6 INO Fert ied od 
SAH + Oe Ree 
Beek eee ae 
Ghe Euolution of the Divine IJustiiution 
Text: ‘‘Christ loved the church, 
and gave himself for it; that he 
might sanctify it and cleanse it 
* * * that he might present it to 
himself a glorious church, not hav- 
ing spot, or wrinkle, or any such 
thing; that it should be holy and 
without blemish.’’— Ephesians V: 
25, 26, 27. 
[The treatment of the above sub- 
ject, by the pastor of the Orthodox 
Congregational church, Manchester, 
Sunday, September 24th, made a 
profound impression upon all that 
heard it. We print the sermon in 
substance.—Editor. | 
In the treatment of this subject I 
have in mind only the religious in- 
tuition of man and the expression 
and unfolding of it aside from all 
the errors and deformities that may 
have attended it at any time. 
I want to simplify the thought 
here. Evolution has given us forms 
of expression that lend themselves 
to this process in the nature of man 
that lead us back to the inception 
and unfolding of the church and re- 
ligion. 
It is a fascinating and profitable 
thing to study the evolution of spe- 
cies. It is a sublime and marvelous 
thing, this study of the evolution of 
worlds, to steer a scientific course 
through the ‘‘milky way’’ and be- 
hold the worlds of eternal ages in 
the making. But for mortal men 
and women with immortal souls the 
most profound and important study 
and science is to fathom the ‘‘ Mys- 
tery of Godliness.”’ 
It is not my purpose to attempt 
to wade back through the labyrinths 
of animism, fetishism and nature 
worship to get a start in this sub- 
ject. We might attempt some sort 
of scientific and systematic construc- 
tion in the evolution of religion and 
its practices as found in historic 
records and data but it is all very 
conflicting as is the origin of all 
things, and where Hagel failed in 
his science of history it would be 
folly to even attempt it. 
Whatever was the original divine 
conception of this germ of the re- 
ligious nature it exists now as the 
most vital and persistent part of 
the soul and dates back to the ear- 
liest days of mankind. As was the 
case in the conception of the mental 
faculties so is the case of the moral, 
religious intuitions and faculties. 
This religious nature has taken 
BY REV. LOUIS H. RUGE 
form and developed into the insti- 
tution of the church. Here the way 
is more clear and even well defined. 
There are stages of growth through 
which the institution has passed as 
clearly defined as the processes at 
work in nature and there is nothing 
any more haphazard and accidental 
in the evolution of the divine insti- 
tution than in any other part of cre- 
ation. This then is the paramount 
and important thing rather than the 
peculiar process of its origin. It is 
no more an accident of race and his- 
tory than any other thing in nature, 
but an integral part and growth of 
man. It came in the birth of man, 
it grows with him, it will be’ per- 
fected with him in the process of his 
evolution. 
Indeed there is no hope of racial 
perfection without religion. It is 
the very principle and bud and 
flower and fruit of man’s nature. 
A man who violates his religious 
nature does violence to the higher 
purpose of his being, as if a rose- 
bush should rob itself of its bloom 
or a fruit tree frustrate its possibil- 
ity of fruit. A man without a re- 
ligious development is like a dwarf 
or hunchback, he is deformed in his 
moral nature. If you can conceive 
of a man wilfully deforming his 
body you can understand what mul- 
titudes are doing with their souls,— 
deforming them. 
The unfolding of the religious na- 
ture was very simple, but true. The 
newborn intuition awoke in the 
great cathedral aisles of nature 
where the savage stood in awed and 
silent reverence. How clearly Dr. 
Eastman the Indian lecturer shows 
us this. It was the first intelligent 
submission of infaney when the 
opened eyes gaze long and stead- 
fastly into the mother’s face, a 
simple waiting for revelation. 
Soon, as with the Semitic tribes, 
he made a tent that became sacred 
to the idea, a place for the dwelling 
of God nearer than the clouds or 
the storm or the sun. 
After this came the more elabor- 
ate tabernacle of the Hebrews which 
reached a climax in the temple 
at Jerusalem. Similar processes 
worked out in practice in other peo- 
ples of the earth; but it is a ques- 
tion if any other religious temple 
anywhere before or since ever 
equalled Solomon’s temple. Others 
may have been more perfectly ar- 
tistic and exquisite, but none so 
profoundly great and glorious. It 
was the climax as God’s house. 
Now unfolds a new idea in the 
synagogue as to the origin of which 
We are ignorant and in doubt. It 
may have had its birth in the Baby- 
lonian captivity for the exiles had 
no temple, no place to sacrifice, no 
‘‘Holy of Holies’’; so let us pre- 
sume that under such circumstances 
they gathered together as people of 
the same religious intuitions and 
ideas and the common meeting place 
of the people became the place of 
communion with God. Hitherto it 
was simply a house of God now it 
becomes a center of communion 
with God. 
After the final destruction of the 
temple the development of the syn- 
agogue-temple is an interesting 
study as marking an epoch of the 
divine institution as a _ place of 
fellowship with God. The congre- 
gation of Christians is the fuller, 
clearer development of this idea. 
God is vitally and personally pres- 
ent in the Church in the Holy Spirit 
to instruct, to help, to perfect. This 
modern house of worship, that 
reaches a climax in Cathedrals that 
are perhaps the most wonderful art 
creations of human genius, is all the 
result of the slow process of the 
divine institution among men,—the 
church of God, -born and developed 
of man’s religious nature. 
This institution, I care not in what 
form you find it, antidates all other 
institutions. Why presume, with a 
daring that is a blasphemy in phil- 
osophy, to put the little institutions 
of a day above this or even on a 
level with this? This divine insti- 
tution is in danger in our modern 
mental superciliousness, to be con- 
sidered as one institution among 
many. 
How happens it that “‘G. A. R.”’ 
members and lodge men in every 
community consider their post and 
lodge as equal to the church, some 
superior to it? How is it that cer- 
tain reforms and _ philanthrophies 
and cults presume to supercede 
this? I have even heard men say 
that such and such a political party 
platform contained all the morals 
and religion they needed. 
Does a man who plucks a handegl 
of cherries presume his plucking to 
be equal or superior to the tree? 
Do these lesser institutions that 
