Produced by Charles Franks









TO INFIDELITY AND BACK


To Infidelity and Back

A Truth-seeker's Religious Autobiography

_How I Found Christ and His Church_

By

EVANGELIST HENRY F. LUTZ

_Author of "Economic Redemption; or, Hard Times: the Cause and Cure"
etc._

"I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them
in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before
them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them and
not forsake them"--Isa. 42:16.

"Slight tastes of philosophy may perchance move one to atheism, but
fuller draughts lead back to religion"--Lord Bacon

CINCINNATI, OHIO

1911




DEDICATION

To the sacred memory of the pioneers of the great Restoration Movement
of the nineteenth century, who forsook the religious associations of a
lifetime and cheerfully endured poverty, persecution and every hardship
in their endeavor to restore Christian union on the primitive gospel,
and who held forth a beacon-light that helped me to find the truth in
its simplicity as it is in Christ Jesus.



My Soul Struggle in Symbolism

Upon the fly-leaf of my Bible I find the following, which was written
shortly after I emerged from the stormy sea of heartrending agony
through which I passed in my conflict with sectarianism, rationalism,
infidelity and doubt. It was not written for the public, but was simply
an effort of my soul to express in a measure, through human symbols,
the painful experiences through which it passed. It will seem
extravagant language to those who have never had their souls lacerated
by doubt and despair. But the sensitive souls who have endured similar
experiences will understand, and it is with the hope of reaching and
helping them that it is given to the public.

"A TEN YEARS' JOURNEY

From the childhood land of ignorant innocence to the kingdom of Christ:
by way of deserts of negation; mountains of assumption; rivers of
irony, sarcasm and conceit; bays of contention; gulfs of liberalism;
and oceans of infidelity, doubt and confusion--swept by undercurrents
of selfish passion, tempests of blind sentiment, maelstroms of fear and
despair; covered with black clouds of prejudice and preconceived ideas,
dense fogs of theological speculation, gigantic icebergs of
indifference, monstrous sharks of procrastination, and ruinous rocks of
materialism; through the strait of darkness and absurdity, over the sea
of twilight and joy, into the haven of rest.

"In the ship, religion; pole-star, faith in God; rudder, free will;
compass, conscience; sextant, rationalism and experience; anchor, hope;
guiding chart, creeds and opinions of men vs. the Word of God; pilot,
Jesus Christ.

"Motto: Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

"Prayer: O God! thou knowest the secret desire of my heart. Thou
knowest how earnestly I have sought the truth. God forbid that my life
should be a barren waste; that I should so use the powers that thou
hast given me that the world shall not be better for my having lived in
it. Lord, grant I may ever find the work that thou wouldst have me do.
'Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts, and
see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way
everlasting. Amen."

This, in substance, was my daily prayer for ten long, dreary years;
for, while my intellect was in doubt and confusion, my heart continued
to cling to God.




INTRODUCTION

One of the clearest expounders of the Scriptures in my acquaintance is
the author of this book, who honors me in asking that I write these few
lines of introduction. His experience is full of interest. I have
listened night after night with profit to his sermons, and he has dug
his way in the most painstaking fashion out of the darkness of unfaith
into the beauty and strength of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is no institution like the church of God, for it is founded upon
the divine Sonship of Jesus, and his Holy Spirit has given to it divine
life, so that Isaiah's prophecy lights up the pathway of victory, when
it is said: "He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set
justice in the earth, and the isles shall wait for his law." Its right
to advance has been disputed, and, at times in its long history, it
appears to have stood timidly doubting its power and right to soul
conquest, but this has only been apparent, for every century has
brought with it a greater courage, so that in this day believers in
Jesus are speaking in the language of every nation on the earth, and
hosts of these are as ready to lay down their lives for their faith in
Jesus as did Stephen and James and Paul and that host of martyrs whose
willing sacrifices gave strength and solidarity to the early church.

The ordinances have naturally suffered at the hands of every invasion,
and, in consequence, some of the most devout have not been able to find
the path to the ordinances as practiced in the apostolic days, but the
skies are brightening, and, without questioning for a moment the
sincerity and devotion of those who think otherwise, the Scriptures are
being read to-day with more freedom than at any other period in the
history of the church, and its ordinances are gradually coming to light
in the public mind. God has been patient with us and we must be patient
with those who do not think as we do. One of the most important
problems now facing us, however, is that all believers shall find a
common way for entrance into the church. When that has been done, a
long step will have been taken towards world-wide evangelization.

The fields are already white unto harvest. This is the day of
opportunity. Christ is waiting on us. If the time was short, like a
furled sail, in Paul's day, how much shorter is it in our day! The
gospel has been sent to all nations, and God is sending men from all
nations to America to hear the gospel, so that the lines are crossing
and recrossing each other and are so many prophecies of the fulfillment
of the commission of Jesus, when he said: "All authority hath been
given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even
unto the end of the world."

Deciding for Christ and being baptized into him is only a small part of
the work that is to be done. Then begins their training into real
discipleship, when they are to produce the fruit of the Spirit, which
is "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
meekness, self-control."

This book is a contribution to that end, and may those who read its
pages be brought to yield their best to the glory of Him who is our all.

Baltimore, Md. Peter Ainslie.




PREFACE

This book contains my religious experience in a forty years' sojourn on
earth. If any doubt the propriety and value of relating one's religious
experience, I would refer them to the case of Paul, who used this
method on a number of occasions. However, we should be careful not to
make an improper use of this method and preach our experiences in place
of the gospel. Paul says: "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus
the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake" (2 Cor. 4:5). We
should refer to our experiences simply to help deliver people from
human error and center their attention on the gospel of Christ, which
alone is the power of God unto salvation.

I do not take any great credit to myself for my experiences recorded in
this book, realizing that they were largely the result of my inherited
proclivities and religious environment. It must be admitted that the
great mass of mankind are what they are in religion, politics, etc., by
heredity and environment. This is powerfully impressed upon us by the
ministers who give their experience in "Why I Am What I Am." Even the
fact that it is natural for me to seek to know what is right for
myself, I attribute more largely to my natural hereditary mental bent,
than to any particular merit of my own. I trust this book will help us
all to realize the danger of drifting with traditionary religion, and
thus defeating the revealed truth of Jesus Christ, and the need of
searching the truth for ourselves that thus we may be used of God to
advance his kingdom of unity and truth. Christian civilization would
make much more rapid strides if we all would struggle to find the truth
instead of acquiring our ideas through the colored glasses of prejudice
and ignorance.

My ancestry on mother's side were German Reformed and on father's side
Lutheran. While a boy I lived for three years with Mennonites and
attended their church. I attended a Moravian Sunday-school, was taught
by a Presbyterian Sunday-school teacher, educated at a Unitarian
theological school, graduated from a Christian college and a
Congregational theological seminary, and took postgraduate work at a
United Presbyterian university. I was born and raised in southeastern
Pennsylvania, which may be called "The Cradle of Religious Liberty" in
America. For while the colonies to the north and south persecuted
people on account of their religious opinions, Penn opened his
settlement to all the religiously persecuted in America and Europe. As
a result Pennsylvania became a great sectarian stronghold. To-day some
twenty denominations have either their national headquarters or leading
national center in southeastern Pennsylvania. The reader can readily
see how my contact with this Babel of sectarianism affected my
religious life and experience.

There are some things that seem too sacred to drag before the public.
For years I said very little in my public ministry about my experience
with doubt. While, as city evangelist of Greater Pittsburg, I was
assisting a minister in a revival, he learned incidentally of my
experience with infidelity; and as there were a number of skeptics in
the community, he urged me to preach on the subject. The message seemed
to do much good to the large audience that heard it. Since then it has
been repeated a number of times, and the largest auditoriums have not
been able to hold the people who were eager to hear it. This
demonstrates that the message supplies a great need, and has encouraged
me to prepare this book for the public. The Christian Temple in
Baltimore was packed with people, and on account of the jam the doors
were ordered closed by the policeman in charge half an hour before time
for the service. At Portsmouth, Va., twenty-five hundred were crowded
into a skating-rink, and many failed to get admittance. At Halifax,
Can., hundreds were turned away. But this has been the experience
wherever the sermon has been thoroughly advertised. To illustrate this,
I quote from the Harrisonburg (Va.) papers of Jan. 9, 1911, where the
sermon was delivered the night before in Assembly Hall, the largest
auditorium in the city. About sixteen hundred people were jammed in the
hall and many crowded out. It was the largest audience that ever
assembled in that city for a religious service.

"Evangelist Lutz says that on every occasion on which he has delivered
his address on 'My Conversion from Infidelity,' no matter how large the
hall may have been, people have turned away for lack of room. Last
night's attendance at Assembly Hall maintained the record. Presumably
the hall has never been more closely packed. Seats, stage, box, aisles,
windows, doorways, were filled, and many found place in the flies of
the theater. A number couldn't find places anywhere and went away. Mr.
Lutz is a fine example of evangelist. He has a magnetic personality and
a strong, oratorical way of talking, fluent in speech and filled with
figurative language and the phrases of his profession."--_Harrisonburg
Daily Times._

"Evangelist H. F. Lutz spoke last night at Assembly Hall on 'The Story
of My Conversion from Infidelity.' The audience showed close attention
and earnestness. Many were turned away because of the crowded condition
of the hall. Many people from the near-town sections came to attend the
service."--_Harrisonburg Daily News._

I trust that my bitter experience with rationalism, infidelity and
doubt will help to reveal their true nature and thus keep many young
men from these dangerous rocks, and will help to deliver many others
from this terrible bondage. May the Father graciously bless my humble
efforts to win souls to Christ and to help bring about Christian union
on the primitive gospel in order to the Christian conquest of the whole
world.    Henry F. Lutz.

Millersville, Pa., March 28, 1911.




CONTENTS

Dedication Soul's Struggle in Symbolism Introduction by Peter Ainslie
Author's Preface


PART I.--TO INFIDELITY AND BACK.

Chapter I.--To Infidelity and Back Chapter II.--Parting Message to
Unitarian School Chapter III.--Functions and Limitations of the Mind
Chapter IV.--Looking Through Colored Glasses


PART II.--FROM SECTARIANISM TO PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.

Chapter I.--Scriptural Baptism Chapter II.--The New Testament Church
Chapter III.--The Church Since the Apostles Chapter IV.--Our Neglected
Fields






PART I.

TO INFIDELITY AND BACK


CHAPTER I.

To INFIDELITY AND BACK.


_To Christ by Way of Rationalism, Unitarianism and Infidelity._

I inherited on the one hand a strong religious nature, and on the other
a tendency to be independent in thought and to question everything
before adopting it as a part of my belief. Ever since I can remember I
was a praying boy, and early in life there came to me the desire to
devote myself to the ministry of the gospel.

Among my earliest religious impressions were those received by having
the story of the Patriarchs and Jesus read to me in German by a saintly
old Mennonite for whom I worked on the farm for a year. Among the first
things that aroused my reason in religion was the declaration of my
Sunday-school teacher that before we are born we are predestined by God
either to go to heaven or to hell, and that anything we might do would
not alter our eternal destiny. This declaration came like a thunderbolt
into my religious life, and stirred up a violent agitation from which
it took me ten years to fully deliver myself. I was now about fourteen
years old, and already had a desire to measure everything in the
crucible of logic or cause and effect, and to accept nothing which did
not come within the range of my reason. Looking at things from the
standpoint of cause and effect, I was naturally caught in the meshes of
fatalism, and this aggravated the religious agitation above referred to.

At this time in my life there arose many religious questions, and the
answers I received from religious teachers tended to drive me away from
the church rather than to it. I feel to-day that if my case had been
clearly understood and the nature and the limits of the finite mind had
been patiently pointed out to me, in its relation to faith and
revelation, I could have been saved years of agony on the sea of
rationalism. But my questions were not answered and my honest doubts
were rebuked, so that I was naturally driven out of sympathy with the
church and Bible, since I judged that my doubts could not be satisfied
because religion itself is unreasonable.

Through the kindness of Christian people the way opened to prepare
myself for the ministry. But by this time many religious doubts and
perplexities were in the way, and I decided that I would a thousand
times rather be an honest doubter out of the church and ministry than a
hypocrite in it. Thus my fond hope of entering the ministry had to be
given up, and instead I determined to use the teaching profession as a
stepping-stone to law, and law as a means of serving humanity.

I was very fond of study, and read scores of books on all kinds of
subjects. Emerson was my favorite, and I procured and read his complete
works. Gibbon and Macaulay were eagerly read as revealing some of the
religious life of the world. Ingersoll, with many others, got his turn.
But the book that produced the greatest effect on my life at this time
was Fleetwood's "Life of Christ," with a short history of the different
religious bodies of the world attached. Through my reading and
observations I became greatly perplexed over the religious divisions of
the world. I discovered that thousands of people had died as martyrs
for all kinds of religions and sects, and that each claimed to have the
truth and to teach the right way to heaven. I concluded that since they
teach such contradictory doctrines they cannot possibly all be right,
although they might all be wrong. I formed a desire to make a thorough
study of all the different religious bodies of the world, to find out
where the truth is, if there is any in religion. My first information
along this line was obtained in the above-named history of the
religious bodies of the world. Being of a rationalistic turn of mind, I
was naturally very favorably impressed with Unitarianism and its
teaching. I sent for a number of their works and read them with great
interest. I learned many things that have been a benediction to my life
ever since, but you will see later on how far it satisfied my
rationalistic proclivities. I learned to my delight that I could enter
a Unitarian theological school to prepare for the ministry without
first joining a church or signing a creed. For a person in my state of
mind nothing better could have presented itself. I determined to go
there and make a thorough study of the Bible and all the different
religious bodies, and to fearlessly follow the truth wherever it might
lead me.

The time came and I entered the school. And a fine school it was from
an intellectual standpoint and for the purpose of investigation. I have
been a student at six educational institutions since I left the high
school, but this was far ahead of the others for the development of the
logical and philosophical faculties. Here there was absolutely no
restraint to thought; and all kinds of systems and ideas were
represented, from philosophical anarchy to socialism and from mysticism
to materialism. The moral and spiritual earnestness I expected to find
among the Unitarians I did not find, especially among the younger and
more radical ones. Its effect, on the whole, was to relax rather than
intensify the moral fiber. Their ideals seemed so grand and noble that
I thought those possessed with them could scarcely find time to eat and
sleep in their zeal to put them into practise; but I discovered that
they not only had plenty of time to eat and sleep, but also for
dancing, card-playing, theater-going, etc. Many of the young men
studying for the ministry often spent a large part of the night in
card-playing, and the Sunday-school room served also as a
dancing-floor. Unitarians pride themselves upon the high standard of
morality among their people and upon the few prisoners you find among
their members, but this is due to the character of the people they
reach rather than to the restraining influence of their teaching

My reading had given me a wrong impression as to the teaching of
Unitarianism. Like many others, I was fascinated and enticed by the
writings of conservative Unitarians, whose contention is largely
against the bad theology of human creeds; but the present-day teaching
of the vanguard of Unitarianism is an entirely different thing. It
rejects all the miraculous in the Bible, and, in many cases, even
denies the existence of a personal God. All the students were required
to conduct chapel prayers in turn. Those who did not believe in a
personal God explained that they were pronouncing an apostrophe to the
great impersonal and unknowable force working in the universe. I had
read Channing, Clark, Hale, Emerson, and other conservative Unitarians,
and found much food for my soul, but I discovered that these were
considered old "fogies" and back numbers by most of the students in
attendance.

But I must tell you of my evolution along the line of rationalism. My
rationalistic proclivities were given a free rein. And as a child, when
left to run away, will soon stop and return to its mother, so this
freedom was the natural cure for my intellectual delusion. To the
statement of the creeds, "The Father is God, and the Son is God, and
the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God,"
my rationalism replied, that is logically inconceivable, therefore I
became a Unitarian. No sooner was I happy in this faith than a
Universalist addressed me and said, "If you want to be rational, you
must give up your belief in eternal punishment, for God could not give
eternal punishment for a finite sin." As a rationalist, what could I do
but yield, and so I became a universalist Unitarian. I felt I had at
last found the truth, but my peace was short; for a student accused me
of being irrational, "because," said he, "an omnipotent, loving God
would give an infinitely large amount of good and an infinitely small
amount of evil; but an infinitely small amount of evil is not
perceptible, evil is perceptible, therefore there is no such God." This
was an awful pill and gave a terrible shock to my religious
sensibilities, but as rationalism was my guide, I had to follow on or
stand accused as a superstitious coward.

Again rationalism declared, through my teachers, that all the
supernatural must be eliminated from the Bible as mythical and
unreliable, and so I was robbed of my Christ, my God and my Bible.
Misguided by rationalism, I thought it my conscientious duty to accept,
step by step, the dictates of destructive criticism until the Bible was
only inspired to me in religion as Kant in philosophy, Milton in
poetry, and Beethoven in music. But when I came to the end of the
matter I discovered that my conscience, which had urged me along, was
gone also. For I was gravely taught that conscience is merely a
creature of experience and education, and that it is right to lie or do
anything else so long as you do it out of love. Doubtless you have all
heard of the farmer and his wife at the World's Fair who went to see
the "Exit." There was nothing in it, and of course they had to pay to
get in again. This was my bitter experience with rationalism. I thought
I was following a great light, but I discovered there was nothing in
it, that I was following an _ignis fatuus_. Rationalism has indeed
proven the "Exit" to multitudes, from the peace, joy and moral security
that accompany faith in evangelical Christianity into the desert of
doubt, darkness and despair.

But not even here did I find a staying-place. For rationalism, in its
bold confidence, led me on and on until it brought me to materialism
and absurdity. In going too far, it revealed its true nature and
character, and thus led me to see its fallacy and enabled me to get
free from its bondage. From atheism it led me to fatalism, and declared
that there is no free will and consequently people are not to blame for
their sins and shortcomings. If we "shall reap as we sow," it declared
that we cannot give anything to anybody and therefore philanthropy is a
delusion.

But I taught rationalism in guile one day by which it thoroughly
exhibited the absurdity of its teaching. Its continual song was, "You
dare not believe what you cannot conceive to be true." So it declared
one day, in its bold folly, that an object cannot move in the space in
which it is, nor in the space in which it is not; therefore you cannot
conceive of an object moving; therefore you cannot move to walk, eat or
live. So the conclusion to which my rationalistic guide finally led me
was that I must sit down and die or be irrational. Well, this was too
much for me. I refused to die, and concluded that rationalism is not a
safe guide, and commenced to investigate as to where the difficulty lay.

But before I tell you how I discovered the false tricks of rationalism,
let me say that all these things into which rationalism led me were
against my strong religious nature, and gave me continual and
excruciating pain. I never for a day ceased to pray to God for help;
for while my intellect was held in doubt through the bondage of
rationalism, my heart held on to God, and thus I was in a mighty
conflict. In my despair I cried unto God, and when he had accomplished
his purpose concerning me, he set me free. Blessed be his name! Surely
"he bringeth the blind by a way that they knew not, and leads them into
paths that they have not known. He makes darkness light before them,
and crooked things straight, and does not utterly forsake the honest in
heart."

Most people have come to their religious and political position by
heredity and are held there by inertia. If you can set a person free
from this hereditary inertia, you can convert him to almost anything at
will; for it is but few who are sufficiently informed on any subject to
defend it against an expert, and none are thus qualified on all
subjects. So when I entered this school, free from all hereditary
ideas, determined to accept every position that I could not refute in
argument, you can imagine my experience. At first I was converted from
one thing to another by the different students and professors until I
was about all the "arians," "isms," and "ists" ever heard of, together
with a number of other things for which they have no names as yet.

But how did I discover the fallacy of rationalism? and how was I
delivered from its mighty clutches by which it had dragged me from one
pitfall to another so ruthlessly? My deliverance came from a source
where you would perhaps least expect it. It was through the study of
John Stuart Mill's "System of Logic." In it I learned "that
inconceivability is not a criterion of impossibility," as rationalism
claims. On the other hand, that we know things to be true that are just
as inconceivable as that there can be two mountains without a valley
between.

Let me introduce a few of these contradictions or inconceivabilities.
Before you can reach your mouth with your hand, you must go over half
the distance, then half of the rest, then half of the rest, and so on
_ad infinitum._ But you cannot make the infinite number of divisions,
and therefore you cannot reach your lips. Again, you cannot conceive of
extension of space or time without a limit, nor can you conceive of a
limit to space or time. Here conceivability contradicts itself.
Furthermore, you cannot conceive of existence without a cause, nor of a
cause without existence. To the statement of the believer that, "as the
wonderful mechanism of the watch presumes a designer, so the infinitely
more wonderful mechanism of the universe presumes God, the infinite
designer," Ingersoll replied that this is simply to jump over the
difficulty by an infinite assumption. Ingersoll, on the other hand,
claimed that the material universe has always existed; apparently
unaware that he thus was guilty of the same fallacy of which he accused
others, by _assuming_ infinite existence without a cause. The
difference is that the believer's assumption gives us a personal God, a
kind, loving heavenly Father who provides for the eternal bliss and
welfare of his children, while Ingersoll's assumption gives death and
darkness and despair.

An object thrown from one point to another is always at some point,
therefore it has no time to move from one point to another. And yet we
know that it does move, even though we cannot conceive how it can do
so. Again, suppose that the hour-hand of your clock is at eleven and
the minute-hand at twelve. Now, you cannot conceive how the minute-hand
can overtake the hour-hand, although you know by observation that it
does overtake it. For by the time the minute-hand gets to eleven, the
hour-hand has passed on to twelve, and by the time the minute-hand has
reached twelve, the hour-hand has passed beyond it. Every time the
minute-hand comes to where the hour-hand now is, the hour-hand has
passed beyond. The distance becomes less and less, but theoretically,
or in conceivability, the one can never overtake the other.

Through this line of reasoning I learned, clearly and once for all,
that _inconceivability is not a proof of impossibility;_ but, on the
other hand, that we know many things to be true that are not
conceivable to the finite mind, and therefore we must follow truth
learned by experience and observation, irrespective of rationalism. In
this way the mighty fetters of rationalism that held me in bondage were
cut and I was set free to search for the truth as it is in Jesus
Christ. I learned the limitations of the finite intellect and the truth
of God's word when he says: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are
higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my
thoughts than your thoughts." "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of
this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom
knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save
them that believe."

After the empirical school of philosophy had taught me that we must
follow inductions based on experience and observation rather than
rationalism or conceivability, I began to value Paul's admonition,
"Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." If inductive
philosophers have often been opposed to religion and the Bible, it is
because they have not carried their inductions far enough to cover the
entire world of facts. It is admitted by all historians and observers
that prayer and faith and religious convictions have been among the
mightiest forces at work in the world, and any system of reasoning that
does not take these facts into consideration is neither philosophical
nor scientific.

To illustrate what is meant by saying that we must follow experience
rather than conceivability, let us suppose that you are suffering from
a malignant disease and you hear of a medicine that has cured this
disease whenever it has been tried, and you know of nothing else that
will cure it. Would it not be foolish for you to refuse to use the
medicine because you cannot conceive how it produces the cure? It might
be discovered later that it was not the medicine, but your belief in
its curative qualities, that produced the result. But this would not
affect your common-sense duty in the matter. If certain desirable
results follow the doing of a certain thing, we are bound to do that
thing until we know how to get the good results without doing it.

This reveals the folly and inhumanity of the conduct of some infidels
towards religious people. When I was minister of a church in Ohio, I
was visited by a noted infidel. After he went on in a tirade against
preachers and Christians, I asked him if he was not an unhappy man. At
first he denied it; but I called his attention to some of his
utterances, and he soon admitted that he was a very unhappy man. But he
said he was unhappy because he knew too much, and claimed that
Christians were so happy because they were ignorant and deluded. He
claimed to be a great lover of humanity, and although, according to his
profession, he had no God or conscience or judgment to require it of
him, he spent his time in spreading the knowledge and wisdom which made
people unhappy by destroying that which he admitted gave people great
joy and peace and happiness. Suppose a man should come to town who is
as lean as a skeleton and is slowly dying because he is not getting
enough nourishment out of the food he eats, and should begin to lecture
well-nourished and healthy people for eating the food they are eating.
Would we not put him down as a fool? Well, if he would add the claim
that we are well fed because we are ignorant and deluded, while he is
suffering and dying because he knows too much on the food question, he
would be on a par with many of our infidelic friends.

It is said that Beecher and Ingersoll were both present at a banquet in
New York City. Ingersoll brought a railing accusation against
Christianity. Everybody expected Beecher to reply, but he held his
peace until later in the evening, when it became his turn to speak.
When Beecher arose he said: "When I came to this hall to-night I saw an
old, crippled woman wending her way across the crowded street on
crutches. When she had reached about midway, a burly ruffian came along
and knocked the crutches out from under her, and she fell splash into
the mud." Turning to Ingersoll, he said, "What do you think of that,
Colonel?" "The villain!" replied Ingersoll. Beecher, pointing to
Ingersoll, said: "Thou art the man! Suffering, heart-broken, dying
humanity is wending its way through this world of sorrow and turmoil on
the crutches of Christianity. You, sir, come along and knock them out
from under them, but offer nothing in their place." It was a crushing
blow to Ingersoll and his gospel of despair.

We do not understand how spirit and matter can be inter-related, and we
can not conceive that our willing it can move our arm; but this does
not deter us from moving, because we know through experience that we
can move. We do not understand the philosophy of digestion, and we
cannot conceive how bread and butter can have any relation to thought
and life; but we know by experience that they do, and we go on eating
and living. We cannot conceive how the same grass produces lamb, pork
and beef; but we keep on raising stock just the same, because we are
guided by facts learned by experience and observation rather than by
conceivability. We do reach our mouth, the minute-hand does overtake
the hour-hand, objects do move in space, etc., rationalism and
inconceivability to the contrary notwithstanding.

Man is a religious being, and we know by experience that religion gives
him joy and brings him good. If we had no revealed religion, science
and duty would compel us to develop a religious system out of our
religious experiences. This is what has actually been done by the
different peoples of the earth who know not the revelation of God in
the Bible. The secret of the hold that even a false religion has upon
people is the fact that it does them good and gives them happiness by
exercising the pious emotions of their being, even though it may bring
them harm in other ways. Even a religion based on human experience is
better than none; for it is better to feed the religious nature on
husks than to starve it out altogether. To this agree the words of Paul
when he says that God "made of one blood all nations of men for to
dwell on all the face of the earth... that they should seek the Lord,
if haply they might feel after him, and find him." But while man,
unaided by direct revelation, can grope in the dark and feel after God,
and can invent systems of religion based on experience that are better
than none, any man that accepts facts and testimony will soon discover
that God has not thus left us in the dark oil religious matters, but
has "appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness
by that man whom he has ordained, whereof he has given assurance unto
all men, in that he has raised him from the dead."

It is said that a lawyer and a noted preacher, who was a lecturer,
happened to meet at a hotel breakfast-table. The lawyer suspected that
his companion was a preacher, and, as he was an infidel, he thought he
had a good opportunity to give a thrust at the Bible.

"Excuse me," said the lawyer, "I take it from your appearance that you
are a preacher."

"Yes, sir," said the preacher.

"Well, now," said the lawyer, "don't you find a great many
contradictions and difficulties you cannot understand in the Bible?"

"Yes, sir," replied the preacher.

"How, then," said the lawyer, "can you continue to believe in it?"

"Why," said the preacher, "do you see what I am doing with the bones of
this fish? I lay them aside and enjoy the good of the fish. So with the
Bible. I lay aside the things I cannot understand, and feast upon the
rich spiritual food it contains, willing to wait until all mysteries
shall be removed hereafter."

If the finite mind could understand everything contained in the Bible,
it would become worthless as a revelation, for the finite mind could
produce it. But since it reveals the infinite mind, we must expect it
to contain things that the finite mind cannot understand. We can
understand the evidence that it is from God and for our good, and it is
reasonable that we should accept its great truths by faith, although we
may not now be able to see how all the truths it reveals are consistent
with each other. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear
God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

As has often been said, no one can do better than to live the pure,
clean, benevolent life that Jesus inculcated and incarnated. If you
imitate him in goodness and good deeds, you are pursuing the best
possible course, even if the Bible is not true. If, on the other hand,
the Bible is true, and you do not live for Christ, you are doomed for
ever and ever.

Having been delivered from the bondage of rationalism, I found my way
back to Christ with comparative ease. If experience and facts are our
ultimate guides, then we must trust the testimony of history. With the
help of the _Bi-Millennial Telescope on the opposite page_, and
limitless similar testimony, we can trace the existence of the Bible
clear to the days of the Apostles. None ever had better means of
knowing the facts they bore witness to than the Apostles, and none ever
gave stronger proof that they sincerely told the truth as they knew it.
The Gospels being genuine and reliable, the life and words and miracles
of Jesus they narrate, give sufficient proof of the divinity of Christ
to satisfy every reasonable demand of the intellect. This is especially
true concerning the resurrection of Christ, on which the proof of
Christianity hinges. "He showed himself alive after his passion by many
infallible proofs." And if he arose from the dead, he was demonstrated
by it to be the Son of God. And if he is the Son of God, then the Bible
is the Word of God, for he has endorsed it all. Thus there were
restored to me Christ, God and his Word of truth. The thing that robbed
me of these was rationalism, but it had been proven false and therefore
was ruled out of court.

Unitarians used to tell me that Christ was the Son of God, but we all
are sons of God. I now saw that Christ was _the_ Son of God in the
special and peculiar sense in which he claimed, or he was a fool. When
he was on trial he was asked upon oath whether he was the Son of God or
not, and he answered "Yes" when it cost his life to do so. If he meant
that he was the son of God in the same sense in which we are, all he
would have had to do was to explain and he could have saved his life.

The proof that Christianity is from God as revealed in its effect upon
the life of individuals, communities and nations, is so apparent and
has been pointed out so often that I will give it but a passing notice.
"If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching,
whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself," was Christ's
challenge, and millions have verified it in their own religious
experience. Nearly all the voluntary educational and philanthropic
institutions of the world are supported by Christian people, and the
nations of the earth are prosperous, enlightened and influential in the
exact proportion as their people are intelligent and consecrated
followers of the lowly Nazarene.

It was thus that I found my way back to Christ as my Lord and Saviour,
and I never before fully appreciated the words of Jesus, "Come unto me,
all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." The
truth dawned upon me gradually, but with irresistible force. How often
have we been perplexed and in doubt on some great question of truth or
duty until finally the solution came to us as if by magic. Through what
the psychologists call subconscious cerebration our mind has been
working at the great problem even when our conscious attention was
given to other matters. I have had a number of such experiences before
and since, and, had I not examined them critically, I might easily have
been led to believe they were direct revelations from heaven.

For many months the great question had been occupying my mind by day
and by night. Finally the solution came as clear as a revelation from
God. It wakened me in the still of the night and ravished my soul with
peace and joy unspeakable. I arose and took a walk into the country to
a mountain spring and back. I shall never forget that night, and the
ecstatic joy it brought to me. My religious nature had been outraged so
long that when it was set free it returned to its Lord with a violent
bound. The fittest words I could find to express my feelings are in the
103d Psalm: "Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me,
bless his holy name."

The question as to what church I should join, or what religious body I
should affiliate with, now confronted me and demanded solution. As I
already intimated, I was perplexed, and partly led to doubt and
confusion by the many different religious bodies, all claiming to be
right. One of my objects in entering this school was to make a thorough
study of the different religious bodies and their doctrines. One
incident that helped me in the solution of this problem was an
occurrence in our New Testament Greek class. The professor declared
that all Greek scholars of note are agreed that the proper meaning of
the word "baptism" in the New Testament is _to immerse_. As I was
raised in a pedobaptist church, this declaration was a great surprise
to me, but I looked up the authorities and found that the professor had
stated the facts correctly.

We had a class that made a study of the character, government and
teaching of the different religious bodies. In this study I was
especially impressed with the polity and teaching of the people
designated as "Disciples of Christ," or "Christians." I procured their
literature and made a thorough study of their position. I naturally
found myself in harmony with their teaching. I had myself come to see
the folly of enforcing upon all believers the speculative theology of
the creeds, and the weakness and waste that result from a divided
church. My experience revealed to me the relative value of human wisdom
and God's wisdom as found in his Book. The thought of preaching Christ
rather than theology, and of restoring the apostolic church in its
teachings, ordinances and practices, came to me as a godsend in my
condition of mind. I was, however, very slow to act in this matter, as
I had been deceived before and it was my desire not to make a mistake
again. After a year's consideration and considerable correspondence
with one of their preachers, I finally united with the Christian Church
at New Castle, Pa. I have been preaching the plea for Christian union
on the primitive gospel ever since, and the longer I preach it the more
I see its beauty and power.

Having been delivered, through the goodness of God, from this blinding
cloud of rationalism, let us take a backward look at it and its chief
product--Unitarianism--and let us see what lesson God would teach us
through it. Unitarianism, as a church movement, started near the
beginning of the last century. It enlisted many of the best hearts,
brains and purses of this country. It had Harvard University back of
it. It numbered among its followers most of the great poets, historians
and prose writers of our country. It has flooded the country with free
literature, and has furnished to thousands of ministers its standard
works without money and without price. No movement ever seemed to have
such mighty agencies back of it to insure its rapid spread. And yet,
after a century of effort, what do we see as the result? Only a few
hundred churches, most of which are numerically weak and enlist only a
certain class of people.

My conviction of the depressing, devitalizing and disintegrating effect
of Unitarianism has been intensified through my recent experience in
evangelistic work in New England. The rationalistic liberalism of
Unitarianism has largely permeated New England Protestantism. It was
not an accident that it was in New England, where, to a large body of
clergymen, a speaker declared, with applause, that "Protestantism is
decaying and will soon be displaced by a new form of Catholicism." Here
Protestantism is indeed decaying through its contact with Unitarian
teaching, and is already largely displaced by old Catholicism and new
Christian Science and other antichristian delusions. Nowhere else did I
ever see Protestant churches so saturated with worldly pleasures and so
indifferent about the salvation of souls. It was here I had the
humiliating experience of sitting in a union Thanksgiving service where
the preacher called the Pilgrim Fathers _religious fanatics_, and spoke
of words writers of the Pentateuch put into the mouth of Moses to give
them influence with the people. Yet I never saw a sign of disapproval
in the audience or heard a word of criticism. It is true he was a
Universalist preacher, but that makes it all the worse. To think that
Protestantism has so degenerated in a New England city that a preacher
who does not believe in the divinity of Christ nor in the inspiration
of the Bible should be appointed to represent it on such an occasion.
It is enough to make the Pilgrim Fathers turn in their graves and groan
for pain. Had present-day Protestantism of New England a fraction of
the moral and spiritual earnestness that the Pilgrim Fathers possessed,
it might have been spared the abject humility of sprawling in weakness
before the same vaunting religious intolerance of Catholicism that
through cruel and bloody persecution drove the Pilgrim Fathers to "the
bleak New England shore" for safety and religious liberty.

When a prominent Catholic recently aped the Protestant clergymen by
declaring that Protestantism is decaying, the preacher at Tremont
Temple called it a "damnable lie." This is a hopeful sign, and
indicates that the sick man is not dead yet. It shows that at least
some think it is not true, or wish it not true; and if enough
 get a strong desire that it shall not be true, it will not be true.
When we renounce rationalism and its products it will not be true.

At a meeting of one of the leading ministerial associations of New
England, at which the writer was present, the speaker of the day
declared that the church has been claiming too much for itself. The
contents of the speech indicated that he had reference to its claim of
supernatural power to transform the sinner. He also said he had given
up the effort to reconcile the first chapters of the Bible with
science. The significance is in the fact that some Protestants
acquiesce in such teaching, and that they are in harmony with the
doctrines of Unitarianism.

Although its advocates must admit that Unitarianism is a monumental
failure in organizing churches, it is their boast that it has
powerfully affected other religious bodies. This fact we admit; but as
the effect is devitalizing, disorganizing and ultimately demoralizing,
we consider the result the crowning shame rather than the crowning
glory of Unitarianism.

That the liberal theology resulting from rationalism and championed in
this country by Unitarianism is merely negative and destructive, is
evidenced on every hand. Dr. Pearson, in the _Missionary Review_, has
recently pointed out its fatal effects in the mission fields, and still
more recently it has been compelled to confess its own defeat in
Germany, where it originated and where it has found its chief support.
The evidence of this is found in the _Literary Digest_ of Feb. 25,
1911, where we find the following:

 That "liberal" theology has made an almost utter failure in Germany
is asserted by one of its leading spokesmen in a liberal religious
organ. It consists too much of mere negation, he thinks, and has no
strong faith in anything. The masses have rejected it, and the educated
have accepted it only in small numbers. Practically it is a failure,
and he demands a reconstruction along new lines, with new ideals and
new methods. This courageous liberal is Rev. Dr. Rittelmeyer, of
Nuremberg, and he writes in the _Christliche Welt_ (Tubingen). Here are
the main points of his argument:

"Let us ask honestly what results modern theology has attained
practically. As far as the great masses of workingmen are concerned,
practically nothing has been gained. They either do not understand it
or they distrust it. All the public discussions and popularization of
modern critical views have not found any echo or sympathy among the
ranks of the laboring people.

"And how about the educated classes? It has long since been the boast
and hobby of advanced theology that it, and it alone, will satisfy the
religious longings of the educated man who has broken with the
traditional dogma and doctrines of orthodox Christianity. But what are
the actual facts in the case? It is a fact that there are a
considerable number among the educated who thankfully confess that they
can accept Christianity only in the form in which it is taught by the
advanced theologian. But how exceedingly small this number is! A
periodical like the _Christliche Welt_, the only paper of its kind, has
not been able to secure more than five thousand subscribers, although
its contributors are the most brilliant in the land of scholars and
thinkers; while periodicals that are exponents of the older views are
read by tens and even hundreds of thousands. There are whole classes of
society among the educated who are antagonistic to liberal tendencies
in religion. Among these are the officers in the army and the navy,
practitioners of the technical arts and of engineering, and almost to a
man the whole world of business. It is foolish to close our eyes to
these facts."

What is the matter? asks this writer. What is the weakness of liberal
and advanced theological thought? These are some of the answers:

"One trouble is that modern theology has entirely grown out of
criticism. Its weakness is intellectualism; it is a negative movement.
We can understand the cry of the orthodox, that advanced theology is
eliminating one thing after the other from our religious thought, and
then asks, What is left? True, we answer, God is left. But is it not
the case that the modern God-Father faith is generally a very weak and
attenuated faith in a Providence, and nothing more? And on this
subject, too, we quarrel among ourselves, whether a God-Father troubles
himself about little things only or about great things too, such as the
forgiveness of sins. We do the same thing with Jesus. We speak of him
as of a unique personality, as the highest revelation of the Father,
and the like, but always connected with a certain skeptical
undercurrent of thought; but we do not appreciate him in his deepest
soul and in the great motives of his life. He is not for modern
theology what he is for orthodoxy, the Saviour of the world and the
Redeemer of mankind."

 Quite naturally this open confession of a pronounced liberal
attracts more than ordinary attention. The liberal papers, including
the _Christliche Welt_ itself, pass it by without further comment, but
the conservatives speak out boldly. Representative of the latter is the
_Evangelische Lutherische Kirchenzeitung_, of Leipzig, which says:

 "The psychological and spiritual solution of Rittelmeyer's problem
is not so hard to find. The soul of man can not live on negations. To
stir the soul there must be positive principles and epoch-making
historical facts, such as are offered by the Scriptural teachings of
Christ and his words. There can be religious life only where there is
faith in him who is the truth and the life. Liberal theology has failed
because it has nothing to offer."


Dr. Harnack, its great high priest, found it an unsatisfying portion,
and, doubtless influenced by its failure, has resigned and turned his
energies into other channels.

Unitarianism appeals almost entirely to the head and but little to the
heart. It supplies a kind of abnormal stimulant to the intellect, but
usually freezes out the emotions. It is like the arctic regions, where
they have six months of light, but no heat, and where consequently
there is no growth of any kind. It is broad, but really superficial and
shallow. It is like a piece of rubber stretched over a wide surface; it
is wide, but it becomes very thin. Emerson seemed to recognize how
shallow rationalism makes people when he declared that "a small
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds--little philosophers,
little statesmen and little divines." The finite mind cannot see the
consistency of the great and deep truths of life and God. To try to
deal with these great questions with human logic is like manipulating a
circle with a break in it. Each reasoner calls attention to the break
in the circle of logic of others, but dexterously manipulates his own
circle so as to hide its missing link.

Rationalism is a delusion and a snare, and, when followed to its
logical conclusion, leads to absurdity and death. Fortunately, most
people who are tainted with this disease do not follow it to its
legitimate conclusions. Through preconceived and inherited ideas and
sentimental inertia, they are held to their moorings. But,
unfortunately, their pupils are not always thus protected. Many
preachers who are held in their place by religious habits and
associations, give expression to rationalistic ideas that take lodgment
in the minds of young men who are not surrounded with religious habits
and associations to hold them; and who, following these rationalistic
ideas to their logical conclusion, are led to doubt and confusion. I
believe that hundreds of thinking young men have been led away from
Christ and the church in this way, all because they and their teacher
did not recognize the true character of rationalism and the proper
functions and limitations of the finite intellect. Mansel gives a
proper diagnosis of rationalism in the following words:

 "The rationalist . . . assigns to some superior tribunal the right
of determining what (in revelation) is essential to religion and what
is not; he claims the privilege of accepting or rejecting any given
revelation, wholly or in part, according as it does or does not satisfy
the conditions of some higher criterion, to be supplied by human
consciousness." Rationalism proceeds "by paring down supposed
excrescences. Commencing with a preconceived theory of the purpose of a
revelation, and of the form which it ought to assume, it proceeds to
remove or reduce all that will not harmonize with this leading idea."
"Rationalism tends to destroy revealed religion altogether, by
obliterating the whole distinction between the human and the divine. If
it retain any portion of revealed truth, as such, it does so, not in
consequence, but in defiance, of its fundamental principle."

But while many ministers are not much injured apparently by their
rationalistic taint, many others are, and all are more or less.
Eternity alone will reveal how much faith in God's Word, and therefore
in God himself, has been weakened or destroyed by this dread mental
disease. Look at the destructive ravages of rationalistic criticism of
the Bible. The Unitarians have completed this work and have eliminated
all the supernatural from the Divine Record. But it is the preachers in
the evangelical churches who are following the Unitarians afar off in
this matter, that are doing the most damage to the faith of Christ's
followers. I have been there, and know how Unitarians look at this
matter. They point to these evangelical preachers as an evidence that
the entire religious world is rapidly coming to their position. On the
other hand, they look at these preachers with pity and contempt because
they do not follow the thing to its logical conclusion, and drop the
Bible entirely as a supernatural revelation. And I believe the
Unitarians are right in this. The same fundamental reasons that led the
rationalistic critics in the evangelical churches to their present
conclusions will inevitably and logically lead to the Unitarian
conclusions, whenever preconceived ideas and inherited prejudices are
sufficiently relaxed. When I first studied this question of destructive
higher criticism so called (it is often _hire_ criticism) from the
rationalistic standpoint and under rationalistic guides, its
conclusions seemed the most reasonable thing on earth. I wondered that
I had not seen it myself long before, and I looked with pity upon the
deluded victims who did not see it. But after I was delivered from
rationalism and my eyes were opened, I commenced to study the other
side of the question and discovered where I was deceived.

Let me give you a few samples of the reasoning of rationalistic
criticism as exhibited by its strongest advocates. Where it says that
Jesus walked upon the water, we were gravely informed that Jesus did
not walk upon the water at all. It happened to be a foggy morning and
the disciples were deceived; he was really walking on the shore. Where
it says "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side," we were
informed that the Greek word here means primarily to prick as with a
pin, to pave the way to belittle the wound of Jesus, despite the fact
that the narrative adds, "straightway there came out blood and water."
The purpose of this was to make way for the _theory_ that Christ did
not die on the cross, but was simply in a lethargy, and when he came to
in the tomb he pushed the stone away, and this so frightened the
soldiers that they took to their heels, thinking it was a ghost, while
Christ escaped to the mountains, where he lived secretly the rest of
his life and finally died a natural death. All this without a scrap of
historical basis, and despite the express declaration of the narrative
that an expert, who was sent by Pilate to ascertain if he was dead,
reported that he was. This is so contrary to the facts of the
narrative, and the character of Jesus and his disciples, that it is
harder to believe it than any miracle recorded in the Bible. Why these
ridiculous and absurd conclusions, despite the historical facts? Simply
because of the necessity to get rid of the supernatural at the mandates
of rationalism. To preserve such puerilities, the manuscripts were kept
in a fire-proof vault lest fire should destroy them. The claims of
destructive criticism are so absurd and ridiculous, when looked at from
a truly scientific standpoint, that I confine myself in this book to
exposing the erroneous viewpoint of rationalism, believing that when
that is done any one can easily see that there is nothing in it.
Besides, its quibblings have been often and ably exposed by competent
authors and their works are accessible to all. That any one who claims
to believe the Bible should give his time to teaching innocent and
uninformed children and adults the conclusions of rationalistic
criticism seems almost too absurd to believe; and when it is done under
the pretense of honoring the Bible, it is but another illustration of
how our moral and intellectual vision can be warped and distorted when
we look through the colored glasses of rationalism and bias.

It is said that a minister kept telling his congregation that different
parts of the Bible were myths, legends, etc., and not historical. One
of his members cut out of her Bible every section he said was not true.
When he made a pastoral call she showed him her mutilated Bible. Upon
his remonstrance, she replied that he had said that these parts were
not reliable, and so she did not want them as a part of her Bible. He
was shocked at his own vandalism.

I have shown that the same rationalistic objections that are brought
against facts revealed in the Bible can be brought against facts
revealed in nature. The only sensible thing to do is to recognize the
limitations of our finite intellects and accept all well-authenticated
facts, whether revealed in the Bible or in nature. We must learn that
in the very nature of things our finite minds cannot fully grasp and
comprehend the infinite. Therefore we have God's revelation in the
Bible, which, though not the product of the human intellect, fully
satisfies its every reasonable demand.

We have also learned that man has by nature strong religious emotions,
which, if exercised, give great joy and peace. Even unguided by
revelation, they grope after God with the help of the finite intellect.
These emotions are blind and were never intended to give us light. They
are a source of great joy and power, but must be guided and filled by
divine revelation to be properly exercised. The neglect of this fact
has led to all kinds of mysticism and fanaticism. And while this is
better and more helpful than cold rationalism, it is nevertheless an
unsafe guide, and does more harm than good to humanity. Faithfulness
compels me to say that, as rationalism, so mysticism has found its way
into the evangelical churches and has done much to rob God's Word of
its power and to divide Christ's followers into warring camps. The
religion that does not thoroughly enlist, exercise and sanctify the
human emotions is not worth having; but we are not to believe every
spirit, but to try the spirits by the Word of God. Let us lay aside our
"think-so's" and "feel-so's," and let us turn to the revelation that
comes from above, that our intellects may be flooded with light and our
emotions may be submerged in God's love, so that our entire
being--body, mind and soul--may be filled, occupied and sanctified to
the glory of Christ.

With the Unitarian movement that started at the beginning of the last
century, with so many human instrumentalities back of it, let us
compare the Apostolic church which was started in the first third of
the first century by a handful of poor, illiterate and despised
Galileans. Although the wealth and culture and political power of the
world were all against them, at the end of the century we are told that
they numbered five hundred thousand.

Again let us compare with Unitarianism, this modern movement for the
restoration of primitive Christianity which started somewhat later than
Unitarianism. Its reproach in the eyes of men--that it has no
literature--is its glory in the eyes of God; for the Bible is its
literature. Its work has been done chiefly among and through the common
people. At the end of the century it numbered among its adherents more
than a million and a quarter. While sectarian churches numerically much
stronger report meager increases and even decreases, it reports an
average of over forty thousand increase for the last several years.

The experiences narrated in this chapter have made real to me the
belief that God is in every act of our life. That through his loving
care, "all things work together for good to them that love God." When I
think of how, in his providence, he took me away from the community and
religion of my early neighbors and brought me in a mysterious way to a
religion and people I had never heard of, I am overwhelmed with the
evidence of his hand in it.

To the honest doubter I would say, take courage, my brother, the Lord
will lead you, in his providence, to the way, the truth and the life. I
can testify that he brings the spiritually blind by a way that they
knew not and leads them in paths they have not known. He makes darkness
light before them and crooked things straight, and will not forsake
them if they continue to sincerely seek for light until he has
accomplished his purpose concerning them and brought them to the feet
of Jesus.

To those out of Christ I will say, that I have tasted and seen that the
Lord is good. After having tried both, I have found a hundred times
more real pleasure in than out of Christ. And while I am yet tied to
clay and suffer many things through the weakness of the flesh, so that
I groan within myself and long to be entirely delivered from this
bondage of death, yet I am filled with love, peace, joy and power
through the earnest of the Spirit dwelling in me, and I serve Jesus
patiently, waiting for the hope set before me, even the coming of our
Saviour, when this corruptible, mortal body shall be changed into the
likeness of the glorified body of Jesus, and I shall be with him and
shall be like him. Oh, how this hope fills my being with love and joy
unspeakable! Will you come and accept this salvation? In the Saviour's
name, who died to purchase it for you, we bid you come. _Come while it
is called to-day!_




CHAPTER II.

MY PARTING MESSAGE TO THE UNITARIAN SCHOOL.


During my third year at the Meadville Unitarian Theological School,
after I became thoroughly convinced that the Unitarian position was
untenable, and I had found my way back to Christ, it so happened that
it was my turn to read a paper and to preach to the school, as the
members of the higher classes preached before the school in turn. In
these parting messages I frankly and sincerely presented my change of
viewpoint, and argued against the Unitarian position as strongly as I
could at the time. The school is open, on equal terms, to anybody
wishing to study for the ministry, no matter what their views, or what
religious body they belong to. Everybody is supposed to be perfectly
free to hold and express his honest religious opinions. In the spirit
of this generosity, I patiently listened to all the school could offer
me in presenting what it believed to be the truth, and gratefully
accepted every help it could give me in my search for the truth. I felt
I was acting in entire harmony with the spirit of the founders of the
institution when I used the knowledge and culture imparted to me in
kindly contending for the truth as I saw it, even when it was against
the truth as held by the teachers of the school.

Most of my sermon on "The Proper Method of Inquiry in Religion" has
been lost or mislaid. But I have the paper read before the school, and
the last part of the sermon. I give these here because it shows how the
matter looked to me at that time, and how I treated it in the presence
of the keen, intellectual audience of students and professors.

The professor of homiletics, who read and criticised all sermons before
they were preached, rather took me to task for my bold attack upon
Unitarianism, but he admitted to me that, although he had preached and
taught it for more than a score of years, there were yearnings in his
soul that it did not satisfy. The sermon was listened to with great
respect and sympathy, especially by the more conservative students.
About ten years later I received a letter from a young Unitarian
minister in Massachusetts who referred to the sermon, and said he had
never forgotten it, but was often reminded in his experience of how
true it was, especially in what I said about the coldness and
fruitlessness of Unitarianism.

Although the matter in this paper and sermon is largely the same as
that in the previous chapter, I present it because, as the line of
thought is out of the ordinary and somewhat difficult to the general
reader, its repetition in this conversational style will help to get a
better grasp of the deadly delusions of rationalism. Truth usually has
to be repeated in various ways before it gets a thorough hold upon the
average mind. Therefore "precept must be upon precept, precept upon
precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a
little" (Isa. 28:10).

_A Religious Discussion Between Mr. Liberal, Mr. Orthodox and Mr.
Freethinker_.

SCENE.--Ocean of Life. STEAMBOAT.--Experience.

[The three above-named persons had made each other's acquaintance, and
had engaged in discussions with each other on several occasions. They
now seat themselves in a group on deck and enter upon the following
discussion.]

_Mr. Liberal_--The great objection to your religion, Mr. Orthodox, is
that it violates reason and conscience. To be more specific, let us
consider a few instances. There is your doctrine of eternal punishment,
in which you ascribe fiendish qualities to our dear heavenly Father
such as the most savage human being could not be capable of. Then, take
your doctrine of the Trinity, around which most of your dogmas cluster,
and we see at once that it violates the simplest postulates of reason.
I know that you will answer that these are all mysteries which are to
be accepted on faith. But it is perfectly clear that there is no
mystery about it. It is as clear as daylight that three cannot be one.
You talk about mysteries which we must accept by faith, but all such
talk is nonsense and ignores our sacred reason. The idea of getting
over all difficulties by declaring them mysteries, and exhorting your
opponents to leap over them by the exercise of faith, is truly, as some
one has said, "a touchstone for whole classes of explanations based on
no evidence." You orthodox people are the cause of all the infidelity
that is afloat in the land. People come in contact with your irrational
and ridiculous claims, and, taking them as religion itself, they throw
overboard the whole business, the good with the bad. What we need is a
pure and simple religion that will satisfy man's reason and conscience
as well as his heart. And we do not have to go far for such a religion,
for we find it in the liberal faith which it is my privilege to
represent. Let us compare our grand, simple and rational beliefs with
your irrational, absurd and mysterious products of the Dark Ages, and
see what a contrast there is between them. Instead of your "Son is God,
Father is God, Holy Spirit is God; yet there are not three Gods, but
only one," we have the simple faith in one heavenly
Father--all-powerful, all-wise and all-good. No mystery about it. It
would be absurd to suppose that such a God could punish his children to
eternity, or that He would require the suffering of the innocent to
enable him to forgive the guilty. Then, of course, we reject all the
absurd dogmas clustering around your conception of the Trinity. The
simple belief in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man is
enough for us. Instead of your endless punishment, we have the
reasonable belief that the Father punishes simply to bring us good, so
that our joy may be greater. This is all perfectly simple, and can be
understood by the uneducated man as well as by the philosopher.

_Mr. Orthodox_--It is an easy thing to make charges; and, as they are
usually made in sweeping terms, it frequently requires hours of time
and much explanation to answer the charges made in a few minutes, even
when the charges are false. I shall endeavor to defend myself, but must
beg you to give me sufficient time to make myself understood. In the
first place, I claim, as you say, that you cannot understand all the
mysteries about religious doctrines. They must, to a large extent, be
accepted by faith. And I claim that it is more reasonable to accept
them by faith than to reject them on the ground that you cannot
understand them. This may seem ridiculous to you, but wait until I
explain myself further. Take eternal punishment. You say that man is a
free agent, and that through his free agency he is able to bring evil
and punishment upon himself. You say that God has so ordained because
it is best for man that he should be left free, even though he becomes
liable to suffer because of it, as it will be for his final good. In
other words, you claim that God does punish his children for their own
good. It seems perfectly just to you that God should punish a person
because he is a free agent, but when we say that man can bring eternal
punishment upon himself through his free agency, then you think it
ridiculous, although the principle is exactly the same and the only
difference is that of degree. But I see that I must be more general in
my statements or I will not get far. You bring a host of other charges
against us, either directly or by implication. You say that yours is a
pure and simple religion that can be understood by uneducated people as
well as by philosophers. Here we get at the very heart of the
difference between us. It is true that your doctrines are _very
simple,_ but that is their chief demerit. _They_ are simple, but the
facts that they attempt to deal with are very complex. To declare that
religious problems are simple is to go counter to the expressed
opinions of the great thinkers of all ages. Such questions as evil,
good, life, immortality, free will, God, and a host of others, are
decidedly complex.

They are largely inscrutable and have always been considered so. And
yet all the complex realities of life and death which have defied the
theologians and philosophers of all ages, you now tell us are very
simple, and you carry the simple solution around with you only too glad
to give it free to everybody. Why is it that all of the thousands of
worried and distressed souls don't come flocking to you? Why is it that
the philosophers and thinkers don't come rushing in from all
directions, to get from you the truths they have so long sought after?
Why is it that the uneducated masses do not come to you and accept your
simple doctrines which they can so easily understand? I know that you
are ready with a charge of ignorance, prejudice, self-interest, etc.,
but I claim that as a rule your charges do not charge. You, believing
in an all-wise, all-good and all-powerful God, who is Truth itself,
must believe in the triumph of truth; and here I agree with you. I
believe that just as soon as truth is brought in contact with error the
latter will have to vanish just as sure as the darkness vanishes when a
light is brought into a room. Error may apparently linger because of
peculiar circumstances which we are ignorant of, but as soon as truth
has a fair chance of coming directly in contact with error, the victory
is won. I claim, therefore, that the reason that your explanations are
not accepted, is because they do not explain. Your doctrines offer
protection to a small part of the man, but leave all the rest exposed
to the cold and inclement weather. The uneducated do not accept your
doctrines because they belie their own experiences.

_Mr. Freethinker_--I hope you will pardon me for interrupting you, Mr.
Orthodox. You are getting too hot. I think it will be better for you to
cool off before you continue, and in the meantime I will have my say.
That is the greatest objection I have to you religionists--you are all
fanatics. You get an idea into your head, and then think that the
continuance of the world depends upon you thrusting it into everybody's
face. Of course you are willing to suffer for your doctrines, and even
to die for them if need be, but that is the way with all fanatics. Your
foolish notions give occasion for amusement to cool-headed free
thinkers, who see perfectly well that they are all the result of
self-delusion. I believe in keeping perfectly cool; in always keeping
the head as high above the heart as it is in the body. I don't believe
in attacking a man from behind while he is engaged by another in front,
but, during the time Mr. Orthodox is cooling off, I wish to show you,
Mr. Liberal, wherein I differ from you. Your great appeal is to reason,
and I agree with you entirely on that point; but I don't arrive at your
conclusions. You have been fixing your eyes on the monstrous outrage of
reason in your brother's position so steadfastly, and yours is so much
more in accordance with reason, that it is not surprising that you
should have failed to see the irrationality of your own position.
Furthermore, you have had a great deal of inherited prejudice to
overcome, and a man cannot be expected to get rid of all those at once,
especially when they have reference to the heart or feelings. You say
that your God is all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. The inevitable,
logical conclusion from that is that such a God would give his children
an infinitely small amount of evil and an infinitely large amount of
good. But such is not the case; therefore, to keep that jewel of
rationalism which is so dear to you, you must give up your belief in
such a God. Just wait a minute! I know that you are ready to give a lot
of quibbling that will satisfy some people who follow their prejudices
and inherited feelings, but I defy the whole world of logicians to show
that such a conclusion is less logical than the claim that there can be
three in one. You say that it is in the nature of things that God must
give us evil that we may enjoy good the more afterwards. But if you
clear yourself from all prejudice, you will see that this is the old
method of the ostrich of putting its head under the sand and imagining
that its entire body is protected. Nay, even worse than that, you don't
even protect your head. Any man that gives clear sweep to his reason
will see that if God must comply with certain conditions, then he is
not all-powerful If he is all-powerful, he can give us all good without
any evil, and if he is all-good it would logically follow that he will
do so. Then, again, while affirming that man is a free agent, you at
the same time claim that every effect must have a cause, or that
something cannot come out of nothing. Now, the reconciliation of these
two facts has ever defied the reason of mankind. And those that have
adopted the belief in free will have confessed that reason did not lead
them to that conclusion, but experience. On the other hand, the logical
conclusion is inevitable that man cannot be free. I know that people
have endeavored to satisfy themselves to the contrary, and I know that
some have really succeeded in deceiving themselves so far as to believe
that they could logically hold to it; but I declare that they have
never succeeded in convincing any unprejudiced mind, and I defy any
logician to prove that the conclusion of free will as consistent with
eternal causation, is less absurd than that two and two make five.

Again, you preach that what a man sows, that also shall he reap. If
that is true, then no person can really give him anything; therefore
philanthropy is a delusion. Now, then, Mr. Liberal, you want to be
reasonable and drop the false position to which your inherited
prejudices have held you, and adopt my views, which are thoroughly
simple and entirely consistent and logical. Belief in God is the
product of superstition, and belief in free will is a self-delusion. I
know that you will appeal to intuition in this case, but that is only a
scapegoat for deluded and illogical minds to hide behind. You see that
my conclusion is not only simple and logical, but it is really more
beautiful than your complex affair, and you will see it as such after
you succeed in overcoming your inherited prejudices. There is no God.
The universe is governed by blind law; at least, that is all we know
about it. We are evolved from the lowest forms of organic life. What
about conscience? Well, that is a matter of education. Of course we
should follow it, because it is a safer guide than our present
judgment, since it represents the judgment of all our ancestors.
Utility is our only standard of right and wrong in morals, and we
follow utility because we are not free and are therefore compelled to
do so.

_Mr. Orthodox_--If you are through, Mr. Freethinker, I will now
continue. But I must consider myself your opponent as well as Mr.
Liberal's. In the first place, I must admit that you are thoroughly
consistent with yourself as far as you go. But, my dear fellow, where
does your consistency lead you to? You claim to be a freethinker, and
yet you conclude that you are an entire slave and even think as you do
because you cannot help it.

I stated at the beginning of my reply to Mr. Liberal that many
religious facts must be accepted without thoroughly understanding them,
and claimed that it is reasonable to so accept them. I will now
endeavor to explain myself more fully. It seems to me that if anything
has been proven, it is that our logical reason is not always a safe
guide. For example, we cannot conceive of an end to divisibility of
space; and therefore we cannot conceive how we can reach a given point.
Now, practice gives the lie to this conclusion, and if some rationalist
should follow his reason here, he would conclude that he can never get
a piece of food into his mouth; or, in other words, the logical
conclusion would lead to starvation. I know that some will deny this as
a logical conclusion to get out of the difficulty. But I could never
see it as otherwise than logical, and I have a goodly list of thinkers
who have reached the same conclusion before me. Again, it is admitted
by all thinkers of all ages that our reason tells us that there cannot
be existence without beginning, or, on the other hand, there can be no
beginning of existence without something existing before to cause its
existence.

The conclusion is that inconceivability is not an infallible proof of
the absence of a fact, and that we must follow our experience even if
it conflicts with our reason. This is what we claim to do in religion.
Whether experience is the sole source of knowledge is a question we
need not discuss here. It is certainly the only safe method in most
things. For example, I wish to know what will cure a certain disease.
Suppose that I find a medicine that has cured every case in which it
has been administered. Would it not be irrational for me to refuse to
use that medicine because I cannot conceive how it effects the cure? Of
course it might be possible that the medicine did not effect the cure;
that it was the belief in its curative power that produced the effect.
Cases have frequently occurred where a thing was for a long time
believed to be the cause, while future investigation proved that it was
some other attendant circumstance that was the real cause. But if our
experience is that a given medicine cures a certain disease invariably,
and that no other known medicine will cure it, we would be foolish not
to use that medicine. The same is true in religion. If we wish to
accomplish certain results and we have found a way in which those
desirable results can be brought about, and know of no other way to
bring them about; it would be irrational not to adopt that way, or
follow out the requirements of that theory. I told you, Mr. Liberal,
that your theory or doctrine was too simple. This is still more true of
our friend, Mr. Freethinker. You claim to hold very broad, liberal and
enlightened views. But although they are broad, they are not deep
enough. They are stretched out over the surface merely, and thus hide
from your view the great ocean of reality below. Yes, you have an
abundance of light, but not enough heat. In the polar regions they have
six months of light in one stretch, but no one would think of starting
a garden there, as there is not enough heat. To the cold reason of some
bachelor it is perfectly clear and indisputable that the young lover is
a deluded fool and should follow his reason by never marrying. But I
fondly believe that young lover sees the true worth of one human soul,
and gives us an idea of the worth we shall see in all souls when we
shall cease to see through a glass darkly. As the bachelor does not
touch the reality in his case, so I believe that our friend, Mr.
Freethinker, does not touch the great ocean of reality in religion. We
are convinced by experience that man is free, and that nevertheless
eternal causation does exist. We believe these to be two co-ordinate
truths and we are willing to wait until we can solve the mystery; but
in the meantime we wish to make use of the practical belief in both
truths. People are convinced that there is a God who deals out exact
justice; yet they are also convinced from experience that there is a
God who is love who forgives the penitent sinner. That one God can
possess both of these qualities seems as impossible as that three Gods
can be in one God. And yet people are convinced that no other theory
will explain their complex experiences, and that living according to no
other theory will enable them to get the desirable results that they
know from experience that they do get. They may be mistaken; but it
will be time enough to consider that when some one has a theory that
will account better for all their various experiences. Well, you see my
point and I shall apply it no further. You see it is simply the
principle that the empirical school of philosophy claims to employ, but
which many of them employ only in the physical realm and fail to carry
into the spiritual or religious realm. They must admit that religious
convictions are and have been among the strongest, if not the
strongest, motive powers in the world's history. And thus their
philosophy of life leaves out the greatest pleasures and mightiest
incentives to action found in life.

But Mr. Liberal and his friends would tell us that this all refers to
theology. That doctrines are of no account. That what we want is works.
Exactly, but don't you see that if after the afore-said experience you
should not form the theory that the given medicine cures the given
disease and act in accordance with the theory, the result would
probably be death instead of health and life? The question is, is it
true to experience? Does it accomplish what it purposes to accomplish
better than any other theory, and can that result be accomplished only
by following the said theory? According to many authorities, most if
not all of our physical actions are performed according to a theory
based on induction as to facts in the physical world. Thus we arrive at
the conclusion that food nourishes our body because it has always been
found to do so. In the same way many people have, through experience
and facts, come to believe in God who guides them and nourishes them
spiritually.

If now we judge by fruits rather than by doctrines, or rather judge our
doctrines by their fruits, I claim that the orthodox doctrine is
superior to yours, Mr. Liberal. In the first place, you admit that the
lower ignorant classes you cannot reach, and you are greatly surprised
that they do not eagerly accept your _simple_ doctrines. It is not the
whole, but the sick, that need a physician. A religion that cannot help
those that need the greatest spiritual help cannot be the religion of
Christ. But let us suppose that an intelligent foreigner who does not
understand our language nor know our doctrines should attend our
respective churches and see the result produced--the pleasure taken in
coming and receiving our spiritual medicine. And making allowance for
all other differences, should observe which helps most to make life
worth living, and which makes the most and best changes in the
character of its adherents. He would have no trouble to discover that
orthodoxy ministers more to the needy soul than your simple faith.

You, Mr. Liberal, talk about making infidels of people and drawing them
away from the church, but I believe it would have been fortunate for
you if you had not mentioned this subject; because you, according to
the confession of your own men, have driven more people from the
churches than any religious body having a similar numerical strength.
You tell people to use their reason, and after you have drawn them out
of the orthodox churches by that bait, they see that they must go
further than your position to satisfy what you call reason, and they
find large numbers among you ready to lead them to that logical
conclusion. It seems that the advocates of your liberal faith have
always believed that they were on the verge of accomplishing great
victories by drawing the multitudes to them; but as with the victim of
tuberculosis, who imagines he is getting better all the
 time, it is always expectancy and never realization. If it is
prejudice that prevents the spread of your belief, then it ought to
grow most in New England, where it has largely worn away prejudice. But
the facts seem to be that there it is growing the least comparatively;
while out West, where it is a novelty and meeting with opposition, it
is making the most progress. A person is almost tempted to conclude
that if it were not for the opposition of some mistaken people, who do
not realize your real error, your progress would come to an end at once.

I believe, Mr. Liberal, that Mr. Freethinker has the best of you
because he vanquished you according to your own method of inquiry. But
you are more nearly right according to the true method of inquiry. You
see it is the proper method of inquiry that I am contending for. A
person with the wrong method of inquiry in his head will only be
repulsed by poking dogmas at him and nothing can be done with him until
he has discovered the fallacy by following his method to absurdity, its
natural conclusion. After that he may be induced to follow the
empirical method of inquiry with a demonstration that experience and
well-authenticated testimony are to be followed rather than rationalism.

What follows is the last part of the sermon on "The Proper Method of
Religious Inquiry." Text: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is
good."

It is not only important that we should appeal to our own experience in
trying to discover what is true in religion, but we should also take
into consideration the experiences of others. If a man, who is
partially color blind, should base a science of color on his own
experience, it would necessarily be partial or incomplete. So if a
class of men, with certain peculiar traits, should build up a system of
theology on their religious experiences, it would necessarily be
partial and not adequate for universal application. Suppose, for
example, that a number of persons with large reasoning powers, cold
temperaments, and very little religious feeling, should build up a
religious system on their experiences. Is it not perfectly clear that
it would be partial and narrow? It would make no allowance at all for
people of strong religious experiences. While it might be of some use
to these few people, it would never help the great bulk of humanity who
need the help of religion the most. To say that a religion is not for
the common people is to admit that it is narrow and not true to
universal human nature. Certainly it is not Christian, for the common
people heard Jesus gladly; and they ever will hear gladly any one who
preaches a religion that is true to their own religious experiences.

In trying to discover what is true in religion, we should also
carefully examine the religious experiences of all ages, as recorded in
their religious writings. I shall here quote from an authority on this
point, because I think it of much value, and because it is not probable
that the writer was influenced by prejudice and preconceived ideas. I
shall quote from John Stuart Mill's "System of Logic," page 477: "There
is a perpetual oscillation in spiritual truths, and in spiritual
doctrines of any significance, even when not truths. Their meaning is
almost always in a process either of being lost or of being recovered.
Whoever has attended to the history of the more serious convictions of
mankind--of the opinion by which the general conduct of their lives is,
or as they conceive ought to be, more especially regulated--is aware
that even when recognizing verbally the same doctrines, they attach to
them at different periods a greater or less quantity, and even a
different kind of meaning. The words in their original acceptation
connoted, and the propositions expressed, a complication of outward
facts and inward feelings, to different portions of which the general
mind is more particularly alive in different generations of mankind. To
common minds, only that portion of the meaning is in each generation
suggested, of which that generation possesses the counterpart in its
habitual experience. But the words and propositions lie ready to
suggest to any mind duly prepared to receive the remainder of the
meaning. Such individual minds are almost always to be found; and the
lost meaning, revived by them, again by degrees works its way into the
general mind.

"The arrival of this salutary reaction may, however, be materially
retarded by the shallow conceptions and incautious proceedings of mere
logicians. ... These logicians think more of having a clear, than of
having a comprehensive, meaning; and although they perceive that every
age is adding to the truth which it has received from its predecessors,
they fail to see that a counter process of losing, truths already
possessed, is also constantly going on, and requiring the most sedulous
attention to counteract it."

But, as a matter of fact, people have, as a rule, followed their
experiences in everything, despite the sneers and ridicules of the
would-be wise. People have planted their vegetables during the increase
of the moon despite all ridicule and laughter. And in due time the wise
men came to their position, declaring that the sunlight reflected by
the moon helps the growth of vegetation. People in all ages have
believed in faith cure under one form or another to the utter amazement
of the intelligent physicians who made fun of them and pitied their
ignorance. But now, through the facts discovered by hypnotism and other
means, the scientists are coming around and admitting that the old
women were right, that the people really did get help from faith cure.

In religion, too, people have followed their experience, despite the
sneers, ridicule and protests of wise men. And, on the whole, I have no
doubt that they are better off than if they had listened to the persons
who showed them that their beliefs, from a rationalistic standpoint,
are false; and at the same time offered them beliefs that were about as
ridiculous from a logical standpoint, and which left out all the power
and good of their own system of belief.




CHAPTER III.

THE FUNCTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE MIND.


The objections made to faith are by no means an effect of knowledge,
but proceed rather from ignorance of what knowledge is.--_Bishop
Berkley._

No difficulty emerges in theology which has not previously emerged in
philosophy.--_Sir Wm. Hamilton._

The human mind inevitably and by virtue of its essential constitution
finds itself involved in self-contradictions whenever it ventures on
certain courses of speculation.--_Mansel._

In the last two chapters I presented the reasons that led me to
infidelity and back to Christ, as they appeared to me while in the
thick of the conflict and soon after. In this and following chapters I
wish to present the matter in the light that has come to me on the
subject up to the present date.

As will be noticed in the previous chapters, the external causes that
drove me to infidelity were the theology of creeds, sectarianism and
the apparent difficulties in the Bible and in religion. But the real
underlying cause was rationalism, or a failure to recognize the proper
functions and limitations of the finite intellect. In later chapters, I
shall show how I overcame the difficulties about creeds and speculative
theology and how I solved the problem of sectarianism by turning to
Christian union on the primitive gospel. In this chapter I wish to
speak more definitely of rationalism or the subjective cause of my
infidelity. For, after all, the whole matter resolves itself into a
question of psychology, or science of the mind. What is the profit of
reading numerous books on the subject, _pro_ and _con_, so long as we
are reading the books through colored glasses that deceive our vision
and lead us to apply false tests as to what the truth in the matter is?

There must be some matters that require our prayerful and serious
consideration, when we observe how the most talented, scholarly, devout
and honest of all ages have been divided into warring camps on
questions of religion, politics, medicine and science. Certainly truth
is not divided; and there must be some mysterious, deceptive mental
pitfalls that have caused this Babel of confusion. When we count the
cost of this warring conflict of the choicest spirits of the earth in
waste, failure, suffering, bloodshed and death, and contemplate the
gain in prosperity, progress, happiness and conquest over ignorance and
evil, that would have resulted had all the good been enabled to see
alike, and thus unite on the truth, we cannot fail to be impressed with
the fact that this is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, theme
that has ever engaged the attention of mortal man. Well may we ask with
Pilate, "What is truth?" Or perhaps the more important question, "How
can we discover what is truth?" What is there in the nature of the mind
that side-tracks the wisest and best in their effort to know the truth?
Why was Paul, the conscientious, intellectual giant, so deceived that
he "verily thought he was doing God service" while destroying the best
and holiest thing that had ever come to earth? Why did Cotton Mather
and other saintly, scholarly Christians martyr innocent saints as
witches? Why did devout patriots of the North and South slaughter each
other in cold blood? Why were the scientific theses written at Harvard
during forty years, all found out of date by Edward Everett Hale? Why
are the intelligent and consecrated hosts of Christ wasting
three-fourths of their men and money through sectarian divisions? Why
are the intelligent, patriotic citizens of America divided into two
camps on free silver and other issues when the truth and their interest
are one, and by a united effort they could carry every election for
truth and righteousness? Common sense asks, Why? The interests of
humanity ask, Why? Love and compassion ask, _Why?_ I believe we must
find the answer chiefly in the failure to understand clearly the nature
and functions of the mind.

The Nature of Conscience.

Turn, for example, to conscience. What is its nature? Is it a safe
guide? Does it always tell us what is right? Why has conscience fought
on both sides of every great historical conflict? Surely we should stay
this awful, pitiable and destructive conflict of the conscientious; at
least, long enough to examine most earnestly into the cause of this
strange and disastrous puzzle. If conscience is not a safe guide, then
woe betide us; for it is the only moral guide we have, or, at least,
the only avenue through which human and divine truth can guide us. For
it is the moral nature itself.

The eye without light cannot see, but if we are lost in a forest, the
eye becomes helpless as a guide, even if there is light. Yet the eye is
a safe guide, and in bodily movements it is essentially the only guide
we have. We thus learn that to exercise their function the eyes must
have light and knowledge of the localities in which they are to act as
a guide. What the eyes are in guiding our bodily movements, that the
conscience is in guiding our moral actions. But as the eyes without
light and knowledge are helpless as a guide, so conscience without love
and truth is a blind monster. There is conscience and _conscience_. And
as long as we use the term ambiguously and fail to discriminate between
conscience proper and the term as used in the looser, larger sense, we
will have nothing but confusion. Conscience proper is simply the
impulse of the soul that urges us to do right as we see the right. We
do not deny that it also embodies the basic element in the soul that
enables us to discover what is right; but our conviction as to what is
right is dependent upon knowledge acquired through other faculties.
When we speak of conscience in the loose and general sense, we refer to
both of these elements. In this sense conscience is the product of a
number of faculties working together. Thus when we talk about following
conscience, we mean following the voice of our moral nature, or the
convictions of the highest and best aspirations in our soul. Conscience
should always be followed as a guide in both its proper and larger
sense; but as an impulse to do what we believe to be right, it is
infallible, while as a guide to knowledge of what is right, it is
fallible and liable to lead us into all kinds of folly and error.

While, therefore, we should always follow our conscience, or our
highest conviction of what is right, we should assiduously probe our
conscience day by day to seek for errors in the part that is dependent
upon information. In other words, a truly conscientious person not only
scrupulously does what he believes to be right; but he also constantly
strives to get all the truth, that his conscience may be enlightened
more and more. To follow our conscience, therefore, in searching for
and obeying the truth, is our highest duty to God, and it is the _sine
qua non_ of acceptance with him. This is the "love of the truth" (2
Thess. 2:10), "the good and honest heart" (Luke 8:15), through which
the gospel becomes fruitful. To refuse to follow our conscience, or
highest light of duty, as revealed in the Bible or from any other
source, is treason toward God in whose image we were morally created;
and such persons forfeit heaven, no matter how faultless their outward
acts may be. With God it is a matter of the inner motive, as the entire
Bible reveals. The man who lives a respectable life outwardly, but
fails to meet his inner moral obligations, is not a good moral man, but
a hypocrite. Therefore no man can ever be saved without morality in the
full and true sense of the word. Conscience, then, enlightened by
truth, is the voice of God to the soul. The Proverb says, "The spirit
of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all the inward parts" (Prov.
20:27), while in Rom. 2:14-16 we read: "For when Gentiles that have not
the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law,
are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith,
and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them; in
the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my
gospel, by Jesus Christ."

God wants us to follow our present conviction of duty until by
investigation we discover a better one. Thus God guides the individual
in his conduct through his conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit
(Rom. 9:1). But this guidance is only for the individual. It has a
fallible element in it that needs to be improved by constant and
vigilant readjustment as the individual increases his knowledge and
sharpens his conscience by exercise (Rom. 12:2). Alas! how much
mischief has come from neglect of these facts. How many have tried to
thrust the leadings of their conscience on others, in and out of
creeds. Again, how many good people have become self-righteous and
despised those who differed from them because they mistook matters of
opinion and expediency as matters of conscience, through failing to
recognize the fallible, variable element in their conscience. How
foolish we act if we do not keep in mind these distinctions. The
infidel who claimed that he was unhappy because he knew too much, and
that Christians are happy because they are deluded, and then
promulgated his misery-producing doctrine for conscience' sake, is an
illustration of the absurdity into which a sensitive but perverted
conscience will lead a person. But yesterday I met a very conscientious
young man who left the ministry because he could not agree, with
members of the church he was serving, on matters of expediency. On my
table lies a letter recently received from a young man who graduated
for the ministry last spring, but through doubts, similar to those I
formerly experienced, left the ministry for conscience' sake. This
unhappiness of doubters and this testimony of their consciences, even
while they hold opinions that logically rob conscience of any
authority, should cause every one to think; and is strong evidence that
skepticism is unnatural and fundamentally wrong. I followed rationalism
into infidelity for conscience' sake. I gave up belief in the
miraculous and supernatural in the Bible _for conscience' sake_. But
after the rationalists had driven me to this bitter end, through my
sensitive conscience, I was gravely informed that conscience was a mere
creature of education and therefore should only be followed
conditionally.

I discovered sufficient truth in this claim to open my eyes to the fact
that I had been deceived and had followed the fallible part of my
conscience, which is a creature of education, as though it were
infallible and the voice of God.

It will be noticed that eternal life depends on the infallible element
of conscience, while stupendous, yet only mundane, interests depend
upon its fallible element. This is a mystery that perplexes a great
many people. Is ignorance an excuse? Does it not matter what you
believe, just so you are honest? The highest and best thing anybody can
ever do, is to follow his conscience, or the voice of his highest moral
and spiritual nature. This the teaching of Scripture from Genesis to
Revelation. To teach that God would damn a soul for doing this is
destructive of all moral distinctions, and is as abominable as the old
doctrine that God elects certain people and damns others irrespective
of their thoughts and conduct. Ignorance is an excuse if it is
_innocent ignorance_. What about those who are willfully ignorant? or
those who have a seared conscience? They are not following their
conscience at all. Conscience insists that we make every possible
effort to get the truth. By a seared conscience we mean a person who
does not follow his conscience at all, and he knows it.

We know that ignorant innocence is an excuse in the sight of God, but
we do not know who is innocently ignorant. The former fact is revealed
to us in the Bible, but the latter is known only to God. Therefore in
these matters we should "judge nothing before the time, until the Lord
come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make
manifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall each man have his
praise from God" (I Cor. 4:5).

Nothing has ever been revealed more clearly in the Bible than that
innocent ignorance is an excuse in the sight of God. The cities of
refuge and the entire ceremonial law were based upon this fact. Christ
said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke
23:34). James says, "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not,
to him it is sin" (Jas. 4:17). In Acts 17:30 we read, "The times of
ignorance therefore God overlooked." In the second chapter of Romans
Paul makes it clear that each person shall be judged by the light that
comes to him, whether in or out of the law or of the gospel. Heathen
people, who never heard the gospel, will not be condemned for rejecting
the gospel, but for rejecting the light that came to them through their
conscience and through other sources. "For this is the condemnation,
that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). But we will be
condemned if we do not do all in our power to bring the gospel to the
heathen.

We need not worry about the pious, conscientious peoples scattered
among the sectarian churches; but we need to worry lest we do not do
all in our power to make it impossible for them to remain pious and
conscientious while upholding sectarianism. It is our duty to help them
to understand the Word; and if, after they understand it, they refuse
to obey it, they are under condemnation. But we cannot and dare not
decide whether they understand it or not. It is ours to preach the
Word, and it will judge them in that Great Day.

The ground or mainspring of conscience is love--love of the well-being
or welfare of all sentient beings, or of all beings capable of enjoying
happiness. Our conscience goads us to do what love demands as our duty.
He who, through want of discrimination, ignores the love element in
conscience, becomes a cruel misanthrope, and is misguided by a
perverted conscience. May the Lord help us to clear up our minds on
this subject of conscience so that this divine light may lead us onward
and upward towards perfection in holiness; and that this eye of the
moral nature may not be deprived of love and knowledge and thus
flounder around like a blind giant spreading misery and suffering
everywhere.

The Feelings or Emotions.

Psychology divides the mind into intellect, sensibilities and will.
This is doubtless a valuable classification in a general way. But the
classification is very general and indefinite. Indeed, school
psychology has confined itself almost entirely to a consideration of
the _general operations_ of the mind and has given us very little light
on the classification of the mental faculties. The limited attempts at
classification have varied considerably according to the subjective
make-up of the author, as the classifications were based on
introspection.

While the deductive, axiomatic or intuitive, scholastic or
introspective methods of inquiry prevailed in the intellectual world,
systems of philosophy, psychology and theology were built up according
to the peculiar subjective nature of their author, and held the field
until some other strong mind projected its views of the subject and
thus rivaled or supplanted the other systems. It was the modern
inductive or empirical method of investigation, introduced by Bacon,
Locke, Mill and others, that has put knowledge on a real scientific
basis and has led to the marvelous scientific and material progress of
recent times. I believe the time is not far distant when the old
medieval, introspective psychology of the schools will be displaced by
a more scientific system. All that is of value in the old system will
be retained, but the most valuable psychological knowledge will come
from the new system. That this need is generally recognized by those
who have given the matter most attention, is evidenced by the words of
that prince of modern psychologists, Professor James, when he says, "At
present psychology is in the condition of physics before Galileo and
the laws of motion or of chemistry before Lavoisier." I believe that
phrenology has blazed the way for this new psychology. It was violently
attacked by the old-school psychologists because it taught that the
brain is the instrument of the mind, that the mind has a plurality of
faculties and that various brain functions can be localized. Every one
conversant with the present literature on physiology and psychology
will see that phrenologists have conquered, and that their basic
principles are now accepted by all. It is now simply a matter of the
application of these principles by further investigation. The
psychologists have made some progress in brain localization through
various mechanical and more or less abnormal methods of investigation.
When they come to a more sensible and natural method of inquiry by
observing the concomitance between various brain developments and
various mental traits, I feel sure that they will have to admit that
the phrenologists are essentially right in their brain localizations,
just as they have already admitted that they are right in their basic
principles.

That the tide is already turning is manifest from the following
quotations.

Alfred Russell Wallace, one of the greatest of scientists, in his book,
"The Wonderful Century," says: "I begin with the subject of phrenology,
a science of whose substantial truth and vast importance I have no more
doubt than I have of the value and importance of any of the great
intellectual advances already recorded.

"In the coming century, phrenology will assuredly attain general
acceptance. It will prove itself to be the true science of mind. Its
practical use in education, in self-discipline, in the reformatory
treatment of criminals, and in the remedial treatment of the insane,
will give it one of the highest places in the hierarchy of sciences;
and its persistent neglect and obloquy during the last sixty years,
will be referred to as an example of the almost incredible narrowness
and prejudice which prevailed among men of science at the very time
they were making such splendid advances in other fields of thought and
action."

Benard Hollander, M.D., F.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., in his late book on
"Functions of the Brain," says: "What Gall knew at the close of the
eighteenth century is only just dawning upon the scientists of the
present day. The history of Gall and his doctrine is given in these
pages, and will be quite a revelation to the reader. No subject has
ever been so thoroughly misrepresented, even by learned men of
acknowledged authority." In his "Scientific Phrenology," Dr. Hollander
says: "In this volume I have laid stress on the strictly phrenological
method of observing special parts of the brain, distinct lobes and
convolutions, and comparing their size to development of the rest of
the brain--which, if applied in conjunction with the study of the
mental characteristics of our fellow-beings, would enable us to make
observations by the million. This method, which was considered
unscientific, and hence shunned, for a long time, has found favor with
scientists, since the author's first papers on scientific phrenology
were published in 1886, and was for the first time advocated publicly
last year by Dr. Cunningham, professor of anatomy in Dublin University,
in his presidential address to the Anthropological Section of the
British Association at their meeting in Glasgow. Dr. Cunningham was
upheld by Sir Wm. Turner, professor of anatomy at Edinburgh University
and president of the General Medical Council, who, like Sir Sam. Wilks,
the expresident of the College of Physicians, and the late Sir James
Paget, besides others with whom I have not come in contact, have always
kept an open mind on this subject. In Germany, Dr. Landois, professor
of physiology at Griefswalt, has been long urging a reinvestigation of
Gall's doctrines; Dr. R. Sommer, professor of clinical psychiatry at
Griessen, recommends it, not dogmatically, but as a working hypothesis;
and the Swiss professor of physiology, Dr. Von Bunge, in his text-book
just published, acts as pioneer in devoting two chapters to a
rehabilitation of Gall; Dr. Mobius, of Leipsic, has published several
books on the same subject, and, quite lately, the renowned professor of
psychiatry in the University of Vienna, Dr. R. Von Krafft-Ebing, has
joined in the defense of this great discovery."

Beecher said that if he were in the pulpit without his knowledge of
phrenology, he would feel like a mariner at sea without a compass; and
he declared: "All my life long I have been in the habit of using
phrenology as that which solves the practical phenomena of life. I
regard it far more useful, practical and sensible than any other system
of mental philosophy which has yet been evolved."

Horace Mann said: "I declare myself a hundred times more indebted to
phrenology than to all the metaphysical works that I ever read. . . . I
look upon phrenology as the guide to philosophy and the handmaid of
Christianity. Whoever disseminates true phrenology is a public
benefactor."

Joseph Cook declared: "Choosing a foreman or clerk, guiding the
education of children, settling my judgment of men in public or private
life, estimating a wife or husband, and their fitness for each other,
or endeavoring to understand myself and to select the right occupation,
there is no advice of which I so often feel the need as that of a
thoroughly able, scientific, experienced and Christian phrenologist."

Oliver Wendell Holmes changed his views on phrenology in his maturer
years and said: "We owe phrenology a great debt. It has melted the
world's conscience in its crucible and cast it in a new mould, with
features less like those of Moloch and more like those of humanity."

Andrew Carnegie said: "Not to know phrenology is sure to keep you
standing on the 'Bridge of Sighs' all your life."

I think the superiority of the phrenological classification of the
mental powers to that of other systems of psychology will be apparent
from the following:

Phrenological Analysis of Mental Faculties.

I. Domestic Propensities (Family Affections).

 1. Amativeness--Love between the sexes.
 2. Conjugality--Matrimony, love of one.
 3. Parental Love--Regard for offspring, pets, etc.
 4. Friendship, sociability.
 5. Inhabitiveness--Love of home.
 6. Continuity--One thing at a time.

II. Selfish Propensities (Lookout for "No. 1").

   1. Vitativeness--Love of life.
   2. Combativeness--Resistance, defense.
   3. Destructiveness--Executiveness, force.
   4. Alimentiveness--Appetite, hunger.
   5. Acquisitiveness--Accumulation.
   6. Secretiveness--Policy, management.
   7. Bibativeness--Fondness for liquids.

III. Selfish Sentiments (Promote Self-interests).

   1. Cautiousness--Prudence, provision.
   2. Approbativeness--Ambition, display.
   3. Self-esteem--Self-respect, dignity.
   4. Firmness--Decision, perseverance.

IV. Moral Sentiments (Religion and Morality).

   1. Conscientiousness--Justice, equity.
   2. Hope--Expectation, enterprise.
   3. Spirituality--Intuition, faith, credulity.
   4. Veneration--Devotion, respect.
   5. Benevolence--Kindness, goodness.

V. Semi-intellectual Sentiments (Self-perfecting Group).

   1. Constructiveness--Mechanical ingenuity.
   2. Ideality--Refinement, taste, purity.
   3. Sublimity--Love of grandeur, infinitude.
   4. Imitation--Copying, patterning.
   5. Mirthfulness--Jocoseness, wit, fun.
   6. Human Nature--Perception of motives.
   7. Agreeableness--Pleasantness, suavity.

VI. Intellectual Faculties.

   1. Perceptive Faculties (Perceive physical qualities).

    (1) Individuality--Observation, desire to see.
    (2) Form--Recollection of shape.
    (3) Size--Measuring by the eye.
    (4) Weight--Balancing, climbing.
    (5) Color--Judgment of colors.
    (6) Order--Method, system, arrangement.
    (7) Calculation--Mental arithmetic.
    (8) Locality--Recollection of places.

   2. Semi-perceptive or Literary Faculties.

    (1) Eventuality--Memory of facts.
    (2) Time--Cognizance of duration.
    (3) Tune--Sense of harmony and melody.
    (4) Language--Expression of ideas.

   3. Reasoning or Reflective Faculties.

    (1) Causality--Applying causes to effects.
    (2) Comparison--Inductive reasoning.

NOTE.--These definitions are taken from "The Self-instructor," Fowler &
Wells Co., New York, the leading phrenological publishing-house.

I have received more help for my practical work in the ministry from
phrenology than from any other half-dozen studies, except the Bible.
Even if its physical basis could not be substantiated, its analysis of
the mental faculties is far better and more helpful than that of any
other system of psychology. While it places the intellectual, moral and
spiritual faculties at the top as supreme, it is just as vitally
interested in the care of the body, education, discipline,
self-culture, choice of occupation, matrimonial adaptation, heredity
and all the practical affairs of life. How could a person be more
healthy, happy and successful than by normally and harmoniously
developing all his faculties as phrenology points them out to him?

Phrenology teaches that the mind has certain elementary, selective
instincts, or propensities and sentiments, that attract to them the
mental food germane to their function just as the various cells of the
body select from the blood the elements required. I say that these
instincts have selective power, but they are subject to perversion, and
dependent upon the guidance of judgment and knowledge, just as
conscience does. Take, for example, the appetite for different kinds of
food, the faculty of music, judgment of color, beauty, etc.; and you
will see at once that they have selective power, but that this power
can become perverted, and thus lead to great difference of opinion.
Notice that while these faculties are not infallible guides, and need
the earnest help of other faculties to be the most useful to us, no one
can deny that they point toward truth on these subjects, and are our
proper and only guides along these lines.

Some of the faculties of the mind inspire the specialized affections;
as, love for wife, children, home, friends, etc., which are at the very
foundation of our Christian civilization. These special affections have
their proper claims upon us, and in so far as they are neglected we
become unhappy; but when they exert more than their proper influence,
they warp our judgment and more or less unbalance our character. How
many people are blinded to truth because of selfish love for their
children, or their home, or their party, or their church.

There are some things that the feelings cannot do. For example, they
cannot give us information about facts outside of the mind. The faculty
of love cannot reveal to a young man the existence of a young lady; but
when he gets acquainted with her through what he sees and hears, he can
feel that he loves her; and after learning that she is willing to
become his, he can and will feel happy because of the fact. The world
is full of folly, division and fanaticism because people look to their
feelings or impressions for things that they cannot furnish. Thus
people have claimed immediate knowledge of God, of pardon, of the will
of God, of their perfection and security, etc., through their feelings.
It is true that God created all nations "that they should seek God, if
haply they might feel [Professor Green says the Greek word here means
'to feel or grope for or after, as persons in the dark'] after him and
find him" (Acts 17:27). When we see the condition of the heathen
nations to whom the revelation of the Bible has not come, we must admit
that they are indeed "groping or feeling in the dark after God," as
their superstitions and idolatries abundantly testify.

Of course people feel good whenever they follow their conscience, or
best conviction of duty; but the feeling of conscience cannot tell them
of the gospel of Christ, and of the pardon it makes possible to them.
Just as people who trust their "reason," or their "think so's," as the
voice of God, naturally reject the Bible as a revelation from God, so
those that trust their "feel so's" will naturally have no use for the
Bible in conversion, sanctification or as an evidence of pardon. It is
easy to become so self-confident about our feelings, or impressions, as
to believe them to be axiomatic truths or direct revelations from God.
This has been one of the most fruitful sources of strife and divisions
in religion, and the handicap that for centuries held the world in
medieval darkness. The false prophets of the Old Testament were very
religious men. That is, they had strong hereditary religious faculties.
But these strong religious feelings, perverted, led them to trusting
the imaginations and impressions of their hearts as the will of God
instead of following his will as revealed in the Bible (Jer. 23:16, 17,
28, 30-32).

Conscience is a safe guide; but it is not an infallible guide, and it
is our duty to perfect it day by day by seeking more truth and obeying
it. Our instincts or feelings are safe guides within certain
limitations; but they are not perfect guides, and it is our duty to
strengthen, guide and restrain them with the knowledge and help that
other faculties can supply.

The Intellect.

Let us now see what light we can get concerning the intellect. What are
its functions and limitations? Is it safe as a guide? According to the
phrenological classification, the intellectual faculties are divided
into three classes; viz.: the perceptive, literary and reasoning
faculties. The perceptive faculties bring us into relationship with the
external world, and through them we learn about the color, size, form,
weight, etc., of material objects. If the phrenologists are right, then
neither those who claim that the mind is like a blank sheet and knows
nothing but what it gets from without, nor those who ascribe almost
everything to innate, intuitive ideas, are wholly correct. As usual,
the truth lies midway between the two extremes. The mind has innate,
intuitive powers of perception, selection and discrimination without
which material objects, events and thoughts could make no more
impression upon us than upon a fence-rail. But these innate powers are
subject to improvement by heredity and culture and their dictates must
be carefully watched and corrected by other faculties, as they are
fallible and most of them subject to perversion and delusion. As the
conscience and sentiments although not infallible, are our only guides
in their sphere; so our perceptive faculties are good and safe, but not
perfect, guides. These perceptive faculties, in a measure, help and
correct each other's impressions; and through optical illusions,
expectant attention, dreams, etc., we learn that their dictates must be
carefully watched and verified. The latest voice of science is that all
the sensation produced by physical stimulants can also be produced by
the imagination; so that people can feel cold, heat, pain, etc., when
there is no physical cause for them. These things should not make us
skeptical about our perceptive powers, but rather cautiously critical.

If we turn to the reasoning faculties we find that they have been the
cause of most contention and misunderstanding. On the one hand have
been the extreme intuitionalists, or deductive theorizers, who for
centuries limited philosophical thought almost entirely to fruitless,
abstract, deductive reasoning based upon premises that had no real
foundation in facts. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, the mind may
become so accustomed to conceiving of a thing as true that it seems
like an axiomatic truth, although facts discovered later may show that
it was an error. Thus the time was before modern discoveries, when
people could not conceive of persons living under the earth walking
with their heads down, or of objects attracted towards each other
without some material object to connect them and thus draw them
together.

Other extremists have looked upon the mind as a blank sheet, or have
become so skeptical of its intuitive impressions that they mistrust its
guidance almost entirely, especially in religious matters; although,
strange to say, they inconsistently seem to trust it all the more in
material things.

It cannot be denied that our "think so's," "feel so's," impressions,
prejudices and inherited or preconceived ideas may seem as infallible
to us as any so-called axiomatic or intuitive truths. This delusion of
the mind has led to multitudes of errors and has held people in bondage
to ignorance and superstition in all centuries and in all countries. It
has ever been the greatest hindrance to progress. Closely allied to
this and reinforcing it is the inertia of the mind, through which it
naturally continues to run in the grooves in which it has been running.
After awhile the grooves or ruts become so deep and smooth that it
seems next to impossible to turn out of them without breaking something
or upsetting the mental team. We see on every hand how hard it is to
get away from the ideas we have inherited or in which we have lived a
long time. When truth, like a vine-dresser, has attempted to trim off
these unnecessary and injurious accretions, it has always raised the
hue and cry that the foundations of truth were being destroyed.

When Mansel, in his Bampton lectures of 1858, showed that the finite
intellect is inadequate and helpless in trying to grasp the truth where
_infinity_ of any kind is involved, the cry was raised that he robbed
reason of its glory and authority, tore away the very foundation of
religion and of all truth, and opened the way to all kinds of
skepticism. But the very purpose of that marvelous piece of reasoning
was to lead people to the truth as revealed in the Bible and to keep
them from setting it aside or robbing it of its power because it
transcends their finite intellects. Good but misled people, in all
ages, have set aside or limited God's Word by their "think so's" or
"feel so's," which were mistakingly taken as an infallible test of
truth. Just as man by feeling knew not God (Acts 17:27), so man by
wisdom knew not God; and it pleased God by the foolishness of a
revealed gospel to save such as accept it by faith (I Cor. 1:21).
President Schurman voices the highest conclusion of philosophy when he
says that the farthest reason can go is to assert that _God is
necessary as a working theory_. To this we can add conceptions of God
revealed in our moral nature (Rom. 1:19, 20). But what a lifeless
skeleton this is compared to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ our
Saviour.

Bacon, Locke, Mill and others have joined in the battle to destroy a
false trust in subjective impressions without subjecting them to a
fearless test of observed facts as revealed in experience, observation
and testimony. This is not intellectual skepticism that destroys all
the authority of reason and leaves us to imbecility. Just as the
conscience, sentiments and perceptive faculties are our safe, proper
and necessary guides, although not infallible, so our logical reason is
our safe and necessary guide to truth, although helpless to grasp and
understand infinite truths and likely to deceive us unless we carefully
test its impressions or conceptions by experience and facts. Reason is
the eye of the intellect as conscience is of the moral nature. But as
the eye is helpless as a guide without light, and the conscience
without love, so reason is helpless and worthless as a guide without
facts. There is no conflict between theory and practise if the theory
takes into consideration all the facts. For example, if from the fact
that a horse can trot a mile in three minutes on the race-track, one
should conclude that he can trot from one city to another five miles
away in fifteen minutes, the theory would be false, because it did not
take into consideration the condition of the road and the fact that a
horse cannot keep up the same speed for a long distance. Whatever
impressions or conceptions of the mind may be self-evident or axiomatic
truths, it is certain that our highest conception of truth must be
taken as our only and necessary guide; but, knowing the variable part
of our judgment, and knowing how very likely we are to be mistaken in
our "think so's" and "feel so's," we should ever be on the alert to
verify or rectify our convictions by the help of experience and facts.
The question as to how much of our intellectual power is intuitive and
innate, or how much is acquired and dependent upon truth learned by
induction, is not so important after all. For the powers of the mind
which enable it to learn truths through induction from facts observed
and experienced come from God just as much as the powers that enable us
to see truth intuitively.

If we take the consensus of all the mental faculties, we have the
wonderful human intelligence created but little lower than the angels
and crowned with glory and honor (Ps. 8:5). Created in the very image
of God himself (Gen. 1:27), man is an intelligence with the threefold
guidance of intellect, conscience and sentiments which give him
abundant light for his daily walk in the fear of the Lord. But even our
so-called "consciousness," including all these powers, is fallible and
subject to deception, perversion and delusion and therefore it needs
the help of the truth revealed in the Bible and the help of all the
truth we can learn from life and science to enable us to fulfill our
highest destiny and to continue to progress Godward and heavenward.

Let us remember that love is the arch that unites and supports all the
mental faculties and all the operations of the mind. On it hang all the
law and prophets, and the gospel as well. Let us rejoice and glory in
our wonderful heritage of intelligence, but, knowing the limitations of
our finite minds, let us walk humbly before God and our fellow-men.




CHAPTER IV.

LOOKING THROUGH COLORED GLASSES.


Differences of Opinion; the Cause and Cure. What Should Be Our Attitude
Toward Those Who Differ from Us?

The above headings will give you some idea of the matter I wish to
bring before you in this chapter. From the previous chapters you will
learn that it was through years of bitter experience that I was
prepared to write this chapter. I write it in love and humility and
pray that it may be blessed in warning many of pitfalls in searching
for truth and may lead to more charity in dealing with those who differ
from us.

I have spoken of the sad and lamentable differences of opinion among
the best people on earth during all times and on all subjects. What was
said in the previous chapter about the fallible, variable voices of the
different parts of the mind blazes the way for a more detailed study of
these factors in leading people to error and therefore into divisions.
Learning of these weaknesses of the mind, that so easily lead to a
perversion of truth, one might hastily conclude that there is no norm
of truth and therefore that people cannot see alike. Indeed, the
differences of opinion in religion and other matters are often condoned
by the assertion that "people cannot see alike." Is this true, and, if
so, how far?

Over against the statement that people cannot see things alike, I put
the indisputable statement that they cannot possibly see things
_unlike_ if they see them at all. Every person on earth sees red as
red, unless, indeed, he is color blind, and then he does not see it at
all, in the proper sense of the word. Two and two make four to every
mind in the universe. Given the same premises, every logical mind will
come to the same conclusion and cannot possibly come to any other
conclusion. The whole law and order of the universe is based upon this
fact, and without it no science or order would be possible.

We will discover that the differences of opinion among men are not to
be ascribed to the intellect so much as to the will and sensibilities.
We wish to refer now to a chief cause of division of opinion, and the
only one that involves blame; viz.: the human will. Multitudes of
people are divided who see things alike and are of the same opinion so
far as the intellect is concerned, but the trouble lies in the will
power. They deliberately do that which they know is not right, for
selfish reasons. If this were the only cause of division, our problem
would be an easy one. For then the only proper attitude of the
righteous towards those who differ from them, would be that of
unqualified opposition. Indeed, we are always tempted to act on this
basis by trusting in ourselves that we are right, and treating those
who differ from us as wrong and guilty and as deserving nothing but our
condemnation. If guilt were the only cause of division, we would have
but two political parties, the one containing all the righteous and the
other all the wicked. From a religious standpoint there would be but
two classes; viz., saints and sinners. But the problem before us is not
such an easy one. The causes that lead to differences of opinion are
numerous and complex. It is not an easy matter to get at the truth,
although we might think at first thought that it is. Every one seems to
be surrounded by an atmosphere that reflects, refracts, bends, twists,
distorts and colors the rays of truth as they come to him.

Neither age, talent, experience, education, piety nor honesty make a
man error-proof; as may be readily discovered even by a child. For the
people around us who possess these qualities are divided among all the
different religious and political parties. And when people are divided
into different parties, that teach contradictory doctrines, they cannot
possibly all be right, although they may all be wrong.

Inquiring more particularly into the causes of division of opinion,
aside from guilt, we shall discover the following to be among them:
finite, limited faculties, limited and false ideas, obtained through
heredity and ignorance, preconceived ideas and prejudices.

In the search for truth, as in almost everything else, there are two
extremes, both of which should be avoided. On the one hand are those
who are too ready to accept new ideas without proper examination. They
are "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."
At the other extreme stand the narrow, self-righteous bigots who
absolutely refuse to even examine the claim of any truth they do not
already possess. They know it all without finding it out. It matters
not whether you speak of politics, religion or anything else, they know
all about it without investigation. They never read any but their own
party papers and books and never hear any but their own speakers and
preachers.

It is said that a father and son got into a religious discussion. The
father was an infidel and the son tried to convert him to Christianity.
They argued and argued until midnight. Finally the father said, "Son,
there is no use talking, you can't convert me if you argue all night; I
am established." The next morning they went for a load of wood, and as
they left the woods the horse got balky and wouldn't move an inch.
"What is the matter with this horse, anyway?" asked the father. "Why,"
replied the son, "he is established." The Bible says, "Be ye not as the
horse or as the mule, which have no understanding." It is bad enough
for a mule to get balky, but what a pity that man, created in the image
of God, should become balky and refuse to learn the truths that make
for his peace and progress and for the enlargement of the kingdom of
heaven.

An Arabic proverb says: "Mankind are four. He who knows not and knows
not he knows not; he is a fool, shun him. He who knows not and knows
that he knows not; he is simple, teach him. He who knows and knows not
that he knows; he is asleep, wake him. And he who knows and knows that
he knows; he is wise, follow him." The trouble is to know who "knows
not and knows not that he knows not," and who "knows and knows that he
knows." For they both speak with absolute assurance that they are right.

Illustrations of how blissfully ignorant of truth we can be are found
in the facts that Capt. John Smith sailed up the James River to reach
India and that the Indians planted gunpowder.

It is said that on Lookout Mountain there is a building with windows so
constructed that if you look out through the one you see a snowstorm;
through another, you see it raining; while through a third, the sun is
shining. Thus it is that we look at truth through the colored glasses
of prejudice and selfish interests, and see what is not.

Probably you have heard about the two Irishmen who get into a
fist-fight over a soap sign. One insisted that it read "Ivory Soap,"
and the other, "It Floats." They saw it from a different angle, and
that often accounts for differences of opinion.

How expectant attention can deceive us was illustrated a few years ago
when Crystal Palace, London, was on fire. A large throng of people were
in distress because they saw a favorite monkey burning on the roof. The
monkey was later found safe in an adjoining building. It was an old
coat that the imagination of the crowd had transformed into a monkey.
Thus it is that people see ghosts, and almost anything they are looking
for, through a vivid imagination.

In multitudes of cases people are divided because they use words in a
different sense, or misunderstand their significance. Years ago, when I
was keeping my father's books, there used to come into the office a
bright young man who had more natural ability than education. We were
both fond of discussion, and often had informal debates. One day we
debated on "Woman suffrage." I opened up on the subject and as I
proceeded my opponent got restless to reply. When he took the floor he
exploded something as follows: "I am opposed to 'Woman Suf-fer-age'
with every drop of vitality within my skin. I will use hand, tongue and
purse against 'Woman Suf-fer-age.' In short, I am so bitterly opposed
to 'Woman Suf-fer-age' for the all-sufficing reason that I don't want
women to suffer." I said, "Amen!" and we were agreed for once. You
smile, and yet three-fourths of our differences would vanish if we
patiently conferred together long enough to understand each other
clearly.

The courts recognize that the best of people are blinded when their own
interests are involved, and reject jurymen on this basis. Who expects
parents to be perfectly impartial in their judgment when their own
children are involved?

The difference of opinion on the slavery question was largely a matter
of geographical location, and 90 per cent, of us belong to the
political or religious party to which our parents belonged or to the
one to which our associations or environment drew us. Had we been born
in the Catholic Church most of us would be good, faithful Catholics, as
all history demonstrates, and as our own lives in other directions
abundantly prove. In a series of articles entitled "Why I Am What I
Am," one of the most noted preachers in this country candidly admits
that his church relationship is a mere matter of birth. This truth is
not very congenial to our boasted independence of thought and
investigation, but it is the truth nevertheless. The power of the
above-named fetters to hold us in bondage to error is illustrated in
all history, sacred and secular. It took Peter about ten years after
Pentecost, with special miraculous manifestations, to see that Gentiles
were _creatures_ as well as Jews, and that therefore he was
commissioned to preach to them also. Paul, the pious, earnest and
conscientious, "verily thought he was doing God service" in persecuting
the Saviour who had been pointed out as the Christ by many infallible
proofs. The Jews crucified the Lord of glory largely through ignorance,
due to their being blinded by their traditions, or inherited religious
ideas, and therefore Jesus prayed on the cross, "Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do." Luther was mighty in throwing off his
inherited ideas, and yet he retained so many of them that any church
that would to-day practise and teach just as Luther did, would be
considered very near to the Roman Catholic Church. Cotton Mather, one
of the most enlightened men that ever lived, believed in witches and
hung them, and many of the pious and enlightened people of New England
shared this belief with him. Good, pious neighbors will give testimony
in court, as to what they saw and heard, of the most contradictory
character. In nine cases out of ten, we find in the Bible just what we
bring to it; and thus the most pious and best educated see the most
contradictory doctrines in the same passages of Scripture and fight for
them with the greatest tenacity, all in the name of conscience. And the
saddest thing about it all is that all these people show by their
consecrated lives that they love God and are sincerely trying to serve
him. In politics, we see the same pitiable state of affairs. In 1896
about one-half of our good Christian men voted for the free coinage of
silver to save their country, and the other half voted for a gold
standard for the same reason. It does not require any argument to prove
that at least half of these voters were so blinded by ignorance and
party bias that they did not see the truth, and possibly all of them
were. What a great pity that the good Christian people should be thus
divided through party bias and prejudice and go to slaughtering each
other, like the enemies of Israel; so that they simply neutralize each
other's influence and power, while the enemy of right runs off with the
victory and spoil. It is this mixture of the good with the bad in two
political parties that enables evil to hold its own; while if all the
good were united, through the truth, into one political party, arrayed
against all the bad in another political party, they could carry this
country for Jesus Christ at every election.

Having considered the causes that lead to differences of opinion, how,
in the light of these facts, should we treat those who differ from us?

In the first place, we should deal with them in humility. When we see
how the great and good men of all history have been hindered from
seeing the plainest and simplest truths by their inherited and
preconceived ideas, it should take the conceit out of us and make us
very fearful lest we are suffering with the same dread disease. For it
is to be noted that hardly any one who suffers from this malady is
aware of it. Cromwell's words to Parliament will bear a universal
application, when he said, "I beseech you, by the bowels of the Lord,
that you conceive it possible that you may be mistaken." Not only is it
possible, but it is probable, that we are mistaken in a great many of
our ideas. Therefore we should approach others in an humble, teachable
spirit. Let us not imagine that we know it all, and treat those who
differ from us with self-righteous scorn and contempt.

And that leads me to say that we should treat those who differ from us,
with love, respect and sympathy. I believe that more reformers have
been crippled in their efforts by failing in this than in any other
way. We are likely to attribute all our failures to the sin and bad
character of others, when the fault often lies in ourselves. God gives
a vision of some great truth or needed reform; as, for example, the
prohibition of the liquor traffic, or the union of God's people on the
primitive gospel. The message is sweet to us, and so we go on our way
with great joy, feeling sure that we will soon convert everybody to our
righteous cause. But, alas! we soon discover that people will not
convert very fast. Our argument seems to us more clear and infallible
every time we repeat it, and yet the people fail to come to our
position. And so we are likely to lose faith in the people, and come to
the conclusion that it is nothing but sin and guilt that causes them to
reject our message. The next step is to forget our own weaknesses,
trust in ourselves that we are right, and treat with hate and contempt
those who differ from us. Treating our opponents with hate and scorn,
we lose both our humility and Christian character, and develop into the
most hideous and ungodly characters on earth, self-righteous Pharisees.
And so it happens that we reformers often need reformation worse than
those whom we seek to reform. But you say, did not Jesus and the
Apostles severely denounce sinners? Yes, but they always first made
sure that they were sinners. Jesus could read men's hearts and,
therefore, made no mistake, while Paul always reasoned with his
opponents out of the Scriptures in love and humility, and only
condemned them after clear and positive evidence that the fault was in
their motive. Paul says, in writing to Timothy, "the servant of the
Lord must not strive; but must be gentle unto all men, apt to teach,
patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God
peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the
truth." And, where he exhorts to "reprove" and "rebuke," it is with
"all longsuffering." James says, "The wrath of man worketh not the
righteousness of God" We are never commanded to despise, hate or
denounce any man; but, on the other hand, we are to love every one,
even our enemies.

We are all human, and when it is as clear as daylight to us that we
have the truth and argument on our side, it is a great temptation to
cut to pieces and roast our opponents. But is it Christ-like to do it?
Do we forget how long it took us to come to the position that now seems
so clear to us? Some one has said that, in dealing with children, "we
should remember that they are left-handed," and this is certainly true
of people in their relation to truth. The slowness with which people
take up new ideas is a merit as well as a fault. We could have no
stability and progress anywhere if it were not for this inertia in
convictions. "The Athenians and strangers sojourning there spent their
time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing," and
if we would all be occupied in that way, not much would be accomplished
in the world. If we would become disciples of every propagandist whose
arguments we cannot answer on the spur of the moment, there would be
nothing but change and confusion. Realizing the difficulties in the way
of finding truth, and observing how even the wisest and best have been
deceived and ensnared in error, naturally ought to make people
conservative in accepting new ideas, and the same reasons should make
us patient with those who differ from us. They usually need our patient
and sympathetic instruction more than our contempt, hatred and
denunciation.

All this being true, we should never forget, however, that it is our
sacred duty to treat those who differ from us, _in truth_. There are
two attitudes that are very easy to take. The one is to treat our
differences with childish sentimentalism, saying, "Peace, peace," when
there is or ought not to be any peace. The other is to hate and abuse
those who differ from us, and to treat their opinions as beneath our
contempt. But the difficult thing to do is to tell the whole truth, as
we see it, and to do it in love and humility. We are under obligation
to tell the truth boldly whatever the outcome may be. To those who
threaten us and command us not to tell the truth, we must reply in the
language of Peter and John: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to
hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak
the things which we have seen and heard." When people cry, "Peace,
peace," at the expense of truth and right, and want us to speak "smooth
things" instead of God's Word, we must take warning from God's words to
Ezekiel, which apply to every preacher of truth, "When I say unto the
wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor
speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life: the
same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require
at thine hand." Paul went into the Jewish synagogues repeatedly to lead
them into the full truth, although he raised strife and contention in
so doing, and even suffered violence at their hands. Unfortunately, a
large per cent. of Christians have formed a conspiracy of silence on
matters in which they differ. We have so little of the Spirit of Christ
that we cannot even talk over our differences without getting angry and
exhibiting the fruits of the flesh. And so we say, "We will agree to
disagree," and we continue to nourish, pet and worship our differences
as if they were gods. This puts a mighty padlock on the growth into the
unity of the faith and knowledge and judgment which Christ and the
Apostles enjoined upon us. We need to get the New Testament conception
of the hideousness and sinfulness of all divisions among God's people.
And while we recognize the fact that there will always be differences
of opinion as long as we are ignorant and sinful and weak, nevertheless
it is our Christian duty to use our utmost effort to diminish and
remove these differences. There always will be sin in this world but we
dare not be satisfied with it or abide in it; but, on the other hand,
we must fight it with all the power we possess. The same is true with
divisions and differences of opinion.

We must, however, not overlook the important differences between
matters of faith and of opinion. Matters of faith are directly revealed
in the Bible, and upon these all Christians can and must agree as soon
as they get a fair look at them. While matters of opinion, which are
not directly revealed in the Bible, but are inferred from things
revealed, are important, they are not all important, like matters of
faith. But the more we overcome the hindrances to finding truth, of
which we have spoken, the more we will be of the same mind and judgment
in all things. For truth is not divided, and we will all see it alike
in so far as we see clearly. As a rule, we can readily unite on the
most important truths, and therefore on those we need to unite on for
our present duty. While, if, through lack of faith, we turn away from
the clear duty to seek one that is easier, and requires less sacrifice,
we usually become hopelessly divided and thus fail in our effort.

In conclusion, having a clear conception of the baneful and ruinous
effect of differences of opinion, and being aware of the powerful
causes which hinder us from getting at the truth and thus divide us,
let us strive day and night, in prayer and labor, to get the truth
ourselves and to lead others into the truth. For in and through the
truth, we shall, with "one mind" and "one soul," go conquering and to
conquer, in the name of King Jesus, for the enlargement of his kingdom
of love, peace and joy.




PART II.

HOW I FOUND CHRIST'S CHURCH


CHAPTER I.

SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM.


One of the chief things that led me to identify myself with the people
working for Christian union, was my experience with regard to baptism.
Indeed, I am more and more convinced that baptism is the main key to
the question of Christian union. We can differ on questions of
theoretical theology and still work together in harmony in practical
Christian activities. But if we differ on the question of baptism, we
cannot take the first step in preaching the gospel and in leading souls
to Christ, in the New Testament way, without getting into conflict. The
only way that union meetings of different denominations have been at
all possible, has been by ignoring the plain teaching and practice of
the Apostles on the question of baptism. We never can have Christian
union in the authority of Christ, which is the only union which will
satisfy his prayer and demand, until we agree on the two simple
ordinances which are the forms in which the gospel embodies itself to
bless our souls. And, fortunately, these are the easiest things to
unite on. When free from prejudice, there is no question on which
Christians can more easily agree than that of baptism, as the testimony
of the scholars and churches that follow in this chapter abundantly
demonstrate. The consummation of Christian union will have to patiently
wait until inherited and acquired prejudices become sufficiently
allayed so that all Christians can look at the question of baptism
dispassionately. Then it will be discovered that we all agree on this
question and the main barrier to Christian union will be removed. In
our weakness we want to procure Christian union without giving up our
sectarian ideas that have been superadded to the New Testament
teaching, and that have caused our division. And so we try to
compromise by "agreeing to disagree" or by ignoring the teachings of
the New Testament. But such efforts must be futile and disappointing.
We can never unite on the gospel until we agree in the gospel teaching.
We can never unite in obeying the Master until we unite in our opinions
as to what the Master has commanded us to do. But, thank God, the field
is rapidly ripening for this agreement and consequent union.

As is usually the case, I received my early ideas on baptism by
heredity and environment, so far as I had any ideas on the subject. The
religious people with whom I was associated in my early life taught and
practiced sprinkling and infant baptism, and, of course, I assumed that
they must be right in the matter. Although I read the Bible through
several times, I did not see its teaching on this subject, as I was not
particularly interested in it. For reasons explained in previous
chapters--that we look through colored glasses--multitudes of people
daily read their Bible who never see what is in it; but imagine, as a
matter of course, that it teaches what they bring to it through
hereditary and preconceived ideas.

As already stated, I was first led to think on this subject while I
studied New Testament Greek under President Cary, of the Meadville
Theological School. When we came to the word _baptizoo_, Dr. Cary told
the class that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of the
word in the mouth of Jesus was _to immerse_. This statement was a great
surprise to me, and I decided to discover for myself whether this was
the fact or not. This was the beginning of my investigation of the
subject of baptism. I found that Dr. Cary was correct in his statement.
What influenced me greatly was the fact that the German rationalists,
who are recognized as among the best scholars of the world, and who are
perfectly impartial on this subject, as they do not care what the Bible
teaches about baptism, all say that baptism is immersion, without ever
hinting at a possibility for difference of opinion. I investigated the
matter for several years, as I found opportunity, until there was not
the shadow of a doubt left in my mind that immersion is New Testament
baptism.

While a student at Oberlin Theological Seminary, I found that all the
authorities they used in New Testament Greek, taught immersion, while
their churches practise sprinkling. In studying Hebrews in the Greek,
we used Dr. Westcott's commentary. When we came to Heb. 10:22, "having
our bodies washed with pure water," Dr. Westcott said this referred to
the "laver of regeneration" or the primitive practice of immersion.
When we studied Romans in Greek, we used Dr. Sanday's International
Critical Commentary. The professor told us it was the very best and
probably would be for years to come. When we came to Rom. 6:4, "buried
with him through baptism," Dr. Sanday never raised a doubt about the
meaning, but in eloquent words spoke about the beautiful representation
of burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism. This astonished me
very much, as Drs. Westcott and Sanday were noted Episcopalian
scholars, and the Episcopal churches practise sprinkling. We used Dr.
Thayer's New Testament Greek lexicon, which the professor informed us
was the very best in the English language. This lexicon defined
_baptizoo_ as meaning _to dip_, and never hinted that sprinkling or
pouring might be its meaning. As I said above, I found Dr. Cary correct
in claiming that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of
the word in the mouth of Jesus was _to immerse_, and I have never been
able to get hold of a single New Testament lexicon that defines
_baptizoo_ as ever meaning to sprinkle or pour.

The following chart and facts will help us to get at the truth about
the meaning of the Greek word _baptizoo_ without quoting from a long
list of lexicons:

[Illustration: A STUDY IN MEANING OF WORDS.]

You notice in the chart that we have three separate and distinct words
in the Greek for immersion, sprinkling and pouring; and these words
have their primary or proper, secondary or tropical meanings, all of
which must be differentiated. The primary or proper meaning has
reference to specific acts, the secondary meaning refers to things done
by means of these specific acts, while the tropical or metaphorical
meaning departs from the specific meaning of the words and therefore
cannot have reference to the specific outward acts indicated by the
words. For this reason it is a law of language, recognized by all
scholars, that you must give a word its primary or proper meaning when
it is employed in commanding an outward act, unless the context demands
another meaning.

Notice the English words _shoot_, _hang_ and _poison_. These express
specific outward acts; and, then, in their secondary meaning, they mean
to kill, but always to kill in the way indicated by the primary meaning
of the word. A man can be hung, shot or poisoned without being killed;
but if it is reported that he was hung, shot or poisoned, we would all
understand that he was killed. However, you cannot conceive of words so
changing their meaning, that when it is said a man was hung, it means
that he was shot, or when it is said he was poisoned, it means he was
hung. No more is it conceivable that when the Greek word _baptizoo_ (to
immerse) was used, it meant to cleanse by sprinkling (_rantizoo_), or
when the word _rantizoo_ (to sprinkle) was used, it meant to cleanse by
immersing (_baptizoo_). These words refer primarily to separate and
distinct outward acts. It is true they may meet in their secondary
meaning in the idea _to cleanse_; but they always refer to cleansing in
the way indicated by the primary meaning of the word used. When they
travel so far from their primary or proper meaning, which has reference
to specific outward acts, that their meaning is said to be tropical or
metaphorical, they lose their specific idea and have no longer any
reference to the specific acts denoted by the words.

It is true that words can and do often change or enlarge their meaning.
But this is always to supply a need created by the lack of a proper
word to express an associated idea. Now, both the specific and general
ideas with reference to the application of water are so copiously
supplied with words in the Greek, that they preclude the necessity of
changing the meaning of a word like _baptizoo_ to supply such a need.
We have _louoo_, to wash or bathe the body; _niptoo_, to wash a part of
the body, as the hands, feet, face, etc.; _plunoo_, to wash clothes;
_brechoo_, to wet, to rain; _katharizoo_, to cleanse; _ekcheoo_, to
pour; _rantizoo_, to sprinkle; _baptizoo_, to immerse, etc.

Thus we have a threefold guard to keep _baptizoo_ to its primary or
proper meaning of _to dip_ or _immerse_. First, an abundance of Greek
words to express every general and specific idea about the application
of water, except that of immersion; second, the fact that a tropical
meaning of a word cannot refer to the specific outward act indicated by
the word; and third, the law of interpretation which demands that a
word be given its primary or proper meaning in commandments, or plain
narrative, unless the context expressly demands a different meaning.

The above definitions of the word _baptizoo_ are taken from Dr.
Thayer's "New Testament Greek Lexicon." In reply to letters inquiring
about Dr. Thayer's "New Testament Greek Lexicon," the following
answers-were received. It is the "best" (Professor Hodge, of
Princeton); it is the "very best" (Dr. Alexander, of Vanderbilt
University); "nothing can compare with it" (Dr Hersman, president of
the Southwestern Presbyterian University). This opinion is practically
made unanimous from the fact that Dr. Thayer's Lexicon is used at all
of the leading schools in the country.

A request for an authoritative lexicon that gives "sprinkle" or "pour"
as a meaning of _baptizoo_, elicited the following answers: "There is
no such lexicon" (Professor Humphreys, of the University of Virginia,
and Professor D'ooge, of Colby University); "I know of none" (Professor
Flagg, of Cornell); "I do not know of any" (Professor Tyler, of
Amherst). "_Baptizoo_ means _to immerse_. All lexicographers and
critics of any note are agreed in this."--_Dr. Moses Stuart._

Thus we learn, through the testimony of experts, without consulting all
the numerous Greek lexicons, that they define the word _baptizoo_ as
meaning _to immerse_ and that none of them say it means _to sprinkle_
or _to pour_.

The great mass of Christians know nothing about the Greek experts who
make the lexicons, but are much better acquainted with and influenced
by the great church leaders and church standards. Therefore we present
the following quotations:

_Scholars and Churches Admit that Christ Taught Immersion._

NOTE.--These quotations are taken from a tract of mine on baptism.

I. _Council of Toledo_, 633 (Catholic): "We observe a single immersion
in baptism."

2. _Council of Cologne_, 1280 (Catholic): "That he who baptizes when he
immerses the candidate in water," etc.

3. _Martini_ (Roman Catholic): "In all of the pontificals and rituals I
have seen (except that of Madeleine de Beulieu), and I have seen many,
ancient as well as more recent, immersion is prescribed."

4. _Dollinger_ (Roman Catholic): "Baptism was administered by an entire
immersion in water." (Chu. History, vol. 2, p. 294.) "A mere pouring or
sprinkling was never thought of." (First Age of Chu., p. 318.) "Baptism
by immersion continued to be the prevailing practice of the church as
late as the fourteenth century." (Hist. Ch., vol. 2, p. 295.)

5. _Ritual of Greek Catholic Church_: "The priest immerses him, saying
the servant of God is immersed, in the name of the Father," etc.

6. _Russian Catechism_ (Greek Catholic): "This they hold to be a point
necessary, that no part of the child be undipped in water," etc.

7. _Alex. De Stourdza_ (native Greek): "The verb baptize, _immergo_,
has, in fact, but one sole acceptation. It signifies, literally and
always, to plunge. Baptism and immersion are, therefore, identical, and
to say baptism is by aspersion is as if one should say, immersion by
aspersion, or any other absurdity of the same nature." (Con. sur LaDoc.
et L'Esprit, p. 87.)

8. _Dr. Kyriasko_, of University of Athens, Greece: "The verb baptize
in the Greek language never has the meaning of to pour or to sprinkle,
but invariably that of to dip." (Letter to C. G. Jones, Lynchburg, Va.)

9. _Syrian Ritual_ (Nestorians): "The priest immerses him in water,
saying such a one is baptized in the name of the Father," etc.

10. _Martin Luther_: "Baptism is a Greek word. In Latin it can be
translated immersion, as when we plunge something into water, that it
may be completely covered with water; they ought to have been
completely immersed." (The Sacrament of Baptism.)

11. _Lutheran Catechism_, p. 216: "In what did this act (baptism)
consist?" Answer: "The one to be baptized was first immersed in water,
signifying death, and then he was drawn out again and was dressed with
a new dress, as if he now were a different new being."

12. _John Calvin_ (Presbyterian): "The word baptize signifies to
immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed by
the ancient church." (Inst. Book 4, c. 15.)

13. _Richard Baxter_ (Presbyterian): "It is commonly confessed by us to
the Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that in the Apostles'
time the baptized were dipped over head in the water." (Dis. Right to
Sac., p. 70.)

14. _Dr. W. D. Powell_, while in Athens, Greece, wrote: "I found that
all churches in Greece--the Presbyterian included--are compelled to
immerse candidates for baptism, for, as one of the professors remarked,
'the commonest day laborer understands nothing else for _baptizoo_ but
immersion.'"

15. _Zwingle_ (Reformed): "When ye were immersed into the water of
baptism, ye wrere engrafted into the death of Christ." (Com. Rom. 6:3.)

16. _John Wesley_ (Methodist): "We are buried with him, alluding to the
ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." (Notes on N. T., Rom. 6:4.)
"Baptized according to the custom of the first church and the rule of
the Church of England, by immersion." (Journal, vol. I, p. 20.) In
Savannah, Ga., Sept., 1737, Wesley was found guilty of breaking the
laws of the realm, among other things "by refusing to baptize Mr.
Parker's child otherwise than by dipping." (Jour., vol. I, pp. 42, 43.)

17. _The Methodist Discipline_ of 1846, and the old Discipline compiled
by Wesley himself, assert that "Jesus was baptized in the river of
Jordan, and that the sixth of Romans means simply a burial in water."

18. _Adam Clark_ (Methodist): "As they received baptism as an emblem of
death, in voluntarily going under the water, so they received it as an
emblem of the resurrection into eternal life, in coming up out of the
water." (Com., vol. 4, N. T.)

19. _Prayer Book_ (Church of England): "The priest shall dip him in the
water, discreetly and warily."

20. _Conybeare and Howson_ (Episcopalians): "It is needless to add that
baptism was administered by immersion, the convert being plunged
beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of
sin, then raised from this momentary burial to represent his
resurrection to the life of righteousness. It must be a subject of
regret that the general discontinuance of this original form of baptism
has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important
passages of Scripture." (Life of St. Paul.)

26. _Prof. L. L. Paine_ (Congregational): "It may be honestly asked by
some, Was immersion the primitive form of baptism? As to the question
of fact, the testimony is ample and decisive. It is a point on which
ancient, medieval and modern historians alike, Catholic and Protestant,
Lutheran and Calvinist, have no controversy. No historian who cares for
his reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of
the name would wish to."

27. _Dr. George Campbell_ (Presbyterian): "I have heard a disputant of
this stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word
rendered in the N. T. baptize means more properly to sprinkle than to
plunge. One who argues in this manner never fails, with persons of
knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend; and though in respect
to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as arguments,
sometimes better, yet a candid mind will disdain to take the help of a
falsehood even in support of the truth." (Lect. on Pul. El. Lect, 10,
pp. 294, 295.)

28. _Philip Schaff_ (Un. Theo. Sem.): "The baptism of Christ in the
river Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the N. T., are
all in favor of immersion rather than sprinkling, as is freely admitted
by the best exegetes, Catholic and Protestant, English and German.
Nothing can be gained by an unnatural exegesis." (Teaching of Apostles,
pp. 55,56.)

29. _Paul_: "We are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so
we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4.)

30. _Peter_ says our bodies are washed in baptism, (1 Pet. I:23.)

31. _Mark_: "Jesus--was baptized in [Marg., Greek, _into_] the Jordan"
(Mark 1:9, A. R. V.). He could not have been baptized _into the water_
without being immersed.

_Churches Have Changed Immersion to Sprinkling_.

1. The first record of sprinkling for baptism is that of Novatian, A.
D. 250. It was thought he was dying and, as he could not be immersed,
they sprinkled water on him. Thus originated what was called _clinic_
or _death-bed_ baptism. Its introduction was vigorously opposed for
centuries and clinics were not admitted to sacred orders, many doubting
their baptism.

2. _Pope Stephen III_. In 754 the monks of Cressy asked Stephen III.:
"Is it lawful, in case of necessity, occasioned by sickness, to baptize
an infant by pouring water on its head from a cup or the hands?" The
Pope replied: "Such a baptism, performed in such a case of necessity,
shall be accounted valid." Basnage says: "This was accounted the first
law against immersion."

3. _The Council of Ravenna_, 1311, decreed: "Baptism is to be
administered by trine aspersion or immersion." This was the first
authority for sprinkling except in case of sickness.

4. _Cardinal Gibbons_ (R. Catholic): "Since the twelfth century the
practice of baptizing by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church,
as this manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by
immersion." (Faith of Our Fathers, p. 275.)

5. _Bishop of Bossuet_ (R. Catholic): "The case (communion under one
kind) was much the same as that of baptism by immersion, as clearly
grounded on Scripture as communion under both kinds could be, and
which, nevertheless, had been changed into infusion, with as much ease
and as little contradiction as communion under one kind was
established, so that the same reason stood for retaining one as the
other. It is a fact most certainly avowed in the Reformation, although
some will cavil at it, that baptism was instituted by immersing the
whole body in water. This fact, I say, is unanimously acknowledged by
all the divines of the Reformation: by Luther, by Melancthon, by
Calvin, by Casaubon, by Grotius, by all the rest." (Varia. Protest.,
vol. 2, p. 370.)

6. _Archbishop Kenrick_ (R. Catholic): "The change of discipline which
has taken place as to baptism should not surprise us, for, although the
church is but the dispenser of the sacraments which her Divine Spouse
instituted, she rightfully exercises a discretionary power as to the
manner of their adminstration. Immersion was well suited to the Eastern
nations, whose habits and climate prepared them for it, and was,
therefore, practiced in the commencement, whenever necessity did not
prevent it. Cases, which at first were exceptional, gradually
multiplied, so that, at length, the ordinary mode of baptism was by
affusion. The church wisely sanctioned that which, although less
solemn, is equally effectual. The power of binding and loosing, which
she received from Christ, warrants this exercise of governing wisdom.
It is not for the individuals to question a right which has been at all
times claimed and exercised by those to whom the dispensation of the
mysteries is divinely intrusted." (Kenrick on Bap., p. 174.)

7. _Haydock, Endorsed by Pope Pius IX_.: "The church, which cannot
change the least article of faith, is not so tied up in matters of
discipline and ceremony. Not only the Catholic Church, but also the
pretended reformed churches, have altered the primitive custom in
giving the sacrament of baptism and now allow of baptisms by sprinkling
and pouring water upon the person baptized." (Notes on Douay Bible,
Matt. 3:16.)

8. _Lutheran Catechism_, p. 208: "What is baptism?" Answer: "To dip
under water." "Do we still baptize in that way?" Answer: "No; because
of the rough climate, the subject now is only sprinkled."

9. _John Calvin_ (Presbyterian): "Wherefore the church did grant
liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat,
excepting the substance. It is of no consequence at all whether the
person that is baptized is totally immersed, or whether he is merely
sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter of choice to
the churches in different regions."

10. _Westminster Assembly_ (Presbyterian), 1643: "In the Assembly of
Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether
immersion or sprinkling should be adopted; 25 voted for sprinkling, and
24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the
earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in
that assembly." (Edinburgh Ency., vol. 3, p. 236.)

11. _Dr. Wall_ (Episcopalian): "One would have thought that the cold
countries should have been the first that should have changed the
custom from dipping to affusion. But by history it appears that the
cold climates held the custom of dipping as long as any; for England,
which is one of the coldest, was one of the latest that admitted this
alteration of the ordinary way. . . . The offices or liturgies for
public baptism in the Church of England did all along, so far as I can
learn, enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling.
The Prayer Book, printed in 1549, adds: 'And if the child be weak, it
shall suffice to pour water upon it'" (Wall's Hist. Inft. Bap., vol. 3,
pp. 575,579.)

12. _Dean Stanley_ (Episcopalian): In speaking of immersion, he says:
"The cold climate of Russia has not been found an obstacle to its
continuance throughout that vast empire. Even in the Church of England
it is still observed in theory. The Rubric in the public baptism for
infants enjoins that, unless for special causes, they are to be dipped,
not sprinkled." (Institutes, pp. 18,19.) The Church of England has
changed to sprinkling, but its creed teaches immersion.

13. _Sir John Floyer_: "I have now given what testimony I could find in
our English authors, to prove the practice of immersion from the time
the Britons and Saxons were baptized, till King James' days, when the
people grew peevish with all ancient ceremonies, and through the love
of novelty and the niceness of parents, and the pretense of modesty,
they laid aside immersion." (History of Cold Bathing, p. 61.)

14. _Bishop A. C. Coxe, editor of Ante-Nicene Fathers_ (Episcopalian):
"The word (_baptizo_) means to dip. In the Church of England dipping is
even now the primary rule. But it is not the ordinary custom. It
survived far down into Queen Elizabeth's time, but seems to have died
out early in the seventeenth century. I ought to add that in France
(unreformed) the custom of dipping became obsolete long before it was
disused in England. But for this bad example, my own opinion is, that
dipping would still prevail among Anglicans. I wish that all Christians
would restore the primitive practice." (In a letter to J. T. Christian.)

Thus we have the testimony of all the scholars in all the churches, who
are recognized as Greek experts outside of their own party, that the
New Testament teaches immersion and that it has been changed to
sprinkling and pouring by human authority. We do not believe that this
change was made with a bad motive. It was evidently done in sincerity
and in the honest belief that it was the right thing to do. We must
accept the honest testimony of these scholarly experts that the New
Testament teaches immersion, but we certainly believe they were
mistaken in taking the liberty to change Christ's command. If we take
such liberties, all of the commandments of Christ will soon be set
aside and confusion will be worse confounded. Indeed, it is this very
liberty of substituting what men thought best for the things revealed
in the New Testament, that has caused our present sectarian divisions
by adding human names, creeds, customs, etc., to the primitive gospel.

_Scriptures to Show It is Wrong to Change Christ's Commands_.

"They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the
everlasting covenant" (Isa. 24:5).

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men. For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold
the tradition of men. Ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep
your own tradition. Making the word of God of none effect through your
tradition, which ye have delivered; and many such like things ye do"
(Mark 7:7-9, 13).

"Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man
disannulleth, or addeth thereto" (Gal. 3: 15).

"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat
of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is
as iniquity and idolatry" (I Sam. 15:22,23).

"He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer
shall be abomination" (Prov. 28:9).

"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken
him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. And every one
that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be
likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; and
the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it" (Matt.
7:24, 26,27).

"If ye love me, keep my commandments. He that hath my commandments and
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. If a man love me, he will keep
my words. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you" (John
14: 15,21,23; 15:14). "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things
which I say" (Luke 6:46).

"And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God,
being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers
rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of
him" (Luke 7:29,30.)

"And hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,
and the truth is not in him" (I John 2: 3,4).

But, after all, the very best way for ordinary people to learn the
meaning of baptism, is to go to the English Bible. Although human
authority and prejudice have hindered the translators from translating
the Greek word, and thus telling us what it means in English, the
contexts and sidelights on the subject make its meaning so plain that
all can readily see it if divested of prejudice and preconceived ideas.

By reading the introduction to the English Revised Bible, you will
learn that the translators of the Authorized Version were forbidden to
translate the word. Other translators have followed their example; so
that it is neither translated to _sprinkle, to pour_ nor _to immerse_
in our standard English Bibles. The Greek word _baptisma_ has simply
had the last letter dropped and been carried over into English bodily.
But the word has been translated in numerous editions in various
languages, and whenever it has been translated, it was always by the
word _immerse_ or an equivalent term. No scholar, in any language, has
ever had the temerity to translate it _to sprinkle_ or _to pour_. Even
our English translators translate it when it is not used as an
ecclesiastical term. And when they translate it, they say it means _to
dip_. In 2 Kings 5:14, we read of Naaman, "He went down and _dipped_
[_baptizato_] himself seven times in Jordan." We may not have a
sufficient knowledge of Greek to determine what Jesus meant when he
commanded us to be baptized. But the Apostles certainly understood him;
and if we can find out what they did when they baptized, and we do the
same thing, then we know we are right, and have done what Christ
commanded.

Let us turn to the Sacred Record and see what they did when they
baptized.

We read: "And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and
all they of Jerusalem, and they were baptized of him _in the river
Jordan_, confessing their sins. . . . And it came to pass in those
days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of
John _in_ [Greek _into_, marg. of A. R. V.] _the Jordan_. And
straightway _coming up out of the water_, he saw the heavens opened,
and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:5,9,10). "John
was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, _because there was much water
there_" (John 3:23). "And they _both went down into the water_, both
Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when _they came up out
of the water_ . . . he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:38,39). "We
are _buried_ with him _by baptism_," "_planted_ in the likeness of his
death," "and _raised_ in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom.
6:4,5). "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and _our
bodies washed_ with pure water" (Heb. 10:22). "Except a man be _born of
the water_ and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"
(John 3:5). The italics are mine.

The following chart summarizes our study of baptism in the English
Bible:

         BAPTISM IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE

 THE BIBLE AND IMMERSION    SPRINKLING AND POURING
         REQUIRE:                   REQUIRE:

1. Water. Acts 8:36; 10:47        1. Water

2. Much water. John 3:23          2. Little water

3. Going to water. Mark 1:9       3. Bringing water

4. Going into water. Acts 8:38    4. Staying out of water

5. Putting into water. Mark 1:9   5. Putting water on
          (Margin of A. R. V)

6. Form of burial. Col. 2:12      6. No form of burial

7. Form of planting. Rom 6:5      7. No form of planting

8. Form of birth. John 3:5        8. No form of birth

9. Form of resurrection.          9. No form of resurrection
          Rom. 6:4

10. Form of doctrine. Rom. 6:17   10. No form of doctrine

11. Bodies washed. Heb. 10:22     11. Head wet

12. Coming up out of the water.   12. No getting out
          Mark 1:10

We thus learn that in being baptized they _went to water_, to _much
water_, went _into the water_, were _put into the water_, were _buried
in the water, planted in the water, born out of the water, raised out
of the water_, had their _bodies washed_ and _came up out of the
water_. If we do these things, we are Scripturally baptized and have
been immersed.

The following passages are the only places where sprinkling and pouring
are found in the New Testament:

_Sprinkling and Pouring in the New Testament_.

 1. Heb. 9:13.--Blood.
 2. Heb. 9:19.--Blood.
 3. Heb. 9:21.--Blood.
 4. Heb. 10:22.--Hearts.
 5. Heb. 11:28.--Blood.
 6. Heb. 12:24.--Blood.
 7. 1 Pet. 1:2.--Blood.
 8. Matt. 26:7,12.--Ointment.
 9. John 2:15.--Money.
 10. Acts 10:45.--Spirit.
 11. John 13:5.--Water.
 12. Luke 10:34.--Oil and Wine.
 13. Rev. 14:10.--Wrath.

You will notice that none of these Scriptures refer to baptism and that
none of the Scriptures that do refer to baptism hint at sprinkling or
pouring as the action. Sprinkling and pouring for baptism must come
from some other source. We have already learned whence they came.

Some people will argue against immersion for hours, and when they are
driven into their last trenches, and about to be caught, they try to
escape by saying, "Baptism doesn't amount to anything at any rate, it's
a mere form. The great thing is Holy Spirit baptism."

To begin with, Holy Spirit baptism is not baptism at all, strictly
speaking. It is only figurative baptism. It is not always called
baptism. It is called _an anointing_ (Luke 4: 18), _a drinking_ (1 Cor.
12: 13), _an enduing_ (Luke 24:49), a _filling_ (Acts 2:4), and a
_sealing_ (Eph. 1:13). No person can be literally sprinkled or poured
with the Holy Spirit, or immersed into Him, as the Holy Spirit is a
person. The figurative meaning of baptism is to overwhelm, and to be
baptized with the Holy Spirit is to be submerged or overwhelmed in His
power, or to come completely under His control. Holy Spirit baptism is
not a command to obey, but a promise to enjoy. It can only be
administered by Christ himself (John 1:33). Therefore, whenever in the
New Testament baptism is commanded for preachers to administer or
sinners to obey, it can never refer to Holy Spirit baptism, but must
always refer to water baptism.

In the light of New Testament teaching and practise, it is marvelous
that any one who claims to follow its guidance, can make light of
baptism. "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did Christ walk eighty miles
to be baptized of John, and insist that it was necessary for him to be
baptized "to fulfil all righteousness"? (Matt. 3: 13-17). "Baptism a
mere form?" Then, why, in giving his commission to all gospel workers,
did Christ say, "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them"? (Matt. 28: 19). Those who neglect to baptize their
converts have certainly not wholly obeyed their Lord. "Baptism a mere
form?" Then, why did Jesus say, "Go ye into all the world and preach
the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved"? (Mark 16:15, 16). Not only is every preacher commanded
to baptize every convert, but every convert is also commanded to be
baptized; and baptism is made one of the conditions of salvation with
every proper gospel subject. "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did Jesus
say to Nicodemus, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God"?
(John 3:5). All church standards refer this to baptism. "Baptism a mere
form?" Then, why did Peter, on Pentecost, when he used "the keys of the
kingdom," revealed Christ's will and testament for sinners, and thus
proclaimed the conditions of salvation, or of forgiveness, to all whom
the Lord should call through the gospel, say to penitent seekers,
"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit"? (Acts 2:38). And why is it said, "They then that
received his word were baptized"? (Acts 2:41). Will not the same follow
to-day if people will receive the Word of God without any subtractions?
"Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it said of the Samaritans that
"when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the
kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both
men and women"? (Acts 8: 12). Will not the same follow to-day when
people believe the whole gospel? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it
said of the eunuch that when Philip "preached unto him Jesus," he said,
"Behold, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized?"? And why
did he not go "on his way rejoicing" before he "came up out of the
water"? (Acts 8:35,39). If our converts do not ask for baptism, and we
send them away as finished products without going down into the water
with them, are we preaching and practising the same gospel as did the
primitive evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? "Baptism a
mere form?" Then, why did not even Christ himself speak peace to the
soul of Saul, but sent him to Damascus and directed Ananias to tell him
what he must do, who said to him, "And now why tarriest thou? arise,
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the
Lord"? (Acts 9: 6, 7; 22: 16). Does not the Lord send his servants
to-day with the same message to those who put off their obedience to
him in baptism? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was there a special
miraculous demonstration to avoid objections to the baptism of the
household of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts; and why did Peter
command them to be baptized with water, after they had received the
baptism of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 10:44-48). Does not this show that
Holy Spirit baptism was not to displace water baptism? "Baptism a mere
form?" Then, why was Lydia baptized as soon as she gave "heed unto the
things which were spoken by Paul"? (Acts 16: 14, 15). If properly
instructed, will not all people be baptized as soon as they are willing
to give heed unto the word of the Lord? "Baptism a mere form?" Then,
why, when the Philippian jailor was told by Paul and Silas what he
"must do to be saved," was he baptized "immediately," "the same hour of
the night"? (Acts 16: 29-33). Will not the same gospel, if preached in
the same way, have the same effect to-day? "Baptism a mere form?" Then,
why is it said that "many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were
baptized"? (Acts 18:8). Will not those who hear and believe in
sincerity to-day also be baptized? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is
it said by the Holy Spirit that Priscilla and Aquila expounded unto
Apollos "the way of God more accurately," after "he was mighty in the
scriptures" and "had been instructed in the way of the Lord," and
"taught accurately the things of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of
John"? (Acts 18:24-26). If the Lord was then concerned to have
preachers set right on water baptism, even when their gospel knowledge
was accurate in every other particular, does he not have a similar
concern now? and if our hearts are in perfect accord with his, will his
concern not be our concern? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was it
Paul's first concern, when he came to Ephesus, to set the brethren
right on water baptism, even though they were called "disciples," and
had already been baptized (immersed) once? (Acts 19: 1-7). This shows
that baptism is not a mere outward act, but is important because of its
relation to the Lord Jesus, an obedient heart, and to the Holy Spirit.
If the Lord, through the Apostle, directed these disciples to be
baptized a second time, when they found they were not Scripturally
baptized, are not these his directions for to-day also? and should not
his preachers show people the truth if they have not been Scripturally
baptized, and, if possible, induce them to obey the Scriptural baptism,
even when they thought they had been Scripturally baptized?

It is true that Paul said to the Corinthians, "I thank God that I
baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; _lest any man should say
that ye were baptized into my name._ And I baptized also the household
of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For
Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 1:
14-17). In the words I have placed in italics, we are told why he was
glad he baptized only a few of them. It was lest they should be his
partisans, as they were divided on human leaders. We certainly dare not
so interpret the words, "for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to
preach the gospel," as to contradict the commission of Christ and all
the numerous clear Scriptures we have just quoted. He evidently meant
that he himself did not do the baptizing, but had others do that part
of the work, while he gave his time and strength to the preaching of
the gospel. The same was true of Jesus himself, as we learn from John
4:1, 2: "When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that
Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus
himself baptized not, but his disciples)." He baptized them and he
didn't baptize them. That is, he commanded them to be baptized and had
his disciples perform the act. So evidently with Paul. If he meant that
his converts were not to be baptized, then he would certainly not have
baptized any of them.

That Paul was zealous in seeing that all his converts were baptized, is
apparent from the cases already quoted, especially the baptism of the
Ephesians. For when he discovered that their baptism was not
Scriptural, he, first of all, insisted that they be baptized again. It
is further apparent from his teaching in his Epistles. In 1 Cor. 12:13
we read, "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body ... and
were all made to drink of one Spirit." In Gal. 3:26, 27, we read, "For
ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of
you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." In Rom. 6:3, 4, we
read, "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him
through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the
dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness
of life." In Col. 2: 12, we have similar language, "having been buried
with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith
in the working of God, who also raised him from the dead." In Heb.
10:22, it is said, "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil
conscience: and having our body washed with pure water." After reading
these Scriptures, no one can doubt that Paul had all his converts
baptized, and believed in baptism just as strongly as Christ and Peter.

That Peter had the same opinion about baptism near the end of his life,
as at Pentecost, is evident from his words in I Pet. 3:21: "Which also
after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting
away the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience
toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

That to refuse to be baptized after knowing that Christ has commanded
it is to disobey him and to rebel against his authority, is clear from
the words of the Holy Spirit recorded in Luke 7: 29, 30: "And all the
people when they heard, and the publicans, justified God, being
baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers
rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him."

And yet, despite all these Scriptures, many pious saints are so blinded
by their prejudices and traditions, that instead of encouraging and
exhorting people to obey this command to be baptized, that is given to
test the soul's complete surrender to Christ, and is called the
"obedience of faith" or of the gospel, they encourage people to live in
disobedience to Christ by affirming that baptism is "a mere form" or
"non-essential." If subordinates in an army or earthly kingdom act thus
and use their influence to induce others to disobey the orders of those
over them, they are punished for treason. Any army that is thoroughly
united in the authority of its commander and cheerfully and promptly
obeys his orders, is usually successful; while the largest and best
army on earth would be doomed to defeat the moment its officers and men
would disobey orders and each do as he pleases, or as he thinks best.
The reason Christ's, army on earth to-day is weak and constantly
defeated and retreating is because his orders are disregarded and the
"think so's" and traditions of men are followed instead. Implicit
obedience to the few simple commands of Christ would at once unite all
his followers into one invincible army that would enable the world to
believe and know that he is the Christ of God (John 17:20, 23).

If anything is clear, it is that Christianity is a personal matter.
That each individual must meet and accept for himself the claims of
Christ. No one can be saved by proxy. No one can go to heaven because
of the faith, obedience or prayers of a parent, wife, husband, sister
or brother. This being true, as Christ has commanded every creature to
be baptized (Mark 15: 15, 16; Acts 2: 38, etc.), it is evident that
infant baptism is not valid. The parents cannot obey for the child,
however good their intentions. The child, when it reaches the age of
accountability, must face the commandments of Christ for itself, and
either deliberately obey or disobey and reject him. If infants remained
infants, they would do no harm in the church, even if they could do no
good. But they will grow into accountability and then the church is
full of unconverted people.

May we prayerfully do all in our power to hasten the day when all of
Christ's followers will forsake the traditions, in which men have
changed Christ's teaching on baptism, and will gloriously reunite in
his will on this command which is so clearly revealed in the New
Testament.




CHAPTER II.

THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.


"See that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed
thee."--Heb. 8: 5.

Introduction. My early ideas of the church, its doctrines, and of the
teachings of Christ as revealed in the New Testament, were rather
general and vague. As is usual, it was chiefly a matter of hereditary
traditions. After I found my way back to Christ and to belief in the
Word of God, the question naturally arose, which church shall I join,
if any? Sectarian divisions had a hand in driving me into infidelity
and confusion, and I was now compelled to investigate more closely this
strange puzzle. As I have already intimated, what I learned at
Meadville about baptism and the teachings of the various religious
bodies, had directed my attention to the people generally known as
"Disciples of Christ" or "Christians," who are working for Christian
union through the restoration of the primitive church. I will now give
the result of my study of the model church as revealed in the New
Testament.

NOTE.--Most of this and the following chapter are taken from my booklet
on "The Church of Christ: What It Is, and Why It Exists."

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

The primary meaning of the word _church_ is a local body of Christians
organized for work and worship (Acts 14:27). From this its meaning
enlarged so as to apply to the members of all the churches (Eph. 3:10),
and finally to all the saints in heaven and on earth (Heb. 12:23).

_Of Christ_ expresses the church's relationship to Christ. It is
Christ's church. He bought it (Eph. 5:25), built it (Matt. 16:18), and
is its foundation (1 Cor. 3:11). It is his body (Rom. 12:5), of which
he is head (Col. 1:18) and which is so identified with him that it is
called Christ (1 Cor. 12:12); it is his kingdom over which he is king
(Matt. 16:19); it is a fold of which he is the shepherd (John 10:16);
he is a vine of which the members are branches (John 15:5); it is his
house (Heb. 3:6); it is his dearly beloved wife (Eph. 5:25; 2 Cor.
11:2). Christ so loves the church and identifies himself with it
because of the sweet, loving, spiritual fellowship there is between
himself and it; and because it is his visible representative here on
earth, and the instrument through which the Holy Spirit's work in the
conversion of the world and the sanctification of believers, is carried
on.

Other names given to the church are "church of God" (I Cor. 1:2),
"churches of God" (I Thess. 2:14), "churches of saints" (I Cor. 14:
33), "temple of God and of the Holy Spirit" (I Cor. 3:16), and "the
pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim. 3:15). All these names are
Scriptural and proper when used in the proper way.

Church-members.

The members of the church or churches of Christ are called "Christians"
(Acts 11:26; I Pet. 4:14, 16), "disciples" (Acts 9:1), "saints" (Rom.
1:7), "brethren" (I Cor. 15:6), "members" (Rom. 12:5), etc., all of
which names are right when used to express the proper idea or
relationship.

The Greek word for church is _ekkleesia_ and comes from _ekkaleoo_,
which means _to call out_ or _summon forth_; and members of the church
are the ones who have been called of God (2 Tim. 1:9) through the
gospel (2 Thess. 2:14) from a life of sin to a life of holy service
(Acts 26:16-18). Church-members or Christians are said to be "saved,"
"elected," "washed," "sanctified," "redeemed," "recreated,"
"regenerated," "translated," "espoused," "converted," "reconciled,"
"adopted," "quickened," "resurrected," etc. This gives us an idea of
the radical change that must take place before a person can become a
true church-member. It will be noticed that the change expressed by
these terms is twofold. The one is subjective, and the other objective.
The one is a change of heart or character, and the other is a change of
state or relationship to God. The heart is changed by the Holy Spirit
(John 3:5), through the preached gospel (1 Pet. 1:23), which leads to
faith (Rom. 10:17; Acts 15:9) and repentance (Acts 2:38); while the
attitude toward God is changed by confession (Rom. 10:9), obedience in
baptism (Acts 2:38) and by God's pardon to the sinner (Acts 2:38). The
necessity of this twofold change is manifest from Christ's teaching
when he says, "Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them" (Matt.
28:19), "Preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16), and "Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John
3:5). Also by the teaching of the Apostles when they say, "Repent, and
be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"
(Acts 2:38), "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16), "Not
by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of
the Holy Ghost" (Tit. 3: 5), "For ye are all the children of God by
faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:26, 27), "For by one Spirit we are
all baptized into one body...and have been all made to drink into one
Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13), "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth
also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but
the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21), "Know ye not, that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we
are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3, 4).

If it were God's purpose to simply save individuals, privately and
without human agency, the subjective change of heart is all that would
be necessary. But a home must be provided for the nurture of the
new-born spiritual babes and a church organized to herald the gospel to
every creature; therefore, a definite act of open committal or
enlistment is required in baptism. When this becomes thoroughly
understood, the emphasis the New Testament puts on baptism will be
appreciated, and people will no longer avoid the passages that refer to
it, or try to explain them away. Neither faith, repentance nor baptism
have any saving virtue in themselves. They are important only because
of their relation to Christ and the sinner. As Christ has made them
conditions of salvation to those who have heard the gospel, they must
either obey or be rejected because of a rebellious heart (Luke 7:29,
30).

We learn that to be qualified for membership in Christ's church a
person must know the Lord (Heb. 8:11), must believe in him (Acts 8:37),
must repent of his sins (Acts 2:38), must confess him as Christ (Rom.
10:9), and must obey him from the heart in baptism (Rom. 6:17). All
these are conscious, personal acts that must be performed by the person
becoming a member. No one can become a member by purchase, fleshly
birth, or the obedience of parents or other persons. It will also be
noticed that according to the teaching of the New Testament the
conditions of salvation and church membership are the same. The New
Testament never speaks of persons as saved or Christians who are not
members of the church of Christ where they live.

Church Officers.

On the divine side the church of Christ is a kingdom with a
constitution and an absolute ruler. But the administration of this
kingdom, as it comes in contact with the varying conditions that
confront it in the world, is left to the local church with its
officers. Officers are elected to increase the efficiency of the church
in service (Acts 6:1-7). In Eph. 4:11, 12, we learn what the officers
of the church of Christ are and why they are appointed. "And he gave
some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some
pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of
the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Deacons were
also appointed to serve tables and assist in other ways (Acts 6:1-7;
Phil, 1:1). The Apostles were personally commissioned by Christ (John
20:21-23; Acts 26: 16), miraculously inspired to teach (1 Cor. 2:12,
13; 1 Pet. 1:12) and endowed to perform miracles (2 Cor. 12: 12) and to
confer miracle-working power on others (Acts 8:17, 18). After the
church was thoroughly established and the New Testament written the
apostolic office with its miraculous accompaniments ceased (Heb. 2:3,
4; 1 Cor. 13:8). Prophets were appointed by miraculous endowment and
ended with the same. Evangelists, elders and deacons are the permanent
officers of the church of Christ. The special work of evangelists or
preachers is to make disciples and to organize and strengthen churches.
Elders, or bishops, or pastors are local church officers, a plurality
of which was appointed in each church (Acts 14:23). Their function is
concerned with the spiritual welfare of the church. The work of deacons
has already been indicated. The qualifications of evangelists, elders
or bishops and deacons are given in the epistles to Timothy and Titus.
The church officers are selected by the members (Acts 6: 1-7), and
important matters of discipline are decided by a majority vote of the
church (2 Cor. 2:6, see Greek). The local church government then is
administered by a majority vote of its members and by the officers
authorized by such a majority. Outside of Christ and the Apostles the
New Testament does not recognize any authority higher than that vested
in the local churches. General ecclesiastical organizations and church
dignitaries with high-sounding titles are human inventions that were
added later. Where there is no organized church to act, individual
Christians have authority to administer the affairs of the church or
kingdom (Acts 8: 4; 9: 10-18; ii: 19-21). The only apostolic succession
endorsed in the Bible is that which results from following the example
of the Apostles in teaching and practice.

A Christian's work in the local church is obligatory under Christ. In
addition to the local church work, early Christians co-operated in work
covering a large territory and scope; and formed a simple organization
for this purpose (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:18, 19, 23). This example shows
that voluntary organization of individual Christians for general
co-operative work is proper and Scriptural. Of this nature are
missionary societies and benevolent associations which are formed to
carry on general work, but have no ecclesiastical authority.

_The Mission of the Church._

The mission of the church is to perpetuate and perfect itself and to
add to its membership, through evangelization, the entire world as far
and as fast as possible. The fundamental means adopted to carry out
this mission is the church service. Our word _church_ is not derived
from the New Testament word used in speaking of the body of believers,
and it has a tendency to hide the real idea of the New Testament. It
primarily refers to a church building, then to the body of believers
worshiping in the building, and finally to believers in general. The
inspired writers use the word _ekkleesia_, which means a gathering of
people called from their homes into some public place. A correct
translation would be _"assembly"_ or _"congregation,"_ as it has
reference primarily to a local body of Christians assembled for work
and worship. If this primary idea were restored, it would make mightily
for the strengthening of Christ's kingdom. We usually put the emphasis
on the church _in general, universal_ and _invisible,_ while the Holy
Spirit puts the emphasis on the _local, visible_ and _tangible_ church.
Our practical duties are connected almost entirely with the local
church to which we belong and through which we chiefly help to build up
the general and invisible church. The church is the assembled
Christians first of all, and the first duty of Christians is to
assemble (Heb. 10:25). For people to say that they belong to the church
(assembly), who do not assemble or attend the church services, is an
anomaly, strictly speaking.

The purpose of the assembly or church services is revealed to us in
Acts 2:42, where we have a record of the practice of the first church
of Christ. We read, "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles'
teaching and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
Here are four things mentioned as belonging to the service of the
church. The first has reference to teaching the Word of God or, more
especially, the teachings of Christ as revealed through his Apostles in
the New Testament. The Apostles received their teaching through the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit who revealed in the New Testament all
things necessary for our guidance and edification (2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3).
Christ gave his Apostles commandments before his ascension (Acts 1:2),
which they were to teach to the church (Matt. 28:20), and the church is
exhorted to give heed to these commandments (2 Pet. 3:2). Not all the
commandments that Christ gave while on earth are for the church, but
only those he instructed the Apostles to teach after the descent of the
Holy Spirit and the establishment of the church on Pentecost. Paul
exhorts Timothy to commit unto faithful men, who are able to teach
others, the things he had heard from him (2 Tim. 2:2), and further
exhorts him, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim.
2:15); "I charge thee therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ,
who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his
kingdom; preach the word, be instant in season and out of season;
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine" (2 Tim.
4:1, 2). Alas! how often this last solemn charge of Paul goes unheeded.
We preach in season and out of season, but do we preach the Word of God
as we ought? The emphasis the New Testament puts on the Word of God can
scarcely be overestimated. It is the incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23)
employed by the Holy Spirit to beget the Christian (Jas. 1:18; 1 Cor.
4:15); it is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17) by which he pierces
the sinner's hard heart (Heb. 4:12) and brings conviction to his soul
(John 16:8,9); it is the nourishment for the new-born spiritual babe (1
Pet. 2:2); it is the means used by the Spirit to strengthen, sanctify
and build up the members of the church (1 Thess. 2:13; John 17:17; Acts
20:32); it "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:16,17). No other
books were used in the early church as authoritative and all efforts to
replace it or to supplement it with human creeds, catechisms or
disciplines is an unwarranted effort to steady the ark of the Lord.

The second item of the public services is _fellowship_. The original
word here is _koinoonia_, which, according to Dr. Thayer, means "joint
participation," "a benefaction jointly contributed, a collection." The
word sometimes refers to joint participation in religious privileges
and sometimes to joint collections or contributions made for gospel
work. It seems to have the latter meaning here, as spiritual communion
is embodied in the next item. That this was a feature of the public
service is apparent from the words of Paul in I Cor. 16:2, "Upon the
first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God
hath prospered him." The Emphatic Diaglott translates thus, "Every
first day of the week let each of you lay something by itself,
depositing as he may be prospered." While Paul gives these directions
in reference to a particular collection taken for the poor saints in
Judea, it is evidently given because it embodies the divine wisdom as
to the best way of raising church money. It teaches that _each_
church-member is to give _weekly, according to his ability_. When this
precept is practiced and we restore the liberality of the primitive
church (Acts 2:44, 45; 4:32, 35), there will be no financial problem in
the church.

The third item in church worship, according to Acts 2: 42, is the
"breaking of bread," or the Lord's Supper. This was the most important
thing in the early church service. It was to commemorate the death of
Christ and to point forward to his second coming (I Cor. 11:26). Every
Christian is under obligation to partake of the Lord's Supper (I Cor.
11:24), but each must examine himself before eating lest he eat
condemnation to his soul (I Cor. 11:28, 29). The greatest thing in the
Lord's Supper is a spiritual eating or communion (John 6:32-58), and
this is needed frequently. The primitive churches of Christ observed
the Lord's Supper whenever they met for worship (I Cor. 11:20), and
this we learn was every first day of the week. "Upon the first day of
the week when the disciples came together to break bread" (Acts 20:7).
The Greek article "tee" here indicates that it was on _every_ first day
of the week that they met to break bread and this is confirmed by I
Cor. 16:2. The early churches never met for worship on the seventh day
of the week or on the Sabbath, but always on the first day of the week,
or on the Lord's Day, in commemoration of Christ's resurrection from
the dead. It was the practice at first to have a meal in connection
with the Lord's Supper, but as this led to abuse it was abolished by
Paul (1 Cor. 11:20-22, 34). The feet-washing which is commonly supposed
to have taken place at the time Christ first broke bread with his
disciples, was simply a custom in vogue in that country, which Christ
used to teach a lesson on humility. We have no record that the Apostles
ever washed feet as a church ordinance or desired others to do so. When
Christ washed feet it was not at a public church meeting, but at a
private feast.

The fourth item in church worship, as mentioned in Acts 2:42, is
"prayers." The primitive church believed profoundly in prayer. In fact,
the entire New Testament is the record of a prolonged prayer-meeting.
Paul, in writing to Timothy, says, "I exhort therefore that, first of
all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made
for all men" (1 Tim. 2:1), and Christ admonishes his disciples to
"watch and pray" (Matt. 26:41).

Self-preservation is the first duty, upon which all our helpfulness to
others depends. So it is with the church. Its first duty is to
perpetuate and strengthen itself through the means of grace God has
provided; but it will become sick and soon die, if it does not reach
out in loving services to others. It is commissioned to "make disciples
of all nations" (Matt. 28:18), but it cannot do this by merely
proclaiming the gospel to all people. Paul preached the gospel in many
lands, and a few missionaries could soon evangelize the entire world if
this were all that is necessary. God spent thousands of years to
prepare the soil for Paul's preaching and confirmed his message with
miracles. We cannot evangelize the world by giving a few dollars to
send a few missionaries to preach a few sermons. Most of the work of
missionaries is educational and philanthropic, or, in other words,
preparatory. It will require the best and united efforts of all
Christians to entirely open the door of faith among the heathen. Christ
says, "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good
works and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:16). Peter
exhorts Christians, "Having your behavior seemly among the Gentiles,
that, wherein they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your
good works which they behold, glorify God" (I Pet. 2: 12). The churches
need the miracle of good works, through the power of the Holy Spirit,
to confirm the message of our missionaries. The acts that emanate from
so-called Christian nations and people do more to hinder than to help
the missionaries. If Christians will, by the power of the Spirit, live
the life of Christ in the home, in business, in politics and
everywhere, the heathen will soon glorify God in Christ because of the
good works which they behold. "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye
bear much fruit" (John 15:8).

It is the mission of the church to bring heaven down to earth. If this
is the high and holy calling of the church, is it a wonder that Christ
so loved it as to give his life for it? The church is the "pillar and
ground of the truth" or the material organization through which heaven
is bearing its message of love to this sin-cursed world. Speaking of
the church, Paul says, "If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him
shall God destroy" (1 Cor. 3:17). All who attain unto the mind of
Christ will love the church and give themselves for it.

_The Unity of the Church._

It was God's eternal purpose to unite all things in Christ (Eph. 1:9,
10). Christ declared that he would establish but one fold (John 10:
16); he prayed that all his followers might be perfectly united and put
that union as a necessary condition for the conversion of the world
(John 17:20-23); he died to unite all in one body (Eph. 2: 14-16), of
which he is the head (Col. 1: 18).

If we turn to the book of Acts, we discover that the Holy Spirit,
through the Apostles, did establish but one church, and that it was
thoroughly united in love, teaching and practice.

If there ever was an excuse for different Christian denominations, it
was for a Jewish Christian denomination and a Gentile Christian
denomination; but the Holy Spirit did not establish such denominations
and Paul put forth the effort of his life to prevent such a breach.
Where in all history can you find twelve men more radically different
mentally and temperamentally than the Apostles? Yet the Holy Spirit did
not establish separate churches to cater to and further develop these
temperamental eccentricities. All were united in one church so they
could counterbalance and complement each other and thus perfect their
own character and give greater symmetry to the church. "And when the
day of Pentecost was fully come they were all with _one accord in one
place_" (Acts 2:1). After three thousand were added unto them we read,
"They continued daily with _one accord_ in the temple" (Acts 2: 46),
while farther on we read, "And the multitude of them that believed were
of _one heart_ and of _one soul_" (Acts 4: 32). From the Epistles of
Paul we learn that there was but one church in each community. Christ's
relation to the church makes it impossible for Christians to be loyal
to him and at the same time divided. All must be perfectly united in
allegiance to him as king, lie is the head of the body of which his
followers are members. All the members of the body are perfectly united
to each other and to the head; and, although the members may differ in
function, they are all directed by the same commandments, motives and
purposes. As soon as a tendency toward division became manifest it was
severely rebuked and ascribed to the carnal nature. Paul, in writing to
the Corinthians, says, "Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same things, and that
there be no division among you; but that ye be perfectly joined
together in the same mind and in the same judgment" ... "For ye are yet
carnal; for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and
divisions, are ye not carnal and walk as men?" (I Cor. 1: 10; 3:3).

The seven landmarks of Christian union are revealed by Paul in the
first six verses of the fourth chapter of Ephesians: "I therefore, the
prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling
wherewith you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with
longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and
one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is
over all, and through all, and in all."

As long as these seven unities--one body, one Spirit, one hope, one
Lord, one faith, one baptism and one Father--are maintained, it will be
impossible for a divided church to exist.

On the other hand, divisions will speedily disappear as soon as these
seven unities are restored.

I add the following chart of the New Testament church, which will serve
as a summary and as a guide in the further study of this important
subject:

[Illustration: THE CHURCH THAT JESUS ESTABLISHED]




CHAPTER III.

THE CHURCH SINCE THE APOSTLES.


_The Apostasy of the Church._

The apostolic unity of the church was maintained for about three
hundred years. During this period the church endured the ten great,
general persecutions directed against it by the world-ruling Roman
Empire, which resulted in the martyrdom of almost all of the Apostles
and multitudes of other Christians. Despite the opposition of the
mightiest powers on earth, the church scored the most marvelous
victories and was on a fair way to conquer the whole world for Christ.
Satan, perceiving that his opposition to a united church under the
leadership of Christ was fruitless, now tried to get within the church
and to shear it of its power by confusing its counsels and dividing its
forces. Christ said, "Every city or house divided against itself shall
not stand" (Matt. 12:25), and Satan knew that if he could get
Christians to exhaust their energies by contending with each other,
their conquest of the world would be at an end. He filled the church
with speculative philosophy, heathen idolatry and the worldly spirit in
general. As always, he used the pride, vanity and ambition of
individuals to accomplish his purpose. If fallible human leaders and
their opinions could be put in the place of the infallible Christ and
his teachings, the work would be done; because this would arouse the
opposition of other ambitious human leaders and thus the church would
be torn asunder and exhausted with internal strife and divisions. Alas
that the church did not heed the earnest warning of Paul, "Now I
beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences
contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For
they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own
belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the
simple" (Rom. 16:17, 18). The selfishness of leaders and the lazy,
careless indifference of the masses who blindly follow on, is what
makes the creation and perpetuation of divisions among Christians
possible. Perceiving that the division of the church would destroy its
power, its leaders strove with might and main to preserve its unity.
Had they exalted the Christ and used his Word, the sword of the Spirit,
they would have succeeded. But they were ambitious and worked for a
united church so they could use its power to exalt themselves and their
opinions and crush those opposed to them. Human creeds, as standards of
orthodoxy, were invented, and more stress was put on correct
speculative opinions than on faith in Christ and Christ-like living.
Persons who would not subscribe to the speculative opinions of man-made
creeds were persecuted and anathematized. The church formed a league
with worldly rulers and used the strong arm of the law to crush those
who would not accept its human standards of orthodoxy. The Inquisition,
with the dungeon, stocks, guillotine and other diabolical means of
torture, was called into requisition. It is claimed that no less than
fifty million human beings were martyred in this effort of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy, calling itself the church, to maintain unity
on a human creed. Although this effort at union was largely successful,
it was not Christian union. Paul says that Christian union is where
Christians are of the same mind and judgment and all speak the same
things (1 Cor. 1:10), while this union was maintained by suppressing
conscientious convictions and their utterance.

_The Reformation of the Church._

The effort at a forced union on a speculative human creed was never
entirely successful. In the fastnesses of the mountains the Waldenses,
Albigenses and others, maintained their religious freedom. The fire of
religious liberty was smouldering, but not extinguished. It was covered
with the black coals of ecclesiastical ignorance, brutality and
tyranny; but by and by it worked its way to the light and illuminated
the darkness of the age. The great Reformation burst forth into a
mighty inextinguishable flame all over Europe, and, overleaping great
barriers, it blazed forth in America. The ecclesiastical shackles were
torn asunder and the people were set free. I speak of the ultimate
outcome, for this end was only attained after centuries of effort.
Hereditary religious ideas, prejudices and customs become petrified,
and it is only with the most desperate and long-continued efforts that
individuals and bodies of people can free themselves from them. Failing
to recognize how they are blinded through hereditary bias, environment
and limited ideas, people imagine they have attained unto the ultimate
truth, and thus their growth in knowledge ceases and they become
fossilized into a sectarian party. People imagine that they are free
when they are delivered from religious and political tyrants that
persecute and oppress them; but their greatest bondage, and the one
that makes the others possible, is the hereditary and acquired
prejudice, bias, bigotry and ignorance within themselves. The struggle
of the Reformation was for religious freedom. This struggle was by no
means always unselfish and consistent. Protestants as well as Roman
Catholics used force to crush those that would not submit to their
creeds. Both in Europe and in America men's bodies were tortured and
destroyed with the hope of saving their souls and in the endeavor to
maintain the unity of the church. Even where the church and the state
were separated so that the church could not use the civil law to
persecute its opponents, other means of coercion were used, such as
boycotting, ostracism, excommunication and anathemas. The idea of the
Roman Catholic Church is that you cannot trust the people to interpret
the Bible for themselves; the Pope and the church must do it for them.

The idea of Protestant sectarian creeds is largely the same. The
members cannot be trusted to interpret the Bible for themselves, so the
creed-makers have to do it for them. The difference is in degree and
power of oppression rather than in kind. The entire idea is
fundamentally wrong. Speculative theology cannot save any one and
sectarian creeds are harder to understand than the Bible itself. The
people need the living, loving, personal Christ, and not the dry husks
of speculative theology. We want uniformity in matters of faith that
are clearly revealed and in allegiance to Christ, but do not need it in
speculative opinions based on inferences as to what the Bible teaches.

Freedom is absolutely necessary to progress and civilization. But
freedom may be turned into a curse as well as a blessing. Criminals
want freedom to gratify the lusts of the flesh (Gal. 5:13). Those in
bondage to their own carnal nature must be put under restraint by those
governed by moral principles. Even Christians need to be guided and
governed in spiritual matters, and have always felt this need. The
trouble has been that mortal men have been accepted as authoritative
spiritual guides, or have tried to control the religious convictions
and practices of their fellow-men by force. Christ is the Christian's
only safe and proper guide. As a final result of the Reformation the
Christian people in America and parts of Europe were set free from
religious tyranny and left to choose their spiritual guides. Although
they professed that the Bible was their only authority, they accepted
human leaders and their opinions as guides and permitted these to
interpret the Bible for them. Thus the freedom of the Reformation was
turned into the curse of division and sectarianism. Divided
Protestantism is better than the religious tyranny of the Dark Ages;
but it is bad, and will be replaced with the Christian union of the New
Testament when loyalty to Christ and his Word is substituted for
loyalty to human leaders and their opinions embodied in creeds. Christ
said, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation"
(Matt. 12:25). The truth of this has been sadly demonstrated in our
divided Christianity. In how many homes has sectarian division wrought
havoc with its religious life! How many husbands and wives have been
lost to active service for the Master because of the chilling effect of
indifference or opposition through sectarian differences! How many
children have become indifferent or disgusted with religion, because
their parents differed in their religious convictions! Again, look at
the effect of sectarian division in a community. Five church buildings
and preachers where one could do the work, while the balance could be
devoted to the evangelization of the heathen. But the financial loss is
the least. Preachers are poorly supported and therefore poorly equipped
for their work, and people are encouraged to join the churches on
almost any conditions through rivalry and the need of support for so
many churches. Sinners go unrebuked through fear that their financial
support will be lost; and, if disciplined, they are often received with
open arms into a rival church. When we look at the kingdom of Christ at
large, we see how it has come to desolation because of divisions.
Millions of dollars are wasted in rival churches, colleges, papers,
preachers, books, etc.; while the heathen stand with amazed incredulity
before the missionaries of a babel of denominations. Verily the
reformed church needs reforming.

_A Movement for Christian Union._

Divided Protestantism reached its climax in America at the beginning of
the last century. This land of freedom offered a congenial soil for its
perfect development and unfolding. Thus were exhibited more fully than
ever before the sin and folly of such divisions. The forces of Christ
were largely wasted and defeated through sectarian strife, and there
was the bitterest feeling even between different branches of the same
denomination. Infidelity was rampant in the land and Christianity was
at a low ebb. However, the love of the Master was strong in many
hearts, and these longed and prayed for better things. As by divine
inspiration, a great union movement sprang up simultaneously in
different parts of the country. The outcome was what may be called the
American Reformation, but is more properly called the Restoration
movement. The burning desire of the promoters of this movement was a
reunion of the divided followers of Christ. After a thorough and
prayerful consideration of the subject, it was decided that the only
possible basis of union is the Bible; and so the motto was adopted,
"Where the Bible speaks we will speak, and where the Bible is silent we
will be silent." It was decided to require a "thus saith the Lord" or
an apostolic example for every item of teaching or practice. The
reformers expected to bring about Christian union without leaving their
respective denominations and forming a separate religious body. But an
application of their motto in the study of the Bible led to results
that they never dreamed of. They were compelled to give up their
sectarian practices one by one, and soon found themselves forced out of
the denominational bodies. It now became clear to them that the real
cause of the origin and perpetuation of sectarian divisions was the
human element, in teaching and practice, added to the church since the
days of the Apostles; and that nothing but their removal and the
restoration of the primitive church in name, creed and deed, could
bring the Christian union of New Testament times. Learning that, aside
from the Apostles, there was no ecclesiastical authority or
organization in New Testament times, above the local church, they
proceeded to organize local churches of Christ after the primitive
model, and invited both saints and sinners to unite with them in this
work and in protesting against the sin of sectarian divisions.

_The Restoration of the New Testament Creed._

In the evolution of the movement for Christian union, it was soon
discovered that human creeds, as standards of church or ministerial
fellowship, are divisive in their nature and prevent the reunion of
God's people. All claim to get their creed from the Bible; but since
creeds contradict each other in doctrine, they cannot all be right,
although they may all be wrong. Human creeds are responsible for most
of the heresy trials and have armed most of the infidelic attacks upon
the church. The only way to permanently solve the creed problem is to
restore the divine creed given by the Holy Spirit to the primitive
church. This is the only true Apostles' Creed and the only one that
will never need any revision. This is none other than the _divinity of
Christ_, the central truth of revelation and of Christianity. Jesus
said, in answer to Peter's confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God," "Upon this rock I will build my church" (Matt. 16: 16,
18). John declared of his Gospel, "These are written, that ye might
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye
might have life through his name" (John 20:31). Paul commanded,
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts
16:31), and said, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11). This is what the Apostles
preached everywhere, and required as a condition for baptism and church
membership; and it is the only creed they ever required. The church is
not founded upon a system of speculative theology that even the learned
cannot understand, but upon the loving, divine personality of Jesus
Christ, the Son of the living God. Get Jesus in the heart, and belief
in his word and a Christ-like life will inevitably follow. This is the
only creed that can reunite divided Christendom. Christians cannot
unite on human leaders and their finite opinions, but they can all
unite on Christ.

_The Restoration of Bible Names._

It was further discovered that human names for God's people were
divisive in nature and a barrier to Christian union. There is nothing
in a name until it becomes authoritatively attached to a person or
thing, but after it becomes so attached, there is as much in the name
as in the person or thing. Since the name Andrew Carnegie became
attached to him, it is worth as much in money and influence as Mr.
Carnegie himself is worth. Thus it is that there is salvation in the
name of Christ. "For there is none other name under heaven given among
men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

The Bible names given to the church and to the followers of Christ,
express true ideas and relationships; while the human names since added
express false and unscriptural ideas and relationships. The church and
its members should be named after Christ because they belong to him;
for the same reason it is wrong to call them after any other person or
thing.

Paul writes, "Every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos;
and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified
for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" "For while one
saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"
(I Cor. 1:12, 13; 3:4). "I pray you," said Luther, "leave my name
alone, and do not call yourselves Lutherans, but Christians. Who is
Luther? My doctrine is not mine. I was not crucified for any one. Paul
would not that any should call themselves of Paul, nor of Peter, but of
Christ. How, then, does it fit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes,
to give my name to the children of Christ! Cease to cling to these
party names and distinctions! Away with them all and let us call
ourselves Christians, after him from whom our doctrine comes!" Those
engaged in this restoration movement heed the admonitions of Paul and
Luther and call themselves "Christians," or "disciples of Christ,"
while they call the churches, "churches of Christ" or "churches of
God." They do not use these names in a sectarian, but in a Scriptural,
sense. They do not claim to be the "only Christians," but aim to be
"Christians only." We read in Acts II:26, "The disciples were called
Christians first at Antioch." "If any man suffer as a Christian," says
Peter, "let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this name"
(I Pet. 4: 16). Any name used to designate a part of the followers of
Christ and to separate them from the rest, is wrong, because it
expresses a wrong and unscriptural idea. "Would to God," said Wesley,
"that all sectarian names were forgotten, and that we, as humble,
loving disciples, might sit down at the Master's feet, read his holy
word, imbibe his spirit, and transcribe his life into our own!" John
says, "We shall see his face and his name shall be in our foreheads"
(Rev. 22:4).

_The Ordinances Restored._

In addition to the restoration of the New Testament creed and names, it
was found that there can be no organic Christian union, after the
primitive type, without a restoration of the ordinances as administered
by the Apostles. Protestants all accept two ordinances, baptism and the
Lord's Supper, but they differ greatly in the manner of observing them.
Some have open and others close communion. Some observe the Lord's
Supper monthly, others quarterly and still others annually. In looking
for apostolic precepts and examples, it was found that the early
Christians met on every first day of the week to break bread; and that
each Christian was commanded by Christ to partake of the Lord's Supper,
after examining himself to see that his heart was prepared for this
spiritual feast. We have neither the authority to decide the frequency
of the service, nor who shall partake of the Supper.

The greatest hindrance to a practical working union of the followers of
Christ is the babel of teaching and practice as to baptism. Some hold
that the mere baptism of infants will save them, while others belittle
baptism or ignore it altogether. Some baptize infants, others only
adults. Some sprinkle, some pour, and others immerse for baptism. Some
sprinkle, pour or immerse, just as the candidate wishes it. Does the
New Testament teach this babel of confusion or has it come from human
inventions and additions? It has already been pointed out that only
those who had previously been born of the Spirit, or undergone a change
of heart through faith and repentance, were baptized by the Apostles.
We are told that Jesus never baptized any one (John 4:2), therefore he
never baptized any infants. If we examine carefully the cases of
household baptism recorded in the New Testament, we will find that in
each case infants are necessarily excluded; as those baptized "heard"
(Acts 10:33), "believed" (Acts 16:34), "were comforted" (Acts 16:40),
"addicted themselves to the ministry" (1 Cor. 16:16), etc. These acts
all refer to people who had reached the age of intelligence and
accountability and, therefore, cannot refer to infants. Infant baptism
is based on two errors that crept into the church--the doctrines of
infant damnation and baptismal regeneration. Infants are saved without
baptism, for Jesus said "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt.
19:14), and baptism is of value only because of its relation to Christ
and the faith of the sinner (Mark 16:16). The greatest emphasis we can
put on baptism is to say that Christ commanded it and made it a
condition of salvation to those that hear the gospel and have the
opportunity to obey it. To refuse to obey this or any other commandment
of Christ, reveals a rebellious heart that cannot be saved.

Of the action of baptism we speak in a previous chapter, therefore we
need not treat of it here only to say that all churches agree that the
immersion of a penitent believer in water is Scriptural baptism, and
this is the only practice on which all can unite. Thousands of those
that are contented to be Christians only have given up sprinkling and
been immersed after studying the Bible on the subject.

 _The Bible Restored._

Christian union on the primitive gospel necessitates the restoration of
the Bible to its proper place and authority. Sectarianism has largely
displaced it with creeds and other human standards. Recently I read the
following in an introduction to a catechism: "This catechism has well
been called a Bible for the laity." When we remember how contradictory,
and, therefore, erroneous, these human deductions as to Bible teaching
are, we can see the need of putting them aside and restoring the Bible
as the Christian's all-sufficient and only sufficient guide.

The Bible has also been thrust aside and kept from the people by false
theories of conversion and the consequent erroneous practices in
evangelistic work. People have been taught that they are totally
depraved and can do nothing towards their conversion, that faith is a
direct gift of God, that the Holy Spirit converts sinners by immediate
miraculous power, that the evidence of pardon is in dreams, visions or
feelings, and that sinners have to wait until God by entreaties is
reconciled to save them. All these theories are erroneous and logically
set aside the entire gospel plan of salvation. The Holy Spirit, through
the Apostles, used the truths of the Word or gospel to convict sinners,
and taught penitents, out of the New Testament, on what conditions they
could inherit the salvation Christ purchased on the cross. The sinners
that wanted to be saved accepted this salvation by complying with
Christ's conditions of pardon, and went on their way rejoicing, because
they had the infallible Word of God for it that they were saved. In
other words, the Apostles preached the gospel, and penitent sinners
were immediately saved by believing it (Mark 16:16), repenting of their
sins (Acts 2:38) and openly committing themselves to Christ in baptism
(Acts 22:16).

Finally, the Bible has become a meaningless riddle and uninteresting to
most people because it is not rightly divided. It is assumed that all
parts of the Bible are addressed to everybody. This is far from the
truth. While we must recognize the unity and interdependence of the
entire Bible and that each part teaches great spiritual truths for all,
we must also remember that its different parts contain specific
precepts addressed to different classes of people and only applicable
to them. Thus the Mosaic law was for the Jews only, and was superseded
by the gospel (Gal. 3:24, 25). Turning to the New Testament, we find
that the four Gospels were written to make believers (John 20:31), the
Acts of the Apostles, "Book of Conversions," to tell and show people
how to be saved or become Christians (see chapters 2, 8, 16, etc.),
while the rest of the New Testament is addressed to Christians or
church-members as their rule of faith and practice. The churches in
this Restoration movement aim to restore the Bible to its primitive
place in producing penitents, guiding them unto salvation and in giving
all instructions to the churches needed for their edification and
guidance.

_Restoration of the New Testament Church Government._

We have learned that all sectarian divisions have resulted from
exalting human leaders and their opinions. Ambitious ecclesiastics have
exalted themselves with the help of misguided people; and, usurping
authority, have lorded it over God's heritage. How wide the difference
between the simplicity of the primitive gospel and the pompous
ecclesiastical organizations and titles of modern times! It is
self-evident that Christian union cannot be restored until this
ecclesiastical machinery be put aside and the administration of
Christ's kingdom be again entrusted to the local churches and their
officers as in New Testament times.

It will be noticed that this modern movement for Christian union does
not seek to introduce new doctrines into the religious world. It seeks
rather the restoration of the old Jerusalem gospel with its doctrines,
ordinances and fruits. Its promoters thoroughly believe in all the
truths accepted by evangelical bodies and simply strive to remove the
sectarian growths that have fastened themselves to the old ship Zion
during its course through the centuries. Among its favorite mottoes are
these:

   No Book but the Bible.
   No Creed but the Christ.
   No Plea but the Gospel.
   No Name but the Divine.
   In Christ--Unity.
   In Opinions--Liberty.
   In all Things--Charity.

_Is One Church as Good as Another?_

The mere hint that there might be something in the doctrines of
different churches that is erroneous and needs to be dropped or
modified, is usually met with a frown of disfavor, by the
supersensitive sectarian world. The sectarian sore is grown over with
the agreement to disagree, and woe unto the doctor that insists on
probing the wound to effect a cure. The effort at probing is usually
met with the declaration, "One church is just as good as another, they
are all aiming for the same place." Let us try to discover what truth
or error is wrapped up in this statement, and what are the religious
conditions that inspire such declarations. In the first place, it shows
a disposition to apologize for sectarian doctrines rather than to
defend them. This is a hopeful sign. All the large denominations in
America originated in European countries under the bitter religious
controversies and cruel political strife that followed the Dark Ages.
It was these stormy and abnormal conditions that gave birth to these
sects and largely moulded their peculiar doctrines. One extreme begot
another, and while each of these denominations emphasized some
neglected religious truth, it emphasized it so strongly as to often
twist it into an untruth or out of proper relationship to other truths.
The people in free America are not interested in the polemical
controversies that resulted from religious and political conditions in
the old countries. Thus it has come to pass that scarcely any
denomination seriously and persistently urges the ideas that gave it
birth, and their creeds have to be revised continually to hold their
preachers and church-members. The result is that the great mass of the
members of the sectarian churches neither know nor care what the creeds
of their churches teach. I say that this is a hopeful sign, but there
is also a great danger involved in it. Learning that the doctrines of
their own and other denominations are not of saving or vital
importance, people are likely to jump to the conclusion that no
religious doctrines are of vital importance, and so lose their interest
in Christianity. No one can deny that thousands have reached this
condition, and are either members of no church or merely nominal,
indifferent members. Since all sectarian doctrines are of human origin
and of no vital, saving importance, we can endorse the statement that,
from a sectarian standpoint, one church is just as good as another.

We will also grant, for the sake of the argument, that from the
standpoint of piety, talent, learning and consecration, one church, on
an average, is just as good as another. But does this go to the bottom
of the subject? The doctor who, through ignorance of medical science,
gives your child medicine that cripples it for life or kills it, may be
just as good morally and intellectually as other doctors who know their
business. His blunder of ignorance may not destroy his hope of heaven;
but is that a reason why you would just as soon have him treat your
child as another doctor? So sectaries who teach erroneous doctrines may
be just as honest, consecrated and learned as those who teach the
gospel truth; but does it make no difference to the cause of Christ and
the salvation of souls, whether they teach sectarian vagaries that
divide and desolate the church, or exalt the Christ and his Word so as
to unite all his followers in the conquest of the world? But, you ask,
how can good and learned people differ so in their beliefs? We may not
understand how it is, but we know it is and ever has been so. Our minds
are so constituted that we must see all truths alike, logically,
mathematically and in every other way, if we see them at all. The
trouble is that our vision is so warped through prejudice and limited
ideas and information that we fail to see the simplest truths, and find
in the Bible and elsewhere what we bring with us through heredity and
environment. The Bible recognizes this truth. Jesus prayed, "Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Paul says,
"I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Tim.
1:13), and again, "The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now
commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). It may seem
paradoxical, but it is nevertheless true, that the greatest hindrance
to the spread of the truth of God has come from pious, consecrated and
God-fearing souls who were misled by their hereditary prejudices. The
majority of those converted under the preaching of the Apostles, as
recorded in the New Testament, were devout saints who needed to be
delivered from their hereditary Jewish prejudices and enlisted in the
re-alignment of religious forces for the conquest of the world for
Christ and his kingdom. The Pentecostians were "devout men," the eunuch
was a devout worshiper, Saul of Tarsus was a conscientious man,
Cornelius was devout and a philanthropist. A large per cent of the Jews
were honest and devout people, but were fighting against Christ because
they were blinded by hereditary religious ideas. Peter, even after
Pentecost, was subject to these influences, for it took ten years, with
special miraculous manifestations, before he could see that Gentiles
were creatures to whom the gospel was to be preached as well as to the
Jews. While sectarian divisions are largely due to selfish and wicked
men, most of them are due to devout Christians who are misled by
inherited prejudices or simply drift with the tide.

If these things are true, we should tremble lest we are upholding error
and opposing the truth unintentionally through hereditary bias. We
should make a prayerful and diligent search for the truth as it is in
Christ Jesus. Although we have discovered that none of the sectarian
doctrines are of vital importance, let us remember that it is different
with "the faith [system of teaching] which was once for all delivered
unto the saints" (Jude 3) by the Apostles and for which we are duty
bound to "earnestly contend." Since so many devout and learned
preachers are teaching so many contradictory doctrines, which cannot
all be true, let us not accept their statements unchallenged, but let
us test them (I John 4:1-6) by searching the Scriptures daily to see if
these things are so (Acts 17:11). After that we are assured that we
have found the truth ourselves, let us "be gentle unto all men, apt to
teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves:
if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of
the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the
devil, who are taken captive by him at his will" (2 Tim. 2:24-26). In
view of the fact that at least the great majority of the members of
denominational churches must be in error, it should be a crowning glory
to change one's religious affiliations through an investigation of the
truth. The hope of the cause of Christ lies with those who, hearing the
voice of God's truth in their conscience, are ready to obey it, even if
it results in breaking the dearest human ties and leads to ostracism
and persecution. Almost all the promoters of this union movement have
themselves found their way out of sectarianism after heart-rending
efforts to rid themselves from their hereditary prejudices and errors.
They are simply entreating others to do what they themselves have done,
 for the sake of Christ's cause, and help to establish local churches
of Christ after the Apostolic model. That they have fundamentally
reoccupied the primitive ground is admitted by all who have fairly
investigated the subject. If they are yet in error on any points, they
are in a position and ready to correct these as fast as they discover
them through a further study of God's Word.

 _The Church Triumphant._

Christ declares that the evangelization of the world is dependent upon
Christian union. Therefore, the ultimate triumph of his church
necessitates the triumph of Christian union. We praise God for every
movement that looks toward a closer union of Christians; but we are
sure that nothing short of the removal of every vestige of
denominationalism and the complete restoration of the one body or
church of New Testament times will satisfy the demands of God's Word. A
number of forces such as the Sunday-school, C.E., Y.M.C.A., Evangelical
Alliance and Church Federation are destroying the sectarian spirit and
the field is getting ripe unto the harvest for the restoration of the
unity of the early church with its converting power. The success of
this movement for Christian union on the primitive gospel has been
phenomenal. In eighty years its adherents have increased from ten
thousand to about one and a third millions. The per cent of gain in
membership, from 1890 to 1905, in the six American religious bodies
that number a million each was as follows: Christians or disciples of
Christ, 94 per cent.; Roman Catholics, 73 per cent.; Lutherans, 51 per
cent.; Methodists, 40 per cent.; Baptists, 38 per cent., and
Presbyterians, 35 per cent. Barring out the Catholics and Lutherans,
who get most of their gain by immigration, the Christians or churches
of Christ show more than double the gain of the other three bodies. We
glory in this growth only as the glory of Christ is involved in it. It
is an earnest of what Christian union will do even through very
imperfect instruments. What will the harvest be, when the prayer of
Jesus is answered and all his followers are united in one "glorious
church, holy and without blemish, not having spot or wrinkle or any
such thing" (Eph. 5:27), going forth to the evangelization of the world
"fair as the moon, clear as the sun, terrible as an army with banners,"
"looking forth as the morning" (S. of Sol. 6: 10)! May the prayer of
Jesus for the union of his followers be our prayer, and may we do all
in our power to bring a speedy answer! Amen.

The following is a splendid statement of the aim of the Restoration
movement. I do not know its author:

OUR AIM.

1. The restoration of primitive Christianity and consequent union of
all the followers of Christ in one body.

2. To build a church of Christ, without a denominational name, creed or
other barrier to Christian unity, whose terms of fellowship shall be as
broad as the conditions of salvation and identical with them.

3. To lead sinners to Christ in the clear light of the New Testament
teaching and example.

I have summarized the situation as I see it as follows:

ARE THESE THINGS TRUE?

SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES AND SEE. ACTS 17:11.

1. Christ wants all of his followers to be united in one church as they
were the first three centuries (John 17:20, 21; 1 Cor. 1:10-13; Eph.
4:1-6; Rom. 15:5-7).

2. Sects and divisions among Christians are wasteful, carnal and sinful
and result from exalting human leaders and their opinions above Christ
and his opinions revealed through his Apostles (1 Cor. 3:1-4; Rom.
16:17, 18; Gal. 5:20).

3. As soon as we drop human names, creeds and customs and build
churches after the divine model, by teaching and practising as the
Apostles did, the unity of the primitive church will be restored (Heb.
8:5; 1 Cor. 11:16; Jude 3).

4. Churches on an average are about the same in piety and consecration,
but so long as they teach contradictory doctrines they cannot all be
right, but may be wrong. _Therefore you should examine for yourself and
be sure you are guided by God's Word rather than by inherited
traditions which perpetuate sects_ (Mark 7:6-13).

The following _guide to salvation,_ which I take from one of my
circulars used in gospel work, has the merit of being taken entirely
from the Word of God, except the word "warning" and the few words in
parentheses. If it is in harmony with the context, and we sincerely
believe it is, then it is an infallible guide, and those who follow it
cannot be mistaken.

"These men are the servants of the most high God which show unto us

THE WAY OF SALVATION"

(Acts 16:17).

"WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?" (Acts 16:30; 2:37; 9:6).

"_Believe_ (unbeliever) on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be
saved" (Acts 16:31). (See also Acts 8: 12, 37; Mark 16:16; Rom.
10:9-11, 17; John 3:18; 20:31; 1 John 5:1.)

WARNING.--"He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16).

"_Repent_ (believers) and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye
shall receive _the gift of the Holy Ghost_" (Acts 2:38). (See also Acts
8:22; 26: 20; Luke 24:47; 2 Cor. 7:9, 10.)

WARNING.--"Except ye repent, ye shall all perish" (Luke 13:5).

"_Confess_ (penitent believer) with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and thou
shalt be saved" (Rom. 10:9, 10). (See also Matt. 10:32; 16:16; 26:63; 1
Tim. 6:13; 1 John 4:15.)

WARNING.--"Whosoever shall deny me, him will I also deny" (Matt. 10:33).

"_Be baptized_ (confessor) and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16). (See
also Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Gal. 3:26, 27; 1 Pet. 3:21.)

WARNING.--"Rejected the counsel of God, being not baptized" (Luke 7:30).

_"Walk in newness of life"_ (those buried with Christ in baptism) (Rom.
6:4).

WARNING.--"Walk not after the flesh," "For to be carnally minded is
death" (Rom. 8:1, 6).

"Then they that _gladly received_ his _word were baptized;_ and the
_same day_ there were _added unto them_ (joined church) about three
thousand souls. And they

CONTINUED STEADFASTLY

in the _apostles' doctrine_ (no human creed) and _fellowship _(weekly
collections, 1 Cor. 16:1, 2), and in _breaking of bread_ (weekly
communion, Acts 20:7), and in _prayers"_ (attending prayer-meetings,
Acts 2:41, 42).

"The disciples were

CALLED CHRISTIANS" (Acts 11:26).

"For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; _are
ye not carnal?"_ (1 Cor. 3:4). "If ye are reproached for the _name_ of
Christ, blessed are ye... if a man suffer as _a Christian_, let him
glorify God in _this name"_ (1 Pet. 4:14-16, R.V.).

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the _name_ of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all _speak the same thing,_ and that there be

NO DIVISIONS

among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the _same mind_
and in the _same judgment._ Now this I say, that every one of you
saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of
Christ: _is Christ divided_ (I Cor. 12: 12)? _Was Paul crucified for
you?_ or were ye baptized in (into) the name of Paul?" (I Cor. i:
10-13). "Therefore,

GO ON UNTO PERFECTION" (Heb. 6:1).

"_Grace_ and _peace_ be _multiplied_ unto you through the _knowledge_
of God and of Jesus our Lord. According as his divine power _hath given
unto us all things_ (in Bible) that pertain unto _life_ and
_godliness,_ through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory
and virtue. Whereby are given unto us _exceeding great and precious
promises;_ that by these ye might be partakers of the _divine nature_,
having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And
beside this giving all diligence,

ADD TO YOUR FAITH

_virtue_ (courage); and to virtue, _knowledge;_ and to knowledge,
_temperance_ (self-control); and to temperance, _patience;_ and to
patience, _godliness;_ and to godliness, _brotherly kindness_ (love of
brethren); and to brotherly kindness, _charity_ (love of _everybody_).
For if _these things_ be in you, and _abound,_ they make you that ye
shall _neither_ be _barren nor unfruitful_ in the _knowledge_ of our
Lord Jesus Christ. But _he that lacketh these things_ is _blind,_ and
cannot see afar off, and hath _forgotten_ that he was purged from his
old sins. _Wherefore,_ the rather, brethren, _give diligence_ to _make_
your calling and _election sure,_ for if ye do these things, ye shall
never fail: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you
_abundantly_ into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ" (2 Pet. 2:2-11).

"GOOD WORKS."

"For the _grace of God_ that bringeth _salvation_ hath appeared _to all
men, teaching us_ that _denying ungodliness_ and _worldly lusts,_ we
should _live soberly, righteous_ and _godly_ in this present world;
_looking for that blessed hope_ and the glorious appearing of the great
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who _gave himself for us,_ that he
might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a _peculiar
people, zealous of good works_" (Tit. 2: 11-14).


"WORKS OF THE FLESH

are manifest, which are these: _Adultery, fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,
wrath, strife, seditions (parties), heresies (sects--R. V.), envying,
murders, drunkenness, revellings,_ and _such like;_ of the which I tell
you before, as I have told you in the past, that _they which do such
things shall not inherit the kingdom of God._ But

THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT

is _love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
meekness, temperance,_ against such there is _no law"_ (Gal. 5:19-22).

"FINALLY,

brethren, whatsoever things are _true,_ whatsoever things are _honest,_
whatsoever things are _just,_ whatsoever things are _pure,_ whatsoever
things are _lovely,_ whatsoever things are _of good report;_ if there
be any _virtue,_ and if there be any _praise, think on these things"_
(Phil. 4:8).

"Now

unto him that is able to do _exceeding abundantly above all that we ask
or think,_ according to _the power that worketh in us,_ unto him be
glory _in the church by Jesus Christ_ throughout all ages, world
without end. Amen" (Eph. 3:20, 21).




CHAPTER IV.

OUR NEGLECTED FIELDS.


NOTE.--This chapter is an address that was delivered at the Centennial
Convention of the movement for the restoration of primitive
Christianity, held at Pittsburg, Pa., during October, 1909. It is here
given because it deals with the same general subject as the rest of the
book and shows why and how the reunion of the followers of Christ on
the primitive gospel is the greatest issue before the Christian world
to-day.

Ask the brotherhood what "Our Neglected Fields" are, and the answer
will come in a multitude of voices speaking from diverse viewpoints
according to each speaker's knowledge, experience and field of
operation. This is natural and proper. If your wife is not the best
woman in the world, you are not much of a husband. If your country is
not the best country on earth, you are not much of a patriot. Love for
everybody and everything in general is a good thing in its way, but the
specialized affections are of still greater importance in the world's
progress heavenward. But while this babel of appeals in behalf of
different places, classes and kinds of work is natural and proper, it
does not solve the problem as to what are really our neglected fields
and as to the relative amount of work and money we should give to the
various calls.

Standing on the banks of the Mississippi, it is impossible to determine
the origin of the various color elements in the water; but if we go to
the source, it is easy to discover that the red mud comes from the
Arkansas, the black mud from the Missouri and the coal dust from the
Ohio. So if we wish to discover the principles that will guide us in
selecting fields of operation, we must go back to the fountain-head of
the New Testament. If we are in the streets of a strange city, all is
confusion as to the lay of the land; but if we climb to the hilltop in
the rear of the city, we can readily get our bearings. So we must climb
to the hilltop with Christ and the Apostles and from there get our
bearings in our missionary operations. Let us then turn to the New
Testament and see if we can discover where we should go first and the
relative importance of the individual and society, the earthly and the
heavenly, the temporal and eternal, the material and spiritual, and
their relationship to each other.

In looking for the scope of gospel work, we discover that the salvation
of the individual and his attainment unto eternal life is the supreme
aim in view. From the multitude of Scriptures that teach this we select
the following: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but
have eternal life" (John 3:16). "Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved" (Mark 16:15,16). "Who will render to every man
according to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for
glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life" (Rom. 2:7). The
Scriptures are just as clear in placing the spiritual, eternal and
heavenly infinitely above the material, temporal and earthly: "We look
not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen;
for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are
not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4:18). "Set your mind on the things which
are above, not on the things which are upon the earth" (Col. 3:2).
"Took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions, knowing that ye have
for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one" (Heb. 10:34).
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth... but lay up for
yourselves treasures in heaven... for where your treasure is, there
will your heart be also" (Matt. 6:19-21). "For our citizenship is in
heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who
shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be
conformed to the body of his glory" (Phil. 3:20, 21). At best a very
small per cent of Christians can ever hope to attain unto wealth and
worldly success; and to present these things as an incentive to
godliness is but mockery, for "if we have only hoped in Christ in this
life, we are of all men most pitiable" (1 Cor. 15:19). We are
constantly tempted to be deceived by the delusion that wealth, health
and worldly success necessarily bring happiness, while the opposite is
as often true, as these things are not an end in themselves.

While the Scriptures thus clearly teach that the supreme effort of
Christianity is to prepare people for a glorious hereafter, good works
in this life are demanded and are of vital importance. It is the nature
of godliness to seek the well-being of others, in this life and the
life to come, and no soul can remain saved without doing all in its
power to minister unto others. "Ye tithe mint and anise and cummin and
have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy
and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the
other undone" (Matt. 23:23). "Created in Christ Jesus for good works,
which God afore prepared that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). The
promise of eternal life is to them who continue patiently in well-doing
(Rom. 2:7). "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it
away" (John 15:2). In all his works and words God seeks to reveal his
love to men with the purpose of wooing them back to himself, and good
works of love have an important place in winning souls to Christ. Thus
Jesus did many works of mercy through which he made manifest his and
the Father's love for sinners. "Even so let your light shine before men
that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in
heaven" (Matt. 5:16). "Having your behavior seemly among the Gentiles,
that wherein they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your
good works, which they behold, glorify God" (I Pet. 2:12). "That even
if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the
behavior of their wives" (I Pet. 3:1). Emerson says, "What you are
speaks so loud, I cannot hear what you say." This is, alas! too true of
our Christianity. Unless our love for people is incarnated in the good
works of our lives, sinners will lose faith in us and in our religion.
This does not mean that the church is to forsake prayer and the Word of
God to serve tables, or forsake its spiritual ministries and mainly
turn its energies to ministering to the physical, social and
intellectual man. Chiefly, the church, through its spiritual
ministries, is to inspire its members and others to good works of love
in their daily walk and conversation. As the anchor of the buoy or the
ballast of the ship holds it upright, so the good works of Christians
hold the spiritual salvation aloft to be seen of men, and commend it to
a dying world.

Having considered the scope of gospel work as revealed in the New
Testament, let us next inquire where we shall go first. As we cannot go
everywhere at once, where shall we begin, and where shall we go next?
Is this left to chance, or is an order of procedure revealed in the New
Testament? We believe that there is, and that it is of the greatest
importance that this order should be followed. Christ gave the order of
march in Acts 1:8, "Ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in
all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." If
we have any doubt as to the interpretation, the Apostles interpret it
for us in their work under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Other
things being equal, they went to the nearest territory first. Again, we
notice that the Apostles were especially led to the cities, the great
centers of population. This enabled them to reach most people in a
given time. Beginning at Jerusalem, their missionary journeys were
determined by the location of the leading cities. Furthermore, we learn
from the teaching and practice of Christ and the Apostles, that they
went to the ripest fields first. Christ came to the Jews, the best
prepared people on earth, to gather a nucleus for his coming kingdom
and to scatter preparatory light for the gospel message. The Apostles
commenced their gospel work at Jerusalem on Pentecost because the most
devout and enlightened saints on earth were gathered there. For this
reason the order was first the Jews and then the Gentiles (Acts 13:46,
47). Paul passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia and came to
Thessalonica because a synagogue of the Jews was there (Acts 17:1). The
Spirit forbade him to go to Asia and Bithynia and led him by Mysia into
Macedonia because there were hearts there ready to receive the message
(Acts 16:6-10). Christ commanded Paul to depart from Jerusalem because
they would not receive his testimony there (Acts 22:17-21). Open doors
were considered as guides by Paul in his missionary operations (I Cor.
16:8; 2 Cor. 2:12, 13; Acts 14:27; Col. 4:3).

Summing up, we find that the Apostles, in their effort to preach the
gospel to every creature, were guided by nearness of territory, density
of population and ripeness of field. That is, all things considered,
they went along the line of least resistance. This is the way of mercy
and common sense as well as of Scripture, as it is the quickest way to
reach every creature. It enlarges the army of conquest as fast as
possible and always meets the enemy at the point of least resistance.

It will help us to understand the matter if we keep in mind that it was
not only the purpose of Christ to save individuals here and there, but
also to organize a salvation society or church through which to carry
the gospel to the ends of the earth, provide a home for the new-born
spiritual babes and to extend his reign on earth as far and as fast as
possible.

The matter will become still plainer if we consider another principle
taught and practised by Christ and the Apostles; viz., the necessity an
absolute union of the forces of God under Christ for the accomplishment
of his work. Christ said, "Every kingdom divided against itself is
brought to desolation: and every city or house divided against itself
shall not stand," and he prayed for a perfect union among his followers
in order that the world might believe in him (Matt. 12:25; John 17:20,
21). Paul says, "Whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye
not carnal? For when one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of
Apollos; are ye not carnal?" (I Cor. 3:3, 4). Again he says, "If ye
bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of
another" (Gal. 5:15). Divisions inevitably lead to weakness, waste and
defeat. A small army united in the authority of a wise commander can
defeat the largest army on earth if it be divided through every officer
doing as he pleases or as he thinks best. Therefore Christ demanded
absolute union in his authority, and the Apostles first of all worked
for a union of Jews and Gentiles in one body or working force. If the
purpose had only been to save individuals, the Jews might have been
saved as Jews, but the object was to enlist the Jews with the Gentiles
in God's new army of conquest. This new union under Christ, or
re-alignment of religious forces, was so important that the salvation
of both Jews and Gentiles was conditioned on their entering it, and, if
necessary, all other unions and alliances had to be broken to maintain
this. All race and class distinctions must succumb. "There can be
neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be
no male nor female; for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus" (Gal.
3:28). Not even family ties were permitted to interfere with this union
in the authority of Christ. "He that loveth father or mother more than
me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than
me, is not worthy of me. For I came to set a man at variance with his
father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law: and a man's foes shall be they of his own
household" (Matt. 10:35-37). The subjection of wives to their husbands
and of children to their parents is limited "in the Lord" (Col. 3: 18,
20).

Summing up the New Testament principles that are to guide us in our
gospel work, we may say that we are to go as a united force along the
line of least resistance, making the eternal salvation of the
individual our supreme aim.

The Restoration movement became necessary because one of the
fundamental principles of the gospel had been violated; viz.: that of
Christian union. The success of this movement for Christian union on
the primitive gospel has been phenomenal. In eighty years its adherents
have increased from ten thousand to one and a third millions. But what
are these among so many? The work has but fairly begun, and the field
is just beginning to ripen for the larger harvest. Sectarianism is
still present in all of its hideousness, but the people are beginning
to see the desolation and sinfulness of divisions and are groping in
the dark in various efforts at solution. However, a careful
investigation will reveal the fact that the great drift towards
denominational union is more due to a dying faith in sectarian
doctrines than to a growing faith in the doctrines "once for all
delivered to the saints." About a year ago it was declared in a large
meeting of clergymen that "Protestantism is decaying and will be
displaced by some sort of a new Catholicism." The statement was
vigorously applauded. This simply means that sectarian Protestantism is
decaying. It should be remembered that every large religious body in
America, except that represented here to-day, originated in Europe
under the shadow of Roman Catholicism and under political, social and
religious conditions entirely different from those that now prevail in
America. These sectarian systems brought to America have been thawed
out by our free American religious atmosphere so that there is not a
large sectarian body that would dare to promulgate seriously and
persistently the basic principles that gave birth to it in Europe. The
consequence is that sects are hastening to revise their creeds so as to
get rid of their out-of-date features as gracefully as possible. One of
the leading arguments for union with other denominations used at the
recent Canadian General Assembly was that "it would give the church an
opportunity to revise its creeds, and to remove the barnacles and
cobwebs that had gathered around them." The leading speaker declared
that "not a single minister present would dare to enforce his own
interpretation of the Confession of Faith." The ministers hesitate to
enforce these hereditary traditions, and the members neither know nor
care what the creeds teach, and, therefore, we hear on every hand, "One
church is just as good as another."

We thank God for this relaxing of sectarianism and for the trend toward
Christian union. But the movement involves a grave danger. Having lost
faith in their distinctive sectarian doctrines, which they considered
synonymous with New Testament teaching, many sectarian people are
rapidly drifting into indifference, worldliness and unbelief. Forsaking
human leaders and their doctrines, they are in danger of also forsaking
the Apostles as religious leaders and their doctrines once for all
delivered to the saints. Sectarianism is bad, but sectarian life and
strife is better than a lifeless, conviction-less, graveyard,
sentimental union that is the result of a dying faith. In a union
revival in an Eastern city practically all the Protestant churches
worked together for a month, and we could not count five definite
committals to Christ. Any small sectarian church alone could have
accomplished greater definite results. After reducing their doctrines
so as to avoid all that would give offense to any, they become so thin
that there is but little to contend for.

The indifference to the doctrines of the creeds and the New Testament
which is hastening the disintegration of sectarianism, is partly due to
infidelity in the churches. Discerning critics cannot fail to see that
much of the drift toward denominational union is due to the leadership
of preachers who, through rationalism, have lost faith in the
inspiration of the Bible and consequently in evangelical Christianity.
As I was a student for three years at a Unitarian theological school
and have gone through the process myself, I am able to speak on this
subject as perhaps few of our brethren can. Misguided by rationalism, I
thought it my conscientious duty to accept, step by step, the dictates
of destructive criticism until the Bible was only inspired to me in
religion as Kant in philosophy, Milton in poetry and Beethoven in
music. But when I came to the end of the business I discovered that my
conscience, that had urged me along, was gone also. For I was gravely
taught that conscience is simply a creation of experience and education
and that it is right to lie or do anything else so long as you do it
out of love. Doubtless you have all heard of the farmer and his wife at
the World's Fair, who went to see the "Exit." There was nothing in it
and of course they had to pay to get in again. This was my bitter
experience with rationalism. I thought I was following a great light,
but I discovered there was nothing in it, that I was following an
_ignis fatuus_. Rationalism has indeed proven the "Exit" to multitudes,
from the peace, joy and moral security that accompany faith in
evangelical Christianity into the desert of doubt, darkness and
despair. To those preachers who, through rationalism, have lost faith
in the inspiration of the Bible, doctrines are no longer a hindrance to
union, for they have lost faith in all evangelical doctrines and
therefore selfishness and utility draw them toward union.

If this is the religious condition to-day, you can see that we are in
danger of religious anarchy and spiritual death. We are told that the
splendid civilizations of Greece and Rome were made possible through
the moral integrity and manhood inspired by their heathen religious
systems. When unbelief in these systems originated among the
philosophers and through them permeated the mass of the people,
morality and sincerity were displaced by policy, distrust and
deception, which brought utter ruin to the social and civil fabric. How
much greater must the calamity be if the faith, integrity and morality
underlying our splendid Christian civilization should be destroyed by
the antichristian doctrines already taught in the classroom at some of
the leading schools. The only hope lies in a return to "the faith once
for all delivered to the saints." I believe we have been raised up for
this hour. Our past work and opportunities are but a drop in the bucket
compared with our present opportunities for work. As never before, it
behooves us to raise the banner of New Testament Christianity as a
standard to rally and reorganize the divided, confused and retreating
hosts of Christ. It is not a question of staying at Jerusalem until
each individual is converted, but the question is whether we will ever
go to the Jerusalem of teeming millions in our land who have never even
heard the plea for Christian union on the primitive gospel. Just as the
Apostles went to saints (pious Jews) and sinners and demanded upon pain
of their eternal condemnation that they unite under King Jesus, so we
must go to the saints of the sects and sinners of the world and insist
that they unite under the non-sectarian banner of Christ, in order that
the whole world may believe in him as God's Son. As in the days of the
Apostles, so now we need a re-alignment of religious forces in order to
conquer the world for Christ.

Having learned the New Testament principles that should guide us in our
missionary operations, and through these discovered our chief sphere of
work in view of the present situation, let us turn to special
missionary problems that constantly suggest themselves to us and
consider our duty towards them and their relationship to the great
mission that rests upon us as a distinctive people. I refer to the
Indians, Mormons, Jews, immigrants, the lower and slum districts of our
cities, the mountaineers of the Appalachian system, the millions of
unevangelized negroes in the South, etc.

Concerning these problems I wish to call your attention to the
following considerations:

First, these problems are largely educational, legal, social and
philanthropic, and as such should be solved by the united effort of all
the good citizens of the land. Keeping in mind the New Testament
principles that are to guide us, we can readily see that Christians
should do many things that the church was not ordained to do. The
church, as a church, should not go into politics and business. On the
other hand, the church, through its spiritual ministries, should
inspire its members to enter business, politics, philanthropic
associations, etc., in order, as far as possible, to incarnate
Christian principles in their life in the world. We may differ as to
the finer distinctions, but none of us would advocate a union of church
and state or of church and business. As this is a nation in which
Christians can control the laws, they can do much through good
citizenship to solve these questions and bring these classes within the
reach of the spiritual gospel. One of the great duties of the church in
behalf of these people is, through their spiritual ministries, to
constrain their members to make and enforce proper laws for their
education, protection and improvement. Christianity is the religion of
a book, and the first thing needful to bring these classes to an
intelligent Christian faith is at least a common-school English
education. Those of us who have lived in cities that are largely
foreign know that the public schools are doing more to bring these
classes within gospel reach than all other agencies combined.

Second, I wish to throw out a warning against engendering or
encouraging the class spirit which we find so severely condemned in the
New Testament. In the New Testament we read nothing about churches for
different classes or about different classes as separate missionary
problems, but the effort is to reach all classes through the local
churches along the line of least resistance. The best thing on earth
for these various classes is that they might be brought into vital
touch with the best Christian people in our local churches. Some have
even gone so far as to claim that we cannot reach the slum element, but
must leave that to the Salvation Army, etc. If that is true, so much
the worse for our Christianity. A truly New Testament church is the
incarnation of the wisdom and love of God for reaching any and all
classes of people. The class spirit is the outgrowth of ignorance,
prejudice and selfishness and is always sinful among Christians. Our
experience with tuberculosis and with the modern complicated industrial
and political systems, is thrusting upon us anew Christ's teaching
about the brotherhood of man or the solidarity of the race. On the
whole, it is true that the race suffers or rejoices, rises or falls,
together. We condemn the segregation of foreign races in different
sections of our large cities. But the segregation of the better, or at
least more fortunate, classes, is just as bad and more disastrous to
the welfare of the city. Social settlements and institutional churches
are manifestations of the Christ spirit, but they are only proxies and
excuses for the mass of Christians and but samples and crumbs in place
of the square meal that a square deal would supply. What these
institutions are doing in a comparatively unnatural and artificial way
is simply a hint of what could and would be done if all church-members
would practise the Christ spirit in all their daily walk and
conversation. To give a few dollars to help pay a few mission workers
to live Christ in the slum districts is all right, but is no adequate
substitute for all Christians giving all their life to uplift and save
their country and the whole world. The best institutional church is the
one that through its spiritual ministries inspires its members to live
Christ in politics, in business, in society, in the home and everywhere
else. So far as possible, let us minimize and discourage the class
spirit in every way, shape and form. It is marvelous what the true
Christ spirit will do along this line. A church of Christ was recently
organized at Romney, W. Va., with two-thirds of the members foreign
born. With a few days' effort nineteen Italians recently joined the
Christian Church at Uhrichsville, O. Similar results have followed
faithful efforts in New York City and at many other places. If in love
and faith we would make a serious effort to reach these classes through
the local churches, we would do ten times more to reach and help them
than by seeking to reach them as classes.

In the third place, we must avoid the materializing tendency of the age
in our gospel work. The constant tendency is to lose sight of the
spiritual, invisible and eternal, to be blinded by the things of this
world and to be conformed to them. In reading popular books on Home
Missions we cannot but be grieved at the flings and thrusts at the old
evangelism and the laudations of the new evangelism. For the context
shows that the teaching is away from the spiritual and eternal
salvation of the individual, which the New Testament makes the chief
and ultimate thing, to the material and temporal things of this earth,
which the New Testament makes a means to a higher end. To prove that
the old evangelism is defunct, attention is called to the fact that
seven thousand sectarian congregations did not have a single convert in
an entire year. But can that be said of true New Testament evangelism?
How prone we are to forget that only a comparatively few can attain
unto worldly success according to the standard of public opinion and
none so as to be satisfied with the effort. For the more we get the
more we want in wealth and fame and pleasure, and none of these things
in themselves bring happiness or well-being, which is the real thing
the soul hungers for. Who can estimate the eternal good B. F. Mills did
while he pointed individuals to the Lamb of God and thus filled their
souls with new life, hope and courage to do and to dare for self and
others because "of the joy that was set before them"? But in an evil
day he became spiritually near-sighted and spoke about saving society
rather than the individual, and now he is reputed to be a hotel-keeper,
ministering to the material comforts of his fellow-men. Oh, what a fall
was there! But only an example of multitudes who have become
near-sighted and unfruitful through a so-called new evangelism that is
not new. While giving good works their proper and important place, let
us never forget that to save the individual soul for eternity through
the gospel is the chief work of the church, and that it must ever
subordinate the temporal and material to the spiritual and eternal.

Furthermore, it is well to remember that our sectarian neighbors,
having largely lost faith in what they once considered their
distinctive mission, are naturally turning much of their energy to
general educational, philanthropic and civilizing work. Under the
circumstances it is natural and proper that they should give relatively
more of their energies to this kind of work than we, as we have a
distinctive mission that demands our chief effort.

The classes enumerated above present indeed great missionary problems.
We should keep in mind the entire field and never plan for anything
short of reaching, as soon as possible, every creature with the gospel.
But accepting the guidance of the Holy Spirit, revealed in the New
Testament, we must go to the ends of the earth as a body united in
Christ and his truth, along the line of least resistance, ever keeping
in mind the spiritual and eternal salvation of the individual as the
ultimate aim.

These things being true, I still believe, as we have always taught,
that the reunion of God's people on the primitive gospel is at present
the overshadowing issue before us and that in working for its
accomplishment we are doing the utmost in our power to solve all
missionary problems. Christ can never conquer with a hopelessly divided
army. Sectarianism ties up three-fourths of the men and money and kills
three-fourths of the spiritual power that could otherwise be used to
solve all missionary problems. Unite all saints in Christ and set free
these forces, and within this generation the world will believe and
know that Jesus is the Christ whom God sent into the world (John 17:20,
21, 23). I believe that God has providentially prepared both us and the
field, and unless we perform the mission set before us he will raise up
another people through whom to bring about Christian union on the
primitive gospel, to our eternal shame, but to their eternal glory.
Thus it seems that, pre-eminently, our neglected fields lie among the
teeming millions of America, ripe unto the harvest for our plea, but
who, through our negligence, have not even heard that there is such a
plea.

Grapes of Eshcol have been gathered from every corner of our land,
proving that it is a land flowing with milk and honey for primitive
Christianity. Look at the wonders done in Oklahoma. Go to Southern
California and see the recent record. Go to the great Northwest, both
in Canada and the United States, and see the ripeness of the field. If
we turn to the southeast we gather just as large clusters of grapes in
Florida and along the coast. See the marvels accomplished in
Washington, our capital. Two churches offered to us because we are
non-sectarian. Turn to Baltimore and see the marvelous growth. Two
fields offered to us because we stand for Christian union. Look at the
recent and abundant fruit in conservative Pennsylvania, or pass on to
New York and see the wonders at East Orange and in Brooklyn among the
Russians. Wherever we turn, the field is riper than ever and we must
haste to garner it in or the abundant crop will perish. The heart of
the country is already largely ours. Let us go forward with enlarged
numbers and renewed vigor, knowing that the God of the harvest is with
us and we are well able to possess the land. While greatly increasing
all our other activities, let us push the Home Society to the front
where it belongs according to every principle of Scripture, mercy,
economy, efficiency and common sense. If we will renew among us the
zeal and self-denial of the pioneers of this movement, we will soon
gloriously triumph to His honor and praise.