The Collected Works of Theodore Parker/Volume 01/Book 3/Chapter 1
BOOK III.
“Where there is a great deal of smoke and no clear flame, it argueth much moisture in the matter, and yet it witnesseth certainly that there is fire there; and therefore dubious questioning is a much better evidence than that senseless deadness which most men take for believing. Men that know nothing in sciences have no doubts.”—Leighton, cited by Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, American edition, 1829, p. 64.
“He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth will proceed by loving his own Sect or Church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.”—Coleridge, ubi sup. p. 64, 65.
“While everybody wishes to believe rather than examine and decide, a just judgment is never passed upon a matter of the greatest importance; our opinion thereof is taken on trust. The error of our fathers which has fallen into our hands whirls us round and drives us headlong. We are ruined by the example of others. We shall be healed if we separate from the rabble. Now the people, in hostility with Reason, stand up as the defence of what is their own mischief.”—Seneca, De Vita beata, Ch. I., a free translation.
BOOK III.
THE RELATION OF THE RELIGIOUS ELEMENT TO JESUS OF NAZARETH, OR A DISCOURSE OF CHRISTIANITY.
CHAPTER I.
STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION AND THE METHOD OF INQUIRY.
It was said before, that Religion, like Love, is always the same thing in kind, though both are necessarily modified by other emotions combining therewith, and by the conception of the object to which the emotion is directed. Thus Love is modified as it chances to coexist with weakness or strength, folly or wisdom, selfishness or morality,—qualities in the Subject who loves. By these qualities the degree of Love is determined. It is modified also by the qualities of the Object; as love is directed towards a child, a wife, or a friend. Hence come the different modifications of Religion as it coexists with faith or fear, wisdom or ignorance, love or hate in the worshipping subject; and again as the object of worship is conceived to be one being, or many beings, or all being; as it is conceived of as the absolutely Perfect, or represented as finite, cruel, capricious, and unlovely. The only perfect form of Religion is produced by all the powers of a man's nature, acting harmoniously together. All manifestations of Religion proceed from the religious element in Man, and are, more or less, imperfect representations of that element, as its action is more or less impeded or promoted by various causes.
If this be so, it follows that the religious Element or faculty in Man bears the same relation to each and all particular forms and teachers of Religion, that Reason bears to each and all particular systems or teachers of Philosophy. That is, as no one teacher or system of Philosophy, nor all teachers and systems taken together, have exhausted Reason, which is the groundwork and standard-measure of them all, and is represented more or less partially in each of them, and therefore as new teachers and new systems of Philosophy are always possible and necessary until a system is discovered which embraces all the facts of Science, sets forth and legitimates all the laws of Nature, and thus represents the Absolute Science, which is implied in the Facts of Nature, or the Ideas of God; so no one teacher or form of Religion, nor all teachers and forms put together, have exhausted the religious Faculty, which is the groundwork and standard-measure of them all, and is represented more or less partially in each, and so new teachers and new forms of Religion are always possible and necessary, until a form is discovered, which embraces all the facts of Man’s moral and religious nature, sets forth and legitimates all the laws thereof, and thus represents the Absolute Religion, as it is implied in the Facts of Man’s nature, or the Ideas of God. As no system or teacher of Philosophy is greater than Reason, and competent to give laws to Nature, but at the utmost is only coördinate with Reason, and competent to discover and announce the laws of Nature previously existing; so no form or teacher of Religion can be greater than the religious Element, and competent to give laws to Man, but at the utmost is only coördinate with the religious Element, and competent to discover and announce the laws of Man previously existing. In one word, Absolute Science answers exactly to Reason, and is what Reason demands; Absolute Religion answers exactly to the religious Element, and is what the religious Element demands. Therefore until Philosophy and Religion attain the Absolute, each form or teacher of either is subject to be modified or supplanted by any man who has a truth not embraced by the Philosophy or Religion at that time extant. However, there are certain primary truths of Science and Religion, which alone render the two possible, and which are possessed with more or less of a distinct understanding by all teachers of the two, and attain greater prominence with some. Though a system may have many faults accidentally connected with it, though others may point out the faults and develope the system still further, yet the first principles remain. Thus in Science the maxims of Geometry, in Morals the first truths thereof, must reappear in all the systems.
Now to make a special application of these general remarks: Christianity can be no greater than the Religious Faculty, though it may be less; as the water can of itself rise no higher in the pipe than in the fountain, though if the pipe be defective it may fail of its former height. Religion is the universal term; Absolute Religion and Morality its highest expression; Christianity is a particular form under this universal term; one form of religion among many others. It is either Absolute Religion and Morality, or it is less; greater it cannot be, as there is no greater. Christianity then is a form of Religion. As it is actual, it, must have been revealed; if it is true, it must be natural. It is therefore to be examined and judged of as other forms of Religion, by Reason and the religious Element. It is true or false; perfect or imperfect.
The question then reduces itself to this. Is Christianity the Absolute Religion? To answer this question we must know, first, what Christianity is; secondly, what Absolute Religion is. If Christianity is not the Absolute, we must of course look for a more perfect manifestation of Religion, just as we look for improvements in Science till Philosophy becomes absolute. But if Christianity be this, or involve it, and nothing contradicts or impedes this, then we can expect nothing higher in Religion, for there is no higher; but have only to understand this, and develope its principles; applying it to life, in order to attain perfect religious welfare.
To ascertain what is Absolute Religion, is no difficult matter; for Religion is not an external thing, like Astronomy, to be learned by long observation, and the perfection of scientific instruments and algebraic processes; but something above all, inward and natural to Man. As it was said before, Absolute Religion is perfect obedience to the Law of God; the service of God by the normal use, development, and discipline of every limb of the body, every faculty of the spirit; perfect Love towards God and Man, exhibited in a life allowing and demanding a harmonious action of all Man's faculties, so far as they act at all.
But to answer the historical question, Did Jesus of Nazareth teach Absolute Religion ? is a matter vastly more difficult, which it requires learning, critical skill, and no little painstaking to make out. To answer the first question, What is Christianity? is a very difficult thing. No two men seem agreed about it; the wickedest of wars have been fought to settle it. To answer the query, are we to take what is popularly called Christianity? No Protestant thinks the Christianity of the Catholic Church is Absolute Religion; nor will the Catholic think better of the Protestant faith. A pious man, free from bigotry, and capable of judging, would surely make very short work of the question, and decide that Christianity, as popularly taught by both these churches, taken together, is not Absolute Religion.
But we must look deeper than Protestantism and Popery. We must distinguish Christianity from the popular Conceptions of Christianity; from its Proof and its Form. To do this, we must go back, historically, to the fountain-head, the words of Jesus. We must then take these words in the abstract, separate from any church; apart from all authority, real or pretended; without respect of any application thereof to life, that was made by its founder or others. If all churches have believed it, if miracles have been wrought in its favour, if its application have been good in this or that case, it does not follow that Christianity is absolute and final. The Church has been notoriously mistaken on many points. Miracles are claimed for Judaism, Mahometanism, and Idolatry; each heresy is thought by its followers to work well. We must look away from all these considerations. If Jesus of Nazareth lived out his idea, and was the greatest of saints, it does not follow that his Idea was absolute, and therefore final. If he did not perfectly live it out, the reverse does not follow. The good life of a teacher proves nothing of any speculative doctrine he entertains, either in morals or mathematics. A man would be thought insane who should say Euclid's demonstration of the forty-seventh problem was true, because Euclid lived a good life, and raised men from the dead; or that it was false, because he lived a bad life, and murdered his mother. If Christianity be the Absolute, it is independent of all circumstances; eternally true, as much before its declaration as after it is brought to light and applied to life.[1] Before its revelation it was active, but unknown; afterwards known to be active. To illustrate this point: the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles. This is eternally true; and applies to all triangles that were, are, or are to be conceived of. It was just as true before any one discovered and declared it, as afterwards. Its truth depends not on the fact that Thales or Stilpo demonstrates the theorem, nor on the authority of him who asserts it. Its truth exists in the very nature of things, or, to use other words, in the Ideas of God. It was just the same before creation as afterwards. Other things remaining the same, even Omnipotence cannot make these three angles to be more or less than two right angles, for Infinite power of course excludes contradictions.
Now here are two things: first, Religion as it exists in the facts of man's nature, and secondly, Religion as taught by Jesus of Nazareth. The first must be eternally true. But it follows from no premise that the second is eternally true. He may have taught Absolute Religion, or an imperfect form; he may have omitted what was essential, or have added what was national, temporal, personal. In either case Christianity is not the Absolute Religion. But if it have none of these faults, and really conforms with this ideal standard, or involves this, and if nothing therein contradicts it, then Christianity is the Absolute Religion; eternally true, before revelation, after revelation; the Law God made for Man, and wrote in his nature.
Then again if the character of Jesus was not a perfect manifestation of this perfect Religion which he taught or implied; if his application of it to life, was limited by his position, his youth, his indiscretion, fanaticism, prejudice, ignorance, selfishness, as some have contended, it does not make the Religion he taught any the less perfect in itself; if true at all it is eternally true. If Christianity be true at all, it would be just as true if Herod or Catiline had taught it. Therefore if the intellectual character of Jesus had never so many defects, if he entertained false notions about himself, his office, ministry, destination; respecting ancient history and Jewish literature; the existence and agency of devils, and in general, respecting things past, present, and to come; if he entertained the absurdest notions at the same time with his pure doctrine; nay, if he had never so many moral deficiencies, if he denounced his enemies, and was frighted at danger, and fled away from death, or had even recanted his most vigorous statements, still his religious doctrine remains unaffected by all of these circumstances. To make this point clear by recurring to a former illustration, a philosopher may show that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, yet lead an immoral life, believe in witches, devils, the philosopher's stone, and imputed righteousness. His absurd belief and wicked life do not affect the truth of his theorem.
Now then to determine what Christianity is, we must remove all those extraneous matters relating to the person, character, and authority of him who first taught it; we must separate it from all applications thereof which have been made to life; must view it by itself, as doctrine, as life; and measure it by this ideal standard of Absolute Religion. After we have determined this question, we may then judge of the applications of Christianity to life; of the character of its Revealer, and try both by the standard he offers.
- ↑ See this point touched in a pamphlet entitled “The Previous Question between Mr. Andrews Norton and his Alumni, moved and handled, by Levi Blodgett.” Boston, 1840.