truth, and the Church and the Bible are two of the many channels by which the verities of God are brought to men. God is the testifier, and the Church and the Bible are witnesses as to his testimony. As witnesses they must report to somebody or something. That to which they bring their testimony is the Reason. Reason, says the Liberal, is the tribunal and the highest tribunal ordained of God whereby man can decide upon evidence of all kinds. Its verdict must be solicited and accepted, sooner or later. Its decision can be relied upon above the decision of any book, creed, person, or institution. If it be said that Conscience is superior to Reason as a judge of religious truth, the Liberal

REASON IN RELIGION

replies that this is a distinction without a real difference, because Conscience is but another name for "Reason when exercised in the moral realm/' ! Therefore, the Liberal exalts Reason above the Church and the Bible ; above the decisions of councils and the dogmatism of creeds. He makes every teacher of religion submit his teachings to Reason for acceptance or rejection.

The Liberal Position Justified. Now that we know the three positions of those who answer the question, "What is the Seat of Authority in Religion?" we are interested to decide which has the right of it. I have no disposition to enter here into a criticism of the Roman Catholic and "Evangelical" Protestant positions, except in a negative way. My purpose is to justify the position of the Liberal Protestant, and if I do this, I will have overthrown the claims of the two other parties. If I fail in establishing the Liberal position, the reader can investigate the matter further, and come to his own decision as to which of the others is right. 2

The Libera], be it noted, claims two vital things : 1, that man has a right to use his Reason in religion ; and, 2, that Reason, being the supreme judicial faculty of the mind, is the Seat of Authority in religion, as in every other department of inquiry and knowledge. I will prove these claims in their order :

1. JIan has a right to use his Reason in religion. This claim is supported, in the first place, by the language of the Bible. In the Old Testament we find

1,4 Conscience is that power by which moral law is recognized. It is Reason discovering universal truth, having the authority of sovereign moral law, and affording the basis for personal obligation." — (Calderwood: Moral Philosophy, p. 65.)

2 See also lectures on The Bible and Man.

b GOOD SENSE IN RELIGION

Isaiah reporting God as saying to men: "Come, now, and let us reason together," as if the Almighty placed dependence on the reasoning ability of man, and was willing to convince and persuade rather than force man to obedience. In the New Testament there are a number of direct commands for men to use their reason in religion. Paul says, "Prove all things," and he could not have meant that the Thessalonians were to do this by referring important or mooted questions to the Church or to the Gospels, for neither the Church nor the Gospels were in existence at that time ! St. John says, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God." St. Peter says, "Be ready always to give answer to every man that asketh a reason concerning the hope that is in you." If Jesus nowhere explicitly tells men to rely upon their reason in determining God's truth, he nowhere tells them to rely on the Church or the Bible, or even on his word. He says : "He that doeth the will of my Father will know whether this doctrine be of myself or of God", a statement equivalent to an admission that he would not have men accept his doctrines because he taught them, but that he was ready to submit them to the trial of experience to establish their truthfulness.

The claim that man has a right to use his reason in religion is supported, in the second place, by the example of biblical characters. Look at Paul, the greatest apostle of Jesus. He was a reasoner rather than a dogmatizer in religion. He was consistent. He told others to prove all things, and when he went amongmen he appealed to their reason, with reasonable arguments, to win them to his ideas. Thus, while he waited at Athens he reasoned with those who met with him daily. And in Acts (xxiv : 25) we learn that Paul reasoned

REASON IX RELIGION 7

with Felix and his wife about righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, until Felix trembled. And in that great epistle to the Romans, after his magnificent exposition of doctrine, he commences his conclusion thus : " I beseech you, therefore (that is, in view of what I have made plain to you), by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." Not that they were to do this thing because he had said so or any one else had said so, but because it was obviously their reasonable service. Paul trusted the reason of men, and appealed to it constantly. 1

In the third place, the Liberal believes that the Christian should use his own reason in religion, because such procedure is in thorough accord with the genius of Protestant ism . Luther and his followers were called protestants because they protested against the claims of the Roman ( liurch, especially its claim of sole and infallible authority in religion. Luther held that the individual can deal directly with God apart from the mediation of the Church, and tli at God's word verified itself, and must verify itself, in the conscience of the individual, apart from the authority of the ( Jhurch. ff The Church," said Luther, "cannot give more force or authority to a book than it has in itself. A council cannot make that to be Scripture which in its own nature is not Scripture." Thus did Luther and the early reformers sweep the authority of the church entirely out

1,1 St. Paul, though disclaiming as 'carnal wisdom' and 'the wisdom of this world ' the philosophic prepossessions of his time, is himself the subtlest of reasoners, an inveterate rationalist, never more thoroughly in his element than when urging the claims of Christianity on psychological grounds, or boldly rationalizing the Old Testament to rebut the scruples of his countrymen."— (F. H. Hedge, Reason in Religion, pp. 210-211.)

of their religious system. But they went further, and denied all external authority in religion, making the individual conscience the interpreter of religious truth. The eminent scholar, Professor Marcus Dods, D.D., says :

"Protestantism is not merely the substitution of one external guide for another : it is, rather, the exchange of what is outward for what is inward ; of what is indirect for what is direct. It is the exchange of God's voice recognized by the Church and interpreted by the Church, for God's voice recognized by the individual and interpreted by the individual. The Reformation was no doubt a transference of allegiance from the Church to the Scriptures, but that was by no means all that it accomplished ; it was also a transition from dependence on the Church's authority to dependence on conscience. It was essentially the assertion of the indefeasible right and duty of the individual to deal with God directly and for himself." This is precisely the position of the Liberal, and it enforces his claim that his course is in accord with the genius of Protestantism. And he is ready to say, with this same eminent Christian, " He is only half a Protestant who merely transfers his allegiance from the Church to the Bible, and leans upon this new crutch as the Romanists lean on Rome. To accept the Bible on the Church's authority, and to accept every statement in it as infallible truth whether it awakes response in conscience or not, is to remain precisely in the Romanist's position ! "

2. But the Liberal's contention does not end when it is conceded that men have a right to use their reason in religion ; he takes a further position and says that Reason is the highest court of appeal and the real Seat of Authority in religion. He proves his claim by the following considerations.

The Bible and the Church are not, properly speaking, seats of authority ; they are witnesses rather than judges of truth. They are channels through which divine

REASON IN RELIGION y

and human truth flows : basins in which the facts of God and the guesses and errors of men are deposited. They must be examined ; they must be analyzed in order that the truth may be separated from the error ; the genuine from the false. The Bible and the Church are means of revelation, not authorities on revelation. Like John the Baptist they come to bear witness of the truth, but their witness must be submitted to some court before its validity can be determined. Their testimony may be true or it may be false. If the Church says that the Pope is infallible and that Mary was immaculately conceived, or if the Bible declares that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, as if the sun moved ! or that the law of God is " an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," their assertions must be considered by some tribunal. To say that these things are true because in the one case the Church and in the other the Bible says that they are true is to beg the question. It is not difficult, when such references are made, to see that the Bible and the Church are witnesses rather than judges ; that their office is to deliver things purporting to be true rather than to pronounce upon the truth of that which they deliver. The faculty to which they do and must address their message decides upon the merits of that message, and that faculty becomes the seat of authority, and its decisions are authoritative.

Now the Liberal holds that this faculty which should judge all teaching and pass upon evidence of all kinds, is the Reason. Its function is judicial. It is not a channel of truth nor a reservoir ; it does not discover truth ; its great function is to verify or disallow testimony. 1 Not

iThe office of reason in religion is not discovery, but verification and purification. Its function is to make and keep religion true and pure, by eliminating from the code of elementary beliefs the human additions and corruptions that have gathered around it." — (F. H. Hedge, Reason in Religion, p. 209.)

only is Reason judicial, he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the mind. Every other faculty defers to his authority ; the intellect and the feelings recognize that their verdicts must sooner or later be submitted to him for final ruling. He is no arbitrary judge ; he is the very incarnation of justice and, therefore, his verdicts are always just. Reason does not quit the bench to go in search of cases. He simply sits and waits, with placid brow, until the case is brought before him and the evidence is all in, and then he proceeds to render the verdict, and when he speaks his voice and manner show that he considsiders his ruling ultimate and final.

Therefore, in view of the fact that the Bible and the Church are obviously but witnesses of the truth, and in virtue of the fact that Reason is judicial and pre-eminent among the judicial faculties of the mind, the Liberal holds that his exaltation of Reason to the Seat of Authority in religion is justified.

Eminent Corroboration. And he is pleased to quote the experience of men, and the testimony of able critics, in further support of his position.

Is it not a fact that by every educated mind all inward appeals and all outward solicitations are referred to Reason before being allowed ? Passionate men permit the verdict of their emotions to impel their conduct ; thoughtless and timid men allow appeals to their sentiments and credulity to determine their beliefs and actions, but properly-balanced men submit every verdict of the feelings and every appeal from without, to dispassionate and impartial Reason. Thus do the highest minds recognize that Reason is the proper and chief seat of authority in conduct and belief.

And when men read the Bible or listen to the doctrines of the Church, what do they consciously or unconsciously

REASON IX RELIGION 11

do but rely upon their Reason to determine the truth of what they read or hear?

" Who is at your elbow as you read Exodus and Leviticus to tell you what is of permanent authority, and what was for the Mosaic dispensation only? Who whispers to us, as we read Genesis and Kings, This is exemplary ; this is not? Who sifts for us the speeches of Job, and enables us to treasure as divine truth what he utters in one verse, while we reject the next as Satanic raving? Who gives the preacher authority, who gives him accuracy of aim, to pounce on a sound text in Ecclesiastes, while wisdom and folly toss and roll over one another in confused and inextricable contortions ? What enables the humblest Christian to come safely through all the cursing Psalms and go straight to forgive his enemy? What tells us we may eat things strangled, though the whole college of Apostles deliberately and expressly prohibited such eating ? Who assures us we need not anoint the sick with oil, though James bids us do so? "

Does any outside person or institution do these things for us, or is it done by that inner voice ; by clear-eyed Reason, often called Conscience, and sometimes called Good Sense ? Surely, in these matters men and women of every sect rely upon the verdict of their reason, whether they are conscious of the fact at the time or not ; so that the experience of the most cultured minds and that of the humblest Christian meets in supporting the Liberal in the lofty and authoritative position he gives to Reason.

And what say eminent scholars and undoubted Christians, — men who are not Universalists or Unitarians, — about the claim of the Liberal ?

Dr. Fairburn, of Mansfield College, Oxford, declares that, " Though by reason man may reject revelation, he can never without reason either know it or accept it." Professor Le Conte, an eminent Presbyterian, says : " There is, and in the nature of things there can be, no test of truth but Reason. We must fearlessly, but honestly and reverently, try all things, even reveelation, by this test," a declaration quite similar to that of the famous Bishop Butler, than whom Christianity never had a stronger defender. In his celebrated Analogy he wrote : 4 ' Reason is the only faculty we have wherewith to judge concerning anything, even revelation itself. .... Reason can, and it ought to, judge not only of the meaning, but also of the morality and evidence of revelation." Perhaps some of you recall the strong language of Henry Ward Beecher on this subject. He said : " God made the reason, and it is that by which we go back to Him. Without reason there is no duty, no interpretation of Providence, no knowledge of God, and no civilization. They who decry Reason as ' simply a natural faculty,' and therefore not to be trusted, rail against God himself." It may surprise some to know that John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, declared that " every man must think for himself, since every man must give account of himself to God."

And lest any one fear that this practice of letting every man think for himself; of urging men to use their reason in religion as in other things, may destroy faith and Christianity, let him listen to Dr. Hedge, that scholar of Christian gentleness and faith :

u The cause of reason is the cause of faith. In affirming this, I but re-affirm what the wisest and devoutest of the Church have always maintained." And to Dr. Briggs, whose Orthodoxy is disputed but whose scholarship and honesty are widely conceded and admired, who says: " I rejoice at the age of Rationalism, with all its wonderful achievements in philosophy. I look upon it to prepare men to use their reasons in the last great age of the world. It is impossible that the Bible and the Church should ever exert their full power until the Human Reason, trained and strained to the uttermost, rises to the heights of its energies and reaches forth after God and his Christ with absolute devotion and self-renouncing love." 1

1 " From the genius of the gospel, no less than the constitution of the human mind, I infer the right of reason in religion. Christianity is

REASON IN RELIGION 13

In these ways does the liberal Christian seek to establish his position that Reason is the real and chief Seat of Authority in religion, and it seems to me that he succeeds. At any rate, the Universalist believes that these considerations warrant him in exalting Reason to the first rank among the authorities in religion, and he therefore submits all testimony purporting to be from God, no matter whence its source, to this bar, and if Reason approves, the Universalist accepts the testimony and uses it either for thought or conduct ; but if Reason disapproves, the Universalist rejects the testimony and refuses to let it influence his thought or determine his conduct ; if Reason neither disapproves nor approves, the Universalist, like a wise man, reserves judgment and waits for more light. We try to be consistent in our practice as we are in our theory of the office and authority of Reason in religion, and therefore our constant attitude toward every doctrine is one of inquiry, to wit : Is it Rational? not, Is it Scriptural? not, Is it in the " Evangelical " creeds ? not, Have the Councils endorsed it ? not, Does the Romish Church approve it ? but simply and always, Is it reasonable ? does my reason and the reason of reasonable men, endorse it? We are modest, you see, because we value the convictions and opinions of other reasonable men. We, indeed, recognize that each individual must decide for himself what is true and what is false, but we know that he is assisted in his decision by the reasoning of kindred minds. Truth is many-sided,