1. That the existence of a God is not assumed.
2. That the truth of Revelation is not assumed.
3. That hypothesis has been avoided, and the argument based on demonstration.
Consequently, the Bible is quoted, not as authoritative, but as an historical record open to criticism. I have been precluded from using the Bible in any other way, by the exigencies of my argument.
The question of the truth of Revelation is one on which I do not touch. We have a revelation in our own nature. An historical revelation is necessarily subject to historical criticism, and it can never be proved to be true. The revelation of our own nature is never antiquated, and is always open to be questioned. On this Revelation the Church of the future must establish its claims to acceptance.
I hope in this volume to show what are the religious instincts of humanity: in the second volume I intend to show how that Christianity by its fundamental postulatethe Incarnation-assumes to meet all these instincts; how it actually does so meet them; and how failure is due to counteracting political or social causes.
The science of comparative theology is as yet in its infancy. The study of comparative anatomy has led to discoveries of which our parents never dreamed. That of comparative theology will not prove less fruitful in significant results. To this science, the following treatise is a contribution.
I have only to add that on p. 174 I have borrowed a line of thought from an article in, I think, the Saturday Review, but from not having the article by me, nor remembering the date, I have been unable to refer to it in a foot-note.