while as to higher spiritual aspiration, it is independent of them.

It is satisfactory that cultured and learned theologians of the present day profess themselves ready to welcome hostile criticism of dogmas in which no doubt they personally believe; and I can assure those theologians that, in so far as I am constrained to feel that the Christianity of the Churches is cumbered with needless accretion, it is in no light spirit that I feel it, nor do I think that their entrenched position will be proved by process of time to be quite so impregnable in every detail as at present they evidently consider it. To them I and other critics or questioners may appear as akin to those who in physical science would throw doubt upon Galileo's laws of motion or upon Newton's theories of the precession of the equinoxes and the tides; and if I had attacked the inward and spiritual convictions of Christianity, my case would indeed be analogous with that of those crazy reformers. But all that I have endeavored to show is that certain asserted facts are not really essential to Christian life and fellowship, nor helpful in our outlook upon the universe, while in the light of experience they are extremely improbable; and in order further to clear the ground, let me make profession of the things I am willing to accept, before proceeding to the more positive or constructive division of our subject.

I accept the historic Christ as represented in the Gospels, together with the general account given of his teachings. In so far as the record is not accurate and even without any knowledge of biblical criticism we must admit that it is bound to be inaccurateI consider that the record is likely to be inferior to the reality, that the report of the teachings may have been

2 The statement that the Christ depicted in the gospels is God, is a statement illustrative of our conception of Godhead, and not really an

spoiled and garbled in places but is not likely to have been improved. Some of these spoilings may have been due to misunderstanding, others to a desire for extra edification; and it is difficult to say which attitude of a transcriber is the more dangerous.

A similar view, however, may be held concerning the record of the words of any astounding genius; his contemporaries and immediate successors are not likely to improve upon his teachings: even as mere commentators they may exhibit well-intentioned stupidity; but, if they have to act also as reporters, omission eked out by exaggeration must be prominent, and unconscious misrepresentation is bound to occur.

But now in the case of Christ I wish to go much further; I admit his inspiration in an extraordinary sense, and, though I might not have been able to make the discovery for myself, I accept the general consensus of Christendom as testifying to his essentially divine character: in other words, that he has revealed to the inhabitants of this planet some of the salient features of Godhead to an altogether exceptional extent.

He displays, in fact, attributes which many persons understand and signify when they use the word "God": so much so, that they call him by the name of the Spirit which he reveals.' He does not display all the known attributes of God-not those studied in Natural Theology, for instance,-but he exhibits those which are most important to poor struggling humanity, and those which by their very simplicity and naturalness might otherwise have been overlooked by the human race, or stigmatized as too hopelessly anthropomorphic. The attributes of Fatherhood, for instance, strongly

explanatory statement concerning Christ: we cannot define or explain the known in terms of the unknown.

and simply realized, constitute one revelation; the effective combination, or even identification, of love of God with service of neighbor, constitutes another; and there is, it seems to me, an even bolder conception of Deity suggested in the dramatic parable "the child in the midst," of which I fancy we have but an abbreviated version.

Practically then, and speaking in the first person only because I have no right to commit any one else, I accept the teachings of Christ; partly because I realize some of them myself, chiefly because saints and prophets and poets, to whom I look up, have realized them far more vividly and completely. Where I have hesitated, and found it necessary to remonstrate, is on the materialistic side of orthodox Christianity -the place where the ordinary phenomena of nature enter into the doctrines, and are more or less associated or incorporated with them. Here 1 plead for more elastic treatment, and here alone do I imagine that the modern mind can see further and walk more securely than the mediæval mind; it is possible that in the light of accumulated knowledge it can in some respects see more clearly than even the saints and prophets of the past.

It has been the perennial glory of Christianity that it can adapt itself to all conditions of men, and to all changing periods of time; but it has done so always by modification of the non-essential: the spirit and essence have preserved their identity; the accidentals, in Judæa, in ancient Rome, in mediaval Germany, in modern England and America, the accidentals have been different.

But throughout, it will be said, certain of the material aspects have preserved their continuity and identity unchanged. Some of the miracles, especially the physical details supposed to accompany, or even to constitute,

the Incarnation and the Resurrection, have never been doubted by Christians. Until recently, I agree, no, not to any great extent; but half a century ago they were seriously doubted, by people who thereby felt themselves outside the flock, but who in all practical details of life and conduct were as good aswell, were comparable with-orthodox Christians. The disbelief went, in my judgment, too far: it extended itself to some of the spiritual teachingsthose concerning prayer, for instance; and it threw needless doubt upon some phenomena, such as those referred to in my earlier article, which may after all have been facts. Whether it went too far or not, an atmosphere of disbelief became prevalent; and it was generated by the persistence of the faithful in certain material statements which to an age of more knowledge had become incredible. The extreme excursion of the pendulum has subsided now, but it is still swinging, and when it settles down it will not occupy precisely the same place as it did before the oscillation began. The swing was caused by a shifting of the fulcrum or point of support, and only the bob has been visible. So it has become our duty to determine how much and in what direction the real pivot of the pendulum has been effectively moved, and to realize that that is the position which will be taken by the oscillating mass of opinion, when present disturbances have subsided. Those, if there be any, who think that it can ever go back permanently to a prenineteenth-century position, or to a position determined by the first six or any other past centuries, are assuredly mistaken.

We shall now endeavor to arrive at a closer appreciation of what the essence of Christianity really is, and also what it has been considered to be by all sorts and conditions of men.

V. Christianity is a word of wide significance, and it is not easy to attach to it a definite meaning. It is clear that as it exists among us it has many phases, which may be grouped around five or six principal types.

1. First there is evangelical or spiritual Christianity, usually associated with the name of Paul, which seeks to emphasize a forensic scheme of salvation, and to link itself on to the Hebraistic and Hellenistic ideas of blood and vicarious sacrifice. Salvation by faith in the Atonement is the central feature of this scheme, and right conduct is a secondary though natural sequel to right belief and to trust in what by Divine mercy has been already fully accomplished; so that no "performance" is necessary for salvation, but only assimilation of the sacrifice and oblation of Christ, once and for ever accomplished.

This variety of Christianity aims at attending to the spiritual aspect only, and despises the material; it rejects the intervention of men and of material aids; it mistrusts the use of music and ornament, and it endeavors, sometimes with poor success, to contemn the beauty of this present world in comparison with the glory that shall be revealed; even the sacraments it is inclined to minimize, and to regard them as memorial services helpful to the spirit, rather than as agencies of real and present efficacy achieving something otherwise unattainable. Definite historical fact is of supreme importance to this variety of belief; for if that be taken away the basis of faith is undermined, and the system totters to destruction.

2. Next there is ecclesiastical or dogmatic Christianity, usually associated with the name of Peter, which is apt to emphasize the efficacy of ceremonies, to regard material actions and priestly offices as essential to salvation,

and to insist not only on their symbolic interpretation, but on some actual physical transformation, some bodily or material efficacy. It builds less upon an historic past, and more upon a present virtue residing in the Church, or accessible to and utilizable by the proper officers and dispensers of the means of grace. It feels the importance of times and seasons and buildings and sensuous representation; it is apt to concentrate attention on ecclesiastical details, with a zest for minutiæ, which when compared with the vital issues at stake, strikes an outsider as rather pathetically humorous; and it sometimes so elaborates the material acts of worship, such as the sacraments, that they tend to take on the nature of incantation, and are occasionally performed by the priest alone, the congregation passively sharing in their mysterious and miraculous virtue.

3. Then there is the practical or pragmatical form of Christianity, usually associated with the name of James, which emphasizes the virtue of good works and the importance of conduct, which regards belief and doctrine as of secondary importance, which seeks no cloistered virtue, but throws itself vigorously into social movement, and endeavors both by word and deed to serve the brethren, and by active charity to ameliorate the lot of those whom it thinks of as Christ's poor.

4. Yet another variety is the mystical or emotional form of Christianity, usually associated with the name of John, which seeks by rapt adoration and worship of the Redeemer, and love of all whom he has called his brethren -"even the least of these my brethren," --to rise to the height of spiritual contemplation and ecstasy: tending somewhat in this its high quest to isolate itself from the world, in order to lose itself in an anticipation of heaven.

5. There exists also, one must admit,

some trace of what may be called governing or hierarchical Christianity, which glorifies the priestly office, which seeks after temporal power, which regards the material prosperity of the Church as of more importance than the welfare of states and peoples, which joins hands with autocratic rulers for the oppression of the poor, which blesses and sustains violence, so it be used against the Church's enemies, which banishes and excommunicates the saints-even those of its own household, and by corruption of the best succeeds in abetting the cause of the worst. This is the kind of Christianity which attracts the special notice of sceptics and scoffers; and most of the diatribes of good men against Christianity and the Christian ideal are based upon some confused apprehension of this ghastly and blasphemous travesty.

Whether it exists, here and there, in this country it is not for me to say, but it certainly has some existence in that country which is now, or soon we hope will be, in the throes of an ultimately beneficent revolution-the country whose Church has excommunicated Tolstoi, and whose Procurator of Holy Synod, in the furtherance of what is conceived of as legitimate ecclesiastical aggrandizement, has exhorted the Czar to folly and wickedness in terms of fulsome and superstitious adulation.

6. Lastly, there is the Christianity particularly exemplified and taught by that Syrian Carpenter, during his three years of public service, before his execution as a criminal blasphemer. The name of that gentle and pathetic figure has been used by the greater part of the Western world ever since, sometimes to sanctify enterprises of pity and tenderness, sometimes to cloak miserable ambitions, sometimes as a mere garment of respectability.

Whatever view we may take of this Personality, we can most of us recog

nize it as the greatest that has yet existed on this planet; hence, if it is through human nature that we can gradually grow to some dim conception of the majesty of the Eternal, it is the life and teachings of that greatest Prophet that we shall do well to study diligently when we wish to disentangle and display some of the secrets of the spiritual universe; and, by the saints, his words have always been recognized as the highest yet spoken on earth concerning the relations between man and man and between man and God. It is certain that only a few of his utterances are contained in our documentary records, and it is probable that some of them have been mutilated and spoiled in transmission; nevertheless it is of interest to take those recorded words and see how far they countenance the various schemes or types of Christianity which have been based upon them. And in particular I wish to select those which seem to strengthen the case for either a partly material or a purely spiritual interpretation of Christianity.

First, to clear away the blasphemous use of Christ's name in association with political or temporal or hierarchical Christianity, the following will suffice:

"My kingdom is not of this world." "Woe unto you, generation of vipers, that stoneth the prophets," etc. "Ye make the commandments of God of none effect by your tradition."

There are many emphatic statements that religion is peculiarly a spiritual affair:

In favor of a spiritual form of religion. "God is a spirit, and they that worship him . . ."

"Neither in this mountain nor yet in Jerusalem. . .”

"The words that I speak unto you they are spirit . . ."

"That born of flesh is flesh, of spirit is spirit."