{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_31779/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_31779","id":"gutenberg_31779","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31779","summary":null,"tags":["Ashley, George T. (George Thomas), 1863-1952","Category: Biographies","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Unitarianism","Unitarians -- Biography"],"text":"Produced by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's note: this book uses several non-standard spellings,\ne.g. \"tho\" (though), \"thoro\", \"thoroly\" (thorough, thoroughly), \"thru\"\n(through), etc.]\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFROM BONDAGE TO\n\nLIBERTY IN RELIGION\n\n\nA SPIRITUAL AUTOBIOGRAPHY\n\n\nBY\n\nGEORGE T. ASHLEY\n\n\n\n\nTHE BEACON PRESS\n\nBOSTON\n\n\n\n\nCopyright, 1919\n\nBY THE BEACON PRESS, INC.\n\n\nAll rights reserved\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD\n\nThe substance of what is written in this book has been given on several\noccasions during the past five years in the form of sermons or\nlectures.  On each occasion they met with such hearty commendation, and\nso many requests that they be written and published in book form that\nthey might have a wider circulation, that I have been induced to\nundertake it.  This volume is the result.\n\nIt is in no sense a treatise on controverted theological questions;\naltho some of these are incidentally treated, but only as they entered\nas factors into my own religious life and experience.  This book is\nsimply the story of my own religious life from my early childhood to\nthe present time, in its various transitions from the narrowest\northodoxy to a broad, liberal, rational religious faith.  It\nnecessarily deals to some extent with certain theological problems that\nfrom time to time confronted me, the way in which I solved them, the\nconclusions I finally reached, and why I reached them.  But these have\nbeen treated in mere outline only.  The temptation has been very great\nto treat, some of these at least, more elaborately; but I have been\ncompelled to content myself often with the bare statement of my views,\nwith few or no detailed arguments to support them.  But as my object\nhas been, not so much to try to solve these problems for others, as to\npoint the way thereto, and stimulate the reader to further inquiry and\ndeeper investigation of the subjects treated, if I have succeeded in\nthis, my main object has been accomplished.\n\nNo one is more sensible of the many defects in this work than I am.  It\nmakes no pretension to any literary merit, nor to any scholarly\nerudition.  I am not a \"professional writer.\"  I have simply tried to\ntell my story in a simple way and make it \"readable\" if possible.  My\nsole purpose in writing these pages has been to try to help others who\nmay still be in the fetters of ecclesiastical bondage, or wandering in\nthe quagmires of agnosticism--and I know there are many such--to find\nthe way to light and liberty in a rational religious faith.  If I can\naccomplish this, even in a small degree, I shall feel abundantly repaid\nfor the time and labor spent in reviewing the story of my own religious\nevolution.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nWhen the traveller, bent on some important quest, makes a prolonged and\nperilous journey and returns in safety to his friends and neighbors,\ninstinctively those who have known him in former years realize that he\nis, and he is not, the same person who had dwelt among them.  He has\nseen unfamiliar peoples, traversed strange lands, encountered\nunexpected dangers.  Old prepossessions have been effaced, erroneous\nopinions have been corrected, new habits of thought have taken the\nplace of old ones and the narrow world of youth has expanded on every\nside.  Naturally, what has happened to him becomes a matter of\ncuriosity and enquiry, and the hero of a great achievement is expected\nto relate the story of his adventures.\n\nThe man who, in these revolutionary days, takes religion\nseriously--there are many who do not--must make a journey which is\nfraught with as many surprises and filled with as many\nanxieties--especially if it be a pilgrimage from orthodoxy to personal\nindependence--as that which the explorer encounters in a voyage to the\nNorth Pole or the jungles of Africa.  At every turning of the way he\nmust be prepared for disillusions and the discovery of facts and errors\nwhich call for unlimited courage and boundless faith.  Religion is not\nsimply a matter of the emotions, its very perpetuity depends upon that\nsane and persistent activity of the intellect without which the\nemotions are tyrannous and fateful.  Emotion in religion is the driving\nforce by which religion may be applied to human welfare, but if emotion\nbe not governed and directed by the well-trained intellect, informed by\npatient thought and the use of all the evidence available from those\nwho are entitled to be summoned as witnesses, the result inevitably is\nmerely a matter of superstition, or a spineless acquiescence in old and\nfutile beliefs.  To continue all the while to believe in _religion_\nwhile one is pursuing a course of reasoning which is bound to shatter\nmany of the interpretations of it which one has previously accepted,\nrequires the kind of intellectual endurance and the quality of faith\nwhich characterize the inventor, or the scientific explorer.\n\nWhen the author of this volume, as an unquestioning disciple of his\nancestral fellowship, earnestly sought to pledge all that he was and\nall that he hoped to become to the salvation of those who he believed\nstood in peril of everlasting torment, it was the unadulterated spirit\nof religion which prompted him.  But he was at that time unaware of\nthat fact.  Religion was with him when it moved him to give himself for\nothers, but to him religion was itself something entirely different.\nHe was urged and commanded by a force, old as mankind, and it took him,\nas the reader of these pages will see, many years of heart-breaking\nendeavor, to learn that what most he desired was what most he\npossessed.  His quest was a long and weary one, and the reality of it\nand the importance of it to him are proven by the thoroughness and the\neloquence with which his spiritual experience is recalled and set down\nin these pages.  Only one who had begun in earnest, proceeded in\nanxiety and continued to the end, as if he absolutely believed in the\nintegrity of the human reason and the intimate friendliness of a\nsupreme Guidance, could have emerged at last triumphantly and with the\nability to tell the tale.\n\nTo him who thinks of religion only as a matter of course, or as an\naffair of the church, or as a medium of social advantage; or to him who\nidentifies religion with the ravings of half-witted fanatics and\nregards it with patronizing contempt, this book will make no appeal.\nBut to the man or woman who has learned that religion is one thing and\ntheology another, and at whatever cost, is willing to share with the\nauthor in his struggle to know the truth about it and be at peace,\nthese pages will command undivided attention; for they relate not only\nthe story of mental perplexity ending in a great personal solution, but\nthey likewise have the charm of a real romance of the soul.\n\nLEWIS G. WILSON.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER\n\n    I  MY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND EDUCATION\n   II  SEEKING LIBERTY\n  III  NEW VISIONS AND DISTURBANCES\n   IV  NEARER THE CRISIS\n    V  THE CRISIS\n   VI  THE REACTION: A NEW CONFESSION OF FAITH\n  VII  A NEW INTERPRETATION OF RELIGION\n VIII  JESUS OF NAZARETH\n\n\n\n\nFROM BONDAGE TO LIBERTY IN RELIGION\n\nA RELIGIOUS AUTOBIOGRAPHY\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nMY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH AND EDUCATION\n\nPractically all people inherit their first religious opinions from\ntheir parents, their early environment or both, as I did mine.  The\ntrouble with most of us is that we never get beyond that stage.  We\ntake it for granted that these opinions, whether about religion,\npolitics or anything else, are correct, because we have been told so,\nand never go out of our way or trouble ourselves for a moment to\ninvestigate their truth or error.  And thus we go on from generation to\ngeneration, traveling in the same old ruts, thinking the same old\nthoughts, in the same old way, each of us assuming that our particular\nancestors could not possibly have been wrong about anything; and\nalthough Christianity is divided into several hundred different\ndenominations and creeds, each believes his creed to be absolutely\ncorrect and all the others partly or wholly wrong.\n\nLike Saul of Tarsus, I belonged to the Pharisees of the strictest sect.\nI was taught from infancy that the church of my parents was the one and\nonly true, scriptural and orthodox church on earth, with an unbroken\norganic succession from Jesus Christ himself down to the present time;\nthat it was the only true exponent of apostolic faith and practice; the\nonly true and lawful custodian of the word of God, and the only\nauthority for the administration of the ordinances of the gospel; that\nall other organizations claiming to be churches were not churches in\nfact, but merely religious societies; and that while some of these\nsocieties might do some little good in the world, and some of their\nmembers might ultimately be saved, they could never reach those sublime\nheights of glory reserved exclusively for the truly baptized members of\nthe true and only church.  Just when and how these ideas first took\nconcrete form in my mind it is impossible for me now to remember.  As\nabove intimated, in the plastic condition of my youthful mind, I\nnaturally absorbed them from the very atmosphere in which I lived, from\nthe common talk I heard around me, as well as from the direct\ninstruction given me.\n\nAs far back as I can remember, I understood the Bible to be the word of\nGod, every word of it, from the first word in Genesis to the last\n\"Amen\" of Revelation; that it was all divinely inspired, _verbatim et\nliteratim_, just as it appeared in the old King James version; that it\nwas God's revelation to mankind, beside and outside of which there\nnever was, and never would be any other; that every word of it was\nliterally, and infallibly true, just as it read.  Such a thing as\nfigurative, or allegorical interpretations I never heard of until I was\na grown man, as we shall see later.\n\nThis, of course, meant a literal six-day Creation, an anthropomorphic\nGod, a literal physical heaven, and likewise a literal, physical hell,\na personal devil, the absolute, literal, truth of the story of Eden,\nthe original perfection and fall of man, total depravity of the race,\nvicarious atonement and the eternal damnation of all mankind,\nindividually and collectively, who did not accept the prescribed creed\nof the church of my parents, as the only means of escape.\n\nMy first conception of God was that of a great big good man sitting\nhigh up in heaven on a great white throne, whence He would judge the\nworld; that heaven was a great city somewhere up in the skies, with\nstreets of gold and walls of jasper; that hell was a literal burning\nlake of fire and brimstone somewhere down under the world, and that it\nwas presided over by the devil and was made to burn people in who were\nnot good, or who had not believed in Christ as a personal Savior.  As a\nlittle child I was taught that if I was not a good boy, when I died,\nthe devil, usually spoken of as \"the bad man,\" would get me and burn me\nin this hell forever and ever; and that I never could burn up or die,\nand if I called for water he would pour melted lead down my throat.\nMany a time I would think over this horrible torture that I might\ninadvertently fall into by doing some bad thing when at heart I really\nmeant to be good, and sincerely wish I had never been born.\n\nIn my night visions I could see the devil with his tea-kettle of melted\nlead, pouring it down the throats of the helpless little ones, writhing\nin the tortures of the never ending fire!\n\nOn the day that I was twelve years old a little incident occurred that\nso indelibly stamped itself on my mind, and so changed the course of my\nthoughts thereafter, that it is necessary to mention it.  I was proud I\nhad reached that stage of life.  I was boasting of it to a hired man,\nwith whom I was doing an errand, informing him that I was now \"more\nthan half a man,\" and that in nine more years I would be a man, when \"I\ncould do as I pleased.\"  He informed me that, after all, it was not a\nthing to be so proud of; that I had that day reached \"the age of\naccountability\"; that on that day I became personally responsible to\nGod for my sins; that if I had died before that day I would have been\nsaved from hell by God's free grace, because of my infancy; but that\n_from that day on_, I must account to God for myself; and that it would\nbe necessary for me to repent, and pray daily for the forgiveness of my\nsins, lest I die and fall into the \"bottomless pit\" for all eternity.\nThis was news to me.  I had never heard of before.  It produced a\nprofound sensation in my thought; and to say it seriously troubled me\nis to put it mildly.  As soon as my errand was done I went to my mother\nwith it.  She confirmed it.  Then I sincerely wished I had died before\nI reached that fateful day.\n\nAnother serious trouble confronted me.  When told I must repent of my\nsins and pray for forgiveness, I could not comprehend just what it\nmeant to \"repent.\"  I was told that it was \"to be sorry\" for my sins.\n\nTo be frank, I was not conscious of any sin.  I had tried to be a good\nboy; I was obedient to my parents, and did no evil to any one that I\nwas aware of.  True, I made childish mistakes every day, as all\nchildren do.  But I could not recognize that I had been personally\nsinful against God.  I knew I had not meant to be.  Then they told me\nthat I was _born_ a sinner!  That when Adam ate the \"forbidden fruit\"\nit made every person that was ever born into the world thereafter, a\nsinner by nature; and I would have to repent of this sin, as well as\nall that I ever committed, if I ever expected to escape the lake of\nfire and brimstone \"where the worm dieth not and the fire is not\nquenched.\"  My whole nature, even as a child, revolted against the\ninjustice of thus making me responsible for, and punishing me for\nsomething some one else did thousands of years ago; but I had no remedy\nand had to take it and prepare to repent of Adam's sin.\n\nWhat a monstrous doctrine to teach a child!  Can any mortal in this age\nof the world believe such nonsense, or perpetrate such a caricature of\nGod?  I wondered how the \"Good Man\" up in the skies on his great white\nthrone in his beautiful city of gold, could be just and plunge a little\nchild into hell and burn it for ever and ever because Adam ate fruit\nfrom the wrong tree!  But I believed it then, because I was told so,\nand knew no better.  I don't believe it now, and how any human being\nwith the instincts of justice pertaining to the common brute creation\ncan believe such a thing is a mystery to me.\n\nAs time went on I learned more about repentance, faith, conversion,\nbaptism and the current theology of my time and environment.  But I was\never anxious to escape from that dreaded hell that ever yawned before\nme in daytime and disturbed my dreams at night.  The thought of it was\na veritable nightmare to me.  It destroyed the happiness of my early\nlife.  As a child I could not reconcile it with any conception of God's\ngoodness or justice.  I was often, in the silence of my heart, tempted\nto rebel against God and defy him.  But I was afraid.  My thought was\nto make the best I could of a bad situation, and at the earliest\npossible moment make good my escape.  Perhaps this is as good a place\nas any to state the fact that my parents were members of the Baptist\nChurch, and that in this faith I was brought up.  However, I am glad to\nbe able to state that they were much broader and more liberal in their\nviews than many of their brethren.  I do not wish to be unjust to this\ngreat organization; but it is necessary here to make some statements\nconcerning its doctrine and practice, in order that my future relations\nto it may be the better understood--statements, the truth of which, all\nintelligent Baptists will testify to.\n\nFirst, the Baptist Church is just as exclusive in its claim to being\nthe only true, scriptural, orthodox, apostolic Church as are the\nCatholics, Episcopalians, or any other Christian body.  But this\napplies _only_ to their ecclesiastical organization, and _not_ to the\ncharacter of its membership.\n\nSecond, it _does not_ hold that baptism is essential to salvation, but\nthat it _is_ to church membership.  They do not baptize people _to\nmake_ them Christians; but because they recognize them as already being\nChristians, thru repentance, faith in Christ, and the regeneration of\nthe Holy Spirit.  Thus, they _recognize_ the true Christian character\nof any and all others who furnish evidence of these fundamental\ncharacteristics of a Christian life, tho they do not recognize them as\n\"church members,\" no matter to what other ecclesiastical organization\nthey may belong.  These statements are necessary to understand what\nfollows.\n\nNow in the country where I was brought up, in the time of my boyhood,\nthere were but two churches,--Baptists and Methodists.  In fact I was\nnearly grown before I knew there were any others at all.  These\nchurches were generally friendly--in a way.  While there was occasional\ncriticism of each by the other, and some controversy over doctrinal\ndifferences, there was no open warfare; and often members of each would\nattend and worship with the other.\n\nAs above said, I was anxious to make terms with God by repenting, being\nbaptized, or anything else that would relieve me of that constant dread\nof eternal damnation that overshadowed my life.\n\nPerhaps the reader has already surmised that I was brought up in the\ncountry districts.  Our churches usually held services but once a\nmonth.  But in the summer, when the \"crops were laid-by,\" we usually\nhad our \"protracted meetings,\" usually lasting a week--from Sunday to\nSunday--having two services a day at the church, with dinner on the\nground \"for all who came.\"  This was the annual revival season, when\nsinners were \"snatched from the eternal burning,\" back-sliders\nreclaimed and the cold and indifferent warmed up and aroused.\n\nWell, the summer after I was twelve years old and had reached that\nfateful period of \"personal accountability,\" at our protracted meeting,\nI wanted to go to the \"mourner's bench,\" repent, join the church and be\nbaptized, and thus make good my escape and my \"calling and election\nsure.\"  At this time I had no clear conception of the meaning of\nconversion.  Somehow I identified it with joining the church and being\nbaptized.  Contrary to the teachings of my church--which at that time I\ndid not understand,--to me, baptism was the main thing.  I wanted to be\nbaptized.  But they told me I was too young,--and too small to go down\ninto the deep water.  This was a great disappointment.  But I saw a ray\nof hope.\n\nThe next week the Methodist Church near our home had its protracted\nmeeting and we attended.  There I saw children, younger and smaller\nthan myself go to the mourner's bench, join the church and be\nbaptized,--by sprinkling.  They even sprinkled babies.  While I clearly\nunderstood that this was not _true baptism_, I also knew that many of\nthe Methodists were considered truly good people, good Christians, and\nsure of heaven at death, notwithstanding their lack of true baptism.  I\ntherefore conceived the idea that after all, this sprinkling might\npossess some merit, at least provisionally; and I therefore insisted on\nbeing permitted to join the Methodist Church and be sprinkled for the\ntime being, as a sort of emergency measure, until I should grow up to\nthat age--and size--where I might join the Baptist Church and be\nbaptized right.  But this pleasure was denied me.\n\nDuring the next two years I learned much; for I was a close student,\naltho only a child.  My mind also underwent a considerable change.\nThat constant and tormenting fear and dread of hell gradually weakened.\nIn fact I was consciously growing more and more indifferent toward it.\nYet I was not altogether uninterested.  I had learned much more about\nthe meaning of \"conversion\" as I saw it manifested in many, and\nsometimes violent, forms of demonstration.  As I saw these I fancied\nthat this was the kind of conversion I would like to have.  I wanted to\n\"get happy and shout\" as some of the others did.\n\nThe time came for the annual protracted meeting at the church of my\nparents.  At this meeting I found myself the object of considerable\nsolicitude.  I was now old enough to be converted, join the church and\nbe baptized.  They were all anxious that I be \"saved.\"  Of course I had\nto repent of my sins,--and also of Adam's.  I was not so self-conscious\nof innocence now as I was a few years before.  I really felt that I had\nsomething to repent of.\n\nThe preacher, and a good honest, sincere man he was, pictured the\nflames of hell and the torments of the damned with such power that I\nalmost felt the warmth of its fires and smelled its fumes of sulphur.\n\nI set out in earnest to repent of my own sins as well as Adam's.\nRepenting was very easy.  I cried until the tears refused to flow\nlonger.  Believing was easy, for I believed it all.  Being baptized was\neasy.  But I had not yet been \"converted.\"  There was no miraculous\ntransformation in me.  I had not yet \"got happy and shouted.\"  I waited\nfor it.  My tears dried up.  I still went to the \"mourners' bench,\" but\nnothing came of it.  I could not even cry.  One day the preacher,\nnoting my condition, had a talk with me.  I told him my feelings, and\nhe said I was converted.  But I told him that no such change had come\nover me as the others told about, and that seemed manifest in their\nemotions and actions.  Then he told me that as I was young and had\nnever been a great sinner I could not expect that wonderful\n\"experience\" that often comes to the old and hardened cases.  I was\ntruly glad to hear it.  I really felt saved.  I had now escaped the\ndevil.  I had already learned the doctrine of \"once in grace always in\ngrace,\" and I felt supremely happy to think that after all I had now\nescaped from the \"eternal burning\" and was entirely out of danger.  I\njoined the church and was baptized.\n\nI have thus referred at some length to my childhood for two reasons: It\nwill be seen later how some of these experiences affected my\nafter-life; and also because I feel that in some measure I am only\nrepeating in substance the experiences of millions of others who have\npassed through similar conditions of life.  Also to say to you, who\nwere brought up in the light of a liberal faith and free from these\ndogmas of dread, despair and damnation, that you ought to be sincerely\nthankful that you have escaped at least this much of hell, no matter\nhow much the orthodox may have in store for you in the future; and\nfurther, to exonerate my parents from any blame in the premises.  They\ntaught me only as they had been taught and firmly believed, and did it\nall for what they honestly believed, to be for my best interests.  Like\nmillions of others, they did the best they knew at the time.\n\nTHE CALL TO PREACH.--It was a part of the orthodox belief at that time,\nand is very largely so even now, that after the fall of Adam,\npractically all the human race was lost except now and then a worthy\npatriarch like Abel, Enoch and Noah, down to the call of Abraham; and\nafter that only the pious and faithful of the seed of Abraham, thru\nIsaac, were saved, down to the coming of Christ.  All the balance of\nmankind were utterly and irretrievably lost, both wicked and apostate\nJews and _all_ Gentiles.  And since the death of Christ those only are\nsaved who repent and believe in him as a personal savior, and accept\nthe prescribed creed of the particular church presenting it.  All the\nbalance of mankind, including all Jews and nine-tenths of the balance\nof mankind are irretrievably lost.\n\nThis being the case, the sole end and aim in life is to escape hell\nhereafter.  Nine-tenths of the preaching in my boyhood was to warn men\nto \"flee from the wrath to come.\"  But little was said about the love\nof God or the brotherhood of man, the nobility of character, human\nhelpfulness, the promotion of happiness here, and the general uplift\nand advancement of civilization and mankind.\n\nIt was wonderful the way they did ring the changes on hell and\ndamnation, and fire and brimstone!  It thundered from every pulpit like\nthe traditional thunders from Mt. Sinai.\n\nTaking this view of the world, of life and mankind, I felt that the\ngreatest thing in the world a man could do would be to devote his life\nto warning men of their danger and pointing the way to safety.  I\nwanted to sound my voice in warning men to \"flee from the wrath to\ncome.\"  Believing that all men were lost if they did not follow the\nprescribed course laid down by my church, I felt that if I did not do\nall in my power to direct them in the way of eternal life their blood\nwould be on my hands.  While I did not feel that I would be \"lost\" if I\nfailed in this--for the doctrine of my church was, that once being\nconverted all the devils in hell could not keep one ultimately from\nheaven--yet I felt that my future happiness in heaven would be\ndiminished just in proportion as I failed to do my best in this behalf.\nThis was interpreted to be a \"divine call to preach.\"  I accepted it\nwith profound earnestness and deep conviction, and began early to\nexercise my gifts.\n\nIn due course of events I went to college to \"prepare for the\nministry.\"  I was in love with the work and happy in its prospects.  I\nwas ambitious to be thoroly efficient in my work in the future and\npursued my studies with diligence accordingly.  Incidentally I learned\nmuch that was not in the books, as most college students do.\n\nI little knew what was before me.  Here in a \"school of the prophets,\"\nwhere I was supposed to be thoroly trained, rooted and grounded in the\nfaith of my church, I was to learn the first lessons that ultimately\nled me entirely out of the orthodox faith, into a broad, rational\nliberalism!  A few of these it will be necessary to state here, not so\nmuch because of any immediate effect they produced, as to show the\nworking of the leaven that years afterward \"leavened the whole lump.\"\n\nThe first shock I got was in the study of Geology.  When I began it I\nsaw at once that it was out of harmony with the Bible account of\nCreation, the origin of the earth, and organic life upon it.  While no\none told me so, I somehow conceived the idea that we were not studying\nit because it was recognized as truth, but just the opposite.  Being\nrooted and grounded from my infancy in the belief in the absolute\nliteralness, and infallible truth of the Bible; and supposing that I\nwas in college only to be more thoroly instructed in this divine truth,\nI conceived the idea that this book we were studying was merely the\n\"guess-work\" of some modern infidel, and that our real purpose in\nstudying it was to be the more able to refute it when we got out into\nour life work; all of which would fully appear before we finished the\nbook.\n\nOne day when we were perhaps half thru, the professor, himself a\nBaptist minister, catechised the class individually, as to their\nopinions as to the length of time the earth was in process of\nformation, previous to the appearance of life upon it.  I noticed, with\nsurprise, that the answers varied from a few millions to hundreds of\nbillions of years, until the question came to me, when I answered\npromptly, \"Six days!\"  Everybody laughed, professor and all.  Of course\nI felt \"cheap\"; but insisted on the correctness of my answer \"because\nthe Bible said so,\" notwithstanding Lyell and Dana to the contrary.\n\nThe professor complimented me on my \"loyalty to the Scriptures,\" but\nexplained that the story of creation in Genesis was to be interpreted\n\"figuratively\"; that it referred to six great geological epochs in\nterms of days; and that what we were studying was to be accepted as\nscientific truth in its general principles, subject, however, to\npossible revision in some of its details as further geological\ndiscoveries were made.\n\nThis was a revelation to me.  I know the intelligent reader of today\nwill be provoked to laugh at my native, inherent \"greenness.\" But it\nmust not be forgotten that this was thirty-six years ago; and besides\nthis, there are still, in this year of grace 1919, literally millions\nof men and women, long past the age of student life, who still hold\nsubstantially the same views concerning the relations of science to\nreligion and the Bible that I held then.  The simplicity of faith is\noften sublime.  And I am not sure that it is not often the truth that,\n\"Ignorance is bliss where it is folly to be wise\"; especially where the\n\"wisdom\" is just sufficient to disturb the mind but not enough to\nsettle it.  But I had a revelation,--two of them.\n\nFirst, that modern science is to be taken seriously; and second, that\nmuch of the Bible must be interpreted figuratively.  The latter was the\nmost disturbing to me.  The question that confronted me was this: If\nthe Bible is partly literal and partly figurative, when I get out into\nmy life work as a minister, how am I to be able to always determine\ncorrectly just what parts are literal and what figurative; and how to\ninterpret the figures?  But the answer came as quickly as the question:\nThis is just what I am here to learn, and before I am thru I will\ndoubtless know it all!  Some time after this a discussion arose among\nthe divinity students, about the doctrines of inspiration--as to\nwhether the Bible was literally and verbally inspired, word for word,\nor was merely an inspiration of ideas, the writers being left to write\ntheir \"inspirations\" in their own language and manner.  My idea had\nalways been that of the former, that the Bible was inspired word for\nword, just as it reads.  But I found the more progressive and better\neducated class among both students and professors had abandoned this\nidea, and accepted the doctrine of the inspiration of ideas only.  It\nwas strange to me that God could not have dictated the words as easily\nas the ideas, and thus have made sure of their correctness.  But it set\nme to thinking.  I had never had any doubt about the inspiration of the\nBible, yet I could give no reason for it, except that I had always been\ntold so.  Now as progress and education were going to compel me to\nrevise my opinions about the _manner_ of inspiration, I began to wonder\nwhat evidence we really had that the Bible was inspired at all.  I\nreally had no doubts about the fact.  I supposed, of course, the\nevidence existed _somewhere_, but that they had never been specifically\npointed out to me; and I wanted to know just _what_ and _where_ they\nwere.  I confided my inquiries to a senior student in whom I had great\nconfidence.  He told me the devil was whispering doubts in my ear and I\nshould not listen to him!  That there could be no possible doubt about\nthe _fact_ of inspiration; that this question had been definitely and\nfinally settled over eighteen hundred years ago by the wisest and best\nmen of the world, and there had never been a shadow of a doubt about it\nsince; that the evidences of inspiration of ideas instead of verbal\ninspiration were found in the many different styles and manner of\nwriting found in the Bible itself as represented by the different\nwriters.  But as to the fundamental fact of divine inspiration itself,\nthere had never been a shadow of a doubt!  So I accepted the new idea\nof inspiration and said \"Get thee behind me, Satan,\" and after that for\nmany years I did not permit myself to doubt the fact of inspiration.\nYet occasionally I could not keep from thinking, and many years later\nthis question arose again in my mind with tragic force and effect.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nSEEKING LIBERTY\n\nOther questions now began to arise that were soon to materially affect\nmy church relations, without, however, any material change in my\nfundamental theology.  As before stated, my sole ambition in life was\nto warn sinners to \"flee from the wrath to come.\"  To this one purpose\nall other things must be made subordinate.  For this one purpose I was\npursuing my studies in college that I might become the more efficient\nin its accomplishment.  Impressed as I was with the awful truth of\nman's total depravity and natural alienation from God, and the\ncertainty of his eternal damnation in the never-ending flames, unless\nhe accepted fully, and followed implicitly the prescribed course which\nI had been taught was the only means of escape, I felt that \"Woe is me,\nif I preach not the gospel.\"  I felt that any deflection on my part,\nfrom the full performance of my duty in this particular, up to the full\nextent of my power and opportunity, would not only entail eternal\ntorments upon all who might have been thus saved thru my efforts, but\nwould also detract from my own eternal glory in heaven in exactly the\nsame ratio.\n\nI began to look upon the church as being at most but a means, or agency\nto this end; the channel thru which I might work to accomplish this\ncentral purpose.  Leaving other churches out of consideration, as not\nbeing germane to the purpose of this narrative, while yet in school I\nhad become more fully informed as to the fundamental theology of the\nMethodist Church; and somewhat to my surprise, I found there was no\nsubstantial difference between it and the Baptist Church, to which I\nbelonged.  They both appealed to the same infallible revelation; both\ntaught the same doctrine of the fall of man, total depravity and\ninherited sin; both taught the same doctrines concerning the\npersonality and character of Christ, and the vicarious atonement in his\ndeath; the same doctrines concerning heaven and hell; and the same\ndoctrines of salvation by repentance, faith in Jesus Christ, and\nregeneration by the Holy Spirit.  I perceived that the only substantial\ndifference between the two was purely one of ecclesiastical\norganization and polity.  As before noted, the Baptist Church did not\nhold that either baptism or church membership was necessary to\nsalvation; but that \"salvation\" was first necessary before one was\nscripturally entitled to either baptism or church membership.  It was\nalso freely admitted that a truly repentant and converted Methodist was\njust as truly \"saved\" and as sure of heaven as any Baptist,--and that\nthere were many such there could be no doubt,--true members of the\nkingdom of God and the Church Universal; true heirs of glory and fit\nsubjects for the heavenly kingdom,--yet not fit for membership in the\nearthly church, admittedly imperfect at its best, solely because they\nhad not been dipped under the water, an ordinance admitted to be\nsecondary, and wholly unnecessary to the main object!\n\nI began to wonder from whence came the authority to bar the doors of\nGod's earthly church against those who were clearly admitted to be\nmembers of the Church Universal, and of God's spiritual kingdom.  Thus\nmy faith in the exclusive claims of my church to be the _only true\nchurch_ on earth, was very much weakened; tho I still firmly believed\nit to be the best church, and by far the most scriptural, orthodox and\napostolic.  Yet, I could not see why we might not affiliate with, and\nco-operate more with our Methodist brethren, imperfect and unscriptural\n(?) as their ecclesiastical organization was, especially in carrying\nforward the great central object we both had in view, the salvation of\nsouls from hell; and more especially, since there was no substantial\ndisagreement between us as to the means and processes of accomplishing\nthis object; our real differences beginning only _after_ this was\naccomplished.  The Methodists were always willing to co-operate with us\nto the fullest extent we would permit them; but we, never, with them.\n\nDuring the summer that followed the close of my sophomore year in\ncollege (which, as subsequent events will show, proved to be my last),\nan event occurred that so affected my future ecclesiastical relations\nthat it needs to be told in some detail.\n\nAs is generally well known, one of the principal differences between\nthe Baptist and Methodist churches is their difference of view in\nregard to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as well as that of the\nmode of baptism.  The Methodists, as liberal evangelicals, offer it to\nall Christians present when it is celebrated, leaving it to each\nindividual to judge for himself as to his fitness to partake of it;\nwhile the Baptists limit it to \"members in good and regular standing\"\nin their own \"faith and order.\"  The Baptists generally disclaim being\n\"close communionists,\" but \"close baptists.\"  That is, they insist that\nno person is eligible to partake of the Lord's Supper until after\nbaptism _by immersion_; and that by a regularly ordained Baptist\nminister, upon the authority of a Baptist church, expressed by a vote\nof its members.  I do not know that I ever saw the ordinance celebrated\nin a Baptist church, that some explanation along this line was not\nmade, by way of apology.\n\nThe event that so influenced my future thought was this: At a Baptist\nchurch, some six miles from my father's residence, their annual\nprotracted meeting had been going on a week,--from Sunday to Sunday.\nSome eight or ten persons had joined the church during the week and\nwere to be baptized at 10 A.M. on this last Sunday, after which was to\nfollow the regular church services at 11 A.M.; and then the celebration\nof the Lord's Supper.  A half mile away was a Methodist church, and the\nplace of baptism was the ford of a creek about half way between the two.\n\nThe Methodist Sunday School usually met at 9.30 A.M.  But on this\noccasion superintendent, teachers and pupils, came in a body down to\nthe ford to see the baptising.  After it was over the Methodist\nsuperintendent, with several of his teachers and older pupils, remained\nfor the services at the Baptist church.  At the close of the sermon two\npersons presented themselves for membership, and were accepted, by vote\nof the members, subject to baptism, at the next regular monthly\nmeeting; after which Brother Crawford, the Methodist Sunday School\nSuperintendent, was called on to lead in prayer, a function in which he\nwas earnest, able and eloquent, as well as being universally recognized\nas a man of unblemished character, sincere and deep piety.\n\nThe minister then proceeded to administer the Lord's Supper, prefacing\nit with the usual apologies and explanations about \"close baptism\"\ninstead of \"close communion\"; and to illustrate this point, he referred\nto the fact that two persons had just presented themselves for church\nmembership, and had been accepted, subject to baptism, concerning whose\nconversion and sincere Christian character, there was just as sure\nconfidence as there was of any that had been baptized that morning; yet\nthese two could not partake of the Lord's Supper because they had not\nyet been baptized.\n\nJust at this point there suddenly darted into my mind, almost with the\nforce of a \"clap of thunder from a clear sky,\" the question, \"Where is\nthe scriptural authority for this?\"  I had heard it perhaps a hundred\ntimes.  I was as familiar with it as I was with the alphabet, but for\nthe first time in life the thought came to me with the suddenness of\nlightning, \"Where is the scriptural authority for it?\"  I could not\nremember that I had ever heard a single passage of scripture quoted in\nits support, or defense.  (The reader must keep in mind that up to this\ntime, and for several years thereafter, to me, the Bible was\ninfallible, inerrant, and the sole and final authority in all matters\npertaining to religion and the church.)  The shock was so great, and my\nmental agitation so intense, that it threw me into a fever.  I went\nhome sick.\n\nDuring the following week I read the New Testament thru in special\nsearch for some passage to support the doctrine that baptism, in any\nform, was a necessary prerequisite to a proper participation in the\nLord's Supper.  _And I did not find it_.  In fact I did not find any\ndirect evidence in the Gospel record that any of the twelve to whom\nJesus first administered this supper were ever baptized at all! and if\nthey were,--which is only an inference, or a reading into the record,\nnot what actually is there, but what somebody thinks ought to be\nthere,--it was not Christian baptism, but the baptism of John, which,\naccording to the teachings of the Baptist Church, was an entirely\ndifferent thing in meaning and purpose, tho the same in form.\n\nJohn's baptism, according to the teachings of my church, was a \"baptism\nunto repentance,\" _in preparation_ for the appearance of Christ; while\nChristian baptism, \"in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the\nHoly Ghost\" was not instituted until _after_ the descent of the Holy\nGhost, according to the promise of Jesus, on the Day of Pentecost.\nThen for the first time, and not until then, did Christian baptism in\nthe name of the Trinity, have any existence or meaning.  It was\ntherefore quite clear to me, that this institution that we call the\nLord's Supper, being instituted, and first administered to persons who,\nso far as we have any specific knowledge, were not baptized at all; and\nwho in the very nature of the case _could not_ have been baptized under\nthat formula commonly known as Christian baptism; therefore, whatever\nmeaning may be attached to the Lord's Supper, it has absolutely no\nconnection with, or relation to any kind, or form of baptism whatsoever.\n\nIt is one of my misfortunes that I have never had sense enough to \"keep\nmy counsel to myself.\"  I have always had a habit of \"thinking out\nloud.\"  And when I thus began to express myself, my position in the\nBaptist Church began to grow \"shaky,\" not to say precarious.  Yet, I\nstill held rigidly to the doctrine that immersion alone was baptism,\nand that with all its defects, the Baptist Church was the most\nscriptural and orthodox in its doctrines and practices of any church in\nexistence.\n\nThe upshot of this whole matter was, that I was soon cited before my\n\"church conference\" to answer a charge of heresy, in holding to the\ndoctrine of \"open communion.\"  I appeared and wanted to make a defense\nof my position before the church.  I was vain and silly enough at that\ntime to think if I could only make my argument before the church I\nwould be able to convert a majority of the members to my views, and\nthus save myself and \"reform\" the church.  But this I was not permitted\nto do.  I was told I might answer either \"guilty\" or \"not guilty,\" and\nno more.  I refused to answer either way, unless I was further\npermitted to explain my answer.  This was denied me.  Whereupon, a\nmotion was made to \"withdraw fellowship from Brother Ashley\"; and\nwithout debate or further ceremony, the motion was put, four persons\nvoting Aye, and three, No, altho about forty members were present.  And\nthus I went out of the Baptist Church, whereby my education for the\nministry became automatically \"finished,\" and all hope of my\nministerial career blasted.\n\nStrange as it may seem there was a sort of personal satisfaction in\nthis.  I had not entered the ministry as a pure matter of choice.\nWhile I did not shrink from it, but rather took it up joyously, it was\nbecause I felt it to be a duty divinely imposed upon me, and therefore\nan honor of which I was proud; and because it was the means thru which\nI might gratify my personal desire to be of some real use to God and\nhumanity, in saving souls from the eternal burning.\n\nBut now I felt that I had fulfilled my part as far as I possibly could,\nand was denied the privilege of going further by the action of the\nchurch; and that thereafter the church, and not I, was responsible for\nany failure on my part to go on with the work of warning sinners to\n\"flee from the wrath to come.\"  I was a little like Jonah fleeing to\nTarshish.  I was rather secretly glad I had gotten away, and shifted\nthe responsibility somewhere else.\n\nBut these impressions did not last long.  My fundamental theology had\nnot changed.  The Bible was still an infallible divine revelation.\nHumanity was still lost, totally depraved, abiding under the \"wrath of\nGod\"; hell was a reality towards which all humanity was bound; and the\nonly means of escape was to \"believe in the Lord Jesus Christ\"\naccording to the prescribed formula.  The burden of my personal\nresponsibility soon returned.  I could not escape it.  True, I was out\nof the church--the Baptist Church; but it seemed quite evident that God\nwas using other agencies, outside the Baptist Church, for the salvation\nof souls, and seemed to be doing it quite successfully.  If God could\nso use the Methodist Church for this purpose, why might not I?  What\ndid baptism amount to anyway?  I was never taught that it was necessary\nto salvation.  And if not, why make such a fuss about it?  If a person\nwas already saved, and it was only \"an outward sign of an inward\ngrace,\" what difference could it make how it was administered, who\nadministered it, or whether it was administered at all?\n\nThese were some of the questions that ran thru my mind.  I also began\nto note that there were at least a few places in the New Testament that\nmight be fairly interpreted to imply that baptism was, at least, _not\nalways_ by immersion.\n\nFor example, the baptism of so many thousands on the Day of Pentecost\nin Jerusalem, where the supply of water was very limited, and this all\nunder the control of the enemies of the new religion.  The immersion of\nso many, in so short a time and under such circumstances and conditions\nwas next to a physical impossibility, while easily probable if done by\nsprinkling.\n\nBy these processes of reasoning, in the course of some two years, I\nfound a congenial home in the Methodist Church, at first with some\ntrepidation, but soon afterwards with perfect satisfaction.  While this\nchange in church relations involved quite a radical change in matters\nof ecclesiastical organization and polity, it must be kept in mind that\nit _did not_ involve any material change in matters of fundamental\ntheology.  But let it be noted here that during all this time I was\nstriving for some degree of religious liberty; and in passing from the\nBaptist to the Methodist Church, I was at least making some progress\ntowards it, however small it might be.  To shorten my story, in a few\nmonths I found myself a \"circuit rider\" in the Louisiana Conference of\nthe Methodist Episcopal Church, South--(I was born and reared in the\n\"pine hills\" of Mississippi).\n\nIt is not necessary to go into any lengthy details concerning my work\nat this time, beyond the fact that I was fairly successful in it, and\nfor the time being, I found it eminently satisfactory and fairly\npleasant to myself.  However, under the workings of the itinerant\nsystem, in a few years I found myself located in the state of Missouri,\nwhere I transferred my church relations to the St. Louis Conference of\nthe M. E. Church.  This change involved nothing but a matter of\npersonal choice and convenience.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nNEW VISIONS AND DISTURBANCES\n\nHaving thus changed my church relations, and feeling that I had a\ngreater field of usefulness open to me, my zeal for efficiency and\nsuccess increased.  I had a sincere and consuming desire to \"save men's\nsouls.\"  And believing my creed to be as infallible as the Bible upon\nwhich it was based, I studied to make myself efficient and able in its\ndefense.  By following the ordinary methods of interpretation, I soon\nfound no trouble in doing this.  Does the reader inquire here what are\nthe \"ordinary methods of interpretation\"?  Taking a chapter, or verse,\nor paragraph of the Bible here and there, thru the whole book, from\nGenesis to Revelation, and weaving them together as a connected whole,\nregardless of whether there is any natural connection between them or\nnot; then disposing of all contradictory passages as either\n\"figurative,\"--with unlimited latitude on the interpretation of the\n\"figures,\"--or as pertaining to those \"great and mysterious, unknowable\nthings of God's divine revelation,\"--mysteries too great for man to\nknow!  This method of interpretation is the common practice, to a\ngreater or less extent, of every church in Christendom that accepts the\ndoctrine of the infallibility of the Bible, and looks to it as its sole\nand final source of authority in religion.  There is not a creed in\nChristendom today, and never has been, that cannot be supported and\nproved to be conclusively correct from the Bible by this method of\ninterpretation.  By the same method the Bible can be made the\ndefense--and it often has been--of war, murder, slavery, polygamy,\nadultery, and the foulest crimes known to humanity, and these all made\nthe divine institutions of God.  And these are exactly the leading\nmethods of interpretation of the Bible that are being followed today,\nand have been since Christianity first began to divide into sects and\nparties.\n\nBut this is a digression.  While I recognized some merit in nearly all\nthe creeds, I firmly believed mine the best.  My faith in, and devotion\nto the Methodist Church had become so intense that I believed the sum\ntotal of all theological knowledge was concentrated and embodied in\nJohn Wesley.  There could be no more progress, no more discovery.  It\nwas a finished science, and John Wesley finished it.  There are\nthousands who still think so, even to this day!  I looked back over\nhistory to the days of apostolic purity, followed the trend of\ntheological thought in its decline into error and superstition, thru\nthe dark ages, to the first glimmer of light in Wickliffe, followed by\nHuss, until the flame of the Reformation sprang up in Luther, Zwingli\nand Calvin, followed by Knox and Arminius; but Wesley was the end of\nknowledge, and wisdom died with him.\n\nYes, I was soon able to defend and prove my creed to the satisfaction\nof myself and my superiors.  But now I wanted to go further.  I wanted\nto _prove_ the _proof_.  As I grew older and my mind broadened I\ndesired to drink deeper from the fountains of knowledge.  I started out\nwith the best materials available to me to make a critical study of the\nBible.  Up to this time I had studied the Bible only superficially.  I\nhad accepted it as truth, as divine, as inspired, as infallible, except\nthe doubts of my school days before described, and these I had long\nsince cast aside.  I had studied the Bible as the great mass of\nChristians study it today--to support and defend preconceived opinions,\nmost of which I had inherited.  Now I was to seek for basic principles.\nI wanted to know just who wrote each book of the Bible, when he wrote\nit and why, and just what the specific proofs were as to these facts\nand of its divine inspiration.\n\nIn looking back over the period of years that have since intervened, I\nam still unable to perceive any selfish, egotistical motive in these my\nambitions.  My unquenchable thirst for knowledge was inspired solely by\nmy desire to increase my efficiency in that vocation to which I\nsincerely believed I was divinely called.\n\nI never had the opportunity of taking a Divinity Course in a Divinity\nSchool.  But both the great branches of the Methodist Church require\nall its ministers, before final ordination, to take a prescribed course\nof study, somewhat after the correspondence method, covering four\nyears,--and longer if necessary to cover the full prescribed\ncourse,--that is practically equal to the curriculum of the average\nDivinity School, minus the advantages of class room instruction and\nclass lectures.  It was this course of study that I pursued, prescribed\nby the bishops of the M. E. Church.  And it was here in these orthodox\nbooks, prescribed by the bishops of my church as necessary for me, not\nonly to read, but to study, learn and digest, to fully equip me for the\nministry, that I learned the lessons that completely upset my faith,\nand finally led me to abandon the church and religion entirely!  I\nmight add that it was perhaps as much what I _failed_ to learn from\nthese books, things that I was looking for and could not find because\nit was not in them, that led me to this course, as it was from the\naffirmative facts I did learn.\n\nUp to this time, and long afterwards, I had never read a book that\nmight be called at all liberal in theology, much less anything of a\nsceptical character.  In fact I had read nothing, outside of school\ntext books, except such books as were authoritatively published by some\nBaptist or Methodist publishing house.  Robert G. Ingersoll was then at\nthe height of his fame, and I would not even read a political speech of\nhis, because he was an \"infidel.\"  The strange anomaly of the whole\nthing is that I was led, or rather driven, clear out of the church into\npractical agnosticism thru and by my earnest and intense efforts to\nmore strongly fortify and establish myself in my preconceived beliefs\nabout the Bible and religion.  This will appear more fully as we\nproceed.\n\nFirst of all, all orthodox Christianity is based upon the doctrine that\nthe Bible is the supernaturally inspired, infallible word of God.  Upon\nthis Bible as the sole authority, every doctrine, creed, dogma and\necclesiastical practice is based.  Take away this doctrine of Biblical\ninfallibility, and orthodoxy crumbles to dust.  As long as it is held\nto be infallible truth, every creed in Christendom can find abundant\nmaterial in it to prove every point it claims.  Every one knows that\namong the many Christian denominations which fully agree with each\nother the Bible is an infallible revelation from God; yet the doctrines\nand conclusions they deduce from it are as diametrically opposed to\neach other as midnight and noon.\n\nAs I have already said, I never had any doubt, up to this time, of the\ndivine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, except a very slight\none about the method of inspiration, which I have already detailed of\nmy student days.  As a Methodist I had become fairly proficient in my\nability to defend every detail of my church doctrine.  I could repeat\nalmost every passage of scripture from Genesis to Revelation in support\nof each of the Twenty-five Articles.  My only trouble was when I would\noccasionally run across some sceptic who would question my\nauthority,--the Bible.  Of course I would tell him the Bible was the\nword of God; and he would demand proof, \"_detailed facts_,\" in support\nof my assertion.  While perfectly satisfied in my own mind, these\n\"detailed facts\" were not in my possession.  But now I was going to get\nthem.\n\nIn the last year of my conference course of study, one of the books\nprescribed was \"Harman's Introduction to the Study of the Holy\nScriptures.\"  Dr. Harman was Professor of Greek and Hebrew in Dickinson\nCollege.  I was told that in this book I would find \"completely\ndetailed, uncontrovertible proofs of the divine authenticity,\ninspiration, and infallible truth of the Bible.\"  This was just what I\nhad long been looking for, and just how I found it will soon appear.\n\n\nAPPROACHING THE CRISIS\n\nThe first one-third of this book of 770 pages is devoted to proving the\nMosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, its inspiration and infallible\ntruth.  On the subject of inspiration generally the author follows the\n_ideal_ rather than the _verbal_ theory.  His theory of the _necessity_\nof inspiration is based upon the idea that the Bible contains records\nthat could not otherwise have been known at the time they were written;\nfor example, the account of Creation \"must have been divinely revealed\nto Moses, as he could not otherwise have known it.\"  The _extent_ of\ninspiration he limits to those matters that were \"not otherwise known\"\nto the writers.  Things of which they had personal knowledge were\ntherefore not the subjects of inspiration.  For example, the advice of\nJethro, concerning the division in the burdens of the government, was\n_not_ inspired, because Moses got it directly from the mouth of Jethro\nhimself.  Nevertheless the author was \"divinely guided\" in writing of\nmatters of his personal knowledge, in order that the \"sacred record\"\nmight be preserved from error.  As to the _proofs_ of inspiration, I\nquote verbatim: \"The inspiration of the Bible is evident from its\nsublime doctrines concerning God, the purity of its moral precepts, and\nfrom the wonderful fulfillment of its prophecies.\"  When I read this I\nconfess I felt a little disappointed.  I had understood this before.  I\nwanted something more specific, material, tangible.\n\nThen follows a lengthy treatise on the Hebrew language, the original\ncharacters in which the Pentateuch was written, without vowels or\npunctuation marks; how it was preserved by copying from generation to\ngeneration; how errors crept into various copies; an account of the\nSamaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint; how these all differ the one\nfrom the other in many details; of the ancient manuscripts that are\nstill extant, and how these all differ more or less from each\nother,--not in anything fundamental, but in many minor details; and\nfinally winds up with the statement that \"the original text is\nuncertain\"!\n\nThis was all new to me.  I had naturally supposed that not only the\noriginal text was divinely inspired and infallibly correct, but that by\nsome sort of divine supervision, it had been so preserved and kept down\nthru the ages.  And now I was not only disappointed, but alarmed.  I\nwondered what would come next.  And I soon learned.\n\nBefore this I had never discovered, nor had any one pointed them out to\nme, the many discrepancies and contradictions in the early Biblical\nrecords,--the two stories of creation, the two accounts of the flood\nthat are so intricately woven together, the changes in the law in\nDeuteronomy from those in Exodus and Leviticus; and others.  My simple,\nblind faith had completely obscured all these until now.  It is true\nthe author pointed them out only to explain or reconcile them.  But in\npractically every instance, the explanation failed to explain, or\nreconcile, and was only an apology or an excuse; and I was left with a\nclear vision of the discrepancy, and with no adequate explanation.  The\ndifferences between some parts of the law, as recorded in Deuteronomy\nand in the earlier books, was explained as a \"progressive development\naccording to the changing conditions and needs of the Hebrews.\"  From a\npurely human viewpoint, I considered this explanation satisfactory.\nBut from that of \"divine revelation,\" I wondered why God did not reveal\nit correctly at the first; or why he found it necessary to change his\nown law.\n\nConcerning the ritual law of the tabernacle and the priesthood, the\nauthor confesses that, in all probability, Moses was educated at\nHeliopolis, in Egypt, for the Egyptian priesthood, and was therefore\nperfectly familiar with all the priestly regulations of the religion of\nEgypt; and that _the tabernacle service, its priesthood, their dress,\nsacred utensils, etc., were doubtless all patterned after Egyptian\nmodels, but devoted to Jehovah instead of the gods of Egypt; and he\ncites this as a proof of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch_.\n\nAnd in support of this view, he quotes the opinion of the Abbe Victor\nAncessi!  And I had always been taught that the tabernacle, the\npriesthood, and all that pertained to both, were divinely revealed to\nMoses on Mt. Sinai!  \"According to the pattern shown thee in the mount.\"\n\nThen on the question of interpolations, our author confesses that there\nare many of them in the Pentateuch, most of them showing that they\nbelong to a much later age than Moses; yet he denies that any of them\nare material, or in any way change the original meaning or sense of the\ntext.\n\nThus I went thru over 250 pages, devoted, not so much to the questions\nof divine inspiration and supernatural revelation, as these seemed to\nbe very largely taken for granted; but to the defense of the Mosaic\nauthorship of the Pentateuch upon which seemed to hinge the whole\nquestion of its authenticity and infallible authority.  As the author\nputs it, \"If the Pentateuch was not written by Moses it is a forgery.\"\nTo do this he quotes quite elaborately from the higher critics, Bauer,\nDavidson, Bleek, Ewald, Kuenen, Wellhausen, and others, for the\nostensible purpose of answering and refuting them.\n\nNow I had, up to this time, never read a line of such Biblical\ncriticism, except that quoted by this author.  Naturally, I not only\nhad no sympathy with it, but was strongly prejudiced against it.  But I\ncould not fail to note that the refutations and explanations of my\nauthor very often failed to either refute or explain.\n\nTo sum the whole thing up, when I had gone thus far, I could not avoid\nthe impression that from the standpoint of logical argument, based upon\nany _known facts_, the whole thing was a failure.  It was simply a\ncontinued series of apologetics; in legal parlance, a sort of\n\"confession and avoidance.\"  I began in the firm _belief_ that Moses\nwrote the Pentateuch, and that he was divinely inspired in doing it.  I\nexpected to find the definite proofs that this was true.  When I got\nthru I didn't know who wrote it.  I was equally certain the author I\nwas reading didn't know; and I doubted if any one else did.  I felt the\nincipient doubts of my school days returning, only in much larger\nvolume and greater force.  If the reader will pardon the phrase: \"I\nfelt myself slipping.\"\n\nThen followed a study of the authorship, origin, character, and purpose\nof the remaining canonical books of the Old Testament.  These may all\nbe grouped into two or three divisions.  Of the historical books of\nJoshua, Judges, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings and\nFirst and Second Chronicles, I found to my surprise, that nobody knows\nwho wrote any of them; nor anything definite about the time, or\ncircumstances under which they were written.  Joshua was merely\n_believed_ to have been written not later than twenty-five years after\nthe death of Joshua, by some person or persons who were personally\nfamiliar with the events therein narrated.  As the book is clearly\ndivided into two distinct parts, the first ending with the twelfth\nchapter and the second beginning with the thirteenth, it is _supposed_\nthat it was written by Eleazar and Phinehas.  But this is admitted to\nbe mere conjecture.\n\nThe Book of Judges is placed after that of Joshua, because it takes up\nthe narrative where Joshua closes.  It is assumed that it _must have\nbeen written_ sometime before the close of David's reign.  \"Respecting\nthe Authorship of Judges, nothing is known.\"  The date of both books of\nSamuel--originally one book--is wholly unknown, as is also that of the\nKings and Chronicles.  It is conjectured from internal evidence, that\nChronicles was _probably_ compiled by Ezra, from Samuel, Kings, and\npossibly other documents, sometime after the return from the exile.\n\nAs to the Book of Ezra, it was shown that it is probably one of the\nmost authentic books of the Old Testament, and written by the man whose\nname it bears.  Nehemiah was also placed in the thoroly authentic\nclass, with the admission that about one-fourth of the total contents\nof the book, appearing in the middle of it, is _very probably_ an\ninterpolation by a later, and unknown author.  But this, he insists,\ndoes not detract from the divine inspiration and authenticity of the\nbook as a whole.\n\nRuth and Esther also belong to the class of the unknown.  Nobody knows\nwho wrote either, nor when, nor where.  Ruth is placed \"probably\nsometime during the reign of David.\"  Esther is much later; in fact it\nis one of the latest books in the Old Testament Canon, from which it\nwas long excluded because the name of God nowhere appears in it.  The\nhistorical events narrated in it are admitted to be of very doubtful\nauthenticity, as they are nowhere else mentioned in the Bible, and are\nwholly unknown to secular history; and such events, if they occurred at\nall, were of such transcendent importance to the Jewish nation, that\nmention of them in the Chronicles, or by some of the prophets, could\nhardly have been omitted.  But our author gets around all these\ndifficulties by the Feast of Purim.  He insists that such a memorial as\nthis, that has been and still is celebrated annually by the Jews in all\nparts of the world, \"since the memory of man runneth not to the\ncontrary,\" could not possibly have originated in a mere fiction, and\nbeen perpetuated so long.  Therefore, the Book of Esther must be true,\nand divinely inspired!\n\nWhen I had read thus far, in spite of my former simple faith in the\ndivine inspiration and infallible truth of the Bible, I found myself\nclearly on the toboggan; and I was deeply disturbed in mind.  I was\nstudying a thoroly orthodox author, a distinguished professor in one of\nour leading colleges, whose book was approved by the bishops of my\nchurch; a book clearly written for the purpose of defending the\ntraditional position of the church concerning the Bible, on almost\nevery page of which that I had thus far read, I found a series of\napologetics rather than arguments; with constant admissions of the\nworld's total ignorance of the origin, authorship and date of most of\nthe books of the Bible thus far reviewed.  I began to wonder, if this\nwas what I was getting from such a source, inspired by such a motive,\nwhat might I expect from a Biblical scholar and critic who was in\nsearch only of abstract truth, with no preconceived opinions to support\nor defend?  I felt an incipient revolution brewing in my mind.  But I\nwas yet to learn more.\n\nConcerning the poetical books, I found that the Book of Job was not\nwritten by Job; that nobody knows who wrote it, nor when nor where.  I\nfound that conjecture by different scholars placed it all the way from\n\"before Moses\" to after the exile.  Nobody knows whether it purports to\nrecord, in poetic form, a series of actual historic facts and events;\nor whether it is merely a dramatic allegory, entirely fictitious, or\nfounded upon some substratum of fact.  We do not know who Job was,\nwhether a Hebrew, an Arab, or Chaldean;--nor just where \"the land of\nUz\" was.\n\nConcerning the Psalms, which I had always been taught were written by\nDavid, \"the sweet singer of Israel,\" I found to be the Jewish hymn\nbook, compiled by an unknown hand, or hands, at an unknown date; but in\nits present form, perhaps as late as the third century B.C.; that the\nauthorship of very few of them is known; that David wrote but few of\nthem, if any; but that they were written by various authors, mostly\nunknown, ranging all the way from the time of Moses to that of Ezra, or\nlater; that collections and revisions were probably made from time to\ntime as new compositions appeared; until its present form was attained.\n\nI found that the \"Book of Proverbs\" was not written by Solomon, but\nthat it was probably compiled in the time of King Hezekiah, by unknown\npersons.  However, our author insists that most of the proverbs in the\ncollection are Solomonic in origin; and therefore we may very correctly\nspeak of the collection as the \"Proverbs of Solomon.\"\n\nThe Book of Ecclesiastes, from the superscription in Chapter I, verses\n1 and 12, always attributed to Solomon, I found was not written by\nSolomon, at all, nor until more than five hundred years after his\ndeath.  Our author concedes it to be the \"latest book of the Canon\";\nthat it could not have been written before Malachi, and possibly much\nlater, and who wrote it, nobody knows.\n\nLikewise I found that the \"Song of Solomon\" was not written by Solomon,\nnor by anyone else until centuries after his death; and nobody knows\nwho wrote it, nor what its real meaning or purport is, whether fact or\nfiction, spiritual or sensual.  It is admitted that its real meaning\nand purport is the most obscure and mysterious of any book in the Old\nTestament, yet, as it is in the Bible it must be the divinely inspired,\ninfallible word of God!  So our author thinks.\n\nComing now to the Prophetic Books, I learned from our author that the\nBook of Isaiah, as it now appears, is a collection and compilation of\nvarious writings of this great prophet, written piece-meal over a\nperiod of some fifty years, and after his death collected and arranged\nin its present form by some unknown hand; and that the present\narrangement was made without any reference to the chronological order\nof the original writings, or the subject matter treated.  He admits the\nradical difference in style, manner and subject matter of the two parts\nof this book, upon which modern critics have based their theory of two\nIsaiahs, one living before and the other during the captivity, and\nreconciles these discrepancies by asserting the power of God to\nmiraculously change the literary style of his servants at will.\n\nAbout the same thing is said of the Book of Jeremiah what was said of\nIsaiah; that it is a collection of the writings of the prophet, made\nafter his death, by some unknown person, but more probably by Baruch;\nand that like Isaiah the contents of this book are arranged without\nreference to their chronological order.  Great differences are admitted\nto exist between the Hebrew and Septuagint versions of this book, which\nour author does not try to explain or reconcile.  He frankly admits\nthat the last chapter of this book, which is identical with 2 Kings\nxxiv, 18, and xxv, was added by a later, and unknown hand.\n\nThe Book of Ezekiel is treated briefly and considered one of the most\nauthentic and unquestioned of any book in the Canon.  But the author\ndevotes twenty-six pages to the Book of Daniel, almost entirely to\nprove that the book was written by the prophet of that name in Babylon,\nduring the exile.  He quotes elaborately from the critics who hold to a\nlater date and a different author, and tries to refute them.  About the\nonly effect produced on my mind was that neither party knew anything\ndefinite about it; and of course my faith in the authenticity of the\nbook was greatly weakened.\n\nComing to the Minor Prophets, twelve in number, the author holds that\nHosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, Haggai, Zephaniah and Zechariah were well\nknown prophets, concerning the date and authorship of whose books there\nis no grave doubt.  Yet, he admits that there are manifest\ninterpolations and additions to the Book of Zechariah.  Of Nahum,\nHabakkuk, Malachi and Obadiah he admits that we know absolutely\nnothing, except what is written in their respective books, and the\ndates they were written can only be conjectured from their contents.\nObadiah is composed of but one chapter of twenty-one verses, and almost\nidentically the same thing is contained in Jeremiah xlix, 7-22.  The\nidentity is so great that our author assumes that one of them copied\nfrom the other, but which, he does not say.  Of the Book of Jonah, he\nadmits that it was not written by the prophet of that name mentioned in\n2 Kings xiv, 25, nor for at least three hundred years after his time,\nnotwithstanding he is evidently the same as that in the book.  He\ninsists, however, that no matter who wrote it, or when, the book is\nauthentic and the story true; and as one of the principal proofs of\nthis fact, he quotes Matt, xii, 39, 40.\n\nThus I finished the Old Testament, considerably shaken in faith; but as\nthe Old Testament belonged to a long past dispensation, I considered it\nof little value anyway, and approached the study of the New with the\nhope that all difficulties would be removed and all doubts made clear.\nIf the New Testament was truly inspired of God and infallibly true,\nwhat difference did it make if the Old was doubtful and uncertain?  It\nwas \"out of date\" anyway.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nNEARER THE CRISIS\n\nOur author begins his \"Introduction to the Study of the New Testament\"\nwith an account of the language and characters in which most of it was\noriginally written, as he did the Old.  These were Greek Uncials, all\ncapital letters, without any space divisions between the words, and\nneither accent nor punctuation marks; that from these original\nmanuscripts, down to the invention of printing, all copies were made by\nhand copying.  The oldest existing manuscripts were made in the fourth\nand fifth centuries of the Christian era, and no two of these are\nexactly alike.  During the succeeding centuries several thousand\nmanuscript copies of all or parts of the New Testament were made that\nare still extant, _and no two exactly alike_!\n\nI also learned that there are still extant quite a number of ancient\nVersions of the New Testament, translated into different languages, all\nof which are more or less different from each other, not alone in the\ntext, _but in the books recognized as authentic and canonical_.\n\nHere the author gives a brief history of the formation of the New\nTestament Canon, which so surprised, and even startled me, that I must\nmake some mention of it.  (In his treatment of the Old Testament the\nauthor gives but a few pages to the formation of the Old Testament\nCanon.)  In the fifth Article of Religion in the Methodist Discipline\nit says: \"In the name of the Holy Scriptures we do understand those\ncanonical books of the Old and New Testaments of whose authority _was\nnever any doubt in the Church_.\"  (Italics mine.)  But here I was to\nlearn that for over three hundred years there was more or less\ncontroversy, and sometimes very bitter, over what books of the New\nTestament were, or were not, authentic and authoritative; that as a\nmatter of fact there never was complete agreement among the Church\nFathers; and that there never was any authoritative declaration on the\nsubject by any Church Council until the Council of Trent (Roman\nCatholic) in 1545, which included in its canon all of our present\nrecognized books of both the Old and New Testaments, and in addition\nthereto, included as canonical the Old Testament Apocrypha, which is\nuniversally excluded from the Protestant Bibles.\n\nAs this work is designed, at least partly, to stimulate additional\nstudy in others it may be well to cite a few examples, as I learned\nthem from this book, designed to prove conclusively the authenticity,\ndivine inspiration and infallible truth of the Holy Scriptures.\n\nThe canon of Muratori, about A.D. 160, omits Hebrews, both epistles of\nPeter, James and Jude, as uncanonical, and expresses doubts as to the\nRevelation.\n\nThe Peshito Syriac, about A.D. 200, omits Second Peter, Jude, Second\nand Third John and Revelation.\n\nThe Latin Version Itala, about the middle of the second century, omits\nJames and Second Peter.\n\nThe Version of Clemens, about A.D. 202, omits Second Peter, James,\nSecond and Third John and Philemon.\n\nThat of Cyprian of Carthage, about A.D. 250, omits Hebrews, Second\nPeter, Second and Third John, and Jude.\n\nEusebius, the great church historian, about A.D. 340, disputes the\nauthenticity of James, and omits Jude, Second Peter, second and Third\nJohn, and doubts the Revelation.  He also gives a list of \"Spurious\nwritings\" at that time, a number of which are still extant.  (It was\nyears after this before I saw The Apocryphal New Testament.)\n\nAmbrose of Milan, late in the fourth century, rejects Hebrews, Second\nand Third John, Jude, James, and Philemon.\n\nChrysostom, of Antioch, about A.D. 400, omits Second Peter, Jude,\nSecond and Third John, and Revelation.\n\nJerome, about A.D. 420, rejects Hebrews, doubts James and Jude, and\nattributes Second and Third John to John, a Presbyter of Ephesus, and\nnot the Apostle John.\n\nI have only cited the names of those who _did not_ accept the present\ncanon.  That many of the Church Fathers, perhaps a majority of them,\ndid accept it is not questioned.  I have cited these instances--and not\nnear all our author gives--to show that opinion on this subject was by\nno means unanimous in this early day; nor was all the intelligence,\nability and character on one side.  I quote it also to show that the\nteachings of my church concerning those books, that there \"was never\nany doubt in the church\" was not correct.\n\nIt must however be said in all fairness, according to our author, that\nfrom about the close of the second or the beginning of the third\ncentury, there was practical unanimity in the church as to the\nauthenticity of all the books in our present New Testament except these\nseven: Hebrews, Jude, Second Peter, Second and Third John, James and\nRevelation.  Over these the controversy continued until the Roman\nHierarchy overshadowed the Church and suppressed all liberty of thought\nor expression.\n\nWe now come to the detailed study of the origin, authorship, date and\ncharacter of the different books of the New Testament.\n\nThe first shock I got was learning that \"The Gospel According to\nMatthew,\" was not written in its present form by the Apostle of that\nname.  Nor is the author or date definitely known.  The substance of a\nlong article on the subject is to the effect that Matthew the Apostle,\nabout A.D. 68, wrote an account of the doings and sayings of Jesus, in\nthe Syro-Chaldee language, the vernacular of Palestine at the time, for\nthe benefit of the Hebrew Christians.  From this basis some later hand,\nunknown, translated into Greek, and elaborated it into substantially\nour present version.  The earliest known Hebrew, or Syro-Chaldee\nversion was that used by the Ebionites, which materially differed from\nour present Greek version; but which is the original and which the\nrecession has never been settled.  The early Ebionite version did not\ncontain the first two chapters, giving the account of the miraculous\nbirth; but our author insists that these were cut off from the\noriginal, rather than added on, tho nobody knows which.\n\nConcerning the Gospel of Mark, he insists that it was also written as\nwas the original of Matthew, before the destruction of Jerusalem, but\nafter Matthew; that the material in it was learned from Peter, whose\ncompanion Mark was (how does this comport with divine inspiration?) as\nMark was not an apostle and could not have known these facts at first\nhand.  He admits the last twelve verses to be spurious and added by a\nlater hand.\n\nConcerning Luke he says that he derived his information from Paul\n(another case of doubtful inspiration), admits the date and place he\nwrote are unknown; admits the discrepancies between him and Matthew, in\nregard to the circumstances of the miraculous birth and the genealogy\nof Jesus--something I had never noticed before!--and undertakes to\nreconcile them.  When I turned to the records and read them in this new\nlight, his attempted reconciliation, to my mind, was an utter failure.\nLike every attempted reconciliation I have ever read since, it was done\nby \"reading into the record,\" not only what was not there, but what was\nwholly inconsistent with the record that is there.  If any candid\nreader will first read carefully the first two chapters of Matthew,\nnoting all the details, and then likewise the first two chapters of\nLuke, he will see that they are wholly irreconcilable in their details.\nThey agree in but two points: That Jesus was miraculously begotten, and\nborn at Bethlehem.  But in every detail of what went before and after,\nthey are wholly at variance.\n\nMy belief in divine and infallible inspiration was here materially\nweakened.  How could the Holy Spirit \"inspire\" in two different men,\nwriting upon the same subject, such varying and irreconcilable accounts\nof the same event?  Besides, our author had practically abandoned the\nidea of inspiration by attributing Mark's knowledge of the life of\nJesus to Peter and Luke's to Paul.  But, on the other hand, as I\nlearned a little later, in all the writings attributed to Paul, there\nis not a single reference, even most remotely, to the miraculous birth\nof Jesus; but on the other hand there is much evidence in his writings\nto lead to the conclusion that he knew nothing about it.  Then where\ndid Luke get this information?\n\nConcerning the Gospel according to John, our author devotes forty-eight\npages to an effort to support its authorship in the Apostle John, and\nto try to reconcile it with the other Gospels.  Like the differences\nbetween Matthew and Luke concerning the birth of Jesus, this was the\nfirst knowledge I had that there were any discrepancies between them,\nor that there was any doubt about its authorship.  He quotes\nelaborately from the Church Fathers in its favor, as well as from the\nmodern critics both for and against.  He admits that chapter xxi is a\nlater addition to the book, but insists that John wrote it himself,\nexcept the last two verses, which were \"added by the church at\nEphesus.\"  He also admits that v, 2, 3, and viii, 1-11, are both\nspurious and added by a later and unknown hand.\n\nWhen I had read it all I knew less about the authorship of the book\nthan when I began.  But the discrepancies between it and the synoptics\nloomed large and menacing.  I will not go into details concerning\nthese.  The reader can easily see them for himself.  But on the\nquestion of inspiration I was about at my wits' end.  Here I was at the\nvery vital part of the Christian religion, as I had been taught it and\nwas trying to teach it to others.  I have already told how I passed up\nthe matter of the inspiration of the Old Testament as being of little\nimportance under the Christian dispensation.  And now every prop was\nfalling from under me in regard to the inspiration of the New.  If the\nvery records of the life and teachings of the Christ himself, upon\nwhich the whole fabric of Christianity rested, were now shown to be\ndiscordant and irreconcilable in their contents, and some of them very\ndoubtful in their authorship; with it the whole doctrine of a divine\nand infallible revelation would have to go.\n\nI was dumfounded.  Was it possible that all this upon which I had\nstaked my whole life, and had been preaching for years, was a mere\nfiction?  It seemed to be so, if the Bible was not divinely inspired, a\ntrue revelation from God, and infallibly correct.  But how could it\n_all_ be true, when it told so many different and conflicting stories\nabout the same thing?  Was not God the very essence of truth?  Then how\ncould He miraculously reveal one thing to Matthew, another and entirely\ndifferent one to Luke, and still another and different one to John, all\nabout the same thing?  And yet, that in many instances this was true, I\ncould no longer doubt.  Even tho these discrepancies might not go to\nthe essence of Christianity as a system of religion; nor materially\naffect its fundamental doctrines; yet they did go to the very\nfoundations upon which it was based,--a divine and infallible\nrevelation from heaven.  Take this away and orthodox Christianity is\nnot left a leg to stand on; and I knew it.\n\nBut we will hurry on thru this subject.  The authorship of the Acts of\nthe Apostles was attributed without serious question to Luke.  All the\nEpistles usually attributed to Paul are conceded to him by our author,\nexcept that to the Hebrews, while some critics reject the Pauline\nauthorship of any of the Pastoral Epistles,--those to Timothy, Titus\nand Philemon.  The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is admitted to\nbe unknown, and its date uncertain, tho it existed in the church quite\nearly.\n\nThe Epistle of James is admitted to be doubtful; and especially as to\nwhich of several men of this name might have written it.  It is\nadmitted that it could not have been written by the Apostle James, as\nhe was put to death at Jerusalem long before the epistle was known.  As\nhas already been seen, it was rejected by many of the Fathers; and even\nMartin Luther dubbed it \"an epistle of straw.\"\n\nFirst Peter is considered genuine, and written by the Apostle; but\nSecond Peter is admitted to have been unknown in the church before the\nthird century, and consequently spurious.\n\nThe First Epistle of John is believed by our author to have been\nwritten by the same hand that wrote the Fourth Gospel, the Apostle\nJohn.  Second and Third John are admitted to be doubtful, probably\nwritten by some other John, and by later tradition, because of the\nidentity of the names, attributed to the Apostle.  Third John was\nunknown in the church before the third century.\n\nThe Epistle of Jude is admitted to be a mystery.  Nobody knows even who\nJude was, or what he was, or when the epistle was written.  It was\nknown to exist early in the second century.  It was generally rejected\nby the early church, but somehow got into the canon.\n\nThe Book of Revelation is admitted to be the most mysterious book in\nthe whole Bible.  By whom and when written are both unknown.  Tradition\nand its internal content is the only evidence that the Apostle John\nwrote it, and this would apply to any other John as well.  It is\nevident that the same person did not write it and the Fourth Gospel.\nIt was unknown in the church until near the middle of the second\ncentury; tho it bears internal evidence of having been written before\nthe fall of Jerusalem.  Most of the early Church Fathers rejected it,\nbut it got into the canon;--and is therefore divinely inspired!\n\nMy study of \"Harman's Introduction of the Study of the Holy Scriptures\"\nwas here finished.  I have elaborated somewhat on these studies for two\nreasons: First, because the results that these studies produced in me,\nthat I shall presently sum up, were the results of the whole, rather\nthan any particular part of it, except those portions which I have\nalready specially noted.  Second, I desire to arouse a similar spirit\nof study and investigation in my readers; and I thus give this outline\nof study in detail, as a sort of basis from or upon which to work.\n\nI have already indicated in part my feelings at this time.  I summed\nthe whole thing up briefly.  The one great question around which it all\nhinged was this: If the authorship of the books of the greater portion\nof the Old Testament are wholly unknown, as well as the dates when they\nwere written, and the same is true of several of the books of the New\nTestament, how are we to know these same books are divinely inspired,\nthe infallible truth, the word of God?  This is a fair question and a\nreasonable one.\n\nI had set out in earnest and good faith to find the proofs of\ninspiration, in which I had always believed, and only found them\nwanting.  Add to this the manifold discrepancies and direct\ncontradictions which I now began to discover running thru the whole\nBible, both Old and New Testaments, and I found them wholly\nirreconcilable with any idea of divine revelation and infallible truth.\n\nI here recalled a small book I had read some years before on\nInspiration,--the author I have forgotten,--but I remember the three\nleading reasons for the inspiration of the Bible which he gave, and\nwhich, with my limited knowledge at the time, seemed satisfactory.\nThese were: Tradition, Necessity and Success.  The tradition of the\nJews as to the authenticity and inspiration of the books of the Old\nTestament: it was argued, that whatever may at this time be the limits\nof our knowledge concerning these books, the ancient Jewish Rabbis\n_knew_ just what they were, and if they had not every one been the word\nof God, these Rabbis would have known it, and they never would have\nbeen in the canon.  The same doctrine of tradition was applied to the\nChurch Fathers concerning the books of the New Testament.  But I had\nhere learned that these Church Fathers were by no means agreed as to\nthese books.  I began to see now that the same argument might be\napplied with equal force to the Vedas, the Zend Avesta, or the Koran.\n\nThe argument from necessity was based upon the assumption that man in\nhis fallen and sinful state was by nature wholly unable to discover\nanything about God, or the means of his redemption.  Therefore a divine\nrevelation was necessary to meet man's needs in this case; and the\nBible meets this necessity.  Therefore the Bible is a divine\nrevelation.  But I here recalled that the only evidence we have of\nman's original perfection and fall is in the Bible itself; and that\nthis line of argument must ultimately drive us back to the mere\n_assumption_ of the facts upon which this supposed \"divine necessity\"\nwas based.\n\nThe argument based upon success was that Christ and Christianity were\nnot only the fulfillment of Old Testament promise and prophecy; but\nthat it never could have made the success in the world that it has _if\nit had not been of divine origin, the result of divine revelation_.  I\nwas prepared at this time to look with some favor on the argument drawn\nfrom \"promise and prophecy\"; but if success was a true test I wondered\nif the same argument would not apply with equal force to Buddhism, with\na third more followers than Christianity, or to Mohammedanism with half\nas many in a much shorter time.\n\nThese arguments could satisfy me no longer, in the light of the new\nfacts I had learned.  But I was not yet ready to give up religion and\nChristianity.  I began to look for some new basis of interpretation.  I\nasked myself the questions: May not Christianity be substantially true\nafter all?  Is not man a sinner?  And as such does he not need a\nSavior?  Does not Christianity meet this necessity?  Is not the Bible\nafter all, tho of purely human origin as I now conceived, a valuable\nbook?  May we not yet find much valuable truth in it, tho neither\ninspired nor infallible?  May not the \"great plan of salvation\" be true\nafter all?  Is it not of vital importance to know?  But if the Bible in\nwhich we find it cannot be relied upon infallibly, _how_ are we to know?\n\nIn thus questioning myself I took into consideration my own personal\nexperiences, those emotional impressions and manifestation which I had\nalways been taught were the supernatural manifestations of the Holy\nSpirit on my life and consciousness.  I could not deny them, nor get\naway from them.  They were real.  It was years later before I learned\nto interpret them from the scientific standpoint of psychology.  I\ndetermined to take a new course--a course I had never taken before.  I\nhad heretofore taken my religion on authority.  This authority had now\nfailed.  I determined to apply the test of _reason_, with a firm\nconviction that in doing so God would guide me aright.  \"If any man\nwill do his will he shall know of the doctrine.\"\n\nI may say just here that I have never yet met a person who undertook to\ndefend the \"Christian System,\" or doctrine of sin and salvation, from\nthe standpoint _of its own intrinsic reasonableness_.  The only manner\nin which reason has been applied to its defence is, that it is _a\nreasonable deduction_ from the _divine revelation_ upon which it is\nbased; which revelation _must be accepted_ as true without question or\nequivocation.  To doubt is to be damned.  In fact, its\n_unreasonableness_, from any natural human viewpoint, was quite freely\nadmitted.  But it was argued that man in his fallen state was quite\nincapable of perceiving, or understanding, any of the great mysteries\nof God.  \"Great is the mystery of Godliness\" was often quoted to me; as\nwell as, \"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways\nmy ways,\" saith Jehovah.  \"For as the heavens are higher than the\nearth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your\nthoughts.\"  This was the court of last resort and must be accepted, and\nto ask further questions was to blaspheme.\n\nPerhaps it may be well to give here a quotation which I came across\nyears afterwards, as illustrating this process of reasoning from the\nassumed hypothesis of a divine and infallible revelation, that _must be\ntaken_ as the starting point.  It is from Dr. Albert Barnes, a\ndistinguished Presbyterian minister of Philadelphia, about the middle\nof the last century.  I quote him because of his high character and\nrepresentative position; and his dilemma is substantially the same with\npractically all others with whom I have conversed on the subject.  Here\nis what he says:\n\n\"That the immortal mind should be allowed to jeopard its infinite\nwelfare, and that trifles should be allowed to draw it away from God\nand virtue and heaven; that any should suffer forever,--lingering on in\nhopeless despair and rolling amidst infinite torments, without the\npossibility of alleviation and without end; that since God _can_ save\nmen, and _will_ save a part, He has not purposed to save _all_; that,\non the supposition that the atonement is ample, and that the blood of\nChrist can cleanse from all and every sin, it is not in fact applied to\nall; that, in a word, a God who claims to be worthy of the confidence\nof the universe, and to be a being of infinite benevolence, should make\nsuch a world as this, full of sinners and sufferers; and that, when an\natonement had been made, He did not save _all_ the race, and put an end\nto sin and woe forever,--these, and kindred difficulties, meet the mind\nwhen we think on this great subject; and they meet us when we endeavor\nto urge our fellow-sinners to be reconciled to God, and to put\nconfidence in him.  On this ground they hesitate.  These are _real_,\nnot imaginary difficulties.  They are probably felt by every mind that\nhas ever reflected on the subject; and they are _unexplained,\nunmitigated, unremoved_.  I confess, for one, that I feel them more\nsensibly and powerfully the more I look at them, and the longer I live.\nI do not understand these facts; and I make no advances towards\nunderstanding them.  I do not know that I have a ray of light on the\nsubject, which I had not when the subject first flashed across my soul.\n\n\"I have read, to some extent, what wise and good men have written; I\nhave looked at their theories and explanations; I have endeavored to\nweigh their arguments; for my whole soul pants for light and relief on\nthese questions.  But I get neither; and, in the distress and anguish\nof my own spirit, I confess that I see no light whatever, I see not one\nray to disclose to me the _reason_ why sin came into the world, why the\nearth is strewed with the dying and the dead, and why man must suffer\nto all eternity.\n\n\"I have never yet seen a particle of light thrown on these subjects\nthat has given a moment's ease to my tortured mind; but I confess, when\nI look on a world of sinners and sufferers, upon death-beds and\ngraveyards, upon the world of woe, filled with hosts to suffer forever;\nwhen I see my parents, my friends, my family, my people, my\nfellow-citizens,--when I look upon a whole race, all involved in this\nsin and danger; and when I feel that God only can save them, and yet he\n_does not_ do it,--I am struck dumb.  It is all _dark, dark, dark_ to\nmy soul, and I cannot disguise it.\"\n\nI think the conclusions Dr. Barnes reached are about the only\nconclusions any honest, intelligent _man_ can reach, starting from his\nhypothesis, that a certain book is a divine and infallible revelation\nfrom God, which no one dare question, or go behind.  But, as has been\nseen, this foundation had now entirely slipped from under me.  My only\ncourse was to proceed just as tho no such book were known; or at least,\nthat it was completely shorn of all claim to being a divine revelation,\nor infallible truth.  I proposed to analyze every element that entered\ninto the whole Christian system, creation, sin, redemption, atonement,\nsalvation, immortality, heaven and hell, going back to original sources\nso far as possible, without any preconceived hypothesis whatever, in\nsearch of abstract truth.  I felt that since God had left me without\nany conclusive and indisputable proofs of the truth of those things\nwhich I had always believed to be of the most supreme importance to\nmankind for time and eternity, that this supreme, distinguishing\nfeature of man that lifts him above all known forms of creation could,\nand should be, appealed to as the final authority and last test in all\nthings.  And since reason was universally recognized as the court of\nlast resort in all other things outside of religion, why should it not\nbe applied to this also?  I felt that if I thus honestly and sincerely\nfollowed the last and only light I had, that God could not be just and\neverlastingly damn me for some possible error in my conclusions.  The\nprocess I followed and the results I reached will be told in the next\nchapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE CRISIS\n\nI went back to the beginning.  God was certainly good.  He was\nall-wise, infinite.  He must have known all things---the end from the\nbeginning.  If He thus knew all things He must have known the whole\ndestiny of man before He created him.  He must have known that he would\nyield to temptation and fall, and that all the direful consequences\nwould follow it that orthodoxy has pictured for centuries.  I began to\nwonder how God could be just and make a creature, whom He knew in\nadvance would do what Adam is alleged to have done, and knew in advance\nthe dreadful consequences that would follow it, not only to Adam\nhimself, but to all the unborn generations yet to people the world.\nEspecially was I perplexed to understand how God could be just and\nvisit all the consequences of Adam's sin on his entire posterity for\nuncounted generations when they were and could be in no way responsible\nfor it and could not help it.  Yet I believed God to be just.  He could\nnot be God and be otherwise.\n\nSince the whole purpose of religion, and Christianity in particular,\nwas to save mankind from hell hereafter, I first directed my inquiries\nto the question of hell.  Who made hell? and whence came the devil?\nThe Bible is silent as to their origin, except the vague reference in\nthe Book of Revelation to the war in heaven and the casting out of\nLucifer with a third part of the angels with him into the bottomless\npit so graphically portrayed by Milton in Paradise Lost.  But this only\ncarried me back farther.  Who created the angels, or were they\nco-eternal with God?  If they are co-eternal with God then there are\nother eternal beings in the universe over whom God has little or no\ncontrol.  If so God is not omnipotent.  The devil is his rival in the\nspiritual world and, according to the current doctrine, his equal in\nomniscience and omnipresence, and a close and terrible antagonist in\nthe contest for omnipotence.\n\nTake the other horn of the dilemma.  Then angels and the devil are\ncreated beings, creatures of God, and not eternal.  Then God must have\nmade the devil.  If He created him a holy angel, yea, an archangel, as\nis claimed, God certainly knew in advance that this archangel would\nsometime lead a rebellion in heaven and lead one-third of the angels\ninto the conspiracy!  Would an all-wise, a just and good God create\nsuch beings, knowing in advance what they would do and what the\nconsequences of it would be?  This forced God to create a hell in which\nto put and punish these rebellious angels whom He knew before He\ncreated them would rebel against him and thus have to be punished.  If\nGod needed angels to glorify him was it not just as easy to create good\nones, that would not rebel against him!  He created some that way, why\nnot all?  And if rebellious angels had to be punished why not do it by\nannihilation instead of making this burning hell for them?  If\nannihilation be considered too merciful and this hell the only adequate\npunishment, all very well for rebellious and sinful angels; but why\nshould this yawning gulf of eternal woe open its throat to receive the\nfuture being to be made in God's own image and called man?\n\nWe are told that hell was not created for man, but for the devil and\nhis angels.  Nevertheless, if the story of Eden and the doctrines of\nmodern orthodoxy be true, it is now and will ultimately become the\neternal abode of about ninety-eight per cent of the entire human race.\nI could never again reconcile the old views of hell with any rational\nconception of a just and merciful God.  The story of Eden itself I took\nup for analysis.  Man was alleged to have been framed up out of dust,\nyet made \"in the image and likeness\" of God,--and consequently perfect.\nAt least this is the universal teaching.  He was alone.  A companion\nwas made for him from a rib.  They are happy in a garden.  God walks\nand talks with them like a man.  Everything is going smoothly until one\nday God comes in and points out a certain tree, hitherto unnoticed and\nunknown, and informs Adam that he must not eat of the fruit of this\nparticular tree on penalty of death.  Then comes the serpent, talking\nlike a man, and tells the woman that what God said was not true; but if\nthey would eat of the fruit of that tree they would \"be as Gods,\nknowing good and evil.\"  \"And when the woman saw that the tree was good\nfor food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be\ndesired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,\nand gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.\"  Gen. iii, 6.\n\nNow, was the first sin that eternally damned the whole human race a\nmere matter of eating from a forbidden tree?  It seems so from the\nnatural import of the language used.  \"When the woman saw that the tree\nwas _good for food_ ...\"  Could a just God inflict such an awful\npunishment as orthodox Christianity teaches, not only upon this simple,\nignorant couple, but upon the entire human race for all time and\neternity for such a trifling incident?  I trow not.  Besides, I have\noften thought that if that particular tree had not been specifically\npointed out and forbidden, probably neither Adam nor Eve would ever\nhave had any desire to eat of it.  It is the forbidden that always\ndraws the strongest.\n\nLet us examine this story closely and see whether the serpent or God\ntold the truth.  Don't be alarmed and accuse me of blasphemy or\nsacrilege.  We set out in search of truth; let us try to find it.  God\nis alleged to have said, \"of the tree of the knowledge of good and\nevil, thou shalt not eat of it: for _in the day_ that thou eatest\nthereof thou shalt surely die.\"  Gen. ii, 17.  But he _did not_ die,\naccording to the subsequent story, for over nine hundred years\nthereafter.  The fact that the penalty: \"For dust thou art and unto\ndust thou shalt return,\" was pronounced _after_ the transgression, does\nnot fulfill the statement \"in the _day_ thou eatest thereof.\"  But we\nshall refer to this again.\n\nThe serpent is alleged to have said: \"Ye shall not surely die: for God\ndoth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be\nopened and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.\"  Gen. iii, 4, 5.\nAnd verse 7 says: \"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew\nthat they were naked.\"  And verse 22 says: \"And Jehovah God said,\n'Behold, the man is become as _one of us_, to know good and evil.'\"\nDoes not this confirm that what the serpent said was true?\n\nThe temptation is very great here to digress far enough to offer a\nrational interpretation of this beautiful poetic allegory of the \"Fall\nof Man.\"  But it is outside the scope and purpose of this work, and I\nleave it with the simple question: Was not that which we call the first\nsin only the expression of man's natural aspirations onward and upward,\nin search of knowledge and a higher and better and broader and larger\nlife, that always entails its penalties of trial, suffering, toil, and\nmore or less disappointment?\n\nWhen God comes to call them to account, Adam puts the blame on his\nwife, and she shifts it to the serpent.  Note what follows: The serpent\nis cursed to crawl upon his belly, just as we see him now.  Did he walk\nuprightly before, and did he have legs and feet?  \"And dust shalt thou\neat all the days of thy life.\"  What did he eat before?  As a matter of\nfact, serpents do not eat dust now.  Remember, this sentence was\npronounced _to the serpent_ himself: \"And Jehovah God said unto the\nserpent,\"--not to Adam and Eve.  We shall have occasion to recall this\nagain.\n\n\"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy\nconception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children...\"  This was the\npenalty pronounced upon Eve for her part in the tragedy.  The question\narises: Was Eve never to be a mother but for this transaction?  This,\nif not the only, is at least the most natural inference.  Then how was\nthe race to be propagated? or was it to be propagated at all?\n\nAdam for his part was condemned to hard labor, and altho creation was\nsupposed to have been finished and complete, the ground was cursed so\nas to make it produce thorns and thistles to annoy and tantalize him\nand increase his labor.  Were none of these things on the earth before?\nWere the rose bushes in the Garden of Eden \"thornless\"?  \"In the sweat\nof thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground: for\nout of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou\nreturn.\"\n\nSeveral questions arise here.  Was Adam to be immortal in the flesh if\nhe had not eaten of the forbidden fruit?  Did death enter the world, as\nwe have always been taught, because of this sin?  And if Adam had not\nsinned would he and Eve still be living in the Garden of Eden, without\nthe knowledge of good and evil, naked and unashamed to this day?  If\nEve was never to become a mother if she had not sinned, would she and\nAdam still be there alone, with nothing but the animal world about them\nfor companions?\n\nAnd if death only entered the world because of sin, why does all nature\ndie?  Man alone was capable of sin, and according to the story, man\nalone sinned,--unless we include the serpent.  Yet, not a beast of the\nfield, a fowl of the air, a fish of the deep, nor a reptile or creeping\nthing of all the earth has ever lived but that it died, or will die.\nNot a tree has ever grown, not a plant has ever opened its leaves,\nblades or petals to the sun; not a seed has ever germinated, nor a\nflower ever bloomed that was not doomed to die.  Did all this come upon\nall nature because Adam ate an apple?  Would all the beasts of the\nfield and the birds of the air, paraded before Adam that he might name\nthem, be still living with him in the Garden of Eden, if he had not\nsinned?  Would all the plants and trees and flowers that grew and\nbloomed in the Garden of Eden in the days of Adam and Eve's innocence\nbe still there, with the same leaves and blooms, just as they were, if\nman had not sinned?\n\nThese questions I know look silly.  But if we are forced to accept the\npremise, we must be prepared to accept the natural conclusion to which\nit leads.  And if death--physical death--as orthodoxy has always\ntaught, entered the world only because of Adam's sin, it naturally and\ninevitably leads to the conclusions I have indicated.\n\nAnother question presents itself.  Can perfection, or that which is\nperfect, fall?  If either man or angels were created pure, perfect,\nholy, and in the image and likeness of God, how can such a being fall?\nIt seems to me that it would be just as possible for God himself to\nfall.  The very fact of the fall,--if such a fact exists or ever\nexisted,--of either man or angel, is in itself conclusive proof of some\nmoral imperfection or weakness somewhere.  That man is morally\nimperfect is freely conceded.  In plain words, he is a sinner.  But was\nhe ever otherwise?  The farther back we trace him the worse he appears\non the general average.  All the Bible outside of this one story in\nGenesis, as well as all history attests this fact.  Then may it not be\na fact, that while man is a sinner, he always has been so; that he\nnever fell, for he had been nowhere (morally) to fall from but always\nhas been and still is morally imperfect and incomplete, but ever\nstriving onward and upward?\n\nBut supposing this story of the fall to be true, what was the penalty\nfor it,--physical death, as we have seen, or eternal spiritual death,\nor both?  After all the preaching and writing about eternal death,\ndamnation, hell-fire and brimstone as a result of Adam's sin, I could\nnot find any such doctrine taught in the story of the fall, nor\nanywhere else in the Old Testament, and but very vaguely, if at all, in\nthe New.\n\nThe story in Genesis cannot be construed by any reasonable rules of\ninterpretation to mean or involve any other punishment on Adam or his\nposterity, for his sin, beyond physical death.  \"Dust thou art and unto\ndust shalt thou return\" is the final climax of the penalty.  There is\nno hint, so far as I can understand it, of immortality or any future\nlife.  There is not the remotest hint of it in this story.  All the\npunishments for sin from Adam to Noah, and long afterwards, culminated\nand ended, so far as Genesis is concerned, in physical death.  The\nHebrew Hades, Sheol and Gehena, were creations of a much later period.\n\nAnd who, or what was the serpent?  A real snake, or the devil?  I know\nthe current belief is that the serpent is a mere figure for the devil,\nor that at least the spirit of the devil was incarnated in the serpent.\nBut there is not a line of Scripture to support either assumption.  In\nthe story itself it is stated only that the serpent was \"more subtle\nthan all the beasts of the field.\"  He is classed with them, not above\nthem, except in subtlety.  The whole fabric upon which this idea of the\nidentity of the serpent of Eden and the devil is based seems to be a\nsingle verse in Revelation (xii, 9): \"And the great dragon was cast\ndown, the old serpent, he that is called the devil and Satan, the\ndeceiver of the whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his\nangels were cast down with him.\"  There are one or two other passages\nin the same book that speak of \"that old serpent, which is the devil\nand Satan,\" but they have no more connection with or relation to the\nstory of Eden, than Homer's \"Iliad\" has to the nebular hypothesis.  And\nyet upon these few passages is built up the whole fabric of the\nidentity of the serpent of Eden and the temptation, with the devil,\nSatan or Lucifer, that is so graphically portrayed in \"Paradise Lost.\"\nThis whole story of the serpent in Eden is very likely but an\nadaptation, in another form, of the old Babylonian myth of \"Marduk and\nthe Dragon.\"\n\nAll this shifting of the penalty for Adam's sin from physical to\nspiritual death and identifying the serpent with Satan, was an\nafter-invention, to try to make it harmonize with later developed\ndoctrines of immortality.  Any candid reader can see that no such\ninterpretation can be placed upon the natural and simple language of\nthe story itself.  In fact immortality for man, according to the story,\nis forever inhibited, according to verses 22-24.  After eating the\nforbidden fruit the only way to immortality was to \"eat of the tree of\nlife.\"  And to keep Adam from the \"tree of life,\" of which he might\n\"eat and live forever,\" God drove him out of the garden and placed the\ncherubim over it with a \"flaming sword which turned every way, to keep\nthe way of the tree of life.\"  According to this story, man is not\nimmortal at all, and the only way to attain it is to get by the\ncherubim, or scale the walls of the garden of Eden and get to that tree.\n\nI was now ready to determine for myself that this whole story of the\nGarden of Eden was a myth, legend, or some oriental allegory, the true\npurport and meaning of which is now wholly unknown; beyond the\nreasonable conjecture that it originated with some very ancient\noriental philosopher, in the childhood of the human race, and is an\nallegorical portrayal of his attempt to solve the problem of the origin\nof evil, of suffering and death in the human race.\n\n\nTHE FLOOD\n\nBut I pursued my course of reasoning and investigation further.  I\napproached the period of the flood.  The infinite and omniscient God is\nrevealed as disappointed with this creature that He had made \"in his\nown image and likeness.\"  He gets angry with him for his perversity,\ndeclares He is sorry He made him, and resolves to destroy the whole\nrace, except one family whom He proposes to preserve for seed for a new\nstart; together with every beast, fowl and creeping thing of the earth,\nexcept one pair of each for seed.  Think of an infinite and omniscient\nGod, who knew all things from the beginning, all that man would ever\ndo, before He created him, now looking down from heaven on his work,\nconfessing it to be a stupendous failure, getting angry and repenting\nthat He had made man or beast; and now resolving to take vengeance by\ndrowning the whole outfit!  If man was so perverse that he needed to be\ndestroyed, why wreak vengeance also on the animal creation that had not\nsinned?  And if the animal creation must be included in the universal\ndestruction, why do it by a process thru which all marine life\nnaturally escaped, while all terrestrial life was destroyed?  Then why\nsave any seed of such perverse stock?  Was not God acquainted with the\nlaws of heredity that had worked so perfectly in transmitting the sin\nof Adam down thru all the generations thus far; and did He not know the\nsame thing would continue in the \"seed of the race\" after the flood?\nIf He really desired to correct the mistake He had made, why did He not\ndestroy the whole race, root and branch, while He was at it, renovate\nthe earth and start with a new creation of better stock?\n\nThis flood story must be noticed a little closer.  Noah is commanded to\nbuild an ark, as his family is chosen especially to preserve the race\nfor a new start.  He is also to save in pairs, male and female,\nspecimens of every beast of the field, fowl of the air, and creeping\nthings of all the earth to preserve the species.  And now when the ark\nwas ready, these beasts of the field, fowls of the air, and creeping\nthings of all the earth, polar bears, moose, reindeer, and the thousand\nvarieties of fur-bearing animals from the arctic north, together with\nthose of the torrid deserts and jungles of the south, lions, tigers,\nhyenas, elephants, leopards, antelope, giraffes, ants, mice, hawks,\ndoves, wolves, lambs, serpents of all varieties, of birds, beetles,\nflies, bugs and insects, all came of their own accord, in the exact\nnumber prescribed, quietly walked into the ark and lay down to rest\nuntil the deluge was over!\n\nThe deluge over, the new race started was as bad as ever.  Even\nrighteous Noah got drunk from the first crop of grapes he raised, and\ncursed one of his son's posterity to perpetual servitude.  The race\nsoon tried to outwit God by building a tower by which to reach heaven,\nand God's only way to prevent its success was to confuse their tongues\nso they could no longer work together, and the scheme had to be\nabandoned.  The race grew continually worse, drifted into idolatry, and\nGod resolved to try a new scheme to ultimately save the race.  We come\nnow to:\n\n\nTHE CALL OF ABRAHAM\n\nAbraham is called to leave the land of his fathers, go to a new country\nand start a new race, through whom God would yet save the world, as all\nhis previous efforts had proven failures.  Here we have the beginning\nof the Jewish nation, whose history I have not space to even outline,\nmuch less to follow in detail.  Study it for yourself in its fullness,\nbecause it has a vital relation to modern orthodoxy as now represented\nand taught in most of the churches.  A few points, however, must be\nnoted.  The story tells us that the great God of the universe selects\nthis one man, one family and one nation to be supremely blessed above\nall the balance of mankind, and to whom He committed his revelation and\nplans for their ultimate salvation, and denied these blessings to all\nthe rest of his creatures.  Could such a God be just?  When the\nIsraelites were trying to get out of Egypt, while Moses and Aaron were\nto go and beg Pharaoh to let them go, God is said to have hardened\nPharaoh's heart not to do so, only to have an excuse to plague Egypt,\nkill the first born in every house and then overwhelm Pharaoh and his\nwhole army in the Red Sea!  Can a just God do that?  When they finally\narrive at the borders of the promised land they are commanded to\nliterally exterminate the inhabitants and neighboring tribes, root and\nbranch, men, women and children indiscriminately and unsparingly.  God\nis described as resorting to lying, deceit and intrigue to lure the\nenemies of Israel to their destruction.  Time fails me to pursue this\nhorrible record in its details.  It begins with Abraham and ends only\nwith the close of the Old Testament Canon.  Study it for yourself.\nCould a just God be guilty of such outrageous conduct?  I think not.\n\nAs is well known, the doctrine is that God thus called Abraham and the\nJewish nation apart from all the balance of the human race, that thru\nthem He might ultimately send his son into the world to save the race\nfrom sin and hell.  To this end promises and prophecies are said to\npoint, thruout the entire Old Testament from Abraham to its close, and\neven as far back as the Garden of Eden and the first sin.\n\nWhen Jesus of Nazareth appeared he was accepted by his followers as\nthis promised Savior, the Messiah of promise and prophecy, and has been\nso accepted by the Christian world ever since.  To him was attributed a\nmiraculous birth as the Son of God; and in the opinion of his followers\nhe was soon considered, not only the Son of God, but God Himself\nincarnated bodily in the son.  In other words, that God Himself came\ndown from heaven in the form of human flesh, to save the world by\nmaking an atoning sacrifice of Himself for the sins of humanity.  And\nwhen Jesus came, suffered and died on the Cross, we are told that \"the\nscheme of redemption was completed.\"  And what is this \"scheme\" of\nredemption, or \"plan\" of salvation?  This was the crucial point to me.\nI thought man was certainly a sinner and needed a Redeemer.  I looked\nit over with scrutinizing care.  Here is one God who is three Gods.  A\npart of God left heaven, came to earth as a man, died on the Cross to\nsatisfy the other part of himself for sins somebody else committed!  I\nknow this sounds to the orthodox like sacrilege, but I mean it\nseriously.  Think of it for a moment!  God dividing himself, one part\nin heaven, one part on earth and the third part, the Holy Ghost, a\ngo-between!  Boil it down to its last analysis and this is what it\nmeans.  Either this, or three separate gods, one of whom comes to earth\nto die in order to appease the wrath of the other, the third remaining\nin heaven with the first until the second returns, when He would come\nto earth to continue the work begun by the second.  There would thus be\nalways two gods in heaven and one on earth.  This is, in a nutshell,\nthe sum and substance of Trinitarian orthodox Christianity.\n\nWe are told seriously that \"there is no other name given under heaven,\nnor among men, whereby we may be saved except Jesus Christ.\"  And that\nin order to be saved, we must believe in him as the only begotten Son\nof God, and in the atoning sacrifice of his death for our sins.  Here I\nseriously inquired: If the salvation of the human race is entirely and\nexclusively dependent upon faith in the merits of the death of Jesus as\nan atoning sacrifice, what became of all the people who died before his\ncoming?  Orthodoxy answers that they were saved by faith in the\n_Promised Savior to come_, as given to Abraham, Moses, and the\nprophets.  If so, how many were saved?  The Jewish nation never looked\nfor a spiritual Messiah.  It was always a temporal one.  There is no\nevidence that they ever had the remotest conception of a Messiah that\nwas to make a vicarious atoning sacrifice of himself for them.  Hence\ntheir faith in this promise was in vain.  It was not the kind that\nsaves, according to orthodoxy.  An occasional prophet, like Isaiah or\nJeremiah, or some others, _might_ have so understood and believed it.\nBut very few, if any, others did.  Then the great mass of \"God's chosen\npeople\" are now in hell; for they did not believe _rightly_; and all\nthe balance of the world is there because they never heard of such a\npromise and hence did not believe at all!\n\nBut the question here arises, If salvation from Abraham to Christ was\nsecured by faith in the promised Messiah _to come_; and which, as we\nhave just seen, according to orthodox definitions, was practically a\ncomplete failure; how were they saved from the time of Adam until the\npromise made to Abraham?\n\nThe answer of orthodoxy is, By the promise made to Adam and Eve in the\nGarden of Eden, that \"the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's\nhead.\"  This is not the exact language of Genesis, but of the creed.\nThe substance is correct.  But according to Genesis this was not a\npromise to Adam and Eve at all; but a part of the curse pronounced on\nthe serpent!  There is nothing in the record to indicate that either\nAdam or Eve even heard it, or ever knew anything about it.  There is\nnothing in the record to indicate that the serpent was present when God\naccosted Adam and Eve about their transgression.  Besides, the incident\nis never referred to again in the whole Bible, by either prophet,\npriest, Christ or apostle.  It is simply an example of that far-fetched\nmethod of interpretation I have before referred to, to establish a\npreconceived opinion and satisfy the demands of such a necessity.\nThere is not a single line in the whole Bible to justify such an\ninterpretation of this incident.  The only possible cross reference\nthat might indicate it is in Rom. xvi, 20: \"And the God of peace shall\nbruise Satan under your feet shortly.\"  And this can have no reference\nto the incident in Eden.  Besides, if this sentence on the serpent was\na promise of the victory of Christ over him, it was _already\naccomplished_ before Paul wrote these words.\n\nAnd if such a promise had been made, with the meaning attached to it\nthat is claimed, God certainly knew that the race would soon forget it,\nand thus render it futile and give him additional excuse to vent his\nwrath and wreak his vengeance against his helpless creatures.  If faith\nin such a promise was the only way of salvation from Adam to Abraham\nthen practically all the world up to that time is now in hell!  Who can\nbelieve such a caricature of God?\n\nBut after all, what about the salvation of the race since the death of\nChrist?  If salvation since his coming is only attainable thru personal\nfaith in him as the miraculously begotten Son of God, and in his death\nas a vicarious atonement for sin; and that all are lost except those\nwho have thus believed, how many are saved?  Certainly very few.  Take\na mere glance at the world since the time of Christ.  Leaving out of\nconsideration the countless millions who never heard of him, and\nconfining ourselves to those who have, how many of them fully met\nexactly these conditions?  If such a doctrine is true, there are but\nfew people in heaven except infants; and it is only in recent years\nthat some of the orthodox have admitted infants indiscriminately into\nheaven!\n\nI could comprehend to some extent how, if God had offered salvation and\na home in heaven forever to all mankind on such easy terms as faith in\nthe merits of the death of Jesus, He could visit condign punishment on\nsuch as knew it and wilfully rejected it.  But I could not see the\njustice of such a punishment being inflicted on the countless millions\nof people who never heard of it, had no means of knowing it, and could\nnot be justly blamed for not knowing it.  Another thing that I now put\nthe test of reason to, was the doctrine of salvation by faith itself.\nWas faith the only thing that could merit the favor of God?  Was\ncharacter of no avail?  Was all moral purity, goodness and brotherly\nlove but \"filthy rags in the sight of God,\" unless buttressed by belief\nin the Deity of Jesus and the vicarious atonement?  Was salvation after\nall as arbitrary as that described in \"Holy Willie's Prayer\"?\n\n  \"O, Thou who in the heavens dost dwell,\n  Who as it pleases best thysel'\n  Sends one to heaven and ten to hell,\n    A' for Thy glory,\n  And not for any good or ill\n    They've done afore Thee.\"\n\n\nI thought of such moralists and philosophers as Zoroaster, Buddha,\nConfucius, Socrates, Plato, and thousands of others who have lived in\nthe past, and left a lasting impression in the world for the good of\nmankind that continues to this day, some of them but little less than\nJesus himself, in the moral sublimity of their lives and teachings, and\nwondered if these men were all in hell to roast and fry and burn\nforever because they had not \"exercised faith\" in the merits of a dying\nGod of whom they had never known or even heard!  And every nobler\nsentiment of my human nature rebelled against such an idea.  To\nattribute such a character and proceeding to God is to make him, in\ncruelty and injustice, below the level of the most ferocious beast of\nthe jungle.  This was not all.  I beheld the divisions in the church\nitself.  Some hundreds of different denominations, all bearing the name\nChristian, each claiming to be right and all the balance wrong, each\nclaiming to expound the only truth, and all the balance error; each\nclaiming to direct to the only true and infallible way of eternal life\nand all the balance only deadly heresies.  I found the history of the\nChristian Church written in blood.  For fifteen hundred years Christian\nhad slain Christian as a part of his religious duty.  Fire and fagot,\nsword and rack and all the instruments of torture known to the\ningenuity of mankind were employed for the torture and death of\nheretics--all in the name of Christ and for the salvation of the world.\nCatholics tortured and burned Protestants and Protestants murdered each\nother.  Calvin consented to the burning of Servetus and the New England\nPuritans hung witches and persecuted Quakers and Baptists by burning\nholes in their tongues with hot irons, and driving them from their\nmidst as they would the pestilence.  I wondered how, if God ever takes\nany interest in affairs on earth and hears the prayers of his children,\nhe could sit supinely by on his throne and permit such things to be\ndone in his name and for his glory!  If his spirit could enter into the\nhearts of men and direct their thoughts and minds, why did He not do it\nand stop this useless slaughter?  Again I turned back to the beginning\nof things.  If God foresaw what Adam would do and the dreadful\nconsequences of it, why did He not make him different so he would not\nfall?  Was it not just as easy?  But if God can be better glorified by\nsaving a fallen creature than by keeping him from falling, then why did\nHe not make this \"plan of salvation\" so plain and clear that there\ncould be no possibility of misunderstanding or misconstruing it?  If\nGod was to be ultimately glorified in the sacrifice of his son as a\nmeans of salvation for the world, and this salvation was to come simply\nby faith in this promise, why did He not make this promise so specific\nand clear that the most ignorant and benighted could not misunderstand\nand fail to accept it?  Why did not God reveal this promise to all\nmankind alike, so that all might be saved, instead of to one family and\none nation?  And when this son came and \"died for the world\" why did\nnot God make it known to the entire world instead of a handful of Jews\nin an obscure corner of the earth?  And when this \"plan\" was completed,\nwhy was it not heralded in every nook and corner of the earth, wherever\nman was found, instead of being confined for centuries around the\nshores of the Mediterranean?  Then again, I say, why was not this\n\"plan\" made so plain and unequivocal that no man, however ignorant,\ncould possibly fail to comprehend it, and all men understand it exactly\nalike, and thus live in the bonds of a true brotherhood, the sons of\nthe one great God, instead of butchering each other for fifteen hundred\nyears in the name of religion, each sect claiming to be the only true\nfollowers of the Son of God, and all the balance reprobates and devils?\n\nBut the most inconsistent and unreasonable phase of the whole thing is\nyet to come.  If salvation is attainable only through the merits of the\n\"death on the Cross\" of Jesus Christ, then Jesus _had to be crucified_.\nIt was a part of the \"eternal plan.\"  No other death would do.  If\nJesus had died a natural death there could have been no salvation.  He\nmust needs be punished, killed for the sins of Adam and all mankind.\nHe was \"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.\"  To carry out\nthis \"divine purpose\" somebody had to crucify him.  Every actor in this\ngreat \"drama of redemption\" was a necessary factor.  No one was either\nunnecessary or unimportant.  Judas was necessary to betray him into the\nhands of his enemies.  He and the part he performed were necessarily as\nmuch a fore-ordained and eternally predestinated factor in the \"scheme\nof redemption\" as that of Jesus himself.  The Jewish priests who\nprosecuted him before Pilate were as equally necessary as the subject\nof the prosecution.  The Jewish nation whom they represented, or some\nother nation, was equally necessary as a background for this\nprosecution, in whose name it was conducted.  Pilate or some other was\nnecessary as the judge to hear the trial and pronounce the sentence of\ndeath before it could be carried out.  And finally, the Roman soldiers\nwere necessary to execute the sentence.  All these, Jesus, Judas, the\npriests, the Jewish nation, Pilate and the Roman soldiers, were\nnecessary links in the one great chain of the \"scheme of redemption,\"\nor \"plan of salvation\" by the vicarious atonement of the Son of God on\nthe Cross.  If either one of them had failed, the chain would have been\nbroken, God's eternal plans and purposes thwarted, and man left without\nredemption to eternally perish!\n\nAnd yet poor Judas was driven by remorse to a suicide's grave, and\naccording to the doctrines of the Church, for these nineteen hundred\nyears has been justly writhing, frying and burning in the bottomless\npit of eternal torments, and will continue so to suffer forever,--and\nfor what?  For faithfully performing and fulfilling that part in the\nscheme of redemption which he was, by the eternal decrees of God,\nforeordained and predestinated from before the foundation of the world\nto perform; and which he could neither escape nor avoid, without\nbreaking the chain, and thus defeating the eternal purposes of God in\nthe redemption of mankind!  For nineteen hundred years the Church has\nthus execrated and anathematised Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, the\nHigh Priests, the whole Jewish nation and the Roman Empire, and\nconsigned them to eternal perdition, the tormenting flames of an\neternal hell, and scattered the Jews to the four quarters of the earth,\nnever ceasing its horrid persecutions, in many places even to this day;\nand all for what?  For crucifying Christ; for carrying out the divine\npurpose planned from before the foundation of the world; for obeying\nthe Eternal Will; for doing only what they were _compelled_ by the\neternal fates to do in order that mankind might be saved from the\neternal burning!\n\nOur author that I had been studying says on page 257, \"No man can read\nthe Bible with any faith in its teachings, and deny that this terrible\ncalamity (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation) overtook\nthe Jews on account of their great sins, _especially their rejection of\nthe Son of God_.\"  (Italics mine.)  Suppose they had not rejected him.\nSuppose they had accepted him as the Messiah of prophecy, as the Church\ninsists he was, and had set about to make him their king and succeeded;\nand he had lived on a normal life and died a natural death, what would\nhave become of the \"scheme of redemption\" by vicarious atonement?  What\nabout the \"plan of salvation,\" the remission of sins only thru the\n\"power of the blood\"?  \"Apart from the shedding of blood there is no\nremission.\"  Then if the Jews _had not_ rejected Jesus and thereby\ncaused his blood to be shed, what would have been the eternal destiny\nof the whole human race?  According to orthodox Christianity, the whole\nplan would have failed, and the whole human race would have been\nirretrievably lost and plunged forever and ever into eternal torments,\n\"where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched\"!\n\nI had now reached the crisis.  After pursuing this course of study and\nthis line of reasoning for a period of about three years after\nfinishing the book I have herein described, does any one wonder that I\nthrew the whole thing overboard, Bible, inspiration, revelation, church\nand religion, into the scrap heap of superstition, legend, fable and\nmythology?  I gave up the whole thing as a farce and a delusion, as\n\"sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.\"  I could no longer honestly\npreach such a gospel; I could not be a hypocrite.  I withdrew from the\nchurch and ministry and turned my attention to secular pursuits.  And\nhaving nowhere else to go, I naturally drifted into that state of mind\nwhich the world calls agnosticism.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE REACTION: A NEW CONFESSION OF FAITH\n\nAt this time I knew nothing of a liberal church.  If I had, I doubt if\nI was in a condition of mind to consider it.  I was so utterly\ndisgusted with ecclesiasticism as I knew it that I was but little\nprepared if at all, to give anything of the kind fair consideration.\nThe pendulum had swung to the opposite extreme.  I abandoned everything\nbut God.  I never doubted for a moment the existence of a Supreme\nBeing.  Nature and instinct taught me this.  But who, or what, or\nwhere, this Supreme Being was, or what his attributes or\ncharacteristics were, I did not pretend to know, or care.  I relegated\nit all to the realm of the unknown and unknowable.\n\nFor a while I went to church occasionally, merely for the sake of\nrespectability, and not because I took any interest in common with it.\nI listened to the preaching with such patience and fortitude as I could\ncommand.  I heard only the same old platitudes about a dying Christ and\nthe flames of perdition I had heard all my life and preached for eight\nyears myself.  I often felt as if I would like to help the preacher out\nin his struggle to \"divest himself of his thoughts.\"  I finally quit\ngoing to church altogether, until I located where I had an opportunity\nto attend a Reformed Jewish synagogue, which I did quite often, and\nalways heard broad-gauged, intellectual discourses.\n\nAs I have before said, up to this time, and for years thereafter, I had\nnever read a distinctively \"infidel\" book, nor even a liberal religious\none.  My change of opinions had all come from an honest effort to seek\nproofs for the faith of my fathers, which I inherited.  But I never\nceased to be a student.  My temporary antagonism to the church soon\nvanished.  I simply viewed it with utter indifference, and somewhat of\nsympathy.  I had no more creed to defend, and none to condemn.  I had\nno desire whatever to propagate my own ideas or disturb any one else in\ntheirs.  I felt that if any one got any satisfaction out of his\nreligious beliefs he was welcome to it.  I would not disturb him for\nanything.  I looked upon it as a harmless delusion, and if it made one\nany better, society was so much the gainer.  But to me it was as\n\"sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.\"  But I cannot say that I was\nsatisfied with my position.  Man is a social as well as an emotional\nanimal.  Agnosticism is neither social nor emotional.  It is\ncold-blooded and indifferent at its best.  It is simply a bundle of\ndoubts and negations.  Men are bound together in social and fraternal\nties by what they affirm and believe in common.  But they care nothing\nfor what they deny.\n\nBut having no creed to defend and no preconceived opinions to prove,\nand being of studious habits, I was now prepared to study in search of\nabstract truth for truth's own sake, ready to accept it from whatever\nsource it might come, and follow it wherever it might lead.\n\nWithout arrogating to myself any special merit or credit for taking\nthis course, I wish that all people would do the same.  As I said in\nthe very beginning of this book, most people inherit their religious\nbeliefs, and there they stop.  We are Baptists, or Methodists, or\nPresbyterians, or Catholics, because we were born so.  We transmit our\nbeliefs to our children, from generation to generation, each following\nthe faith of his ancestors, without ever stopping to inquire why, or\nseek a reason.  And if a thought is ever given to it, or any search\nmade, it is but rarely for abstract truth, but for the proofs that\nsupport the inherited faith, the preconceived opinion.  It is like one\ngoing into his house and bolting the door on the inside.  Nothing is\never given out and nothing ever permitted to come in.  This is exactly\nwhy for centuries the world was drenched in Christian blood, shed by\nChristian hands.  Each had its infallible creed, to which all the world\nmust bow--or take the consequences.\n\nIt took me several years to get myself settled with anything like a\ndefinite \"creed of my own,\" tho I was never in the least disturbed\nabout it, and only gave it such time as I could spare from a busy\nbusiness and professional life.  By this time I had reached such\ndefinite conclusions as satisfied my own mind, tho I never,--after my\n\"crisis,\"--held any opinion, and do not now, that I am not willing to\nchange at any time that evidence is furnished to justify it.  In my\nsearch for truth I found myself confronted with certain facts that\nAgnosticism did not satisfactorily explain.  These were facts of\nNature, of Man as a part of it, of man's nature, habits, history,\nthoughts, conduct, and social relations,--in fact, all that pertains to\nthe phenomena of Nature and Human Life and Relations.  The conclusions\nI reached constitute.\n\n\nMY NEW CONFESSION OF FAITH\n\n_THE UNIVERSE AND GOD_\n\nThe first of these was the physical universe.  I had accepted the\ntheory of evolution in a general way; yet I could not account for the\nmarvelous organism of millions of worlds and suns and systems, of which\nour earth is but a mere atom, filling the infinity of space, beyond all\nhuman comprehension, revolving and whirling thru space, each in its\nalloted orbit, with such perfect order and regularity, and all in the\nmost perfect harmony, governed by such immutable, perfect and universal\nlaw, upon the theory of the operation of blind, unintelligent force\nupon inert matter.  Here was an effect.  There must be a cause.  The\neffect cannot be greater than the cause.  Here is an infinite universe;\nthere must be an infinite cause; and that cause cannot be less than\nInfinite Eternal Intelligence.  This cause, for the want of a better\nname, we call God.  I could thus easily account for the universe thru\nthe processes of evolution, directed by eternal, intelligent will,\noperating thru eternal immutable and perfect law, upon eternal and\nindestructible matter.  Whether correct or not, this satisfied my mind\nas to God and the universe.\n\nI could sing with the Psalmist:\n\n\"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his\nhandiwork.  Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth\nknowledge.  Their line is gone out thru all the earth and their words\nto the end of the world.  There is no speech nor language where their\nvoice is not heard.\"\n\nAs I have before said, I never had any doubt about the existence of a\nSupreme Being, and that the universe was in some way the product of his\ncreative energy.  I think the doctrine of evolution satisfactorily\nsolves the \"riddle of the universe,\" if it recognizes Infinite Spirit\nas well as Eternal Matter; and that this Infinite Spirit is in some\nway, tho beyond our comprehension, the real Force or Energy, both the\nIntelligence and Life, the Great Uncaused First Cause behind all\nphenomena, who, for the want of a better name we call God.\n\nPerhaps it is impossible for any one to think of God without at the\nsame time conceiving some sort of definition of him.  Yet, God cannot\nbe defined.  He is infinite.  And infinity cannot be defined in terms\nof the finite.  Any attempt to define God is to limit Him.  Our\nconceptions of God are at best limited, tho God himself is not.  The\nfinite mind cannot conceive unlimited space, nor eternal duration.  We\ncan conceive of them as _existing_; but we cannot conceive what they\nare.  We can conceive of God as infinite; but we cannot conceive what\ninfinity is.  If we could, it would not be infinite, unless we are\ninfinite.  So all attempts to define God in terms of the finite are\nfutile.  And yet, when we look back over the past history of the human\nrace and see what ruin has been wrought by this very thing it becomes\nappalling!  All religious controversies, wars and bloodshed have had\ntheir ultimate source just here.  Certain men have formed certain\nconceptions of God, of his character, his attributes, his will, and his\npurposes concerning mankind.  These they have labelled, patented,\ncopyrighted, and declared to the world to be correct, final and\ninfallible, and demanded that all the world accept them on penalty of\ndeath!\n\nTo quote, in substance, from a recent author, we might as well try to\nmake a meal of the stars and contain them all in our stomach at once as\nto comprehend God in his fullness.  God _is what He is_, no matter what\nour opinions may be of him.  But what any one of us _thinks God is_,\nthat is what _God is to him_.  This is all the definition of God that\nneed be given.  God is his own revelation.  \"The heavens declare the\nglory of God.\"  Nature reveals God in greater power and splendor than\nany book.\n\nWhat is _my_ conception of God?  Only this: God is the Life of the\nuniverse; and this includes the ALL.  As what we call the spirit is the\nlife in my body, and permeates the whole of it from the most central\nvital organs to the utmost extremities of nails and hair; so God--and\nHe is Spirit--permeates the _whole universe_, and is the life of, or in\nit, as you please.\n\n  \"'All are but parts of one stupendous whole,\n  Whose body Nature is, and God the Soul.'\"\n\n\nHe is manifest in the majesty of the universe and is seen in the\nbeauties of the flowers.  He is reflected in the painted wings of the\nbirds, in the rippling leaf, in the blade of grass, in the dewdrop, in\nthe snowflake, in all nature; and above all in man himself, in whom He\ndwells and lives.  How noble and inspiring the thought that I, even I,\nam a part of the life of the infinite, eternal God!  All this I take on\ntrust--_by faith_--and confess freely that, while believing it I cannot\ncomprehend it.  But such a God must be eternally good.  He could not be\nthe monster that Jewish tradition and orthodox Christianity paint him,\neternally hating his enemies, all of whom were his own creatures, and\nplunging into an eternal hell of fire and brimstone the larger part of\nhis own children, created in his own image and likeness.  While I\ncannot understand the \"problems of his providence,\" I am sure that \"the\nJudge of all the earth will do right.\"  As to the perplexities that\nhave grown out of the ideas of God's _foreknowledge, foreordination_,\netc., my view is that no such a thing as _foreknowledge_ can be\nattributed to God.  To do so is to attribute to him time limitations.\nTo the Infinite God there can be no such thing as past or future.  All\nis the \"_eternal present_\" in which God is still at work, as much as\never before.  I confess I cannot comprehend _how_ this is; but I can\ncomprehend _that_ it is.\n\n  \"Deep in unfathomable mines\n  Of never failing skill,\n  He treasures up his bright designs,\n  And works his sovereign will.\"\n\n\n_MAN_\n\n\"What is man that thou art mindful of him?\"  So far as we know, as a\npure animal, he is the highest product, the climax of the processes of\norganic evolution.  In addition to this, he is the only known creature\non earth, or elsewhere, endowed with those God-like faculties of mind,\nthought, reason, will,--_soul_.  As far as man's moral character and\ndestiny are concerned, it matters as little how he came to be here, as\nit does who Cain's wife was.  We are confronted with the serious fact\nthat _we are here_; and that we are endowed with these supreme\nfaculties that differentiate us from the lower forms of life about us,\nand consequently entail upon us, not thru some supernatural revelation,\nbut by natural instinct, certain moral and social responsibilities and\nobligations, not only to our own kind, but to all those myriad forms of\nlife below us,--obligations and responsibilities which we cannot avoid\nor escape, except at our peril.\n\nAnd as to these responsibilities, it is not material whether man is\nimmortal or not.  I once had serious doubts of this.  But while I now\nbelieve it with a firm conviction that in my own mind amounts to moral\ncertainty, yet I recognize that it is beyond the pale of ocular proof\nor physical demonstration.  It pertains exclusively to the realm of\nfaith.\n\n  \"Strange is it not? that of the myriads who,\n  Before us passed the door of darkness thru,\n  Not one returns, to tell us of the road,\n  Which to discover, we must travel too?\"\n\nAnd yet this faith is one of the most comforting and inspiring of all\nthe objects of faith known to man.  But he that is governed in his life\nand conduct, solely by the fear of some dire punishment in the\nafter-life, or some hope of bribing the Infinite to give him a\ncomfortable berth in heaven, is at best but a little and weak soul.\n\nNo need to go into any argument here upon the question of whether, \"If\na man die shall he live again?\"  Our social and moral obligations to\nlive right with our fellowmen are none the less, whether there is an\nafter-life or not.  In fact no man can be right with God,--a part of\nwhose life he is,--while wrong with his fellow-man.\n\n\n_THE PROBLEM OF EVIL_\n\nThis brings us to a consideration of the problem of evil.  \"Ever since\nhuman intelligence became enlightened enough to grope for a meaning and\npurpose in human life, this problem of the existence of evil has been\nthe burden of man.\" (John Fiske.)  Out of some attempt to solve it,\nevery religion on earth was born.  I do not offer to solve this\nproblem; but to try to take a rational view of it.\n\nGood and evil are relative terms.  How could we know anything about the\none but thru its contrast with the other?  If there were no such thing\nas evil, how could we be conscious of the good?  How could we know that\nit was good?  We cannot know anything except by its contrast with\nsomething else.  Some element of unlikeness must appear before we can\ndistinguish anything from something else.  To quote again from Fiske:\n\"If there were no color but red, it would be exactly the same thing as\nif there were no color at all.\"  There could be no music except for\nvariety and contrasts in sounds.  If we had never tasted anything but\nsugar, could we know what bitterness is?  But having tasted the bitter\nwe then know what sweetness means.  Likewise, if there was no such\nthing as moral evil in the world, we could not possibly know what moral\ngoodness is.  We could not know what happiness is if we did not have\nsome knowledge of sorrow and pain.  Just why this is so, I do not\npretend to know.  I am only stating facts as they are; and the great\nCreator, who is the author of both, if of either, knows; and we may\nknow in proper time.  Another pertinent question from Fiske may be\nasked here: \"What would have been the worth of that primitive innocence\nportrayed in the myth of the garden of Eden?  What would have been the\nmoral value or significance of a race of human beings ignorant of evil,\nand doing beneficent acts with no more consciousness or volition than\nthe deftly contrived machine that picks up raw material at one end, and\nturns out some finished product at the other?  Clearly for strong and\nresolute men and women an Eden would be but a fool's paradise.  How\ncould anything fit to be called _character_ ever have been produced\nthere?  But for tasting the forbidden fruit, in what respect could man\nhave become a being of higher order than the beast of the field?\"\n\nThe point is that the same law of evolution applies in the moral world\nas it does in the material.  As the highest types of life have been\ndeveloped only thru the processes of struggle with adverse elements, in\nwhich only the fittest, strongest and best adapted to its environment\nsurvived, so moral character is only developed thru the struggle with\nmoral evil.  Just as one cannot learn to swim on a parlor sofa, but\nmust get in the water and struggle, so one must come in contact with,\ncombat, struggle with, and overcome moral evil in order to develop the\nhighest and strongest type of moral character.\n\n  \"Heaven is not reached by a single bound;\n    But we build the ladder by which we rise\n    From the lowly earth to the vaulted skies,\n  And rise to its summit round by round.\"\n\nThe rise from a bestial to a moral plane involves the acquirement of a\nknowledge of both good and evil.  The moral conscience thus developed\nplays the same role in the moral world that the consciousness of pain\ndoes in the physical.  As this consciousness of pain is a monitor to\nwarn us from physical danger, so the moral conscience is our monitor to\nkeep us from moral evil.  And the higher this moral conscience is\ndeveloped, the more sensitive it becomes, the higher will its possessor\nrise in the moral scale.  This is the law which Paul tells us is\nwritten in the hearts of all men, \"their consciences meanwhile accusing\nor excusing them.\"  This may seem a strange philosophy.  But it\ncomports with the facts of nature and life.  The mystery of evil is not\nsolved.  But at least we have a rational, working hypothesis upon which\nto deal with it, as will further appear as we proceed.\n\n\n_SIN_\n\nEvil, at least in the physical world, exists separate and apart from\nsin.  We will not speculate upon the metaphysical differences that may,\nor may not, exist between moral evil and personal guilt.  But I wish to\nrecord briefly the views I ultimately arrived at concerning the nature\nand consequences of sin.\n\nAccording to the orthodox doctrine, altho sin is defined in the New\nTestament as the \"transgression of the law,\" it is something _more_\nthan this;--a direct personal offence against God; and that therefore\nits penalties are punitive and vindictive, designed to vindicate the\nperson of God against insult and injury by disobedience to his law.\nPunishment was therefore believed to be administered judicially,\naccording to the extent of the offense, that the sinner might be made\nto suffer _purely for suffering's sake_, measure for measure.  I long\nago abandoned this doctrine.  I accept fully the New Testament teaching\nthat \"sin is the transgression of the law,\"--not the law of Moses or\nany other penal code,--but the great universal, immutable law of Nature\nin the moral world.  That God is the author of this law does not make\nits violation any more a personal offense against God than the\nviolation of a State statute is a personal offense against the\nGovernor, or legislature, or the judge that administers it.  God cannot\nbe personally sinned against.  If so He is neither infinite nor\nimmutable.  To constitute a personal offense the person offended must\ntake cognizance of it, which necessarily involves _a change of mind_\ntoward the offender,--otherwise it is not an offense.  The same\ncondition would be involved in a second change of mind toward the\noffender, upon his repentance and forgiveness.  Neither is consistent\nwith any idea of infinity or immutability.  Neither does God ever\npunish sin.  Sin is its own punishment, and it operates automatically.\nNo sin was ever committed that the sinner did not pay the penalty in\nfull.  From this there is no more escape than there is from the law of\ngravitation.  If I put my hand into the fire I cannot avoid being\nburned.  If I take poison I cannot avoid the consequences.  The fact\nthat there may be an antidote for the poison in no way destroys the\ntruth of this fundamental law.\n\n  \"The moving finger writes, and having writ\n  Moves on; Nor all your piety nor wit\n  Can lure it back to cancel half a line,\n  Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.\"\n\n\nJesus illustrated this law fully and beautifully in the parable of the\nProdigal Son, and I can do no better than quote its substance here.\nThis young man left his father's house.  This was not a personal\noffence against his father, altho the father may well have conjectured\nwhat would be the result.  He was of age and had a right to go.  He\nspent his funds in riotous living, and as a consequence was reduced to\nwant and suffering, his punishment for his sin.  To thus waste his\nfunds was sin, _He punished himself_ by his own conduct.  His\nsufferings became so intense and severe that he resolved to abandon his\npresent surroundings and return home at any cost, even to becoming a\nmenial servant in his father's house.  Here we get a clear view of the\n_purpose_ of punishment, not as vindictive, but remedial and\ncorrective.  The young man suffered until his sufferings accomplished\ntheir end in correcting and changing his life.  As soon as this was\ndone his punishment ended.  Just so with all punishment for sin.  It\nwill continue until its remedial and corrective purpose is completed\nand no longer, whether in this life or some other.  When the young man\nreturned home his father received him, not as a servant, but a son.\nBut remember, _his wasted fortune was not restored_.  \"Was he not\nfreely forgiven?\"  Yes; but forgiveness does not blot out nor restore\nthe past; nor absolve one from the natural consequences of his own acts\nalready committed.  It simply means a new opportunity and a new start,\nbut with the handicap of the consequences of the past life.  The\nreturned prodigal was forgiven.  He had the opportunity to begin life\nanew as a son, just as he was before.  But his material resources\nrepresented in his squandered fortune, and the time he lost while\nsquandering it, were lost forever!  Be as diligent and frugal as he\nmight, he could never, thru time or eternity, reach that attainment\n_which he might have reached_, had he used the same diligence and\nfrugality from the start, in the use of his natural inheritance as his\noperating capital.\n\nHence, one sins, not against God, but most of all _against himself_, by\nviolating the law of his own being, and of humanity.  And the\n_consequences_ of sins committed can never be escaped, in this world or\nany other.  If this kind of gospel had been preached to humanity during\nall these past centuries of Christianity,--instead of a gospel that\nteaches that no matter how vile, wicked and sinful one may be, nor how\nlong he may thus live in sin, if, in the last hour of life he will only\n\"believe in Jesus,\" at death he will go sweeping thru the gates of\nheaven into eternal glory on a complete equality with the noblest\nsaints and purest characters that ever lived on earth,--this world\nwould now be much better than it is.\n\n\"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap,\" whether divinely\ninspired or not, is as eternally true, certain, and unescapable in the\nmoral world as are the stars in their courses.  Man sins against\nsociety in transgressing those natural laws of social relations that\nbind society together.  But even in this, while society suffers from\nhis sins, the sinner himself must ultimately suffer for his own sins\nabove all others.\n\nThe question has often been asked me, \"If a man cannot sin against God,\nbut only against himself and society, by what standard, gauge, or\nmeasure am I to determine what is right or wrong?\"  I think the Golden\nRule answers that question completely.  All sins are either personal or\nsocial or both.  A man may, by some sort of self-indulgence or abuse or\nby his own secret thoughts sin against himself _only_, from which he\nalone must suffer.  He may also sin against society by doing some evil\nto or against some one else or against society as a whole, from which\nboth he and others may suffer.  A simple rule of conduct may be this:\nIn view of any proposed course of conduct, word or act, these questions\nmay be asked: \"What may be the result?  Will it in any way injure me,\nor any one else?  Is any possible evil consequence, either to myself or\nany one else, likely to come of it?\"  If the answer is in the\naffirmative, it is wrong; otherwise not.  These are my simple views of\nsin.\n\n\n_SALVATION_\n\nWhat is salvation?  Almost the universal answer of Christendom has been\nfor eighteen centuries, escape from hell hereafter and the assurance of\nheaven.  Yet, according to the record we have of him, Jesus never\ntaught any such doctrine.  It is true that he refers several times to\nthe Gehena of the Jews, \"where their worm dieth not and the fire is not\nquenched,\" but always as a natural consequence of some failure to do,\nor perform certain things that they should do; but never does he appeal\nto any one to do or perform anything _for the purpose of escaping it_.\n\nDid the reader ever notice that in all the record we have of the\nsayings of Jesus, he is nowhere quoted as having ever said one word\nabout the great, fundamental doctrines of Christianity, over which\npagans and Christians wrangled for four centuries; and over which\nChristians have wrangled and fought with each other for fourteen\ncenturies?  Do we find where Jesus ever said one word about the Garden\nof Eden, the fall of Adam, original sin, total depravity, vicarious\natonement, the mode of baptism, the Trinity, the possession of the Holy\nSpirit, or any form of ecclesiastical organization or church polity?\n\nSalvation, and Jesus so taught, pertains to this life exclusively.  It\nsimply means _to save this life_,--not from physical death, nor hell\nhereafter,--but to its proper function, use and purpose, according to\nthe will of God, as revealed in nature and human experience.  In\nsimpler words, it is to save this life from sin, wrong doing of every\nkind, and making of it the highest, noblest and best it is capable of.\n\nThis is what Jesus taught; and Jesus is the savior of mankind _only_ in\nthat he has taught mankind _how to live_,--not by dying for it.  Thus\nto save this life to the highest, noblest and best of which it is\ncapable, is to save it from sin unto righteousness; and this is to save\nit both here and hereafter.  He that _continually lives right_ cannot\ndie wrong.  And whatever the next life may be, it is but a\ncontinuation, a larger unfolding and fruition of this.  Salvation is\nhere, not hereafter.\n\n\n_HEAVEN AND HELL_\n\nBut do I not believe in heaven and hell?  Yes, and no.  I believe in\nboth, and neither.  I do not believe in either the kind of heaven or\nhell I was taught in the church.  Yet, I have already said that I did\nnot believe any sin ever committed by man ever went unpunished, either\nhere or hereafter, until the full penalty was paid, and the punishment\nhad completed its remedial and corrective purpose.  And I will say here\nthat I do not believe any good deed or word ever performed or said by\nman ever went unrewarded up to the full value of its merit, either here\nor hereafter.  But I believe both heaven and hell to be\n_conditions_,--not places,--and we have them both here in this life,\nand will have them hereafter.  Each individual makes his own heaven, or\nhis own hell, and carries it with him when he leaves this life.  To\nquote from Omar Khayyam:\n\n  \"I sent my Soul thru the invisible\n  Some letter of that After-life to spell;\n    And by and by my Soul returned to me\n  And answered: I myself am Heaven and Hell;\n  Heaven's but the vision of fulfilled desire,\n  And Hell the shadow of a Soul on fire.\"\n\n\nThe idea of a literal lake of fire and brimstone to be the eternal\nabode of by far the larger part of the human race, according to the\northodox doctrine of Christianity, is not only unreasonable, but\nunthinkable.  If it exists God must have made it; and such a thought is\na caricature of God.  Such a view of hell practically involves the\nnecessity of the personal devil that has always been associated with\nit; and this is also both unreasonable and unthinkable.  If such a\nbeing exists he is either co-eternal with God--which is\nunreasonable--or God created him--which is unthinkable.  The idea that\nthere is in this universe two co-eternal antagonistic spirits in\neternal warfare with each other challenges human credulity.  If the\nBible story of creation and the fall of man is true, as interpreted by\northodox Christianity, the devil got the best of God right from the\nstart, and has held it ever since; and according to the current\ndoctrines of the plan and means of salvation, will hold it eternally.\nThis leads us inevitably to one of two conclusions: God is neither\nInfinite, Omniscient, nor Omnipotent, else He would not have permitted\nsuch a condition to come about, and permit Himself to be thus defeated\nin his plans and purposes, and lose eternally ninety percent of the\nhighest product of his own creation, Man, whom He made in his own image\nand likeness.  If we still insist that God is Infinite, Omniscient, and\ntherefore knew in advance all that ever would take place, including the\nfall of Adam and its consequences, Omnipotent, and therefore able to\nprevent it, but did not, it only makes the matter worse.\n\nBut to take the other horn of the dilemma, that God _created_ the devil\nfirst an angel in heaven, who afterwards led a rebellion in heaven and\nhad to be cast out, and that hell was then created as a place in which\nto put him, but where it proved afterwards that he could not be kept,\nbut got out and robbed God of the noblest product of his creative\ngenius at the very threshold of creation, corrupting the very fountain\nof human life itself, whereby he became the ultimate possessor of\nnine-tenths of all the race forever, is only to make the matter still\nworse than before.  He certainly was not Omniscient, and therefore able\nto foreknow what this newly created angel would ultimately do, else He\nwould not have made him; nor was He Omnipotent, else He would have\nprevented it.  But if it still be insisted--and unfortunately it is by\nfar the greater part of Christianity--that God is, nevertheless and\nnotwithstanding, Infinite, Omniscient and Omnipotent, and either\ndeliberately planned or supinely sat by and permitted these things to\ntake place, _then He is not_ a God of goodness, love, justice, truth,\nmercy and benevolence, but an unthinkable monster, more diabolical and\ncruel than the wildest savage ever known to the earth, or the most\nferocious beast of prey in the jungle.  I might naturally fear such a\nGod, but never love or respect, but eternally hate him.\n\nI have already given my views of the story of Eden and the fall of man;\nthat man never fell, but is still incomplete, but progressing onward\nand upward forever; that he was never, on the general average, higher\nor better than now; and as the years and ages go on he will continue\nthus to grow better and nobler, making his own heaven as he goes along,\nand destroying his own hell by learning his lessons of suffering for\nwrong doing, and leaving it behind him.  No, God did not make man in\nhis own image, implant in his very nature that eternal aspiration\nupward that is possessed by every normal human being, and then make a\ndevil to tempt and ruin him, and a hell in which to eternally torment\nhim.\n\nI quote again from Omar Khayyam:\n\n  \"Oh, Thou who didst with pitfall and with gin\n  Beset the road I was to wander in,\n    Thou wilt not with predestined evil round\n  Enmesh, and then impute my fall to sin.\n  ... \"Ne'er a peevish boy\n  Would break the bowl from which he drank in joy;\n    And he that with his hand the vessel made\n  Will not in after wrath destroy.\"\n\n\n_REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT_\n\nIt is hardly necessary to the purpose of this work, to say anything at\nall on these subjects.  If man was never lost, kidnapped or stolen from\nGod, he needed no _redeemer_, to _buy him back_ with a price.  If man\nnever \"fell\" from the favor of God by disobedience, and thereby\nincurred his anger, illwill and wrath that sought vengeance on his\nlife, he needed no one to mediate, propitiate or atone for him by\nshedding his own blood as a substitute.  The whole doctrine of\nredemption and atonement falls flat when the doctrine of the fall of\nman is removed from under it.  But as this is the very crux of the\nwhole orthodox Christian system, the reader may be interested to know\nwhat conclusions I reached concerning it, after some years of study, as\nto both its origin and meaning.  These conclusions I reached, not only\nfrom the study of the Bible, but from the study of history generally;\nand especially the history of religion, in other races as well as the\nJews.  It must be remembered that this doctrine of atonement by the\nshedding of blood, is--or rather was,--in one form or another, common\nto many ancient religions and nations.  It was by no means exclusively\nJewish or Christian.  It probably had a common origin and purpose in\nall.\n\nI have already intimated that all religious doctrine and practice had\ntheir origin in man's attempt to solve the problem of evil, sin,\nsuffering and death; and to remedy it.  I will treat this more fully\nwhen I come to consider the subject of religion specifically.\n\nThe general solution of this problem, if not the almost universal one,\nwas, that men had offended the gods and incurred their anger and\nillwill; and for this reason the gods continually afflicted them thru\nlife and ultimately destroyed them.  Thus death was the final penalty\nfor sin.  The gods could be finally satisfied only with the life,--the\nblood,--of the transgressor.  \"For the blood is the life.\"  This\ndoctrine is not confined to Genesis and the Jews.  In fact, the best\nBiblical scholars of today are of the opinion that this story of Eden\nand the fall were not originally Jewish at all; but that the tradition\nwas learned during the exile in Babylonia and Persia, where, it has\nbeen learned from recent excavations, the tradition existed centuries\nbefore the time of the captivity.  It is believed that this tradition\nso fitted into the Jewish history and gave them such a satisfactory\nsolution of their own sufferings and misery that it was brought back by\nthem, and, with some adaptations, incorporated into their own sacred\nliterature as a part of their own history.  Thus, Genesis is now\nbelieved by the best scholars and most competent critics, not to be the\nfirst book of the Bible written, but in its present form, one of the\nlast written of the Old Testament.  But this is a digression.\n\nQuite early, however, tho the time and the exact reason why are both\nunknown, it is evident that man conceived the idea that, tho he could\nnot escape ultimate death, yet, he might in some way appease the wrath\nof the gods, and thus at least mitigate his afflictions in this life,\nby offering them the life--the blood--of a substitute.  Thus originated\nthe practice of offering burnt offerings to the gods, so common among\nso many ancient tribes and nations besides Israel.  It was believed\nthat the gods would be satisfied, at least for the time being, with the\nblood of an innocent victim, especially if it was the best, or the most\nprecious the offerer had.  And from this grew the offering of human\nsacrifices, especially one's own children, as Abraham offering Isaac,\nJephtha his daughter, and the practice in Israel so severely condemned\nby some of the earlier prophets, of making \"their children pass the\nfire unto Moloch.\"\n\nOther offerings in the course of time grew up, such as fruits,\nvegetables, incense, etc.; but no offering was acceptable as an\n_atonement for sin_, except the offering of blood.  Thus Cain brought\nan offering \"of the fruit of the ground\" and Jehovah rejected it.  But\nAbel came with \"the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.\nAnd Jehovah had respect unto Abel and unto his offering.\"\n\nThe later Levitical ritual with its organized priesthood, tabernacle,\ntemple, etc., was by no means the beginning of this idea of appeasing\nthe wrath of Jehovah by blood atonement; but was only the more perfect\nand systematic organization and administration of it.  Blood was\nconsidered so precious, because it was the life, that the children of\nIsrael were forbidden to eat it on penalty of death.  \"For the life of\nthe flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to\nmake atonement for your sins: for it is the blood that maketh atonement\nby reason of the life.\"  Lev. xvii, 11.\n\nI shall assume here that the reader is already sufficiently familiar\nwith the practices of the Jews, as recorded thruout the Old Testament,\nconcerning this matter of blood atonement, to render it unnecessary to\ngo into further details.  If he is not already familiar with it, he can\neasily become so.\n\nThe question has been asked, why _burn_ the offering?  Why was it not\nsufficient simply to shed the blood?  Perhaps in the beginning this was\nthe practice.  There is nothing said about burning the offerings of\neither Cain or Abel.  It is highly probable they were not burnt.\nJehovah was satisfied with the mere _sight_ of blood, the destruction\nof a life.  But this, Cain did not offer.  There was no _blood_ in his\nfruit-offering; hence Jehovah was not only unappeased, but insulted.\nThe first mention of \"burnt-offerings\" in the Bible is the offering\nmade by Noah after the flood.  From this on they are common.  The\npurpose of burning the offering was simply to cook it,--to roast it.\nThe offering was nearly always eaten.  Sometimes only the fat,\nconsidered the choicest part, was burnt as an offering to the god;\nwhile the people and priests ate the balance, either roasted or boiled.\nSee a full account of this in 1 Sam. ii, 12f.  As man has always made\nhis gods in his own image he imagined the gods, like himself, loved to\neat.  Therefore, in addition to appeasing the wrath of the god by the\nsight of the blood of the victim, his favor was supposed to be further\nobtained by feeding him.  As the good host always sets the best he has\nbefore his guest, so the best part of the sacrificed victim was placed\non the altar for the god.  Altho invisible, it was firmly believed that\nthe god consumed the burning flesh or fat, as it was reduced to smoke\nand ascended to heaven.  The parties making the offering,--sometimes\nonly an individual, or a family, but often the whole tribe,--ate the\nbalance.  They were therefore, \"eating with the god,\" and consequently\non good terms with him, just as eating together today is an indication\nof friendship, or the taking of salt together among certain savage\ntribes is a token of peace and friendship, or the smoking from the\ncommon pipe among the early American Indians.  Later in Israel, the\nwhole offering was burnt.  Jehovah was entitled to it all.  Men had\noutgrown the idea of \"eating with Jehovah.\"\n\nWe now come back more specifically to the _purpose_ of this blood\natonement.  We have no account in all the Old Testament where it was\never offered with direct reference to a future life,--for the purpose\nof escaping hell.  We have already seen that there is absolutely\nnothing in the story of Eden and the fall of man, upon which to\npredicate any thought of immortality after physical death, either a\nheaven or hell.  We now come to note that there is nowhere any _direct_\nreference to a life after death, in any book of the Old Testament,\nwritten _before_ the exile.  The account of Saul having the witch of\nEndor call up Samuel after his death; and David's faith that he could\ngo to his dead child, indeed indicate some belief at this time in an\nafter-life; but nowhere is there the remotest reference to a hell, a\nseparate place of torment for the wicked.  In the case of Samuel being\nrecalled to converse with Saul, he says, that altho Jehovah had\ndeparted from Saul, and notwithstanding Saul's great wickedness,\n\"Tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me,\"--the saintly Samuel, all\nin the same place.  There are a few direct references to a future life,\n_in a few places only_, in some of the books written _during_ or\n_after_ the exile.  But nowhere in the Old Testament do we find a\nsingle reference to the offering of the sacrifice of atonement with any\nreference whatever to a future life.  To ancient Israel, Jehovah was a\nGod of the present,--not the future.  He did things _then_,--in the\npresent tense.  He was the God of the _living_,--not of the dead.  And\nJesus affirmed the same thing.\n\nHe was exclusively a God for this world and this life.  The atoning\nsacrifice was offered to appease his wrath against them for their past\nsins, not the sin of the individual only, but the sins of the whole\nnation.  The benefits they expected to receive from this remission of\nsins thru the blood of the atonement were _here_ and _now_,--not in\nsome future life.\n\nWe pass rapidly now to the time of the Christ.  Altho the canonical\nbooks of the Old Testament give us no clue to any definite, fixed\nbeliefs among the Jews concerning a future life, heaven, hell or the\nresurrection of the dead, yet, according to the New Testament\nliterature, these views were all quite clearly defined, and generally\nbelieved among all the Jews, except the party of the Sadducees,\nrelatively a very small party.  Whence came these beliefs?  If they had\ncome by some divine revelation they would certainly have been recorded\nin some of their sacred books.  But they were not.  The only rational\nanswer is that they learned all these things from their Eastern masters\nduring the captivity, where all these beliefs are now known to have\nbeen current centuries before the captivity, and brought them back on\ntheir return; and with some modifications incorporated them into their\nown system.  Yet there is no indication in the New Testament, nor any\ncontemporary literature now extant, that the atoning sacrifice that was\ncontinually offered in the temple, even down to the destruction of\nJerusalem, was ever offered with any view, or reference to a future\nlife; much less as a means of escaping hell.\n\nWe turn now to the Christ.  It has already been said that he nowhere\nmakes the least reference to a vicarious atonement to be made by\nhimself for the sins of world.  True, he warns his disciples that he\nmust needs go up to Jerusalem, there to suffer and be put to death; but\nnowhere does he say that this death is to _redeem back_ mankind from\nthe devil; nor appease the wrath of God against mankind by the sight of\nhis blood; nor to vindicate the majesty of a broken law, for the\nbenefit of mankind.  It is all but universally acknowledged that his\ndisciples had no such conception of his mission, but followed him up to\nJerusalem expecting to see him made King, sit on the \"throne of David\"\nand restore Israel to her pristine glory, according to the universal\ninterpretation of the Messianic prophecies.  After his tragic death,\nand alleged resurrection and ascension,--in which his disciples\ncertainly implicitly believed, no matter what the actual facts may\nbe,--we still hear not a word about his death being a vicarious\natonement for sin.  When Peter preached that great sermon on the day of\nPentecost he says not one word about a vicarious atonement in the death\nof Christ, but lays the whole emphasis on his resurrection and\nascension.  Let the reader turn here to that sermon in the second\nchapter of Acts and read it; and he will find that the whole burden of\nPeter's sermon is to the effect, that since the Jews had put Jesus to\ndeath, he had broken the bonds of death and hades, they being powerless\nto hold him, and had ascended to the right hand of God, whereby he had\nconquered both death and hades, and for which \"God hath made him both\nLord and Christ.\"  Note, that because of this resurrection and\nascension he had _been made_ both Lord and Christ,--and not by any\nvirtue in his death itself.  Not the remotest hint of vicarious\natonement!  The natural inference is--tho Peter is not quoted as saying\nso in so many words,--that men are to be saved from death and hades\nhereafter, because Jesus had escaped from both, and thus not only paved\nthe way, but himself thereby became able to save others also.\n\nAs is well known, for half a century or more, the followers of the new\nfaith, who for fifteen years were all Jews, or Jewish proselytes,\nlooked with anxious expectancy for the return of this Jesus, with the\npower and glory of heaven, to set up his earthly kingdom on the throne\nof David in Jerusalem.  Not a word yet about saving men's soul's from\nhell thru vicarious atonement.  No need for a vicarious atonement to\nsave men from hell hereafter, if they were soon to live on this earth\nforever--those who died before his return to be raised from the dead as\nhe was, while those that remained were to be \"caught up in the clouds\nto meet him in the air and live forever,\"--under the benign reign of\nthe Messiah of God.\n\nBut we are approaching its development.  There appears upon the scene\none Saul of Tarsus, afterwards known as Paul the Apostle.  It is\ngenerally conceded that he never saw Jesus in his lifetime; in fact\nknew nothing of him while he lived.  He early became a violent\npersecutor of the new sect, which for years was only another Jewish\nsect, as exclusively Jewish in its views and outlook as were the\npriests and Rabbis.  But Paul was a well educated man, a scholar in his\nday,--and a philosopher.  He was a Jew to the core, and lived and died\none.  We need not consider the story of his trip to Damascus, the\nsupposed miracle on the way, and his conversion to the new faith.  He\nsoon became the greatest leader and exponent it had thus far produced;\nand he put a new interpretation on it, _entirely unchristian_, if we\nare to take the recorded teachings of the Christ himself as our\nstandard for Christianity.  And the Christianity of the world today is\nmuch more Pauline than Christian, judged by this standard.\n\nThis Paul operated independent of the other Apostles.  He was a \"free\nlance\" and launched forth, both in a field, and with a doctrine all his\nown.  He was thoroly familiar with the whole Jewish system.  He knew\nall about the meaning and purpose of the sacrifice of atonement.  Yet\nhe was too wise not to know that there was no _intrinsic merit_ in the\nblood of bulls and goats to cleanse from sin, or appease the divine\nwrath.  Yet as a loyal Jew he certainly _believed_ these to be of\ndivine origin,--and that they must have a meaning deeper than the\nphysical fact itself.  He was a believer in the coming of the\nlong-promised Messiah--to restore Israel.  A man of his knowledge and\nforesight might well be able to read \"the signs of the times,\" and see\nthat the Jewish nation could but little longer maintain its separate\nidentity against the overwhelming power of the growing Roman Empire.\nIt must soon be swallowed up and its separate identity lost in the\ngreater whole.  No power in Israel seemed to be able to stem the tide\nof events.  Remember that this was now some years after the\ncrucifixion; and after Paul had changed his course towards the new\nsect, because of the events about Damascus,--no matter what they may\nhave been.  At any rate, it is quite clear, no matter what the reasons\nmay have been that induced him to do so, that he had accepted in good\nfaith, as a veritable truth, the belief in the physical resurrection of\nthe crucified Jesus.  Paul tells us himself that after his escape from\nDamascus he went into Arabia for three years,--perhaps to try to think\nout some rational interpretation of the meaning of the events that he\nhad felt himself forced to accept as true.\n\nAfter this we find him passing thru Jerusalem, stopping a few weeks\nwith Peter and the other Apostles to learn from them all he could; and\nthen going on to his native city, Tarsus, where we lose sight of him\nfor several years before we find him starting on his first great\nmissionary journey from Antioch, in which we begin to get our first\nglimpses of the doctrine of vicarious atonement made for the sins of\nthe world by the death of Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nDuring these years of Paul's obscurity, both in Arabia and at Tarsus,\nwhat was he probably doing?  We do not know.  But is it unreasonable to\nconjecture that he must have spent at least a good portion of his time\nin profound study, to try to reconcile these new views with the past\nhistory, traditions and beliefs of his own people?  If this new\nteaching meant only a new ethical standard of life; that men are saved\nby what they _are_ and _do_, without any reference to _belief_, then\nthe whole Jewish system of sacrifices had no meaning at all, and never\ndid have.  We can hardly conceive of Paul, educated as he was in all\nthe lore and traditions of his people, accepting such a view as this.\nTo him all the traditions and practices of his people were at least of\ndivine origin; and hence must have a meaning of eternal significance.\nYet, it must have been plain to him that in the natural course of\nevents, as they were then clearly tending, it could not be long until\nthe elaborate temple ritual, with _all_ its sacrifices, oblation,\nburning bullocks and incense, must soon cease forever!\n\nAnd now for the interpretation.  All the ceremonial of Israel had a\nmeaning; but it was symbolic, typical of some reality to come.  The\nblood of bulls and lambs and goats could not in themselves atone for\nsin; but they could _point_ to the \"Lamb of Calvary,\" slain for the\nsins of the world.  He that was without sin,--\"the lamb without spot or\nblemish,\"--was offered as a sacrifice for the sins of others.  The law\nhad its purpose, but it was now fulfilled, all its symbolic meaning was\nconsummated in the death of Jesus, and now it must go.  It was only a\nschool master, to keep us in the way until the Christ should come.\nWhen this \"lamb\" was slain, God saw his shed blood, and was satisfied.\nHis anger relented, his wrath cooled and the hand of mercy was\nextended, on the simple condition,--_of faith_.  What was the meaning,\nintent and purpose of this vicarious atonement?  According to the\nbelief of the time, that Jesus would soon return in the power and glory\nof heaven to set up his everlasting kingdom here on earth, it was to\nprepare a people for this kingdom.  This kingdom was to be composed\nonly of those who had been thus prepared for it, by the remission of\ntheir sins, thru this blood atonement.  The earliest Christians, all of\nwhom were Jews, led by Peter, held that this new kingdom was to be\nforever limited to Jews and Jewish proselytes.  If any Gentile wanted\nto have any part or lot in this new kingdom, he must first become a\nJew.  But Paul took a broader view.  To him the whole Jewish system was\npurely preliminary to a greater dispensation, which was now fulfilled;\nsymbolic and typical of a greater reality which was now here; and had\ntherefore fulfilled its purpose and was ended.  All symbolic ceremonial\nwas now past forever.  There was no longer any distinction between Jew\nand Gentile as far as God's grace was concerned.  The New Kingdom was\nopen to all upon the same terms,--faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God,\nand this particular interpretation of his mission.\n\nThis opening of the gates to all the world on equal terms produced a\nbitter controversy between Peter and Paul and led to a sharp and well\ndefined division in the early church, which continues to this day.  The\nRoman Church is Petrine, narrow, exclusive and given to much elaborate\nceremonial, as were the ancient Jews; while Protestantism is generally\nPauline, much broader, generally freer from ceremonial, and as a rule\nmuch more truly Catholic; yet often narrow enough.\n\nAs time went on, and Jesus did not return as expected, faith in his\nearly coming waned; and the idea began to grow that his real Kingdom\nwas not for this world at all, but a heavenly one hereafter.  By this\ntime the Apostle Paul was dead and the Fourth Gospel had appeared,\nsupposed to be written by the Apostle John, in which the Master was\nquoted as saying, \"My kingdom is not of this world.\"  Thus the idea\ntook form, grew and developed that the real mission of the Messiah,\nafter all, was not the establishment of a kingdom here on earth, but a\nheavenly kingdom hereafter; and hence that his death was a vicarious\natonement made by the shedding of his blood, to satisfy the divine\nvengeance against sin, and save souls from hell hereafter; and thus fit\nthem for this heavenly kingdom.\n\nAnd ever since this doctrine became thus established, by the middle of\nthe second century, almost the whole emphasis and entire energies of\nthe church, Catholic and Protestant, have been directed, not towards\nmaking this a better world by making mankind better, building up,\ndeveloping, purifying and uplifting human character; but toward saving\nthem from a hell hereafter.  And what little energy the church had left\nafter this, has been spent, and is still being spent, in never-ending\ncontroversy among themselves over _just how to do it_.\n\nThus the doctrine of vicarious atonement, thru blood, and blood alone,\nhad its origin in the lowest paganism, away back in the infancy of the\nhuman race, was transmitted down thru Judaism, and transplanted from it\ninto Christianity.\n\nBut I cannot leave this subject without a few remarks on the various\nmeanings that have been attached to the idea of vicarious atonement,\nsince it became an integral part of the Christian system.  We have\nalready seen that the original pagan meaning of blood atonement was\nbased upon the idea that the gods were angry and out for vengeance, and\nnothing but blood would appease them; but that the blood of a proper\nsubstitute would answer this purpose.  But the earliest Christian\ndoctrine of the atonement made by Christ was in the nature of\nredemption.  In fact the term became so deeply rooted and grounded in\nearly Christian nomenclature that it has never been fully eliminated.\nBut its use is much less now than formerly.  The theory was based upon\ntradition, partly scriptural and partly not, that in the affair of Eden\nthe devil fairly outwitted God and became rightfully entitled to the\nsouls of all mankind forever; but that on account of the great war in\nheaven, in which the devil and his angels were cast out by the \"Eternal\nSon\" of God (see Milton's \"Paradise Lost\"), the devil held a bitter\ngrudge against this son, and offered to bargain with God and give him\nback all the souls of mankind for the soul of this son.  So God,\nknowing the power of his son to break the bands of death and\nhell,--which the devil did not know,--accepted the bargain; and in due\ntime, as agreed upon, the Son of God came into the world, died on the\ncross and went to hell, in fulfillment of this contract; and thus\nliberated all the souls already there, and obtained a conditional\nrelease of all the balance of mankind,---the condition of faith,--and\nthen suddenly broke the bands of death and hell and escaped back to\nheaven.  But he literally fulfilled his contract as originally made.\nThus we find the old church creeds reciting--and still reciting--that\n\"he was crucified, dead, buried and descended into hell, and the third\nday rose,\" etc.  This idea may look strange to present day Christians;\nbut all they have to do is to consult the early church literature to\nfind that it was almost the universal belief as to the meaning of the\natonement during the first few centuries of Christianity.\n\nThe next view that gradually developed as the older one waned, was the\nold Jewish idea of _substituted suffering_ and to which was added that\nof imputed righteousness.  That is to say, that in order to save\nmankind and yet appease the divine wrath, and satisfy the vengeance of\nan offended God, God sent his son into the world to bear the brunt of\nhis wrath instead of mankind, and tho innocent, to suffer as tho\nguilty; and finally to die as a malefactor, tho innocent of sin; and\nbecause of the dignity and character of the victim and the intensity of\nhis sufferings in both life and death, they were sufficient in both\nquality and quantity to satisfy the divine vengeance against all\nmankind; _provided_ man would avail himself of these provisions for his\nrelease by accepting by faith the Son of God as his suffering\nsubstitute; whereupon, God would forgive the sins of the faithful and\n_impute_ to them the benefits of the righteousness of Christ.  This\ndoctrine of the atonement dominated the Middle Ages.  Upon it was based\nthe doctrine of supererogation, whereby the surplus stock of good works\nof the holy saints might be laid up for the benefit of the less worthy,\nwho might receive the benefits of them thru the process of indulgences,\nsold by the church for a money consideration.  It is still held in a\nsomewhat modified form in a large part of Christendom to this day.\n\nThe more modern doctrine of the atonement is that called the\nGovernmental Theory.  That is to say, that God was not so mad with\nmankind after all; but having once ordained the law that \"the soul that\nsinneth, it shall die,\" the law could neither be abrogated nor\nsuspended, but must have its penalty.  As no mortal man could fulfill\nit for any one but himself, and that only by his eternal death, only\nthe Son of God could satisfy it for mankind.  Therefore the Eternal Son\nof God became incarnate in human flesh, but still remained \"Very God of\nVery God,\" in order that he might meet the demands of this divine law\nfor all mankind, by not being amenable to it himself, being without\nsin; and yet by his sufferings and death paying its penalty in full for\nthe whole human race; subject, however, to the appropriation of its\nbenefits by the individual, thru faith.  In a measure this is the same\nas that of the substitution theory; but it does not go to the extent of\nthe doctrine of imputed righteousness.\n\nThe only exception to it is in the Roman church, and here the exception\nis apparent rather than real.  In the Roman church salvation is _by\nfaith in the church_, the benefits of which are transmitted to the\nindividual thru the sacraments of the church; but in the ancient\nchurch, and in practically all modern Protestant churches, saving faith\nis held to be individual and personal; and must be not only faith in\nthe atoning sacrifice made by Jesus Christ on the cross for all\nmankind; but it must be faith _in the correct view of the atonement_.\nHence, no matter which of the views I have herein outlined may be\ncorrect, those who have held to either of the others are all lost.\nThis is the only logical conclusion any one can reach who insists that\nsalvation is impossible except by accepting any prescribed creed.  Only\nthose who possess and accept the _right creed_ can be saved.  All the\nbalance of mankind must be lost forever.  To take either of these views\nof the atonement, or all of them together, as the only means by which\nmankind can be saved from hell is to make God a complete failure from\nbeginning to end.  As we have already seen, the orthodox view of\ncreation makes God either a failure or a monster.  The attempt to\nreform man thru the process of elimination by the flood proved a\nfailure.  And now if the success of God's last attempt to save mankind\nthru the death of his son, is limited to any interpretation orthodox\nChristianity has ever placed upon it, it is the most stupendous failure\nof all.\n\nThere is but one rational interpretation of any doctrine of salvation\nby vicarious atonement; and that is that the atonement must be\nautomatically as far-reaching and comprehensive in its results as the\nsin it is designed to remedy.  If sin entered into the world because of\nthe offence of Adam, the head of the race, and thus passed upon all\nmen, without their knowledge or consent, simply because they were\ndescendants of Adam, any scheme of redemption, atonement, or salvation\nthat purports in any way to remedy, or obviate the consequences of this\noriginal sin, in order to be just must be equally as broad and\ncomprehensive, and operate as automatically and unconditionally in its\nremedial effects, as did Adam's sin in its consequences.\n\nI have thus gone at some length into this doctrine of atonement and\nredemption.  Perhaps I have wearied the reader.  But as it is the most\nfundamental doctrine of the whole orthodox Christian system, and has\nbeen such a bone of contention in all the ages of the Christian church,\nand was such a stumbling block to me for so long a time, I felt that my\n\"Confession of Faith\" would be incomplete if I did not go into it in\nsome detail.\n\nMy final conclusion is, that man never fell, but always has been and\nstill is imperfect and incomplete, but ever striving upward.  As man\nwas never lost or stolen from God, he needed no redeemer to buy him\nback.  As he was never an enemy to God, but always his child, God was\nnever angry with him; hence he needed neither mediator, nor any one to\nmake any atonement for him.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nA NEW INTERPRETATION OF RELIGION\n\nWhat is religion?  This over which men have waged the fiercest\ncontroversies known to human history; that has been the source of more\nstrife and bloodshed than any other single cause known to mankind; and\nperhaps, in one way or another, more than all other causes combined,\nprevious to the recent World War.  It will be remembered that I said\nafter finishing my special course of study on the origin, authorship,\nhistory and character of the Bible and the processes of reasoning which\nit inspired, \"that I gave the whole thing up, inspiration, revelation,\nchurch and religion, as a farce and a delusion, as 'sounding brass and\ntinkling cymbals'; and cast it all into the scrap-heap of superstition,\nlegend, fable and mythology.\"  But after several years of study and\nobservation I changed my mind again.  I found that what I had always\nbeen taught and understood to be religion was not religion at all, but\nonly a _form of religious expression_.  Creeds and beliefs I found were\nnot religion, but the products of religion.  That subtle emotional\nexperience which I had always been taught was religion, I found was\nitself but a form of religious expression.  I learned that religion was\nnot something one could \"get,\" by repentance, faith, prayer, etc., as I\nhad been taught and taught myself for years; but something every normal\nhuman being on earth had by nature, and could not get rid of.\n\nThen what is religion?  While it is the simplest thing on earth, it is\nyet perhaps the hardest to define; especially by one person for\nanother.  Its very simplicity eludes definition.  In trying to define\nit I shall use in part the definitions given by others, as these are\nmore expressive than any words of my own that I can frame: \"Religion\nessentially consists of man's apprehension of his relation to an\ninvisible power or powers, able to influence his destiny, to which he\nis necessarily subject; together with the feelings, desires and actions\nwhich this apprehension calls forth.\"  Another definition that is\nperhaps more direct and simple than the above is this: \"Religion is an\nimpulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive\nupward.  It is a yearning of the soul in man to transcend its own\nnarrow limits, and to soar to the heights of supreme excellence, where\nit may become identified with the noble, the lofty, the divine.\"\nAnother has said that \"Religion is simply the zest of life.\"  To these\nI will add that I understand religion to be that _inner urge_ in all\nhumanity that pushes it onward and upward; that inspires in man the\ndesire to rise above his present station and attainments, and improve\nhis condition; that spirit within man that has lifted him from the\nlowest savagery to the highest attainments in civilization, refinement\nand culture that man has yet reached; and will still lead him on to\nheights yet invisible and undreamed of.\n\nThis _inner urge_ is common to all humanity, different only in degree,\nand not in kind.  It is possessed by the lowest savage, tho often in\nlatent form, yet capable of being touched and aroused into life and\naction, as thousands of modern examples attest, as a result of some\nform of missionary effort.  From the time that man first emerged above\nthe brute, stood erect, looked up, beheld the phenomena of nature about\nhim, thought, and recognized that _somehow_ and _somewhere_ there was a\nPower above, beyond and greater than himself; and conceived in his own\nmind, however crude, the first faint spark of an aspiration to improve\nand better his condition, man became a religious being, and has been\nsuch ever since, varying only in degree, not in kind.\n\nAll religion is therefore one and the same.  There may be many\nreligions.  But back of all these is religion.  Religion is one in its\norigin.  It is a part of the fundamental essence of human character.\nIt is inseparable from the faculties of thought, reason and will.  It\nis one and the same with these.  Man without these faculties of\nthought, reason and will would not be man at all, but a brute.  So\nwithout this _inner urge_, and the faculty of _aspiration upward_,\nwhich I have defined as the very fundamental essence of religion, man\nwould still only be a brute.  He would not be man at all.  Religion is\none in its origin because it is an essential characteristic of all\nhuman nature.\n\nAll religion is one in that it recognizes SOMETHING above man.  I use\nthis word advisedly.  If I had said, \"Because all men recognize the\nexistence of God, or a Supreme Being,\" I would have been misunderstood\nand the statement challenged.  Men have become so habituated to calling\nall other men atheists who do not accept their particular definition of\nGod, that I omit the word entirely until I can further define my\nmeaning.  Because Voltaire did not believe in the God of Moses and the\nPope, he was dubbed an atheist, altho he was a devoutly religious man,\nand built a chapel at his own expense on his estate and dedicated it\n\"to the worship of God.\"  Man instinctively recognizes _something_\nabove him.  It is immaterial by what name this may be called; whether\nJehovah, Elohim, Allah, Heaven, Nirvana, or Jove; nor what attributes\nwe give it, whether we call it Person or Principle, the Great Unknown\nor the Ultimate Cause; or whether it be a mere abstract Ideal, the\ncreation of one's own fancy; it is still that \"_Something_\" which man\nrecognizes as above him, toward which he aspires and hopes to attain.\n\nMan also instinctively recognizes that he sustains some sort of\npersonal relationship to this \"Something,\" that for want of a better\nname, we call God.  It is necessary in this connection to repeat what\nwe have already said: That very early in the history of the human race\nman was led to this conclusion, concerning his relationship and\nobligation to God, thru his effort to interpret and solve the problem\nof evil, or his own sufferings from it, and his ultimate death.  The\nonly possible method he had of interpreting these problems was drawn\nfrom his own nature and experience.  He knew himself as being alive, as\na conscious individual, capable of exercising will and exerting force.\nThus when he heard the roaring thunders, saw the clouds floating\noverhead, and the flashes of lightning among them, felt the force of\nthe wind and the falling rain; in fact all the phenomena of nature and\nlife about him, including his own aches, pains, diseases, suffering,\nand the ultimate death of his kind, he could only interpret these\nthings in terms of living personality, some great, powerful individual,\nor individuals behind, and directing it all.  These became man's first\ngods.\n\nMan also interpreted his own relation to the gods, and theirs to him,\nin the same terms that defined his relations toward his fellowmen.  He\nrecognized the fact that some of his fellowmen sometimes did him an\ninjury, or committed some offense against him; that this offense or\ninjury aroused in him a spirit of resentment, a desire for vengeance in\nkind, even to the taking of the life of the man who had injured, or\nseriously offended him.  Man made his gods in his own image.  He\nbelieved these gods to be like himself.  Thus, man interpreted his own\nsufferings to mean that he was out of right relations with the gods;\nthat he had personally offended them,--or, one or more of them in some\nway, according to the source from which he conceived some particular\naffliction to come.  When the individual was conscious of his own\ninnocence, he concluded that some of his ancestors had grievously\noffended the god, who relentlessly pursued his posterity and inflicted\non them the penalties due for the sins of this ancestor.  Hence the\ndoctrine of inherited or original Sin.  Man then set about to devise\nsome means to appease the wrath of the gods, and thus restore\nharmonious relations with them.  A volume might be written here, but we\n_must_ proceed with the next proposition.\n\nAll religion is therefore one in its ultimate purpose, and objective\nend: To attain to its ideal, or harmonize with its objective.  In other\nwords: To attain unto right relations with God.  Lest I be\nmisunderstood, I will repeat: It is immaterial what this God may be,\nJehovah, Allah, Nirvana or Jove; Person, Principle, or Abstract Ideal.\nIt is that which man _in his mind_ sets before him, toward which he\naspires and strives to attain.  Remember that what we _think_ God to\nbe, that is what God is to us.\n\nWe have now reached the point where divisions arise, where religion\nbranches out into religions.  \"Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah,\nand bow myself before the high God?  Shall I come before him with\nburnt-offerings, with calves a year old?  Will Jehovah be pleased with\nthousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?  Shall I\ngive my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the\nsin of my soul?\"\n\n\"What must I do to be saved?\"  This has, in one form or another, at one\ntime or another, been the burden of almost every soul among men.  How\ncan man attain unto right relations with his God?  This is the great\nquestion of the ages.  _Keep in mind_ that it is immaterial who or what\nthis god may be, how crude or how refined, from the lowest fetish to\nthe highest spiritual conception, the fundamental question remains ever\nthe same: How shall man get right with his God?  What must man do to be\nsaved?\n\nTo answer this question has been the purpose of every system of\nreligion known to mankind, and every sect, order and denomination known\nto every system.  And here is where confusion begins.  Some one evolves\na formula, means, or method that he believes meets the case.  Some\nothers are persuaded to accept it and the sect grows.  In the mean time\nsome other person has evolved another; and some other still another,\nand so on, and on, and on, _ad infinitum_; all having the same purpose\nin view, and each claiming to be the _only right one_, or at least, the\n_best one_.  And it is immaterial how erroneous, crude, or even\nbarbarous one may look to the devotees of the other; in fundamental\npurpose they are all the same.  The Hindu mother who casts her babe\ninto the Ganges as food for the crocodiles, as a sacrifice to her gods,\ndoes it with as sublime a motive as any Christian mother ever bowed\nbefore the altar of her own church,--and for the same purpose: To get\nright with her God.  The Parsee wife, who burns herself to ashes upon\nthe funeral pyre of her dead husband, does it for the same purpose: To\nget right with her God.  The devotee who throws his body before the\nwheels of the Juggernaut to have it crushed as an act of devotion, does\nit for the same purpose: To get right with his God.  The devout\nMohammedan who bows himself to the earth five times a day, and says his\nprayers with his face towards Mecca, does it for the same purpose: To\nget right with Allah.  The savage who repeats his incantations to his\nfetish that he has probably made with his own hands, does it for the\nsame purpose: To get right with God as he conceives him.  The Chinese\nthat burns his sticks before the image in his Joss-house, does it for\nthe same purpose: To get right with his God.  And so on _ad infinitum_,\nthe same central purpose running thru it all, whether Hindu or Parsee,\nBuddist or Janist, Confucian or Shintoist, Jew or Gentile, Mohammedan\nor Christian, Catholic or Protestant, Methodist or Baptist,\nPresbyterian or Lutheran, Calvinist or Arminian, Unitarian or\nTrinitarian, one and all, have one and the same ultimate object: To get\ninto right relations with God, each according to his own conception of\nGod, and what he understands to be his will concerning him.  However,\nin the more rational interpretation of religion in these later times,\nthe element of fear of punishment hereafter has been almost, if not\nentirely eliminated; and the religious objective is made the highest,\nnoblest, purest, and best possible life in this world, for _its own\nintrinsic worth_, and without any reference to any future life, resting\nfirmly in the faith that he who lives right cannot die wrong.\n\nHence, religion does not consist in creeds, dogmas, or beliefs; nor in\nforms, ordinances, ceremonies, or sacraments, as I was early taught to\nbelieve.  But these are, one and all, but so many varying _forms of\nexpression_ which religion takes.  They are all only so many different\nways, means and methods religion takes to attain to its ultimate\npurpose and aim.  They are only so many different paths which different\nmen take in their search for God.\n\nAnd is there but _one_ true path to God, while all the others only lead\nto hell?  And if so, _which_ is the right one?  Ah, herein lies the\nfruitful source of most of the world's tragedies and sufferings!  It\nwas this that burned John Huss, Savonarola and Bruno.  It was this that\nlighted the fires of Smithfield and hung helpless, silly women in New\nEngland, as witches.  But thank God, it is abating and the dawn of a\nbetter day is in sight.\n\nI have long since come to believe that all who honestly, sincerely, and\ndiligently seek God will ultimately find him, in some way, at some\ntime, when God sees best to reveal himself, no matter what method may\nbe pursued.  I do not mean that all methods are equally good; no, not\nby any means.  The quest for God may be helped or hindered, advanced or\ndelayed, accordingly as the methods of search may be correct or\nerroneous.  But I do mean to say that I do not believe the Infinite\nGod, who knows the hearts of men, and will ultimately judge them by\nthis standard, will forever hide, and deny himself to any, in whose\nheart He sees honesty, purity, and sincerity of purpose and motive,\nbecause in their finite judgment, they were unable to intellectually\ndetermine just which was the right, or best way;--and this, whether the\nsearcher be Hindu, Chinese, Pagan or Parsee; Hottentot or Arab, savage\nor philosopher; Christian, Mohammedan or Buddhist; or any one else on\nearth.  \"Man looketh upon the outward appearance; but God looketh upon\nthe heart.\" And they that diligently, honestly and earnestly seek after\nhim will find him,--somewhere, somehow--in this life or some other, And\nwhen found, it will not be \"in far-off realms of space,\" but in one's\nown heart.\n\n  \"The outward God he findeth not,\n  Who finds not God within.\"\n\n\nTHE BIBLE\n\nFrom the foregoing it is quite clear that religion is not something\nmiraculously revealed from heaven, handed down in a package already\nbound up, complete and finished, ready for use; but that in its origin,\nessence and purpose it is natural and common to all humanity alike.\nIts present status is but the result of its progressive development,\nfrom its crudest forms in early humanity, to the present day.  While\nforever remaining one and the same in its origin, essence and purpose,\nit has undergone changes in its forms of expression, its means and\nmethods, in all ages as mankind has progressively developed upward.\nWhat we call the great systems of religion, such as Buddhism,\nChristianity, Mohammedanism, and others are but so many different forms\nof expression thru which religion manifests itself in human life; and\nthe various sects and denominations in all these systems are but\nfurther subdivisions in these forms of expression, according to\ndifferent desires, tastes and opinions among different people.  Hence,\nreligion was not produced by the Bible, nor is it in any way dependent\nupon the Bible as a source of authority, but just the opposite.\nReligion was long before the Bible and itself produced the Bible; and\nthe Bible derives its sole authority from religion.\n\nHere is perhaps as good a place as any to answer the question that has\noften been asked me: \"If the Bible is not the ultimate source of\nauthority in religion, what and where is it?\"  Just the same to you and\nme today that it was to Noah, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, apostles,\nand all others in all ages.  \"But were not these men divinely\ninspired?\"  No more than you or I _may be_, even if we are not in fact.\nThis subject will be fully elucidated when I come to treat specifically\nof inspiration and revelation in the next subdivision.  The answer to\nthis question about the source of authority in religion is clearly\nindicated in the very definition I have given of religion, and I only\nmake it more specific here to avoid any misunderstanding of my position\non it.  If \"religion is a natural impulse imbedded in the heart of man\nwhich compels him to strive upward\"; if it is the \"zest of Life\"; if it\nis \"that _inner urge_ in all humanity that ever pushes it onward and\nupward\"; these natural impulses themselves constitute the sole source\nof authority in religion.  Thomas Paine once said: \"All religions are\ngood that teach men to be good.\"  To which might well be added: That\nreligion alone is best which teaches men to live the best lives.  Life,\nnot creed, is the final test of religion.  To perceive what is right\nand what is wrong, to cleave to the right and avoid the wrong, is the\nhighest, noblest and best expression of religion.  Now, there is no\nsingle universal standard of right and wrong that is universally the\nsame in its application to human life, in all ages, at all times, and\nunder all circumstances and conditions.  Life is progressive; and as it\nmoves on new conditions arise, new relations develop, new problems\npresent themselves, and new and changing standards come with them.  For\nexample, human slavery and polygamy were both practiced in the days of\nAbraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon, and for centuries\nafterwards; and according to the Bible, with the divine sanction and\napproval.  The simple facts are, that according to the standards of\nthose ages, according to the social development of the race at that\ntime there was no moral turpitude in those practices.  But who would\ndare defend them now?  And yet these, or most of them--and I say it\nreverently and sincerely--were doubtless _good men_, judged by the\nstandards of their time; and devoutly religious.\n\nComing directly now to the answer to the question: The ultimate, final\nauthority in all matters of religion is the _individual conscience_,\nthe inner light, that law written in the hearts of all men, aided and\nassisted by all the light of the present day, which includes all the\nlight of the past that has come down to us, both in the Bible and from\nall other courses, history, science and the record of human experiences\ngenerally interpreted and applied by human reason.  That \"natural\nimpulse imbedded in the heart of man which compels him to strive\nupward\"; that \"inner urge that ever pushes him onward and upward,\" will\nnot only start him in the right way of life, but will remain with him\nand guide him to the end, if he will but hear and obey its voice,\ninterpreted by reason.\n\nThe reader will recall the opinion I reached concerning the Bible after\nmy special course of study and the process of reasoning that followed\nit.  But after fifteen years of continued study I changed my opinion\nabout it again.  When I took a different perspective I got a different\nview.  First, I was confronted with the fact that _the Bible is here_.\nAnd while all my inherited opinions as to its origin, meaning and\npurpose were gone forever, the second question remained unanswered:\n_How came it here_?  After all these years of study and investigation I\nfound an answer to this question satisfactory to myself, which I have\nalready indicated above, but will here more fully elaborate as a part\nof my New Confession of Faith.\n\nThe Old Testament is but a record preserved and handed down to us,\nfirst of events, legends, opinions and beliefs that existed in crude\nform as traditions, long before a line of it was written; and\nthereafter, for a period covering approximately a thousand years, it is\na record, tho evidently imperfect, of the progressive development of\nthe Jewish race, nation and religion, which are so inseparably bound\ntogether that they cannot be separated.  Let us go a little more into\ndetail.  No one claims that a line of the Old Testament was written\nbefore Moses.  (And it is here immaterial whether Moses wrote the\nPentateuch or not.  The Jews believed he did.)  Yet the Jewish system\nof religion, at least in its fundamental features, had been in\nexistence since Abraham, some five hundred years before, to say nothing\nof previous peoples back to Noah, or even to Adam and his sons.  Yet\nnone of these had any Bible whatever.  If it is claimed by any one that\nMoses was the originator of the Jewish system, it leaves Abraham and\nall his posterity, down to the time of Moses, but pious pagans.  But\naccording to the record, Moses added nothing to the _principles_ of\nreligious worship as practiced by Abraham and the other patriarchs.  He\nsimply reorganized, systematized, refined and somewhat elaborated the\nancient system of worship, and at most reduced it to regularity and\norder.\n\nIt was quite natural that Moses should then reduce to writing the\ntraditions and practices of his people, and make a more or less\ncomplete record of their laws, regulations, and civil and religious\ninstitutions; and especially of that system of religious worship which\nhe had not originated, but organized, systematized and reduced to more\nperfect order, so that all this might be preserved for the benefit of\nthe people thereafter.  This was the beginning of the sacred literature\nof the Jews which, when completed in its present form, was called the\nBible--meaning simply, The Books.\n\nAfter this, tho the Jewish system of religion, according to the Jews\nthemselves, was finished and complete, they had but five books of\nwritten scripture,--the Pentateuch.  Yet thirty-four additional books\nwere afterwards written and added to these.  Can these later books be\nquoted as _authority_ for that which existed, in some instances, a\nthousand years before they were written?  Certainly not.  But the facts\nare plain.  The system of religion already existing, but continually\nprogressing, gave rise to these subsequent books, which are merely a\nrecord of the progress, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, practices, etc.,\nof this peculiar and intensely religious people.\n\nThus we see that the Old Testament is a _growth_ produced by, and\nrecording the historic development of the Jewish race, nation and\nreligion.  It is simply the _literature_ of a people.  Its various\nparts were written by representatives of the people themselves, many of\nwhose names are unknown, at various times covering a period of a\nthousand years, under many varying conditions and circumstances.  It\nrecords in part their history, traditions, legends, myths, their\nbeliefs, superstitions, hopes, fears, ideals and aspirations; and the\nlegendary deeds of their national heroes, just as we find them in the\nliterature of ancient Greece, Rome, England or Scandinavia.  It\ncontains books of law, ritual, maxims, hymns, poetry, drama, letters,\nsermons, denunciations, rebukes, warnings, arguments, anecdotes and\nbiography.  No literature on earth is more multifarious in its\ncontents.  That it contains many contradictions, errors,\ninconsistencies and incredible statements is nothing to its discredit\nfrom this viewpoint of its origin.  The wonder is that there are not\nmore.  But that it contains only what the various writers of its\ndifferent parts, at the time they wrote, honestly thought and\n_believed_ to be true, may be freely admitted without in the least\nderogating from its true value, or adding supernatural sanctity to it.\nThe Old Testament considered simply as a collection of ancient Jewish\nliterature, reveals to us to-day many of the stages in the national,\nracial and religious evolution of ancient Israel, just as the\nliterature of any nation or people reveals the same thing concerning\nthem,--no more and no less.\n\nTurning now for a moment to the New Testament: Is it the source and\nauthority for Christianity?  Or just the reverse?  Which was first of\nthe two?  That which goes before is the cause of that which comes\nafter,--not the reverse.  If Christianity is to be considered as a\nseparate and distinct system of religion, based upon divine authority,\nthe system was finished, full and complete with the resurrection and\nascension of Christ--for the argument's sake, admitting these to be\nfacts.  Hence Christianity would have existed as a fact just the same,\nwhether a line of the New Testament had ever been written or not.  As a\nmatter of fact, not a line of it was written for twenty-five or thirty\nyears after these events, and it was not completed for a hundred years\nthereafter.  Therefore the New Testament did not produce Christianity;\nnor is it the authority upon which it is based, but just the opposite.\nChristianity produced the New Testament and is the authority upon which\nit is based.\n\nSo the New Testament, like the Old, is just literature,--no more.  It\nrecords what the authors of its various parts, in the light of their\ntime, and with the knowledge they possessed, as common, fallible,\nmortal men like ourselves, honestly thought, felt, hoped and believed\nwas the truth.  It gives us the only historical sketch we have of the\norigin and early development of that system of religion that in one\nform or another now dominates a third part of the human race.  And as\nsuch it is the most valuable book the world possesses today.  But it is\nno more the \"infallible Word of God\" than the Old Testament, Herodotus,\nJosephus, Plato or Plutarch.\n\nThe conclusion of the whole matter is: The Bible is not the\nsupernaturally inspired, infallible word of God, given by him as the\nsource and final authority for religion, outside of which and since its\nclose there is no more revelation; but it was written by fallible men\nof like passions with ourselves, who wrote,--not as they were\ninfallibly and inerrantly guided by the Holy Spirit, but--as they were\nmoved by the same impulses, passions and motives that have moved men in\nall ages to write their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, hopes, fears,\naspirations and views of life.  Thus, as has already been said, the\nBible is a _product_ of religion instead of being its source and\nauthority.  Thus the literature of the Jewish race and the early\nChristians _grew_.  In course of time the thirty-nine books containing\nour present Old Testament were brought together in one collection.  We\ndo not know just when.  Afterwards the twenty-seven books of our New\nTestament were collected in the same way.  Age and tradition first\nembalmed them in an air of sanctity; and then superstition made of them\na fetish.  Until this \"spell\" is broken there can be no hope of\nanything like unity in the religious world.  Until this fetish of a\n\"once for all divine and infallible revelation, completed and handed\ndown from heaven\" is abandoned, there will continue to be \"diversities\nof interpretation,\" and consequently divisions, controversies,\nbickerings, persecutions and recriminations will continue among\nmankind, and wars will continue among nations.\n\nIt may be said here that all the other sacred literature of the world,\nthe Bibles of other systems of religion, the Zend Avesta, the Vedas,\nthe Upanishads, the Koran, and others, had their origin in exactly the\nsame source and manner as did our Bible; and attained sanctity and\nauthority among their respective followers in exactly the same way.\nBut we need not go into it in detail.\n\nBut when we return to our first proposition, that all religion in its\norigin, fundamental essence and ultimate purpose is not only one and\nthe same, but is _natural_ and common to all humanity; that its\nprocesses are a continual revelation in nature and human experience in\nman's continuous progress onward and upward in the scale of human\nattainment; and that the Bible, and all other literature of its kind,\nmerely records a part of these processes and revelations in nature and\nexperience, by which we are able to read the footprints of human\nprogress in the past, and that these various writers, mostly unknown,\nmerely recorded what they saw, felt, believed or understood at that\ntime to be the truth; then all these difficulties of interpretation and\nsources of division vanish, and these books take on a new value and\nimportance that they never otherwise attain.\n\nWith this view of its origin and purpose the Bible readily takes and\nholds its place as the most remarkable and invaluable book the world\nhas ever known, or perhaps ever will know.  It becomes at once an\ninexhaustible treasure-house of knowledge indispensable to the world's\nhighest thought and progress,--knowledge which cannot be obtained\nanywhere else.  In this view its many contradictions, discrepancies,\nerrors of fact, and incredible statements become at once of little\nforce and easily accounted for; and when we consider the various ages\nin which its parts were written, the many different authors of its\ndifferent parts, the standards of human knowledge and attainment in\nthese times, the wonder is that there are not more.  The Bible is thus\nthe greatest book of _religious instruction_ that the world knows, or\never has known.  It contains inexhaustible treasures of religious\nthought, feeling, emotion and experience, of every conceivable type and\nvariety, which makes it indeed \"profitable for teaching, for reproof,\nfor correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.\"  It is an\ninexhaustible mine of the richest and purest gold, fused in the fires\nof human experience in many ages.  But the gold is mixed with the sand\nand dirt and rocks and rubbish of the human frailties and weaknesses of\nthe ages in which it was accumulated in this mine.  The pure gold must\nbe separated from this dross in the crucible of _present day_ human\nintelligence, reason and experience.  It is like a great river that has\nwound its course thru many countries and as many different kinds of\nsoil, receiving tributaries from many different sources and directions.\nIt contains much pure water; but it is impregnated with the sand and\ndirt and mud of the channels thru which it has passed.  It must be\nfiltered and these elements eliminated before it can be put to its\nhighest and best use.  As a great book of religious instruction it\ncontains riches in human experience and inspiration from which any and\nall may draw something to fit their particular case and need.  But to\nget the highest value, each must separate the gold from the dross, the\npure water from the sand and mud, according to his particular case and\nneed.  Used in this way and for this purpose, the Bible will doubtless\nremain the world's greatest book of religious instruction and\ninspiration.  But to persist in the claim, in the light of present-day\nknowledge, that the whole of it is a divine revelation, supernaturally\ngiven from heaven, and infallibly and inerrantly true, is to perpetuate\nconfusion and discord among men, and cause the wisest and best among\nthem to discredit it altogether, as many of them have already done.\nBut to reverence it for what it really is, a record of the religious\nevolution of the most intensely religious nation of antiquity, a great\nrace that has contributed more to the religious life of the world than\nany other, is a credit to the intelligence of any one.  To enshrine it\nin superstition, and make it a fetish, is idolatry.\n\n\nINSPIRATION AND REVELATION\n\nI am a strong believer in inspiration.  But I believe it to be, like\nreligion, natural, in a greater or less degree, to all peoples, in all\nages and at all times; and _not_ something miraculous and supernatural,\nlimited to a select few, of a single race, in a long past age, and\nsince then has forever ceased.  It is perhaps hard to define\ninspiration according to this view of it.  Like religion, its very\nsimplicity and universality eludes any exact definition; especially by\none person for another.  That it has often been manifest in much\ngreater degree in some persons than in others; and in these much\nstronger at some times than at others, is not to be doubted for a\nmoment.  It is no more a uniform condition than human attainment in\nintelligence and character are uniform.\n\nThe simple dictionary definition will perhaps be adequate for our\npurpose,--at least as a starting point: \"The inbreathing or imparting\nof an idea, emotion, or mental or spiritual influence; the elevating,\ncreative influence of genius; also, that which is so inbreathed or\nimparted.\"  It is that elevation of mental conception usually produced\nby intense concentration of mind, deep earnestness of thought, intense\ninterest and zeal in a special subject or cause, or by some objective\nenvironment.  A few simple illustrations will convey my meaning better\nthan any lengthy metaphysical analysis.  One night a long time ago,\nsome sage philosopher was looking out upon the heavens, contemplating\nthe beauties of the stars in their majesty and glory.  These _inspired_\na train of thought in his mind that found utterance in the nineteenth\nPsalm: \"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth\nhis handiwork....\"  This is inspiration if there ever was such a thing;\nand yet there is nothing miraculous or supernatural about it.  It is as\nnatural as the raindrops that fall from the clouds.\n\nOn another occasion some devout and intensely religious saint, but at\nthe same time probably a great sufferer from some adverse fortune,\nbeheld a shepherd taking care of his sheep, providing for them food and\nwater, caring for the sick and lame and nursing them back to strength,\nleading them out to pasture thru the narrow defiles of the mountains,\namidst many dangers, yet guarding them diligently against all.  And\nthis sight gave rise to reflections on the divine providence that found\nexpression in that sublime and beautiful Twenty-third Psalm:\n\n  \"The Lord is _my_ shepherd; I shall not want.\n  He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;\n  He leadeth me beside still waters;\n  He restoreth my soul.\"\n\nWhat is there in all the world's literature more inspired and more\ninspiring than this?  And yet it is no more miraculous nor supernatural\nin its origin than the shepherd caring for his sheep.\n\nInspiration is simply a condition or state of mind.  It is purely\npsychological in its nature, and may be produced by a great variety of\ncauses; but is not supernatural.  To some extent, and in some degree,\nbut by no means always equal, it has been common among all peoples of\nthe past; and at all periods of their history.  Specimens of it have\ncome down to us in this age, enshrined and preserved in the literature,\nmusic and art of these peoples.  It is as common among men today as it\never was in any past age.  It is embodied in some degree, in most, if\nnot all the literature, art and music of all ages; but by no means to\nthe same extent in all.  There are passages in Dante, Goethe,\nShakespeare, Milton, Browning, Emerson, Carlyle, Bryant, Longfellow,\nLowell, and a thousand others, ancient and modern, that are just as\nmuch the products of inspiration as the Twenty-third Psalm or the\nSermon on the Mount.  But no one would pretend to say that _all_ that\nthese men wrote was equally inspired, or of equal value.\n\nWhat then is to be the test of inspiration?  How are we to know what is\ninspired from what is not?  There is no absolute and infallible test.\nThe rule I have generally followed is what may be termed, the test of\nreproduction.  The test of the perfect life of an oak is the production\nof an acorn that will produce another oak.  The test of all complete\nand perfect animal life is its power to reproduce itself in the\nperpetuation of its own species.  The test of inspiration is whether or\nnot it reproduces its kind:--Does it inspire?  Who can read the\nTwenty-third Psalm, or the Sermon on the Mount, the parable of the Lost\nSheep, or the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians without feeling\nthe spirit of inspiration in his own soul?  Therefore these must be\ninspired, because they inspire others.  Who can read Emerson's essay on\nSpiritual Laws, or The Over-Soul, and not be inspired? or Longfellow's\nResignation? or Bryant's Lines to a Water-fowl, or Thanatopsis, and not\nbe inspired?  Then these must have been inspired, or they could not\ninspire.  Who today can sing the Star Spangled Banner, Geo. F. Root's\nBattle Cry of Freedom, or Julia Ward Howe's Battle Hymn of the\nRepublic, without feeling a thrill of inspiration that stirs the very\ndepths of the soul?  Then, these must have been inspired.  Time and\nspace fail me to mention even any of the great orators of history from\nDemosthenes to Woodrow Wilson, who by the power of their eloquence have\nbeen able to so inspire men to action as to change the course of\nempires and the destiny of nations.  The secret of all this is that\nthese men were themselves inspired,--not by some miraculous\nsupernatural influence,--but by the natural intensity of their own\nearnestness, sincere devotion to, and all-absorbing interest in the\ncause they espoused, until they _lost themselves_ in their cause, and\nbecame thus inspired, and inspired others.\n\nYes, inspiration is as common and potent in the world today as it ever\nhas been in any age of the past.  Its spirit still \"enters into holy\nsouls, making them friends of God and prophets.\"\n\nJust a few words about Revelation will suffice.  Revelation has been\ngenerally looked upon as almost synonymous if not identical, with\ninspiration; or so intimately connected with it that they could not be\nseparated.  What might be distinctively called revelation was the\nproduct, or out-put of inspiration.  Whatever truth may still remain as\nto these relations, since we have seen that inspiration is not\nsomething miraculous and supernatural, but purely and wholly natural,\nthere can be no such a thing as revelation in any miraculous or\nsupernatural sense.  And yet, all that man has ever learned,\naccomplished, attained to, or achieved is a revelation.  Man, with all\nhis boasted knowledge and achievement, has never created anything; all\nthat man has ever done, at his best, has been to discover and utilize\nthings and forces that are as old as the universe itself.  All the\ndiscoveries he has ever made, all the knowledge he has ever gained, all\nthat he has ever accomplished or achieved, has been the result of a\ncontinuous, unfolding revelation from the dawn of time to the present\nday; by which he has been able to discover, utilize and appropriate to\nhis own use and benefit, that which has existed, in one form or\nanother, eternally--all of which is a revelation, divine, but not\nmiraculous.\n\nA few centuries ago Copernicus gave us a new view of the universe.\nThis was revelation.  But the universe had existed in exactly the same\nform and relations since \"the morning stars sang together.\"  A little\nlater Newton revealed to us the law of gravitation.  This was the first\nman ever knew of it.  But the law had existed just the same since the\nchaos was first reduced to cosmos.  The potential power of steam as a\nmechanical force was just as great in the days of Noah or Abraham as it\nis today.  But it remained for Robert Fulton, but a little over a\ncentury ago, to apply it to practical use; and this was just as much a\ndivine revelation as the call of Abraham, or the vision of Moses on the\nMount.  The same is true of electricity.  All the multifarious uses to\nwhich it has ever been applied, were just as potent in the days of\nShalmanezer or Solomon as they are today.  Every discovery and new use\nto which it has been applied since the day that Franklin drew it from\nthe clouds and corked it up in a bottle, has only been so many new\ndivine revelations; as much so as the vision of Paul before the gate of\nDamascus, or John on the Isle of Patmos.  In fact more so.\n\nAnd on _ad infinitum_.  All the progress man has ever made or ever will\nmake is only the result of this divine revelation ever unfolding itself\nto him, just as fast, and no faster than he is able to appropriate and\nuse it.  Thus God reveals himself to man, not miraculously, but\nnaturally and _thru nature itself_, just in proportion to man's ability\nto understand, receive and appropriate it.  Jesus is quoted as saying:\n\"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.\nHowbeit when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into\nall the truth.\"  Did that spirit of truth ever come?  And if so when,\nif ever, was it withdrawn?  He said in another place that it should\nremain forever.  Yes, I believe that same spirit of truth is still in\nthe world today and has been ever since man has been here, guiding men\ninto the way of truth just in proportion to their ability to receive\nit.  And also, all truth is divine, because all truth comes from the\nsame source--God.  The truth concerning the universe, the laws of\nnature in the material world are thus just as divine, as are the moral\nlaws governing man in his social relations, or those governing his\nrelations to God.  And the great store-house of Nature has not yet\nrevealed even an infinitesimal part of her infinite riches for man's\nuse and benefit, that are yet to be revealed as man progresses onward\nand upward.  Instead of having reached the zenith of man's discoveries\nand achievements, and therefore a finished revelation, we have not yet\npassed the dawn.  The heavens still declare the glory of God; but the\nscientist, philosopher, and astronomer of today sees much more in them\nthan does the savage, or did the author of the Nineteenth Psalm.  And\nas man goes on he will see more and more of God in Nature, and\nunderstand him better, until the final fruition of his hope and faith\nis reached.  Inspiration and revelation are thus both living realities,\nas much so now as at any time in the past, and will continue so while\nmankind continues to inhabit this planet.\n\nAll the progress, achievement and attainment mankind has ever made,\nfrom the days of the Cave Man and the Stone Age to the present time,\nare but the products, results, fruits of this inspiration and\nrevelation, that has ever impelled and led mankind onward and upward.\nI firmly believe that the future holds in store a civilization, social\nstatus, human achievement, intellectual and moral attainment on this\nplanet, as far above the present as this is above that of the Cave Man;\nand as inconceivable to us now as this was to him; and all this will be\nbut the product, result, fruit of this eternal, never-ending process of\ninspiration and revelation that has brought mankind to where he is\ntoday.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nJESUS OF NAZARETH\n\nWe have now reached the most interesting, if not the most vital part of\nthis Confession of Faith.  Thus far I have said almost nothing about\nthe Man of Nazareth.  \"What then shall I do unto Jesus, who is called\nChrist?\"  The temptation is very great here to elaborate at some length\nupon my views of this, the most unique character in all history.  I\nwould like to give my views in full, with all the arguments, pro and\ncon, as to his personality, character and mission.  But this would\nextend this work to an undue length.  Some day I may write it more\nfully in another book.  I must be content now to give as briefly as\npossible the conclusions I have reached, without going into any very\ndetailed arguments to support them.\n\nWhat do we know about Jesus anyway?  He never wrote a line that we have\nany record of, except a few words in the sand when the Jews brought a\nsinful woman before him to accuse her; and we know not what these words\nwere.  We have no record that he ever authorized any one else to write\nanything for, or about him.  We have three short biographies of him\nthat were written anywhere from fifty to eighty years after his death,\nthe exact date of neither being known.  The authors of two of\nthese--Mark and Luke--it is admitted were not Apostles; and there is no\nevidence that either of them ever knew Jesus in his lifetime.  It is\nadmitted that each of them got all his information from another, and\nthat one of them got his information from a person--Paul--who himself\nnever knew Jesus in the flesh.  It is admitted that the\nother--Matthew--as we now have it, is not the original writing of the\nApostle of that name; that the original is entirely lost, and no one\nknows what additions or eliminations it underwent in its translation\nand transcription into another language.  Years later a fourth\nbiography appeared by an unknown author,--tradition being the only\nevidence that it was written by the Apostle John--so entirely different\nin its general make-up and contents, that but for the _name_ of its\nsubject and a very few passages in it, no one would ever take it to be\nabout the same person that formed the subject of the other three.\n\nWhen these four are taken together, and all repetitions and\nduplications are eliminated, it would leave us with a small pamphlet of\nsome sixty or seventy pages as our only record of this most remarkable\ncharacter of all history.  None of the epistolary writings throw any\nlight on the life, doings, sayings or personality of Jesus.  They only\ndeal with deductions drawn from or based upon it.  When we add to this\nthe fact that at least fifty years had elapsed, after the events\ndescribed had happened, before a line of it--at least in its present\nform--was written; and that in an age when few people could write and\nno accurate records were preserved, and when those that did then write,\nwrote only from memory or tradition; and when we further consider the\nvarying and often very different accounts given by the different\nwriters of the events they describe, differences in both the doings and\nsayings of Jesus, altho these are mostly only matters of minor detail,\nyet we become more and more convinced that we have no means of knowing\nfor certain just what Jesus did; nor whether or not he uttered the\nexact words that the writers put into his mouth.  Compare today the\nmemory of any individual as to the exact details of some event, even\nthat he personally witnessed, fifty years ago; especially as to the\nexact words used on any particular occasion, and we will have more than\na fair example of the imperfection of human memory.  Add to this the\nfact that this was in a very superstitious age, when every wonder was\ntranslated into a supernatural miracle, and our perplexity only becomes\nthe greater.  The doctrine of infallible guidance by divine inspiration\nis out of the question.  If there was no other evidence against such an\nidea, the internal contents of these books themselves would forever\ndestroy it.\n\nThen, what do we _know_ about Jesus?  Very little.  I do not accuse\nthese writers of any deliberate misrepresentation, conscious fraud or\nforgery.  They undoubtedly wrote what they honestly and sincerely\nbelieved at the time to be the truth.  But they wrote simply as\nfallible men like ourselves.  Their means of information in many cases\nwas doubtless very meager and uncertain.  They doubtless did the best\nthey could under the circumstances.  They wrote the truth as they\nunderstood it to be truth, just as any other historian or biographer\nwould do today.\n\nAnd what they wrote is all we know.  It is the only basis we have upon\nwhich we can form any judgment as to who or what Jesus of Nazareth was.\nWhat Paul may have thought of him, and the system of theology he built\nthereon, is of but little value.  What the Church Fathers may have\nthought, in the light of the age in which they lived, and their own\nstandard of intellectual attainments, is of less.  We have got to fall\nback upon the four gospels, and interpret them, not in the light of the\nsuperstitious age in which they were written; not assuming them to be\nexact truth; for in view of the fact of their own contradictions of\neach other on material and vital points this is impossible; but in the\nfull light of this age of science and exact knowledge; of a more highly\ndeveloped intelligence, and a deeper and more accurate reasoning power.\nWith these records as a basis, or starting point, we must work out the\nproblem for ourselves: Who and what was Jesus?\n\nFirst, he was a Jew,--born, lived and died a Jew.  There is no evidence\nthat he ever rejected, or abrogated the religion of his fathers.  That\nhe tried to reform it, inject into it a deeper spiritual life, a more\nrational and higher ethical standard, will more fully appear as we\nproceed.  He came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it,--not by\ndying on the cross, for the law nowhere says, or even intimates,\nanything about anybody dying on a cross or anywhere else.  He came to\nfulfill it by living up to its full ethical and spiritual import, and\nteaching others to do so.  \"Moses had summed up the law in ten\ncommandments, the Pharisees of the time of Jesus had made of these ten\nthousand--to be exact, six hundred and thirteen--and Jesus reduced them\nto two,\"--and kept them.  This is how he fulfilled the law.\n\nNext, Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary by the same process of\nnatural generation by which all other human beings come into the world.\nPaul, the earliest and most elaborate writer of the New Testament,\nnowhere gives us the remotest hint that he had ever heard of any such a\nthing as the supernatural birth; and it is wholly unthinkable that if\nsuch had been the truth he should have been ignorant of it; or that if\nit sustained such a vital relation to the Christian system of religion\nto which he devoted his whole life, he should never in the remotest\nmanner refer to it.\n\nMark's gospel, written to the best of our knowledge about fifty years\nafter the death of Jesus, nowhere refers to it.  As we have already\nseen, we do not know what the Apostle Matthew may have written, as we\ndo not have his original writing at all.  The early Ebionite copies of\nthe Greek translation and transcription did not contain the first two\nchapters, and consequently no reference to the supernatural birth.  We\nare left to fall back on Luke and we will have to examine his story a\nlittle in detail.  In all of its details, including the genealogy, it\nis quite different from that in Matthew.  Luke alone mentions the visit\nto Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old, and in which he was\nmissed from the company when they started on the return home.  When\nJoseph and Mary found him in the temple, she is quoted as saying, \"Son,\nwhy hast thou thus dealt with us?  Behold thy father and I have sought\nthee sorrowing.\"  Now, if Jesus was _not_ really the son of Joseph, but\nof the Holy Ghost, his mother certainly knew it; and if so her\nstatement, \"_thy father_ and I have sought thee sorrowing,\" was not\nonly a deliberate untruth; but if Jesus was God, he also knew it was an\nuntruth.  Another inconsistency in the story is, that if Jesus was thus\nthe son of the Holy Ghost, and therefore God, and his mother knew it,\nwhy should she worry about his being missing from the caravan?\nCouldn't God take care of himself and find his way back to Nazareth at\nany time he wished to go?  On another occasion, mentioned by all the\nsynoptics, when Jesus was teaching, his mother and brethren are\nreported as calling for him, evidently for the purpose of restraining\nhim in his work, or persuading him to desist,--and this is the\ninterpretation that has been most generally given to these passages,\nand the answer which Jesus gave supports it as correct,--such a course\nis entirely inconsistent with any conception that his mother at the\ntime _knew_ him to be the supernaturally born Son of God.\n\nTurning now to the Fourth Gospel, we have not only an entirely\ndifferent character, but an entirely different philosophy as to his\nlife and mission.  Not a word is said or anywhere hinted about a divine\nbirth.  \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and\nthe Word was God.... and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.\"\nTo state it in the simplest words I can command, the theory of the\nFourth Gospel is that of the old Alexandrian philosophy of the\nincarnation of the Divine Logos, or Word, or message from God, in human\nflesh, applied to Jesus of Nazareth.  His pure and simple manhood is\nrecognized, into which, in some mystical manner, nowhere explained, the\nDivine Logos, or Word, or Life, or God Himself, entered into _the man_\nJesus, whereby he became the Son of God and the Messiah,--and not by\nthe process of miraculous generation in the flesh.  The old Ebionite\ndoctrine was that this Divine Logos, or Word, or Spirit of God entered\nJesus at his baptism, and that he thereby became the Messiah,\ndistinctively \"the Son of God\" by divine selection, and not by\nsupernatural generation.\n\nThere is no evidence that his disciples during his lifetime ever had\nthe slightest conception that he had a supernatural birth.  When Philip\ntells Nathaniel that he has found the Messiah of whom Moses and the\nprophets wrote, he also tells him that this Messiah is \"Jesus of\nNazareth, the son of Joseph.\"\n\nEven after the death of Jesus the disciples seem to have had no\nknowledge of any supernatural birth.  The two on their way to Emmaus,\nafter the crucifixion, express their disappointment: \"We hoped that it\nwas he who should redeem Israel.\"  No such expression of disappointment\ncan possibly be reconciled with any thought that this Jesus who had so\nrecently been crucified was the \"eternal Son of God\" incarnated in\nhuman flesh.  On the day of Pentecost Peter speaks of him in no higher\nterms than \"A man approved of God.\"\n\nIf Jesus was supernaturally born, as a matter of course his mother knew\nit all the time; yet during the whole life of Jesus she is nowhere\nmentioned as giving the slightest intimation of it; but on the contrary\nall the record we have of anything she did do or say would naturally\nlead to just the opposite conclusion.  Of course no one else knew\nanything about it.  Taking it naturally for granted, that at least at\nthe beginning, his disciples knew nothing of it, if they ever learned\nit afterwards, there must have been some special time, condition or\ncircumstance under which they came into possession of these remarkable\nfacts.  Yet, there is not a hint in the New Testament about any such\ntime, place, circumstance or incident.\n\nHow then did the idea of a supernatural birth and the deification of\nJesus come about, if it was not a real fact?  Very simply and quite\nnaturally.  Any one acquainted with ancient history knows that in that\nage of the world, and for centuries before, it had been almost a\nuniversal custom, especially in Greece and the Roman empire, to\nattribute some supernatural origin to, and deify their\nheroes,--sometimes while they were yet alive, but most certainly after\ntheir death.  Just so, after the death of this remarkable man, and his\ncult continued to gather adherents, time and distance lent perspective,\nand he naturally grew larger and greater in their estimation, until,\nnaturally and inevitably, permeated by the universal thought of the age\nin which they lived, they gradually came to look more and more upon\ntheir great master as being something more than ordinarily human, until\nthis thought gradually ripened into his deification; and of course to\nbe consistent with this he _must have been_, like all other deified\nheroes, supernaturally born.  And out of this the legend of Bethlehem,\nin both its forms, in Matthew and Luke, somehow grew,--nobody knows\nexactly how.  It is just like many other myths of past ages.  The first\nwe know of them they are full grown and complete; yet, like all other\nthings, they _must_ have had a natural and gradual growth.\n\nAs to where he was born we do not know, nor is it material.  It is by\nfar the most probable that he was born at Nazareth where his parents\nlived.  The legend that he was born at Bethlehem was doubtless a pure\nconjecture, made necessary by those who accepted him as the Messiah of\nHebrew prophecy, to make it correspond with the prophetic declaration\nthat the Messiah should be born at Bethlehem of Judah.  This fully\naccounts for the Bethlehem story as the place of his birth.  The fact\nis they are all purely conjectural, made to fit into some preconceived\nnotion of his personality or character.  We have no reliable account\nwhatever of his birth or early life.\n\nWe now come to consider the man,--yes, the man Christ Jesus.  We have\nalready said he was a Jew and lived and died one, with apparently no\nthought or purpose other than to reform and correct the abuses into\nwhich his people had lapsed, and revive and intensify the deep\nspiritual and ethical meaning of religion.  Born of the most intensely\nreligious race of all antiquity, he was the most intensely religious of\nhis race.  He perceived a new conception of God, not as the arbitrary\nruler and vindictive judge of his people, but as the universal Father\nof all men, not anthropomorphic, but Infinite Spirit, whose greatest\nattributes were love, justice, mercy and truth, expressed in the great\nterm Fatherhood; and that all men are children of the great Father, and\ntherefore brothers.  This expresses his fundamental philosophy and\nworking basis of life.  Upon it he undertook to build up and establish,\nnot a new system of religion, but a new order of life.  The central\nidea in this was man's direct relationship to God.  In his own life he\nembodied a perfect example of his ideal.  He thus became not God\nincarnate bodily in human flesh, nor the Son of God in any _different_\nsense than all are sons of God--except perhaps in degree and not in\nkind--but the most complete reflection and interpretation of God in\nterms of human life that the world had ever known before his time, has\never known since, or perhaps ever will know.  But this last statement\nis saying more than any man can know for certain.  We know not what God\nmay yet have to reveal to mankind, nor how He will reveal it.\n\nHis course of life and teaching naturally brought him into direct\nconflict with the prevailing order of his time.  We need not discuss\nthat in detail.  It soon led to a violent and tragic death, before he\nhad fairly begun his work.  We cannot form any guess what _might have\nbeen_ the result if he had been permitted to live out a normal life and\ncontinue his teaching.  He only met the same fate that many prophets\nbefore him had met, and many more since.  If he should appear today\nhere in America and pursue the same course toward public institutions\nand popular beliefs and practices, he would meet with a reception\nlittle different from what he met in Palestine nineteen hundred years\nago.  He might not indeed be crucified on a cross; but he would stand a\ngood chance to be cast into jail and sent to a penitentiary for a term\nof years for sedition and attempting to interfere with the established\norder.  And no persons would be more active in his prosecution than\nsome of the modern Pharisees who occupy high places in that great\ninstitution that bears his name.  If he had appeared in Europe some\nfour or five hundred years ago, he would have been almost dead certain\nto meet the same fate of John Huss, Savonarola and Giordano Bruno.  But\nnow, as then, the poor, down-trodden and oppressed would doubtless hear\nhim gladly.\n\nThere is no reliable evidence that he ever claimed to be the Messiah of\nHebrew prophecy.  He is quoted on several occasions as having accepted\nthe appellation when applied to him by others.  On one occasion only is\nhe quoted as having affirmatively declared himself the Messiah; and\nthat was to the woman of Samaria, and the whole circumstance of it\nrenders it incredible.  It would certainly be a very unusual course to\ntake, for the Jewish Messiah to come and announce himself as such, not\nto the Jews themselves, but to a very obscure, not to say disreputable\nwoman, of the most despised race known to the Jews.\n\nIt was however quite natural that, after his followers had universally\naccepted him as the Jewish Messiah, they should recall some occasional\nremarks that he may have made, upon which to base this belief; and that\nthese remarks would finally take more concrete form, until when\nwritten, fifty to a hundred years after they were uttered, they were\nperhaps entirely different from anything Jesus ever said.  As a matter\nof fact there is nothing in the life or teachings of Jesus, as recorded\nin the New Testament, that at all corresponds to the personality or\ncharacter of the Messiah of Hebrew prophecy.  And may I add here, that\nthe Messiah of Hebrew prophecy, for whose coming the Jews were looking\nat that time, and for which most of the Jews have been looking ever\nsince, is but a fiction and a myth, born entirely out of the patriotic\ndevotion and fervid poetic fancy of the Old Hebrew prophets?  In the\ndays of Israel's adversity, when all the really unquestioned Messianic\nprophecies were uttered, the mind of prophet and people turned back to\nthe golden days of David's glorious reign; and in their intense\npatriotism and unfaltering faith in Jehovah, they hoped and _believed_\nthat he would some day raise up a King of the line and house of David\nthat would restore the ancient glory of Israel; and so they\nprophesied--\"the wish being father to the thought.\"  And this is all\nthere is to Old Testament Messianic prophecy.  And a great many of the\nmost intelligent Jews of the Reformed School of today are beginning to\nthink the same.\n\nBut if there was ever a true prophet of God, a man in whom the God-life\nin human form was truly manifest, a man supremely divine,--not by\nmiraculous generation, but by spiritual union with God, whereby God\nindeed became manifest in human flesh,--that man was Jesus of Nazareth.\nAnd as such he becomes the eternal example for all mankind after him.\nAs a man he justly commands the highest homage that the world can give\nto man.  But make him God, and the chain that connects him with man is\nat once broken.  If Jesus was God, and therefore incapable of\ntemptation or sin, the temptation and triumph in the wilderness becomes\na farce, without any meaning to mankind whatever.  But as a mortal man\nstruggling with and overcoming the strongest temptations of life, it\nhas infinite significance to all mankind.  If he overcame as a man, so\nmay I.  As a god, the sweat of Gethsemane and the agony of the Cross\nare but mockery--not equal to a single pin-prick in a whole mortal\nlife.  But as a man, struggling with the last enemy, with eternity\nbefore him, a means of escape at hand, but deliberately devoting his\nlife and his all in the most excruciatingly torturous manner known to\nhuman ingenuity in cruelty, it becomes a spectacle to command the awe\nand admiration of angels.\n\nJesus is indeed the savior of the world, not by having _redeemed_\nmankind with the purchase-price of his own blood; but by his life and\nwords in teaching men how to live, and by his death how to die, if\nnecessary, for the right.\n\nI know of no more fitting close to this my view of Jesus, than a\nquotation from Ernest Renan's Apostrophe to Jesus.  Ernest Renan was\ncalled an infidel because he abandoned the church of his fathers, and\nwith it the deity of Jesus.  But he found in Jesus the supreme model of\nall human life, the most perfect and complete reflection of the\nGod-life in mankind the world has ever known.\n\n\"Repose now in thy glory, noble founder.  Thy work is finished; thy\ndivinity is established.  Fear no more to see the edifice of thy labors\nfall by any fault.  Henceforth beyond the reach of frailty, thou shalt\nwitness from the heights of divine peace the infinite results of thy\nacts.  At the price of a few hours of suffering, which did not even\nreach thy grand soul, thou hast brought the most complete immortality.\nFor thousands of years the world will depend on thee: Banner of our\ncontests, thou shalt be the standard about which the hottest battle\nwill be given.  A thousand times more alive, a thousand times more\nbeloved, since thy death than during thy passage here below, thou shalt\nbecome the cornerstone of humanity so entirely, that to tear thy name\nfrom this world would be to rend it to its foundation.  Complete\nconqueror of death, take possession of thy kingdom, whither shall\nfollow thee, by the royal road which thou hast traced, ages of\nfollowers.\"\n\n\nLIBERTY\n\n_MY NEW CHURCH RELATIONS AND SECOND CALL TO THE MINISTRY_\n\nI have thus outlined, perhaps at greater length than was necessary, the\nprocesses thru which I passed in my religious life from my early\nchildhood to mature middle life.  I have shown how I was born in the\nbondage of orthodoxy; and how I was ultimately driven to abandon, not\nonly it, but religion altogether.  I then outlined the processes thru\nwhich I passed that led me to a satisfactory settlement in my own mind,\nof the problems embraced in the general and comprehensive term\nReligion, which I have tried to describe as \"My New Confession of\nFaith.\"  From the time I left the church and ministry until I reached\nthe conclusions herein outlined, was about fifteen years.  I reached\nthem purely by my own investigations, not knowing that there was a\nchurch on earth that would accept me in its fellowship while holding\nthem.  I could not perjure myself by subscribing to a creed which I not\nonly did not believe, but despised, merely for the sake of the social\nprestige or business advantage such church membership might give me, as\nI have known some to do, and was often importuned to do myself.\nWhatever other shortcoming may be charged to my account, it can never\nbe said of me that I was untrue to my own moral convictions in these\nmatters; altho this tenacity to principle, or as it was often called,\n\"hard-headed stubbornness,\" has more than once caused me embarrassment,\nand put me at some disadvantage in business.  I could not \"let the\ntongue say what the heart denied.\"\n\nMy views of the church itself had also necessarily changed with my\nchanged views of its theology.  I no longer looked upon it as an\ninstitution of supernatural sanctity and authority.  To me it is simply\nThe Assembly.  Any assembly of people gathered together for the worship\nof God is a true church.  It does not depend upon any particular form\nof organization, the maintenance and administration of any particular\nordinances, or so-called sacraments.  It does not depend upon\n\"Succession,\"--Apostolic, Baptismal, Ordination, organization or\notherwise.  \"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there\nam I in the midst of them.\"  This is all that is essential to a true\nchurch.  It depends upon unity of purpose, rather than uniformity of\nbelief.  Hence, any assembly of people, anywhere, united together for\nthe worship of God, striving to live better lives themselves, and to\nhelp others to do the same, and thus make this world better and human\nlife happier, meets all the essentials of a true church of God,\nregardless of any form of organization, ordinance, sacrament, creed,\nbelief or ecclesiastical pedigree.\n\nBut for years,--as will presently appear,--I did not know that any\nchurch existed, that would come any way near meeting this definition.\nI naturally supposed that any organization calling itself a church was\nbased upon belief in the Bible as the infallible word of God, and the\nsole source of authority in all matters of religion.  This I had\ncompletely abandoned and could never go back to it.  In fact I did not\ntrouble myself to inquire for a possible church fellowship.  I supposed\nI was forever barred from any church membership whatever, except that I\nfelt a welcome in attending the Reformed Jewish synagogue, where the\npreaching was on a high intellectual plane, sane and rational, dealing\nwith modern problems instead of ancient creeds and dogmas; and I liked\nthis.  But I was not a Jew; and I knew I could never accept their\ntheology.  All I could ever expect was to be a welcome visitor, \"a\nstranger within the gate.\"\n\nHowever, I must go back a little.  Some few years after I left the\nministry of the Methodist Church, and while still living not far from\nthe last church I served, a friend one day asked why I had left the\nChurch and ministry.  I told him very briefly a few of my doctrinal\ndifficulties; to which he replied, \"Ashley, you are a Unitarian.\"  I\nthought but little of it.  I was not really interested in churches any\nmore anyway.  But he handed me a pamphlet to read and told me he was a\nUnitarian back in Ohio where he came from.  I read the pamphlet at his\nrequest.  I do not now remember what it was, or just what it was about.\nBut I was impressed with the fact that the views therein expressed were\nvery similar to my own; and if that was Unitarianism I was also\nprobably a Unitarian.  But still it aroused no special interest as\nthere was no Unitarian church anywhere about.  If there had been, I\nmight then have been led to investigate further.  But years went by,\nand all the perceptible effect was that I would occasionally think how\nnearly I must be a Unitarian, until I finally determined that if I ever\nhad an opportunity I would investigate the matter further.\n\nIn the summer of 1912, business relations led me to move to Dallas,\nTexas.  Passing on the street one day, I noticed the sign, First\nUnitarian Church.  A new inspiration came to me.  I now had an\nopportunity to investigate just how near my religious convictions\ncoincided with those of this church.  When the church opened after the\nsummer vacation I began to attend its services, only occasionally at\nfirst, reading in the meantime much of its literature kept at the\nchurch for free distribution.  I became intensely interested and by the\nspring of 1913 I was a regular attendant.  The more I read the more I\nfound myself in substantial accord with what I understood to be the\nsalient points of twentieth century Unitarianism.  I found especially\nthese points that impressed me very deeply: It had no creed.  It had no\nspecific statement of beliefs.  It had no doctrinal standard or test of\nreligious faith as a condition of church membership.  It not only\npermitted, but encouraged the greatest freedom of thought and the most\nsearching investigation of all subjects presented for consideration,\nbelieving firmly that truth had nothing to fear from such a course.  I\nfound it had no test of membership but that of human character.  I\nfound a man was judged by what _he is_, and not by what he thinks or\nbelieves.  I found its service to be reverent and dignified, but free\nfrom useless ceremonial.  The preaching by Rev. George Gilmour, its\nminister, I found to be profound and scholarly, yet deeply spiritual\nand inspiring, dealing primarily with present-day religious and social\nproblems rather than creeds, dogmas or beliefs.  I was profoundly\nsurprised and much gratified to find a church and people and minister\nso broad, so liberal and so fraternal as I found this First Unitarian\nChurch in Dallas.  I soon found that whether I agreed with all other\nUnitarians or not, I at least had here a free and cordial fellowship\nfor the worship of God and the service of man, without any\necclesiastical harness to put on, or any strings to limit me to\nprescribed bounds.  A new light dawned upon me.  The bondage of\northodoxy I had broken years ago.  But I wandered for years in the\ndesert of agnosticism, famishing and unfed.  I had found in my own\nheart the bread of life; but I had no table at which to spread it--and\nman being a social animal as well as a religious one, cannot live alone.\n\nMy name was soon on the membership roll of this church, where I hope it\nwill remain until I am translated, no matter where else I may serve and\nplace it.  It was here that I first found my bearings and placed my\nfeet on the solid rock of rational religion.  The supreme satisfaction,\nthe peace of mind, serene content, and supernal joy of this situation I\nshall not attempt to describe.  Those that were born in a liberal faith\nand have never known anything else can neither understand nor\nappreciate it.  It is indeed a new birth, a new light, a new life of\nfreedom, fellowship and fraternity in a common service for God and\nhumanity.\n\n\nTHE NEW CALL TO PREACH\n\nI have before described what I once interpreted as a \"divine call to\npreach.\"  It was the new-born enthusiasm of one who felt himself \"a\nbrand snatched from the eternal burning\" to proclaim the same\ndeliverance to what he believed to be a lost and ruined world; to warn\nsinners to \"flee from the wrath to come.\"  It was then the consuming\npassion of a soul on fire with zeal for the salvation of all mankind\nfrom what he believed to be an overwhelming and eternal destruction\nthat awaited them, and might come upon them at any moment without\nwarning.\n\nAnd now, having tasted of the sweets of liberty, I desired \"to proclaim\nliberty thruout the land to all the inhabitants thereof,\" the same\nliberty to those yet in the bondage of fear from which I had escaped\nand to those who were still wandering in the deserts of doubt, looking\nfor a haven of rest, and not knowing that it was so near.  I knew that\nthe great masses were inside of the houses in which they were born,\nwith the doors all bolted and the windows fastened down.  Not a ray of\nlight is permitted to enter there, because a new thought might explode\ntheir delusions and disturb their repose.  For these there is little\nhope.\n\nBut I knew there were yet thousands--I had met and talked with many of\nthem--who, as I was for years, were wandering in the deserts, hungering\nfor the bread of life, looking for a fellowship where they might have\nfreedom of thought and conscience, and yet join with others of like\nminds in the free worship of Nature's one great God.\n\nI would address myself to these.  I was so long one of them, I thought\nmy experience might be of benefit.  It would aid me in helping them.  I\nwould tell my story of bondage, of deliverance, of wandering in the\ndeserts of doubt, of the dawning light, of the full blaze of the sun of\nliberty, of freedom and fellowship in the worship of God and the\nservice of mankind.\n\nI have now spent five years in this service, the happiest and best\nyears of my life.  They have been crowned with some degree of success.\nI am not yet old.  I hope to be able to devote at least a score of\nyears yet to this happy service.  Having escaped from Bondage to\nLiberty myself, my only ambition now is to carry the message of\ndeliverance to others, until they shall likewise find freedom in The\nFatherhood of God, The Brotherhood of Man, The Leadership of Jesus,\nSalvation by Character instead of Creed, and the hope of the Progress\nof Mankind Onward and Upward Forever.  My only regret is that I did not\ndiscover this way of light and liberty long before, so that I might\nhave had more years to devote to this happy service.\n\n\nAN AFTERWORD\n\nDear reader, my story is finished.  I have had but one motive in\nwriting it: A hope that I may in some way help others who are still in\nthe meshes of ecclesiastical bondage, or disturbing doubts, to find the\nway of light and liberty in a rational religious faith.  To what extent\nI have succeeded or failed, only the future and my readers can\ndetermine.  If you have derived any benefit from it; if I have been\nable to cast any ray of light along your pathway; if it has helped you\nto solve any problem that has perplexed you, I am fully repaid for the\nlabor of writing it.  I have not said nearly all that is in my heart,\nnor all I would like to say, but all the compass of this work would\npermit.  But if I have stirred up in the mind of the reader a desire to\nknow more of the questions so briefly discussed herein, and to press\nhis investigations further for this purpose, I have little doubt as to\nwhat will be the ultimate result.\n\nAnd just one more thing, dear reader: If this book has been of any\nbenefit to you; if it has helped to clear up any doubts in your mind,\nand point the way toward light and liberty in your own life and\nexperience, may it not do as much for others?  It may be the saving of\na life from Bondage to Liberty; to that \"peace that passeth\nunderstanding,\" in a rational religious faith, based, not upon dogma or\ncreed, but upon man's fundamental nature and need, interpreted and\napplied by that highest and best light that man has, ENLIGHTENED\nREASON, for the same God who is the Author of Religion is also the\nAuthor of Reason.","title":"From Bondage to Liberty in Religion: A Spiritual Autobiography","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":47384}