II There are Christians in all parts of the country who are secretly afraid of reason. They do not like to think them- selves, they see no necessity for thinking, they feel that if a man thinks about the doctrines of his faith he is almost certain to become a heretic. The man who thinks is to them what Cassius was to Julius Caesar. " Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look ; he thinks too much." They prefer men who are sleek and fat. They make religion merely a sentimental and emotional thing; they put no thought into it. They speak of doctrines as some- thing quite superfluous. They take no interest in doctrines, and as for a dogma, it is nothing but a cur to be kicked about the streets. And as for theology, that is something to be steadily eschewed. Theology, instead of being what it is, the greatest of the sciences, is to them only a foolish piece of stupid speculation. It is just such Christians as these who perpetuate the impression that Christianity has nothing to do with the reason, but moves entirely in the realm of the emotions.^
3. No doubt the use of certain words has had not a little to do with deepening this impression.
(1) An infidel is usually known as a frtt thinker. The first man who rejected Christianity, and then called himself a " free
^ C. E. Jefferson.
ISAIAH 31
thinker," builded better than he knew. That epithet was a telling stroke of genius. The word itself contains an argument against the Christian religion. If a man who rejects Christianity is a free thinker, the implication is that the man who accepts it is a bound thinker — a man whose reason is in chains. But the implication is not fair. A Christian has a right to think just as freely as any other man. All Christians, if they avail them- selves of their privileges, are free thinkers. I studied pedagogy first, says Mr. Jefferson,^ and then law, and then theology. I \ was first a teacher, then a lawyer, and then a preacher. But j I never thought any more freely when I was a teacher or a/ lawyer than I have thought since I became a preacher.
(2) The use of the word rationalist has also been misleading. The word came into common use in the sixteenth century to designate the class of people who gave an exalted place to reason, and the word was seized upon by certain infidel philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who became known throughout the world as Eationalists. The word carries with it the implication that a man who accepts Christianity is an irrationalist ; that is, he does not use his reason. If a man reasons, he rejects Christianity; if he refuses to reason, he accepts it. The insinuation is unjust. All Christians are rationalists, or ought to be, in the sense that they make a vigorous use of their minds. The Christian religion is a rational religion, and the evidences for it are rational. It addresses itself primarily to the reason.
(3) The word reason is commonly used loosely. What men j ^ call reason is nothing but opinion. A certain man asserts in my presence that the narrative of the Virgin Birth is contrary to reason. He says it very blandly, and with great assurance. But I remind him that a distinguished professor of philosophy, who has one of the finest and keenest minds in America, says that the story is not contrary to his reason. Nor is it contrary/ to the reason of ten thousand men who read it and believe it| and feel it to be altogether reasonable. It is not correct theii for you, my friend, to say that the story is contrary to reason! What you mean to say is that it is contrary to yowr reason, and' that, you know, is another thing. But are you sure that it is
* Thingt Fundatnentai, p. 36,
32 THE GREAT TEXTS OF THE BIBLE
really contrary to your reason ? What you are probably trying to say is that it is contrary to your opinion.
But opinion is one thing and human reason is another. /Opinion is the product of a man's reading and thinking and hearing. What a man thinks on any subject depends on what he has read and heard and thought. It is for this cause that men's opinions change from year to year. We hold a certain opinion, and then we read more widely, or live more deeply, and our opinion changes. When you are saying, therefore, that the story of Christ's birth is contrary to your opinion, you are not saying anything of great significance, for your opinion might change after more extensive reading, or after a little deeper thinking. I travel into Alaska and meet an Eskimo who has never heard of the X-rays, and I say to him, " I have seen every bone in that hand of mine. I know the size and shape and exact location of every bone just as clearly as I should know all this if the flesh were scraped away." And he looks at me with surprise, and says, " That is contrary to reason." What the man is trying to say is that it is contrary to his opinion. We should not expect an Eskimo to use language accurately ; we might expect it, however, of a New Yorker. Or I travel into the South Seas, and I meet a man there who has never so much as heard of ice, and I say, "My southern friend, I walked across a lake one day in February, and never even got my feet wet." And he throws up his hands in amaze- ment, and says, " That is contrary to reason." What he is trying to say is that it is contrary to his experience. When the evan- gelist tells me that Jesus walked across a Palestinian lake in April, I have no right to say that it is contrary to my reason. It is contrary to my experience. But my experience is rather a diminutive affair. If I am to cut down Christianity to the dimensions of my experience, I shall not have anything left of surpassing value. The fact is, Christ transcends my experience at every point. What He said runs as far beyond me as what He did. " I do always those things that are pleasing unto him." That is farther beyond me than walking on the water. " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." I never could say a thing like that.^