Articles and Essays by Albert Truax
~ The Divinity Question ~ Instinct and Conscience ~ Nature Versus Second Nature ~~ Acting on the Assumption That There is a God the Best Means of Proving His Existence or Non-Existence ~
~ The Scientific Method ~
The Divinity Question
(excerpted from an article in the "Expositor of Holiness", 1894)It was said [at the heresy trial] that my teaching concerning the person of Christ, was the logical outcome or result of my views on the subject of Divine Guidance.
Now in a certain sense this statement was correct. Following the Holy Spirit as the only absolute law of life, leads one to examine any creed or dogma in a fearless common sense manner, and leads him to accept any logical satisfactory conclusion at which he may arrive: and this too, without the slightest regard for the antiquity of the dogma, and in spite of the numbers who may subscribe to the creed. Just as certainly as every man is responsible for his own acts, so every man is responsible for his own beliefs, and must needs examine all questions in a fearless independent Spirit. This doctrine is preached of course from all protestant pulpits, but how quickly a storm is raised when any person undertakes to practice what is preached.
It has also been a doctrine of the whole church, that Jesus Christ was to some extent limited in knowledge and power during his earthly mission, otherwise He could not be said to grow in wisdom and knowledge, and would not speak of depending upon the Father. No one however has ever set bounds to this limitation so that its extent has always been a matter of speculation, some holding one view and some another. It is especially clear that the Methodist church has held no distinct dogma on the question, holding simply the doctrine of the Kenosis as taught by all theologians. Now in my treatment of the subject I simply carried the doctrine of the Kenosis to its logical conclusion, and insisted that if Jesus became limited at all, it was that he might become our real example, and that he could not be our real example unless He became absolutely as one of us, so far as His purely human life was concerned. In short that His life here was not a mere theatrical show or semblance of a life, with sham trails, sham troubles, sham temptations and sham victories, but a real, stern actual battle, such as we all have to fight, and that he won by using the same weapons that are placed in all our hands, having no advantage over us whatever.
How any one can deny this truth seems strange indeed, and particularly strange that any should deny it and at the same time teach that men are under obligation to live the life of Jesus, and practice His precepts: for surely we need at least as much assistance as He had, if we are to live as He lived. But no: ministers will go on preaching the nonsense that we are to show such and such a Spirit because it is the Spirit of Christ, and then tell us that Christ showed the beautiful Spirit and lived the perfect life He did, because of Hid Deity. No wonder people come to take such teaching with the usual grain of salt, concluding that the preacher does not mean what he says - in this case anyway - and if not in this case how can they believe that he means anything he teaches. Hereafter Methodists have a perfect right to tell their ministers that they do not mean what they say when they urge them to follow the example of Jesus Christ.
But Mr. Truax "assailed the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ!" He did not. "But he has doubts about the immaculate conception!" So he frankly confessed before the Conference, but was that a crime? Is the theory of the immaculate conception necessary to a belief in the Divinity of Christ? If it is, the first Christians were not aware of it, for it was no part of their teaching, as anybody can see from the records.
THE MYSTERY PLEA
We are told that Jesus' birth, life and person, are all mysteries into which we may not pry lest like some of old we be smitten for our temerity. Well we have no objections to mysteries as such, there are plenty of these and always will be, mysteries about ourselves if not about the person of Christ. But why invent and manufacture mysteries where no mysteries are needed? Or who call flat contradictions mysteries, when mysteries are not and cannot be contradictions? Mysteries may be beyond our depth, must indeed or there are no mysteries, but they must not contradict our reason, for if they do they destroy our only means of investigating or of knowing truth. Let any one read popular works on the person of Christ, and see if he is not involved in a perfect maze and tangle of contradictions and absurdities, which set at naught his reason and appeal only to his credulity.
"But spiritual things are spiritually discerned. We need spiritual vision to approach these mysteries." True enough. We know from very recent experience, that men can not see spiritual truth without the spiritual eye or sense.
But are we to pluck out the eyes of our understanding or natural reason in order that we may have spiritual vision? Or is spiritual truth to contradict natural truth? Surely not. The spiritual eye is not to take the place of the natural reason or eye, neither is it to contradict the natural reason but only to supplement it, to assist it: to enable one to see truth beyond the reach of sense or natural reason, but never to contradict our reason nor to stultify our common sense.
Now let us suppose for a moment that Jesus recognized the voice of His Father at all times and obeyed that voice, and that He depended upon His Father for all power needed to do his will, would not this account both for His teachings and His mighty works? "But this is denying His Divinity." Not so, unless we deny the Divinity of God the Holy Ghost. "But it is denying Hid Deity." It is not denying a proper conception of His Deity, that is manifested Deity. He would perfectly manifest the moral and spiritual attributes of God which was all the world needed - and all it needs still. It does deny that He was equal with God but this He Himself expressly denied, "My Father is greater than I."
HOW DOES THIS EFFECT THE ATONEMENT?
Our answer is that it does not effect the real essential atonement at all, though it does effect some theories of the atonement. The commercial theory for instance and the butcher theory. There are even greater contradictions and absurdities in atonement theories than there are in theories concerning the person of Christ; suffice it to say that if the sacrifice of a God was necessary, it would be necessary to find a God who could be killed, which would be a difficult matter for even the ancient Greeks would not admit that their God could be killed, though they did allow them to be wounded. the longer too that one considers the monstrous doctrine, that a righteous God deliberately put to death an innocent person, or even accepted the sacrifice of an innocent person to clear the guilty, the more he revolts at the enormity. That is unless he is so filled with superstitious reverence for old established dogmas, that he is ready to admit as moral teaching concerning the atonement, which would be pronounced grossly immoral if taught elsewhere. This conception of the atonement is distinctly pagan in its origin, and a disgrace to Christianity. Jesus Christ mad atonement certainly. He distinctly and clearly opened up the way whereby God and man may become one - at-one-ment.
Essays from "Autobiography of the late Rev. Nelson Burns, B.A. / A new study of the Christ life, etc.", ed. A. Truax, published by The Christian Association, 1904?
Instinct and Conscience
In his book, "A Duet with An Occasional Chorus", Dr. Conan Doyle brings out the thought that instinct is sometimes a better guide than conscience. the case in point is: A woman wants to know something, and her husband has to decide whether it is best to tell her. Instinct says no; conscience says yes. Instinct is older than conscience, but conscience is supposed to be an improvement on instinct. So the man balances for a time between the two. Instinct says the knowledge will injure your wife; but conscience says you are practically lying, or deceiving her, if you do not give her the information. A religious man would probably obey conscience. He was a man of the world, and obeyed instinct, and we quite agree with Dr. Doyle that he did the wisest thing for all concerned.The question was interesting to us, as we never had our attention called to it before. It is interesting also as it has some bearing on the question of conscience in its relation to Divine guidance.
God has distinctly intimated that we are not to allow our conscience to stand in the way of his word, but to be quite as ready to lay aside our conscience as to lay aside our preconceived notions or opinions. This places conscience on a par with instinct. That is to say, we regard neither of them as law; but just as conscience superseded instinct and became a higher law, so now Divine guidance supersedes conscience and becomes the highest law, taking the place of both instinct and conscience. Still, God can utilize both just as he uses our appetites, speaking through them when it is best, or telling us to deny them when that is best.
But how men tremble at the mere mention of discarding conscience. And yet it simply means growth - the healthy sloughing off of an old cracked skin for a new one. We wonder if men feared as much when called upon to give up instinct for conscience. Perhaps they did; but it was so long ago that we have forgotten about it.
Happy are they who are true to conscience till God calls them to give it up; but thrice happy are they who gladly give it up for something better.
Nature Versus Second Nature
A certain experience at the late convention brought to our notice the fact that second nature may sometimes supplant nature and become the ruling force. We often hear it said of a person that it has become second nature for him to do certain things, meaning that by education and practice we learn to do things contrary to our nature with tolerable ease and facility. It is generally conceded, however, that nature at the bottom is stronger than second nature can be. If we but scratch the shell of second nature, we will find nature within, quiescent and dormant for the time being, but pulsating with life and energy, and ready to spring forth the moment the shell of second nature is broken. It is well that this is so, that nature refuses to be supplanted utterly; because the hope of the world lies in nature and its healthy regulation and development, and not in second nature.The subject brings most vividly to mind the very great contrast existing between our gospel and all others. All legalistic religions depend very largely on second nature to elevate the race; this being so much the case that the best and most spiritual teachers in the churches insist on the necessity for a change of heart, a change of nature at once, which really means allowing some other force to take the place of nature. the cultivation of the moral and spiritual qualities in man has had so much of the artificial about it, so much grafting of some foreign element on to the natural religious element in mankind, that the result has been grotesque in the extreme. the best samples of piety and religious character produced by the churches are always repelling because unnatural. they are either too hard or too soft, too smiling or too grim, too silent or too talkative. The Puritans were about the sturdiest, finest characters produced by Calvinism; but certainly no more grotesque or unnatural men ever walked the earth. the Methodists and the Salvation Army have, perhaps, produced the best type of Arminian piety, and the Army in one respect is as grotesque as the Puritans; whilst the Methodists are exceedingly artificial. Who has not noticed what Emerson called the "gentle asinine look" so much cultivated by ministers? A lady once remarked to us that a certain minister's smile was so artificial that it made him look almost precisely as though he wore a mask. As to the Roman Church it is quite plain that their best types of character are found amongst those who so far withdraw themselves from the world that they can scarcely be regarded as belonging to the race in any way, save by name.
Now, our gospel aims at the very opposite of all this. We believe in nature and in working along purely natural lines. We join with all the poets in singing the praises of nature, only we do not stop where poets cease. We cannot subscribe to the sentiment that "Only man is vile"; we think, on the contrary, that he is the very best product of evolution up to date. Why do poets sing, and writers exhaust the powers of language in describing the grandeur of nature, until they come to nature's last and crowning product, man, and then call him vile? Why, they tell us, because man does such mischief - lies, steals, gambles, gets drunk and kills his neighbor. But all nature does the same. Why not call the lion vile for killing the fox for stealing, and the elements for destroying its untold millions of victims? are we to admire all that men do, then? Not necessarily. But neither do we like to see animals devour one another, nor the elements doing their fearful works [as] we admit the elements to be the best possible in spite of their destroying power, and we also admit that man is the best God himself could make of [him] up to date. We protect ourselves against the elements as best we can, and so we do against man; but if the elements or man do us mischief, we charge the thing to God and not to the agent. We shut up fire in stoves that there may be less danger of getting burnt, and do not hesitate to imprison some men for the same reason. We shoot a dog if we cannot protect ourselves in any other way, and also give our consent to the hanging of a man for the same reason, but we do not blame either the dog or the man.
It is of the very essence of all legalistic gospels that they must blame men for what they do, and require them to make strenuous efforts to change their nature; and it is of the very essence of our gospel that we blame no man for what he does, and that we do not ask him to make the slightest effort to change either his nature, his appetites or his desires. Is there no room for changes, then, in our gospel? Most certainly there is. But the change is brought about by natural and not artificial means. Legalists strive to substitute second nature for nature, whilst our gospel works in the very opposite direction; our first object being to undo what second nature has already done, to tear away the shell of second nature so that nature can get a chance to develop from within; for we insist that all the potentialities of a beautiful character are in every man, and it is only a question of how to get at these and introduce to them a law that will enable them to develop in a simple, natural manner, without effort, without failure, without regrets for the past and without fear for the future.
But what battles we have with second nature! What a hard shell it is to crack, to be sure: but God's hammer can break the thickest shell if we only stand up to it and take the necessary blows, for they will and must hurt, seeing natural growth and development is not necessarily painless.
Acting on the Assumption That There is a God the Best Means of Proving His Existence or Non-Existence
In our article on "Show us the Father" in the June Expositor, we endeavored to show that it was not necessary to prove the existence of God before acting as though he existed, and that the gospel was to be judged by the results following this action alone.It is now our purpose to show that these results will ultimately prove the existence or non-existence of God. If there be no God, the results will prove this; if there be a God, the fact will be fully demonstrated by the same results.
But why act on the positive assumption that there is a God rather than on the negative assumption that there is none? Simply because there is to us more evidence in favor of his existence than otherwise, and for the further cogent reason that acting on the negative assumption can secure nothing but negative results; whilst acting on a positive assumption secures either negative or positive results; hence the general preference for positive as compared to mere negative teaching. the world pays little attention to negative theories of any kind, and justly so, seeing they cannot, in the very nature of things, make for real progress. All mere negations concerning God bear this mark of futility.
The Materialist says, "Matter I know, and Force I know, but who is God?" This, of course, proves nothing, and, moreover, the statement itself is only partially true, for how much does he know about matter or force? He does not even know that one can exist without the other, for how can there be such a thing as force with nothing to act upon? God may easily be inherent in matter and force, or in both, but this cannot be shown by merely affirming that he is there; neither can it be disproved by denying his existence there.
Herbert Spencer's negation of God, or rather of possible knowledge of God, is of the same quality. What right has any man, and especially any scientific man, to speak of the Unknowable? It is the business of science to pursue and classify knowledge, and not to set limits and bounds to its attainments. That which is unknowable in one age is common knowledge to children in the next. We respectfully submit that the term "unknowable" should be unknown to twentieth century science, for it is a polemical, and not a scientific term. Herbert Spencer is peerless, perhaps, in his own field - science, - but when it comes to polemics, the "man in the street" can answer him, and it is well for "the man in the street" that nature has given him this ability. All men cannot be specialists in science, but all can judge of philosophical or speculative conclusions based upon scientific data. This is the safeguard of the common people, and blessed are those who are not afraid to use it in the face of high authority, for there is the same tendency to accept authority in science as there is to accept it in theology. When Harvey first taught the circulation of the blood it set nearly all the scientific and medical dogs barking at his heels. "Can any man know more than Aristotle?" was the amazed cry of these worshippers of antique authority; and as evidence that the same tendency exists today, even amongst those who make the loudest professions of despising authority, we have only to cite the fact that Mr. Ellis, in the late debate, more than hinted that it was presumption on our part to call into question the conclusions of such great men as Spencer, Huxley and Darwin.
The Agnostic position is, however, a perfectly proper one, as used by Prof. Huxley, who introduced the term in its modern sense. To Prof. Huxley the term simply implies that the evidence which was satisfactory to the materialist, the theist, or the pantheist, was not satisfactory to him. Hence his attitude to the various "ologies" and "isms" was, that he simply did not know whether they were true or not. The evidence, to him, neither proved them true or false. This was the sole and only sense in which he used the term, and we fail to see how any fault can be found with this his attitude. Still, it is plain that even this attitude would not enable Prof. Huxley to give much assistance towards a settlement of these great problems. He could only aid in their solution when the evidence became strong enough to enable him to assume one or the other of the theories to be true, and to act on that assumption.
The modern theory of evolution furnishes an example in point.
This theory was dimly discerned or hinted at by many ancient philosophers; but little attention was paid to them until somebody came to believe enough in the doctrine to pin his faith to it as being very probably true. As soon as this stage was reached by Wallace and Darwin, the doctrine began really to be put to the scientific test, and evidence has accumulated ever since.
It is erroneously assumed by many, we believe, that Darwin proved the doctrine true, and that it was accepted by the leading scientists, almost as soon as the "Origin of Species" was published; but this is very far from being the fact.
Prof. Huxley was, perhaps, the greatest champion of the new doctrine in Great Britain; but he certainly did not accept the doctrine as being necessarily true. on the contrary, he clearly saw missing links in the evidence and spoke of them quite freely, particularly calling attention to the fact, that no selective breeding had yet produced species perfectly sterile to one another. He accepted the theory as probably true, seeing there was much prima facie evidence in its favor; but his acceptance was subject to further evidence, just as the undulatory theory of light is received subject to proof of the existence of the hypothetical ether; or, as the chemist accepts the atomic theory subject to proof of the existence of atoms. He simply demanded that the theory be examined on its merits only, aside from orthodox or traditional prejudices. This, his position, can easily be verified by referring to his popular writings, or to his "Life and Letters", lately published.
Now, this is precisely our position with regard to the existence of God. There is, to us, much prima facie evidence in favor of his existence; so much, indeed, that we feel perfectly justified in accepting his existence as an extremely likely, though still hypothetical, fact, and acting on this hypothesis as the best means of investigation and research.
Now, how does the scientist pursue his investigations after accepting a doctrine as probably true? Why, he simply collects the facts of science as fast as they are discovered and refers them to his theory, to see if they will fit into it in every particular, and gives the result to the world, to the common people, who are quite able to judge whether the facts bear out the theory or not. Darwin gathered many facts which fitted nicely into his doctrine. Huxley gathered some, Herbert Spencer many, and Prof. Marsh some very important ones; and, of course, a great many others made contributions.
The evolution of the horse, for instance, was a very interesting study; and it was not until Prof. Huxley came to America and examined Prof. Marsh's collection of fossils, that the chain was completed, and the whole horse family proved to be descended from a common ancestor the Eohippus. So, step by step, the process goes on, biology helping geology and philosophy coming to the aid of both. The end is not yet, however, and may not come for many years; nay, other facts may yet be found which will overthrow the doctrine of evolution altogether, or perhaps modify its claim to a great extent.
But no one will doubt that this method will one day settle the question. New facts will come into the light, and they will either fit into the theory or they will not. If they fit, it will prove the doctrine true; if they will not fit, the doctrine is not true, and some other theory will be found which will satisfy all the demands made by the facts. The world will stand by the facts in the end, no matter how many theories rise and fall.
Acting on the theory or assumption that God is, will produce certain well-defined results. We say "well-defined" advisedly, because these results must of necessity be different from those obtained by any other means. Even granting that there is no God, it is still true that acting on the assumption that he exists will produce different results from those obtained by acting on the negative assumption. It would also seem clear that, acting on the positive assumption provided there is no God, would produce much worse results than those obtained by acting on the negative assumption, for experience teaches us that acting on a true theory always produces better results than acting on a false one.
A clear perception of this law of nature must make all thinking persons pause to consider the possible consequences of their act, ere they take the position that they will follow what they believe to be God, to the end of life. For no matter how readily one accepts the many arguments or so-called proofs of the existence of God, his belief will be shaken, and the evidence will seem painfully inadequate when he comes to stake his all on the truth of the doctrine. It is only at this supreme crisis that one really weighs and sifts the evidence to see if it will support his calmest judgment. Mere authority becomes light as air at this crisis; for well we know that if we commit our whole life to God's guidance, and there should turn out to be no God, we are certainly ruined. True, we shall have the satisfaction, which is not small, of settling the mightiest question that can engage the thought of man; but this by no means destroys the heroic quality of the act, or makes the possibility of failure a pleasing prospect.
The plain fact, however, is that we of this gospel have duly weighed all arguments and faced all possible consequences, good and bad, and have concluded to put the question to the supreme test. We are absolutely committed to follow what we believe to be God, in any and every direction, let the consequences be what they may. And yet, chiefest of the lies told about us is, that we don't believe in God! Strange paradox, that those who risk the most for their faith, believe the least.
And now, the point of our proof is this, viz., our lives will furnish complete evidence, one way or the other. If the results are bad, or worse than those produced by other methods, our assumption is wrong and the facts won't fit into our theory; on the other hand, if the results prove good, and uniformly good, or better than those produced by any other methods, then our gospel is true, and our assumption is a demonstrated fact; and demonstrated too in such a way that any man, however dull and stupid, can fully appreciate the evidence and act upon it quite as readily and successfully as any philosopher.
True, we may still be without any definition of God, save this: that he is, and he is good; but we shall be in the best possible position to carry on any investigation looking towards further knowledge on his character and attributes. Having arrived at the knowledge and how to utilize him in a practical way, to the end that we may live the best possible life, we are well assured that no other questions will cause trouble or anxiety. For we are firmly convinced that the real quest of man is not so much to find God, as how to live a satisfactory life, and that, when his desire is satisfied, all speculative questions, even concerning God, fall naturally into the background.
The Scientific Method
Scientists complain, and with good reason, we think, that Christianity rests its claims too much on authority and not enough on common sense, reason and the scientific test.Is this complaint valid against the gospel of Divine guidance? We think we can show in a few words that it is not. We have been asking, for years, to be tried by the strictest scientific method. We do not ask men to receive this gospel on the authority of prophet, priest or apostle. The prophets had glimpses of the truth, and we are glad that they did; but that is not why we believe it.
The apostles taught it to some extent, but we are not quite sure any practiced it fully.
Neither do we accept the doctrine on the authority of the Bible. We are glad it i found in the Bible; we would be just as glad to find it in any other book, sacred or profane. Its being taught in a good book, however, would not make it true, any more than witchcraft is true because taught in the bible.
Lastly, we do not accept Divine guidance on the authority of Jesus. We are satisfied he taught it, and we believe he practiced it. But that is no reason why we should teach and practice the same. The scientific test must be applied as much to Jesus as to any other teacher. If he shrinks from that test, we want none of him.
What is the method of science? She asks for facts, not authorities: clear truth, not mysteries. What are the facts, then? It may be reasonably claimed, we think, that Jesus professed to please the Father continually. It is another fact that no one else has made such a profession until recent years. It is another fact that he lived a very beautiful and noble life, so much so that his life has been idealized as the perfect pattern and example for all men. It is further a fact that he accepted no man, not even Moses, as his teacher, but claimed to know from his Father what to do. Connect all these facts and see if a pretty good case is not made out for the doctrine of Divine guidance.
But all this may not be enough. It may be, and is, objected, with reason, that Jesus is too far off for us to see him distinctly; that we have to depend on the word of a few ignorant men who, on their own showing, understood him very imperfectly; that we are, further, at the mercy of transcribers, sometimes interested, and of translators, sometimes biased, to find out what these first witnesses really did report. But there is another test, which we claim to be truly scientific in every detail.
We have men on the earth who claim to perfectly illustrate and practice the gospel of Divine guidance. They claim that this law of our being, when followed, satisfies every good desire and meets every real want of the human soul; that obeying this simple law brings them into perfect harmony with all nature as well as Nature's God; that, in short, it makes their life measure up to the ideal pictured by Jesus, and, according to the record, illustrated by him.
Now, claiming that all this does not make it true, seeing men have made a great many false claims before to-day and will make many more, what test do these men ask their fellows to apply? We answer, from certain knowledge, the scientific one, and that only.
They ask to be judged by their fruits. Do they bring forth good or bad fruit? Do their lives harmonize with their profession? Do they live as they say they do? They court every kind of honest criticism and every form of examination. They welcome criticism as the sunlight, and receive honest investigators as angels.
It may be objected, that men may live good lives and still teach erroneous doctrine. We frankly admit the force of this objection, but, at the same time, call attention to the fact that it applies only to lives which may be said to be relatively good - that is, better than some others - and not at all to the best possible lives.
It is most painfully evident that many good men - as men are commonly judged - have taught very erroneous doctrine. It is however plainly and scientifically impossible for a man to live the best possible life, and still teach, or practice, a false theory of living. The best life can be lived only by the man who practices the best theory of living.
We insist, then, that the scientific test is the only valid one. The Church made a fearful mistake when it applied the illogical, unscientific test of authority. But we fear that many, who pose as scientists or practices of the scientific method, are making the same mistake as did the Church.
The Church asks: "By what authority do you teach Divine guidance as the gospel of Jesus, what miracle do you perform?" We answer: "By no authority whatever but that of self-evident truth, and by no miracle but that of our lives, which we claim to be in harmony with the God of truth and with men's natural, untrammeled sense of what is right."
The so-called sceptic too often says: "These people claim to know the voice of God; I don't believe in such stuff." Away with them. "Hold, my friend, you are just as honest as the churchman, but no more scientific!" Practice what you preach. Examine the life to see whether the facts connected with the practice of living harmonize with the theory of living.
Now, in asking scientists to do this, we are simply asking them to apply the same method to spiritual science which they apply to physical science. Let us illustrate this point.
How did Newton prove the law of gravitation? Did he see the law? Not at all. Did he feel it? No. Did he discover it by the exercise of any of his five senses? Not in the least. How then? Why, first of all, he got a hint, say, from the falling of an apple or like phenomenon. Then, other hints from further observation, and, finally, it flashed upon him that possibly every particle of matter in the universe was attracted by every other particle of matter.
But stating this doctrine and showing its reasonableness would not prove it to be true. He must find evidence, and so he set patiently to work to show that all the phenomena known, in connection with the movements of the various planets, the orbital motion of the earth, the relation of the moon to the earth, and the action of tides, etc., etc., were explained and accounted for by this law of attraction of gravitation. He waited patiently until every fact harmonized with the theory, even though, from a false measurement of the earth's diameter, he had to wait eighteen years before a certain presumed fact could be made to harmonize with the theory.
Again, take the wave theory of light and heat. Some hints were obtained from the theory of sound. Sound was proved to be produced by molecular motion; perhaps light was produced in a similar manner.
Possibly light was not emitted by the eye, as Newton thought, nor given out directly by the sun, as others believed. Perhaps it was produced and conveyed by means of an invisible substance filling all space and which was set in motion by the sun.
But what about this substance? Who had felt or seen or in any way proved its existence? No one. Its very existence, first of all, had to be taken for granted. After that, experiments were carefully made. All phenomena connected with light and heat were considered, examined and pondered in the light of this theory. The result was that all the facts known, or found out, about light and heat harmonized perfectly with this theory of the luminiferous ether.
The theory therefore which had to be assumed, in the first instance, was, in the end, proved to be true because it explained and accounted for all the known facts in connection with light and heat.
Is it too much, then, to ask candid and scientific minds to examine the theory of Divine guidance in the same manner as they examined the theories of light and gravitation? We are asked to prove the existence of God. We are asked to prove he dwells with men to manage, guide and control them. We cannot do so any more than we can prove the existence of ether, or a force called gravitation. All we can do is to follow the example of Newton and point to facts in our lives and in the life of Jesus which fit the theory exactly. As Newton pointed to the motion of the planets as fitting his theory of the existence of the law of gravitation; or as we follow John Tyndall as he points to a great number of facts and phenomena of light and heat, and says: "Gentlemen, the wave theory accounts for all these facts, and produces all known phenomena of light and heat, no other thing does account for the facts or produced the phenomena; what say you to the evidence?" so we point to the facts of Jesus' life, and our own, and say: Divine guidance accounts for all the facts and produces the results you see, results which are produced by the practice of no other theory, but which always follow the practice of this theory. What say you to the evidence?
Back to Documents Index
Jennifer's Genealogy PageCreated: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 - 12:03:21 PM
Last Updated: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 - 12:03:26 PM