WHAT 
 
 ITY 
 
 HE 
 
 iJ VJ' All 
 
^^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ 
 
 Presented by On(£. S^C V^(£^V^r-'' 
 
 c3 
 
 
 BR 123 .C85 1904 
 Cushman, Herbert Ernest, 
 
 1865-1944. 
 What is Christianity? 
 
 
BY 
 
 
 HERBERT ERNEST CUSHMAN, A.M. 
 
 Ph.D. 
 
 HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF 
 
 
 WILHELM WINDELBAND. 
 
 
 One Volume, Cloth .... 
 
 . $2.50 
 
 THE TRUTH IN CHRISTIAN SCIENCE. 
 
 One Volume, Cloth .... 
 
 . $0.50 
 
WHAT IS 
 CHRISTIANITY? 
 
 The Russell Lecture of 1904 delivered 
 
 BEFORE THE FACULTIES AND StUDENTS 
 
 OF TuFTs College 
 
 HERBERT ERNEST CUSHMAN, Ph.D. 
 
 Professor of Philosophy in Tufts College 
 
 * 
 
 Tufts College, Massachusetts 
 1904 
 
Copyright, 1904 
 
 UNIVERSALIST PUBLISHING HOUSE 
 
 Boston 
 
 Stanbope iprcss 
 
 F. H. GILSON COMPANY 
 BOSTON, U. S. A. 
 
TO 
 
 C. A. W. T. 
 
 Whose Christian life has made her 
 world abound 
 
THE Russell Lecture is given annu- 
 ally at Tufts College at the opening 
 of the College year, on the foundation of 
 the late James Russell. By the terms of 
 the bequest, the lectureship is in charge 
 of the trustees of the college and was 
 established for the consideration of the 
 following subjects : 
 
 I. The importance of Christian Faith 
 and Belief in the formation of the charac- 
 ter of the good citizen and the good man. 
 
 1. The sufficiency of the promises of 
 the Gospel to meet the reasonable wants 
 of man both in time and eternity. 
 
 The lecture of 1904 is addressed to the 
 topic embodied in the first subject. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Introduction 7 
 
 II. Christianity and Politics .... 12 
 
 III. Christianity and Society » , . 16 
 
 IV. Christianity and the Healing of 
 
 Disease 22 
 
 V. Christianity and Morality ... 26 
 
 VI. Christianity and Science .... 34 
 
 VII. Conclusion . , , . i 
 
What Is Christianity r 
 
 ? 
 
 I 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 '^^HREE factors must be reckoned 
 %i^ within estimating the importance of 
 a world movement like Christianity. These 
 three are: (i) the essential principle of 
 the movement ; (2) the incidental results ; 
 (3) the antagonistic forces. With the 
 third, the forces antagonistic to Christian- 
 ity, we shall have nothing to do ; for 
 although in the beginnings of Christian- 
 ity, such forces may not have seemed to 
 be opposed to its essential purpose, they 
 sooner or later came out in their true 
 color under the brute test of time. And 
 this is the task of the Christian preacher 
 — to emphasize line upon line the contrast 
 
Mbat Us Cbristtaniti^ ? 
 
 between what society knows to be right 
 and what antagonizes the right. Our task 
 is, rather, the more difficult and theoretical 
 one of discriminating, if we can — and 
 I think we can — between the essential 
 working principle of Christianity and what 
 is so easily confused with this principle, 
 viz., the incidental results. What I mean 
 by incidental, will completely appear only 
 in the course of our discussion. But if 
 you ask at the beginning for a definition 
 of the word incidental, I answer that I 
 mean the transient, not the permanent in 
 Christianity; the casual, not the constant 
 in Christianity ; the adventitious and for- 
 tuitous, not the necessary ; the field to 
 which the principle of Christianity may be 
 applied, not the essential principle itself. 
 This distinction is common enough; for ex- 
 ample, we oftenspeakof aduty and the plea- 
 sures incidental to a duty. Our question 
 here, therefore, is this, — what is essentially 
 Christian in human life as contrasted with 
 the good results that have indirectly grown 
 
 8 
 
Mbat 1F6 Cbrtstianlt^ ? 
 
 up with Christianity, or that have developed 
 in the natural course of things ? 
 
 Of course it must be remembered that 
 many eminent men hold that the sum total 
 of human good is Christian in its source ; 
 but it seems to me that such an over zeal- 
 ous claim has always been a positive harm 
 to the Christian cause. Claims thus in- 
 definite give to Christianity no specific 
 working principle. By confounding the 
 essential Christian principle with its inci- 
 dental good results, we place a great burden 
 on Christianity. Suppose, for example, 
 to the question. What is the mission of 
 Christianity ? it is repHed, '' Christ is our 
 Saviour," or " Christ is our Saviour from 
 sin," the reply does not help the ques- 
 tioner. In what sense is he our Saviour? 
 Does he save us from everything evil? 
 Does he save us from disease ? Was his 
 mission to save us from the coal trusts, 
 from gray hair, from typhoid fever, from 
 the need of food ? Does Christ's mission 
 fail if the sick man is not saved from work. 
 
mbat 1[0 Cbristiantt^ ? 
 
 the rich man from enwui, the farmer from 
 bad weather, the nervous man from the 
 toothache, the industrious man from bad 
 investments ? Now, if we make universal 
 claims for Christianity, we must admit that 
 it is responsible for everything. And are 
 we willing to admit that Christianity is a 
 failure because it has not set the world 
 right? As a matter of fact, Christ did not 
 come to set the world right. He had a 
 definite, particular and specific purpose; 
 not the indefinite hope of establishing an 
 era of complacency. 
 
 It was the aim and purpose of Jesus 
 Christ to define his mission by showing 
 its meaning on this side and on that. He 
 says in St. John lo: lo, "1 am come that 
 they might have life, and that they might 
 have it more abundantly." This was the 
 text of his activity. By parable, by mir- 
 acle, by loving endeavor, by adapting him- 
 self to their needs, he tried to show men 
 just what he meant by abundant life. 
 Life, abundant life ! This, the Alpha 
 
 ID 
 
Wibat ITS Cbristtanlt^ ? 
 
 and Omega of his teaching, was given a 
 more exact and a new definition. He 
 showed how this common everyday Hfe, 
 this Hfe of bread and butter, of change and 
 decay, this Hfe of death, this Hfe that can 
 sink so low as to become only an intermit- 
 tent series of sensations, is a Hfe of infinite 
 possibilities. The principle of such an in- 
 finite life is essential. All else is inciden- 
 tal. I shall try to put into modern phrase- 
 ology this definite purpose of Christ, and 
 show what he meant by abundance of life. 
 
 II 
 
Mbat irs Cbristianitp ? 
 
 II 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND POLITICS 
 
 ♦fTN the first place, it is to be noted that 
 II Christ was not a political agitator, 
 nor did he teach any political propaganda. 
 He always conspicuously avoided political 
 questions, as in his oft quoted reply to the 
 Pharisees and Herodians, Mark 12:17, 
 " Render unto Caesar the things that are 
 Caesar's, and to God the things that are 
 God's." Whenever he denounced the 
 Scribes and Pharisees, it was because 
 (Luke II : 14) they were hypocrites, and 
 not because they had political authority. 
 
 Now if political revolution, political re- 
 formation or political conservation is to 
 bring the abundant life, the work of Jesus 
 Christ is not to be compared with that of 
 many men. Alexander 1 1 , Czar of Russia, 
 freed forty million serfs. Jesus never at- 
 
 12 
 
Mbat 1f5 Cbristtanit^? 
 
 tempted to free a single slave. The Eng- 
 lish barons wrested the Magna Charta from 
 King John. Jesus never wrote even a 
 declaration of rights. Martin Luther 
 preached himself out of the Catholic 
 Church and led the revolt of the Germans 
 from Rome. Jesus Christ always remained 
 a Jew and did not even go beyond his 
 own country. Richard Cobden and John 
 Bright tried to advance England's power 
 by repealing the Corn Laws ; Thomas 
 Jefferson wrote a Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence for this Republic. Jesus Christ 
 never attempted anything of the sort. He 
 did not attempt even to found a church 
 militant. 
 
 Political organizations have their ap- 
 pointed tasks. A world in which there 
 are many persons must be an orderly 
 world, if the individuals are to enjoy their 
 rights. There is no doubt that the Greek 
 theorists, like Aristotle, were correct in re- 
 garding ethics and politics as two sides of 
 society ; that the complete moral indi- 
 
 13 
 
Wbat irs (Tbrtstiamti^ ? 
 
 vidual is a complete political individual. 
 Man is a complete man only as he is a 
 complete citizen. The individual can 
 reach his full stature, therefore, only under 
 the best possible government, and the de- 
 velopment of the individual and the State 
 go along together. Now all this may be 
 admitted, and even then we may say that 
 there is not the slightest trace in Christ's 
 words of identifying his salvation with 
 political reform. He does not mean that 
 his abundant life is the same as political 
 freedom, but that political freedom is inci- 
 dental to Christian freedom. It is not 
 essential to Christian freedom. Christ 
 differs from the Greek, therefore, in pla- 
 cing emphasis upon the importance of the 
 individual, in making the individual essen- 
 tial, the State incidental. Christ never 
 taught salvation by organization. Chris- 
 tianity may have ameliorated the tyranny 
 of governments during these nineteen hun- 
 dred years or it may not. The abundant 
 life can be lived by the individual under 
 
 14 
 
Wbat Ifs Cbrtstiantti^ ? 
 
 any regime. It flourished with the refugee 
 Huguenots in their mountain fastnesses ; 
 with the Roman Christians in the cata- 
 combs ; and it flourishes in modern states. 
 " Florence," said Savonarola, " will take 
 care of itself if the Florentines would but 
 reform themselves." 
 
 Indeed, the Christian is in one respect 
 like the Stoic. He is a citizen of the 
 world. All men are his countrymen who 
 have a part in the kingdom of God, and 
 the kingdom of God is quite independent 
 of political kingdoms. Although a mem- 
 ber of the political State where he lives, 
 and although the character of that political 
 State depends upon his character and that 
 of others, he is, nevertheless, a spiritual 
 cosmopolitan. The Christian individual 
 finds his salvation in himself, for in him- 
 self is the abundance that makes his lowly 
 life rich. 
 
 15 
 
mbat Us Cbristianlt^ ? 
 
 Ill 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIETY 
 
 fN the second place, it may be safely 
 asserted that the abundant life which 
 Christ taught does not rest essentially in 
 proper social conditions. Jesus Christ was 
 not a social reformer. This larger defini- 
 tion of life was not to be obtained by mak- 
 ing for his followers larger social conditions. 
 Christ was not interested in making the 
 rich poorer or the poor richer. He had 
 no theory of pedagogy. He did not try 
 to organize charities, to found hospitals, 
 culture clubs, or libraries, or to set in mo- 
 tion pension or insurance measures. 
 
 One aspect of social life he seemed to 
 have at heart ; and it must be admitted 
 that the consideration he gave to this 
 might at first blush make us think him to 
 be a social reformer. This at least has 
 
 i6 
 
Mbat Us (Xbrtstianit^ ? 
 
 plausibility, while that of his political 
 leadership has none. He was continually- 
 talking to the poor, about the poor, and 
 drawing analogies favorable to the poor. 
 He condemns the rich while he makes the 
 poor his disciples. He speaks of the de- 
 ceitfulness of riches. Matt. 13 : 22. The 
 offering of the widow's two mites is to be 
 esteemed above the abundant gift of the 
 rich, Mark 12 : 41. The reward of Laz- 
 arus is compared to the punishment of the 
 rich man. " Woe to you that are rich, 
 for ye have received your consolation," 
 Luke 6 : 24. How difficult, said he, for 
 the camel to go through the eye of a 
 needle ; the same difficulty would the rich 
 man find in entering the kingdom of God. 
 He enjoins the rich young man that he 
 sell his goods and give the money to the 
 poor; and he sent forth his disciples on 
 their mission to preach, saying to them, 
 " Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass 
 in your purses, nor scrip for your journey,'' 
 Matt. 10:9. Furthermore, he praises the 
 
 17 
 
mbat ITS Cbristtanitp ? 
 
 poor in spirit, those that mourn, those that 
 hunger and thirst after righteousness, and 
 uses these analogies as if all his sympathies 
 were with the weak, the humble and the 
 downtrodden. 
 
 In view of these facts, there arose early 
 in the Christian Church two theories re- 
 specting Christ's attitude toward society. 
 Both these traditional theories are based 
 on the assumption that the essential prin- 
 ciple in Christ's mission is social. Some 
 assert that Christ was a socialist, and that 
 he advocated an equality of riches among 
 the different members of society. Others, 
 like St. Francis of Assisi and the Monas- 
 teries, maintain that the mission of Christ 
 was to establish a universal pauperism in 
 order that the kingdom of God might be 
 the more easily erected. 
 
 Now the theory that Christ was a social- 
 ist or not a socialist, that is, the assump- 
 tion that the foundation of his mission was 
 economic organization of some sort, is 
 based on the above purely negative evi- 
 
Timbat fs Cbrtstianttp ? 
 
 dence. There is no positive evidence that 
 Christ in the shghtest degree tried to effect 
 any particular economic change either in 
 finance, education or charities. All his 
 denunciation of the rich Jews was because 
 their condition withheld them from the 
 abundant life. All his praise of the pov- 
 erty of the Jew was because he found that 
 the poor had abundant life. Historians 
 tell us that all the rich Jews of the time 
 were bound fast to the empty forms and 
 conventions of a traditional religion. The 
 poor were oppressed by this rich aristo- 
 cratic church-following to such a degree 
 that the poor did not have the opportunity 
 to worship in the church of their fathers. 
 They were shut out from the church ; they 
 could not lift their eyes to the Temple. 
 Yet they were humble and religious while 
 the rich were ostentatious and mere per- 
 formers of a ritual. Thus the polemic of 
 Christ against the rich was really against 
 the oppressive ritualists. How much more 
 blessed, therefore, was the life of the poor 
 
 19 
 
miDat ITS Cbristianiti^ ? 
 
 in spirit, fbr theirs is the kingdom of 
 heaven. 
 
 The mission of Christianity is to men 
 not as rich or poor, educated or ignorant, 
 but as individuals. Christianity is essen- 
 tially a development of individuality. In- 
 cidentally it may or may not save society. 
 Society has always been poor ; it has never 
 been more than a year from starvation 
 point. Society has always been ignorant ; 
 even Newton said that he had picked only 
 a pebble from the beach of truth. Society 
 has always contained races ready to spring 
 at each other's throats. We are not to 
 suppose that the importance of Christian- 
 ity to us depends upon its effect on the 
 character of society. The desire to reform 
 society may rest on good motives, but they 
 are not the essential Christian motives. 
 They are either incidental to Christianity 
 or have sprung from foreign sources. The 
 task of the Christian citizen and the Chris- 
 tian man is not the reformation of society 
 but the living of his highest self. " How 
 
 20 
 
mbat Us CbrtBtiantt^ ? 
 
 did Christianity arise and spread abroad 
 among men ? " asks Thomas Carlyle. 
 "Was it by institutions and establishments 
 and well arranged systems of mechanism ? 
 Not so ; on the contrary, in all past and ex- 
 isting institutions for those ends its divine 
 spirit has been found to languish and decay. 
 It arose in the mystic deeps of man's soul ; 
 and was spread abroad by the ^preaching 
 of the word,' by simple although natural 
 individual efforts ; and flew like hallowed 
 fire till all were purified and illuminated 
 by it." 
 
 21 
 
mbat Us Cbrtstianit^ ? 
 
 IV 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND THE 
 HEALING OF DISEASE 
 
 ♦fFN the third place, it seems to me that 
 II the heahng of disease is not an essen- 
 tial part of Christianity, and that health is 
 only incidental to the abundant life. There 
 is nothing inherently improbable in Christ's 
 power of healing. There are some twenty- 
 five cases of healing by him, but the dis- 
 eases are all of a limited variety. They 
 are in the main deafness, blindness, dumb- 
 ness, nervous troubles and skin diseases. 
 The leaders of the great modern mystical 
 movement of Christian Science claim that 
 under their hands no disease has power. 
 This is much more than Christ ever saw 
 fit to claim for himself. However, be this 
 as it may, it is absurd to assert that Jesus 
 Christ set himself up as a professional 
 
 22 
 
IKIlbat Hb ChxistimiW 
 
 physician of the body. 1 am aware that 
 in the writings which form the canon of 
 the Christian Science Church it is insisted 
 that salvation consists primarily in redemp- 
 tion from sin ; that the cure of disease is 
 secondary. But practically the emphasis 
 is laid on the cure of disease, and the great 
 claims of that Church for recognition are 
 based upon the wonderful cures of the 
 body. The contrast is striking between 
 the Methodist who glories in his salvation 
 from sin, and the Christian Scientist who 
 glories in his salvation from disease. I 
 have elsewhere expressed my welcome to 
 the Christian Science movement as a symp- 
 tom of a turning away of the present age 
 from the materialism of the nineteenth 
 century. I dare predict a great idealistic 
 movement as a consequence in the next 
 twenty-five years. But such idealism will 
 not depend upon the doctrine of salvation 
 from disease, and on the whole Christian 
 Science may be said to have used a sub- 
 ordinate aspect of Christianity dispropor- 
 
 23 
 
Wbat 1[6 Cbdstianitp 
 
 tionately. No one can enter sympatheti- 
 cally into the life of Christ without feeling 
 that Christ made his cures of disease not 
 only incidental to his mission but abso- 
 lutely unessential to it. He plainly de- 
 clared that he did not come to perform mira- 
 cles. When the Pharisees and Sadducees 
 tried to induce him to show a sign from 
 Heaven, he answered, " A wicked and 
 adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." 
 Are we, in fact, to weigh Christianity in 
 the balance with the cure of disease.^ Is 
 Christianity a failure to you if your body 
 is still racked with pain ? Do you miss its 
 essential teaching if you cannot transcend 
 the demands of hunger and thirst? Does 
 Christianity fail if all men are not well 
 men ? Now this is a critical test of Chris- 
 tianity and the most modern applied test. 
 It is a false test because Christ never made 
 it a test. Some commentators like Farrar 
 maintain that what St. Paul calls a thorn 
 in the flesh was a disease of his eyes. Was 
 St. Paul a Christian ? 
 
 24 
 
Mbat lis Cbrtsttantt^ ? 
 
 A perfectly healthy man is not neces- 
 sarily a Christian. A sick man is not 
 necessarily a heathen. No doubt there is 
 an intimate relation between disease and 
 sin. Human malfeasance can be found 
 usually to be the near or remote cause of 
 disease. But we are all suffering from the 
 sins of our ancestors. Furthermore, decay 
 comes naturally to everyone in the course 
 of time. What an impracticable theory 
 Christianity would be if, because of all the 
 infirmities the fiesh brings upon us, the 
 abundant life of the soul would thereby be 
 denied us. In the words of St. Paul we 
 are " always bearing about in the body 
 the dying of the Lord Jesus in order that 
 the life also of Jesus may be made mani- 
 fest in our body." i Cor. iv : lo. 
 
 25 
 
Mbat Ifs Cbrtstlanit^ ? 
 
 V 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND MORALITY 
 
 ^^HE meaning of the salvation of Jesus 
 Vl^ Christ has been thus far defined by 
 showing what relation it has to poKtical law, 
 to social conditions, and to disease. Christ 
 came to save the individual, not the politi- 
 cal organization ; Christ came to give us 
 religious content in our social conditions, 
 not to change those conditions ; and as to 
 disease, he would not save us from disease 
 of the body but make us contented with 
 our bodies. We have, therefore, tried to 
 show that greater Christianity is the same 
 as greater individuality, and that the salva- 
 tion of Christianity is more abundant in- 
 dividual life. 
 
 A profounder problem now confronts 
 us : in what aspect of this individual life 
 are we to expect to find abundance of 
 
 26 
 
Wbat ITS Cbrtsttantti^ ? 
 
 life ? Shall we find it in the individual 
 objective moral life or in the subjective 
 religious nature ? Does Christ emphasize 
 individual conduct or individual spirit- 
 uality ? Does Christianity make its 
 working principle consist in the attitude 
 of the body or that of the mind ? Does 
 Christianity give us a new definition of 
 morality or religion ? 
 
 Now there are two possible attitudes to 
 be taken upon this question. One is, 
 that there is no difference between reli- 
 gion and morality. It may be said that 
 the truly religious man is always moral, 
 just as it might be said that true individ- 
 uals will make good governments, good 
 social conditions, and will always be well. 
 This reply, as I have said at the outset, 
 only confuses us as to the essential and the 
 incidental aspects of Christianity. It may 
 be pointed out that as a matter of fact we do 
 make a distinction between religion and 
 morality because we have two different 
 words. The words would never have been 
 
 27 
 
Mbat 1F6 Cbristiamtp ? 
 
 coined unless man had a difference in 
 mind. 
 
 Laying aside this sweeping claim, viz., 
 that religion equals morality, suppose it 
 is said that even if they be different, mo- 
 rality is the only form in which religion 
 finds expression. Suppose, for example, 
 the case in the twenty-fifth chapter of 
 Matthew is cited, where Christ separates 
 the sheep from the goats on the ground of 
 morality : " I was an hungered, and ye fed 
 me : I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink : 
 I was a stranger, and ye took me in : naked, 
 and ye clothed me : I was sick, and ye 
 ministered unto me : I was in prison, and 
 ye visited me." When ? they asked him ; 
 and he said. When ye did it to one of 
 the least and humblest of humanity. The 
 acts of the good Samaritan and the gift of 
 a cup of cold water are among other in- 
 stances cited to prove that our Lord placed 
 emphasis upon conduct as the only medium 
 which religion can employ to express itself. 
 
 While it cannot be denied that Christ 
 
 28 
 
Wbat lis Cbristtanttp? 
 
 does teach that morahty is one means by 
 which rehgion finds its expression, it can 
 with equal safety be asserted that he does 
 not think it the only means. Did he 
 not, forsooth, commend Mary who sat at 
 his feet, and say to the complaints of 
 Martha who had been active in serving 
 him, " But one thing is needful, and Mary 
 hath chosen that good part " ? Again, the 
 father is commended for killing the fatted 
 calf for the return of the son who had 
 been a debauchee, while the moral eldest 
 son had never received special favor from 
 his father. Then there are Mary Mag- 
 dalene and Peter and Judas, who were 
 hardly immaculate morally but were 
 favored by our Lord. The parable of 
 the one lost sheep is also a case in point. 
 And how often in direct instruction does 
 Christ explicitly emphasize belief as a 
 means of salvation. He speaks of some 
 as slow of heart to believe, Luke 24 : 25, 
 and of some " that ye have also seen me 
 and believe not," John 6 : ^6. Then he 
 
 29 
 
Mbat fls Cbrtstianit^ ? 
 
 uttered this dictum in several places, the 
 meaning of which is unequivocal, " He 
 that beHeveth on me hath everlasting 
 life," John 6 : 47. Christ used belief 
 and faith and repentance as evidence of 
 religious expression and as sufficient 
 ground for his performance of miracles. 
 I am not quoting much from St. John's 
 gospel in this connection on account of 
 neo-Platonism in it. The writer of that 
 gospel makes intuitive belief in Christ 
 the chief expression of religion. 
 
 The most notable fathers of the Church 
 have never identified religion and moral- 
 ity, nor have they considered morality as 
 the only or the most important means of 
 expressing rehgion. The Mystics in the 
 Church, both the Protestants and the 
 Roman Catholics, have referred, some to 
 intuitive thought, some to feeling, as the 
 psychological escape from the sins of the 
 world and as the way of unity with God. 
 Most Christian theologians have used 
 faith and belief as the chief means of sal- 
 
 30 
 
TPmbat lis Cbrtsttantt^ ? 
 
 vation. Luther's slogan was salvation by 
 faith as opposed to salvation by works. 
 
 In courts of law, account has to be 
 made of conduct as the most important 
 evidence with reference to crime. For 
 society can regulate itself only by the 
 good conduct of its citizens. But in mat- 
 ters spiritual the motive, the attitude of 
 mind, is of supreme importance. The 
 larger meaning of life, the abundant life, 
 is life within. As Jesus says, " Not lo 
 here, lo there, but the kingdom of heaven 
 is within you." Hell may be paved with 
 good intentions, but heaven consists in 
 good intentions. The larger self that we 
 strive for and fail to get, our ideals, our 
 ambitions, are all that compose our real 
 selves. Conduct is only an incidental 
 thing — otherwise Christianity is a failure. 
 The abundant life is subjective, not objec- 
 tive. 
 
 There is one saying of Christ quoted in 
 the three synoptic Gospels that has al- 
 ways seemed to me to show how much he 
 
 31 
 
Mbat 1F5 Cbrtsttanlt^ ? 
 
 emphasized the subjective aspect of Hfe. 
 " Whosoever will save his life shall lose 
 it ; and whosoever will lose his life for 
 my sake shall find it," Matt. 14 : 24. 
 This epigram has always meant to me 
 that whatever one's outward condition, 
 however desperate external circumstances 
 may appear, there is that super-objective 
 sphere of living that no one can take 
 away. Whosoever may try to save the 
 possessions of his selfish self will lose 
 them ; but whosoever lives that larger, 
 higher self, that self which finds itself 
 identical with all other selves, he saves 
 himself. It was Peer Gynt, in one of 
 Ibsen's masterpieces, who followed the 
 world about to gain a superior selfish 
 self, only to find that his real self was 
 after all in his heart, in love, in unselfish- 
 ness. There is the instance in Browning's 
 poem of the tyrant who tries to destroy 
 a powerless enemy. The tyrant brought 
 all his magnificent power to consum- 
 mate the destruction of this grovelling 
 
 32 
 
XPdlbat 1F5 Cbristtantt^ ? 
 
 wretch, when 
 
 ** Just my vengeance complete 
 The man sprang to his feet. 
 Stood erect, caught at God's skirts and prayed ; 
 So I was afraid." 
 
 The reward of the abundant life is just 
 this spiritual consciousness that is inde- 
 pendent of others; not to be given by- 
 others and not to be taken by them. 
 
 33 
 
XKabat ITS (Tbttsttantt^ ? 
 
 VI 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE 
 
 '^^HERE is one more aspect of this 
 \m question to be considered. We 
 must remember that we are trying to find 
 out what Christ means by abundance of Hfe. 
 We are trying to give a definition of Hfe as 
 he interpreted it. In the first place, it has 
 appeared that this abundance is got by 
 individuality and not from incidental so- 
 cial conditions. In the next place, this 
 abundance consists not so much in objec- 
 tive conduct as in subjective spirit. 
 That is to say, the essential principle of 
 Christianity is the spirit of the individual ; 
 his political and social environment, his 
 condition of body, his morality, are all 
 incidental. These incidental matters may 
 not be favorable ; and yet the abundant 
 life, the Christian life, the life important 
 
 34 
 
mbat ITS Cbrtsttantt^ ? 
 
 to the good citizen and good man, may 
 nevertheless be enjoyed. Thus our defi- 
 nition of the salvation of Christianity is 
 narrowed down to the life of spiritual 
 individuality ; and our definition of the 
 purpose of Christ to that of making men 
 such spiritual individuals whatever may 
 be their environment. 
 
 But our discussion of the matter is not 
 complete until we narrow our definition 
 further. What is this spiritual life of the 
 individual ? Does it consist of intellec- 
 tual life, or life of feeling? Is the essen- 
 tial principle of Christianity the holding 
 of certain theories, or is it an emotional 
 attitude? Is this life enlarged by know- 
 ing more or by feeling more ? For the 
 mental life may pyschologically consist 
 either in the receptivity of impressions 
 from without or in a general attitude 
 toward those impressions. 
 
 Not many years ago the New England 
 Socinian schism came to a head when 
 Theodore Parker preached what is now a 
 
 35 
 
mbat 1f6 Cbristtanit^? 
 
 celebrated sermon on "The Transient 
 and Permanent in Christianity.'* Certain 
 dogmas he considered permanent, others 
 incidental. Parker was loudly con- 
 demned by the conservative theologians 
 of his time because he had selected dog- 
 ma as incidental which they had deemed 
 essential. It is immaterial to our pur- 
 pose what the differences were, but it is 
 important to know that the quarrel was 
 doctrinal. The doctrine of the atone- 
 ment, of the number of persons in the 
 Godhead, of miracles, is thus and thus, 
 said Parker. Go to, it is not, said his 
 opponents. Both disputants in the dis- 
 cussion assumed that the essentials of 
 Christianity are doctrinal, while the inci- 
 dentals are other doctrines. Such as- 
 sumptions would not pass unchallenged 
 now. While it is perfectly natural to wish 
 to define in exact terms just what so im- 
 portant a matter as Christianity is, the 
 attempt to reduce the essential principle 
 of Christianity to intellectual terms has 
 
mbat 1[s Cbrtsttanttp ? 
 
 always been the bane to its progress. In 
 regard to this attempt in Christian circles 
 to think of Christianity in purely doctri- 
 nal terms, Adolf Harnack says, " How 
 great a departure from what Christ 
 thought and enjoined is involved in put- 
 ting a Christological creed in the forefront 
 of the Gospel, and in teaching that before 
 man can approach Christianity he must 
 learn to think rightly about Christianity." 
 Observe how the map of Christian his- 
 tory is dotted with creeds as thick as 
 milestones, and how vainly man has 
 attempted to formulate Christianity in set 
 terms. 
 
 For intellectual formulations like those 
 of natural science, philosophy and theol- 
 ogy you would not go to Christianity. 
 For information about the world of na- 
 ture you would turn to modern science and 
 sit at the feet of Newton, Darwin, Weis- 
 mann, Helmholtz, Wundt, Ranke, Roent- 
 gen and Klein. Jesus Christ was not the 
 intellectual exponent of biology, mathe- 
 
 37 
 
Mbat ITS Cbrtsttanttp ? 
 
 matics, physics, physiology, psychology, 
 history or chemistry. So for intellectual 
 formulations in philosophy and theology 
 you would go to Kant, Aristotle, Athana- 
 sius or St. Augustine. Jesus Christ 
 elaborated no system of philosophy, nor 
 was he the author of a creed. He did 
 not publish a book nor burn a heretic. 
 I once made a collection of the words of 
 Christ to see if I could find, apart from 
 his narrators, what intellectual doctrines 
 he taught. For a long time I was very 
 uncertain. At one time I thought he was 
 a pessimist, at another an optimist ; from 
 some passages he seemed to speak plainly 
 as a fatalist, in others as an advocate of 
 freedom of will. My perplexity was 
 great, because, while Christ seemed to be 
 a thoroughly consistent teacher, his doc- 
 trine refused to take on, nevertheless, the 
 limitations of the ordinary philosophical 
 and theological categories. The solution 
 of the difficulty came to me — and it is 
 so easy a solution that you will wonder 
 
 38 
 
TPdlbat 1FS Cbrtsttantt^ ? 
 
 how I missed it at all. Jesus was not a 
 teacher of philosophy or of theology or of 
 science, and if you try to make him one 
 of these you will miss the very inmost 
 and essential core of his mission. He 
 was a teacher of religion. Religion is as 
 much deeper than philosophy and theol- 
 ogy as music in the heart of a musician is 
 deeper than the music he can compose ; 
 as the ideal face which the artist would 
 paint is more sublime than the face he 
 actually puts on the canvas. In the 
 words so often quoted of Pico Mirandola, 
 in his famous letter to Aldus Manutius, 
 " Philosophia veritatem quaerit, theologia 
 invenit, religio possidet '* (Philosophy 
 seeks truth, theology discovers it, religion 
 has it). Religion, this attitude of mind, 
 this emotional expression, the lower self 
 seeking the higher, or, as Jesus defines it, 
 " love for God " — this is the possession 
 that gives abundance of life. Philosophy 
 and theology are only ancillary maidens 
 to religion. So also is science. Yet this 
 
 39 
 
mbat irs Cbrtsttantt^ ? 
 
 casts no censure upon philosophy and 
 theology. It shows them merely to be 
 incidental to Christianity, just as political 
 society, social conditions, health and mo- 
 rality are. But to find the thirty-nine 
 articles, the Athanasian creed, the mysti- 
 cism of Spinoza or the idealism of Hegel, 
 in the simple attitude and purpose of 
 Christ, is like the bewildering parlor magic 
 of the travelling operator. Christ was a 
 revealer, a teacher of religion, a spiritual 
 saviour. He was the way, the truth, the 
 life ; or, to put the matter in psychologi- 
 cal terms, he expressed the true emotional 
 attitude for the individual. Farther than 
 that specific purpose he did not go. 
 
 40 
 
Wibat Us Cbrlsttanltp? 
 
 VII 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 -^ p4 OU and I are, moreover, unapprecia- 
 JJ^ tive of the greatness of Jesus' mission 
 if we complain of the limitations that he 
 himself imposed upon it. We are mis- 
 taken and indiscriminate followers of him 
 if we try to extend that mission so that 
 he becomes a theologian, a scientist, an 
 economist, a politician or a physician. 
 Christ was simply a personal teacher of 
 religion. In contrast to the influence of 
 the two vast organizations of his time — 
 the Roman Empire and the Jewish 
 Church — he exerted a personal religious 
 influence upon personal lives. And 
 to-day, amid the loud pretensions of the 
 politician, scientist, and other advocates 
 of organization, he proclaims merely the 
 absolute monarchy of the soul, the inde- 
 
 41 
 
mbat Hb Cbrtstianttp ? 
 
 pendence of the peaceful heart. When 
 you and I are called to choose between 
 these things that I have called incidentals 
 to Christianity and the essential personal 
 Christian life, we may, in our moments of 
 anxious doubt, well remember the words 
 of Hawthorne in his conclusion to " The 
 Scarlet Letter." He says, " Be true ! 
 Be true ! Be true ! Show freely to the 
 world, if not your worst, yet some trait 
 whereby the worst may be inferred." 
 Christianity demands that we shall at 
 least be true, whether incidentally we 
 show our best or our worst. You may 
 define Christianity as self-culture if you 
 will, provided you define culture as pol- 
 ished sincerity. You can never impart 
 the truth to others unless you have it 
 folded closely in your heart of hearts ; 
 you can never be in any small degree the 
 way, the truth, and the life to others, as 
 Christ is the way, the truth, and the life 
 to you, unless you yourself have abun- 
 dance of life. If you are a hypocrite, 
 
 42 
 
Timbat irs Cbristiantt^ ? 
 
 you will hardly deceive the world, but 
 there is danger that you may deceive 
 yourself. You can never give the Chris- 
 tian peace to the Fihpino, the Negro, and 
 the Indian, if you yourself do not have it. 
 Yet you are not obliged to go far afield 
 to find the seduction to mistake the inci- 
 dental show for the inner and essential 
 peace. Here is the sunset shining in 
 your eyes ; there is nothing greater. 
 Here is a tree loaded with fruit ; there is 
 nothing greater. Here is the organized 
 political, economic, and scientific life of 
 which your life is part ; there is nothing 
 greater. Yet in all their greatness these 
 things are only the environment of your- 
 self. You are ; these things are inci- 
 dental. They perish ; they are external ; 
 but the peaceful heart endures. Christi- 
 anity is the religion of the ever present 
 moment and the inner life. For when in 
 the great judgment you shall stand, it 
 will never be asked who won at Santiago 
 and Port Arthur, but what were you at 
 
 43 
 
Mbat 11s Cbristiantti^ T 
 
 Santiago and Port Arthur ? Nor will it 
 then be a matter of relatively great impor- 
 tance whether you invented the tele- 
 phone, discovered the North Pole, or es- 
 tablished a great business enterprise ; but 
 have you had in every situation the peace 
 that passeth understanding. This is 
 what Christ means by abundance of life. 
 
 44 
 
Date Due 
 
 1 
 
 filv 1? P * 
 
 1 
 
 "I 
 
 W/ 1 G ' 
 
 -« i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01016 1885