FIRST PART.

THE NATURE AND THE RELATIONS OF CHRISTIAN SOCIETY.

THIS part of Christian Sociology might be called Christian Social Dogmatics, since it contains the doctrinal elements of the system. Its aim is to show how Christian society originated, what it is, and what its relations are. The importance of this doctrinal element is very great, since everything else in Christian Sociology depends on it. We must know what Christian society is, before we can understand its duties. Right social practice depends on a proper view of the social relations.

CHAPTER II.

THE GENESIS OF CHRISTIAN SOCIETY.

constituent It is more

WHATEVER may enter into it as elements, Christianity is essentially life. than mere theory or doctrine, which are, indeed, included in it, but are not Christianity itself. Men may acknowledge intellectually that all the teachings of the Gospel are true; and yet unless that Gospel is in them a living power, which produces a life corresponding with those teachings, they are not Christians. We must, therefore, distinguish between Christianity itself and a mere theory or doctrinal system of Christianity. From its introduction into the world till the present time, wherever Christianity has been, there it has been a living power, an active life; and whatever variety it has exhibited in different ages, and under different circumstances, this life has always been essentially the same, including the same doctrines, controlled by the same relations, and manifesting the same spirit. It has not, indeed, been a dreary monotony in the ages through which it has passed, but a unity with all the variety of real life.

This life is peculiar, differing from the life that existed before its introduction, and also from the life which has since that time been found outside of Christianity. Its peculiarity consists in its origin, in the elements which constitute it, and in its relations.

HISTORY CONFORMED TO PHILOSOPHY.

63

At present the origin of that life is to be considered. This life is embodied in Christian society, and it makes that society Christian; and the genesis of this life is also the genesis of that society.

For more than eighteen centuries Christian society has been a fact, and has been the most important factor of history. How do we account for its existence ?

Since the time of Hegel the effort has repeatedly been made by writers to construct history according to their philosophy. Those who pursue this method do not ask with unprejudiced minds what the facts of history are, and then let them speak for themselves; but, having constructed their philosophy independently of history, they shape or interpret the facts of history according to their philosophical system. Especially has this method been pursued by different schools in discussing the origin of Christianity. Those who adopt it cannot be convinced of the existence of facts which are in conflict with their philosophical theory, whatever amount or kind of historical evidence may be advanced to prove them. They cannot impartially test the facts of history, but always give to them the colouring of the preconceived notions through which they view them. If, for instance, the view is adopted that a miracle is impossible, or that it is more probable that testimony is false than that a miracle. should occur, then, no matter how strong the evidence may be, it will be rejected. Such a position, in fact, puts the mind in a state in which it is unfit to judge of the reliability of evidence.

To every one not biassed by such prejudice the irrationality of this procedure must be evident. Facts

are too stubborn to be thus tortured to mean anything that an arrogant system of philosophy may demand. Our philosophy, if at all worthy of the name, must comprehend all facts, and must be in harmony with them; or, if inductive, it must start with facts, grow out of them, and explain them. But the facts of history are not dependent on our philosophy. If philosophy has a right to construct history as it pleases, then every philosophical system has a right to contort facts to suit itself. As a result, there would be as many histories of humanity as there are systems of philosophy. And more than this; whenever men who adopt this method change their philosophy, they must also change their history. We do not doubt that there is a plan in history, and a grand consummation to which everything is tending. There is reason in all events, and there is a guiding hand to direct the issue of everything that occurs. There is no chance. But the human mind has never yet been able to fathom that reason so as to give a science of it; nor has philosophy been able so clearly to unfold that plan in history as to determine definitely just what facts may appear at certain times, and what facts cannot appear then or at any other time. In order that philosophy might do this, it would have to comprehend all things, and be absolutely perfect. But what system has a right to make such a claim? He who knows how changeable philosophical systems are; how very imperfect they are; how liable to err and to need revision; how every profound and original thinker modifies the systems of his predecessors; and how much uncertainty there is in philosophical speculation-he who knows all this must

DEISM AND RATIONALİSM.

65

demand that the facts of history shall be exempt from the arbitrary tampering of philosophers, and that testimony, instead of being excluded by prejudice, shall be weighed according to the laws of evidence. Philosophy can interpret some of the facts of history, not all of them; but it cannot construct history.

The deistic conception of God, which excludes him from all active interest and participation in the affairs of the world, is consistent with itself when it denies the very possibility of a revelation of the divine will and character, except in nature. With this view deism comes to the study of sacred things, and it interprets them accordingly. Whatever the facts may be, it cannot do otherwise than regard the Bible as a purely human production. So long as the system itself is held, all argument to prove a revelation of God in the Scriptures is useless. If charitably disposed, deism may admit that the writers of Scripture were sincere, but mistaken, when they claimed to be inspired; when not charitably disposed, it pronounces them impostors.

Rationalism has assumed a variety of forms, from the refined and ideal down to the most vulgar. In general, however, it has been closely allied to deism. In its purest form, it retained in its creed these three articles That God is a person; that man is free and responsible; and that the soul is immortal. This type of rationalism found much in the sacred Scriptures which it accepted especially in the moral teachings. But it also found much that it could not adopt. It treated the fallible human reason as if it was absolute and infallible. Instead of weighing the evidences relating to the statements of Scripture, and judging