JESUS did none of the things a man would do who proposed to establish and any sort of kingdom, or school of beliefs, even in this world.  
He established no institutions with formal constitutions. He did not draw up a code—not so much as a system of moral philosophy. He left no “theological institutes,” with precise definitions and exact limitations. Some of his true friends have done their best at such work; he did not. Theirs is a man’s way; his was not.
 
He left no formal ; he never mentioned such a thing; he did not seem to think of it at all. It is so much a man’s way to do such things that we are not yet familiar with the idea that Jesus did not. It comes to many with a sudden surprise when they discover that Jesus said not a word about theology, that to many is so precious. In all his words are no “articles of religion;” not a hint of them. He did not so much as put into form a of his own nature and person. Very often and in many ways he of himself and God, and of his relation to the eternal Father, but he made no definition. Often he spoke of himself, of the Father and of the Holy Ghost, but he said not a word of the “hypostatic union” of three persons in one Godhead; not a word of the “economic relations” of the Holy Trinity.
 
Some good people, if they chance to read what is here put down, will be so certain in their own minds that Jesus did employ some of the methods of a man, in order to preserve his teachings in the world, that they will suspect the writer of ; at least of , if not of something they think less of, in what is said concerning “creeds” and “theologies.” They will be in error, as is common with them on such questions; the writer is only stating facts that no man can deny as to what Jesus did and did not do. Some admirable and good people have not yet learned the difference between arguing for their Church and pleading for Christianity; between defending their own notions and the teachings of Jesus. And not a few confound their notions about God with the fact of his existence, as others mistake their theory of inspiration for the divine authority of the Holy .
 
Our way of teaching is a man’s way. If it is the best we can do let us be content; if not, let us our way. But let us not defend our way by pleading his example; let us follow our way because it is our way, if there be no better reason. Certain it is that the way Jesus took of teaching and his was not a man’s way in any respect whatever.
 
Jesus wrote no book—not a line. He founded no school or other training institution; his three years’ loving and companionship with his was indeed a training, but it was not an institution. This does not mean that his friends should not do such things; it is the only way they can do: but he did not do such things.
 
He did not so much as establish a Church; the Church grew out of his life as well as out of his teachings; it was compacted by the sympathy of men, women, and little children of common beliefs and hopes; above all, by the sympathy born of a common love for him—this far more, then as now, than by what they understood or believed of his teachings. He left for the government of the Church “no rules of order,” no book of “discipline.” He no form of church government, “with checks and balances,” whatever. All those things may be good, and order in government is necessary; but he did not provide them. He left all such things to the common sense and best , guided by and the Holy Spirit, of his disciples. In Church as well as State the principle is this: God the power; he does not prescribe the form; he ordains government, but leaves the form of it to the good sense and personal preferences of those who are to live under it.
 
All these things we have mentioned here belong to the works and ways of men; they are good or bad as they serve the ends of his kingdom. Moses, though an inspired lawgiver, yet a mere man, gave many forms and prescribed the order of doing many things; Jesus, the divine man, gave none.
 
In nothing is............