{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_7495/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_7495","id":"gutenberg_7495","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7495","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian Churches and Churches of Christ","Lutz, Henry Frey, 1868-1926 -- Biography","Restoration movement (Christianity)"],"text":"Produced by Charles Franks\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTO INFIDELITY AND BACK\n\n\nTo Infidelity and Back\n\nA Truth-seeker's Religious Autobiography\n\n_How I Found Christ and His Church_\n\nBy\n\nEVANGELIST HENRY F. LUTZ\n\n_Author of \"Economic Redemption; or, Hard Times: the Cause and Cure\"\netc._\n\n\"I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them\nin paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before\nthem, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them and\nnot forsake them\"--Isa. 42:16.\n\n\"Slight tastes of philosophy may perchance move one to atheism, but\nfuller draughts lead back to religion\"--Lord Bacon\n\nCINCINNATI, OHIO\n\n1911\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATION\n\nTo the sacred memory of the pioneers of the great Restoration Movement\nof the nineteenth century, who forsook the religious associations of a\nlifetime and cheerfully endured poverty, persecution and every hardship\nin their endeavor to restore Christian union on the primitive gospel,\nand who held forth a beacon-light that helped me to find the truth in\nits simplicity as it is in Christ Jesus.\n\n\n\nMy Soul Struggle in Symbolism\n\nUpon the fly-leaf of my Bible I find the following, which was written\nshortly after I emerged from the stormy sea of heartrending agony\nthrough which I passed in my conflict with sectarianism, rationalism,\ninfidelity and doubt. It was not written for the public, but was simply\nan effort of my soul to express in a measure, through human symbols,\nthe painful experiences through which it passed. It will seem\nextravagant language to those who have never had their souls lacerated\nby doubt and despair. But the sensitive souls who have endured similar\nexperiences will understand, and it is with the hope of reaching and\nhelping them that it is given to the public.\n\n\"A TEN YEARS' JOURNEY\n\nFrom the childhood land of ignorant innocence to the kingdom of Christ:\nby way of deserts of negation; mountains of assumption; rivers of\nirony, sarcasm and conceit; bays of contention; gulfs of liberalism;\nand oceans of infidelity, doubt and confusion--swept by undercurrents\nof selfish passion, tempests of blind sentiment, maelstroms of fear and\ndespair; covered with black clouds of prejudice and preconceived ideas,\ndense fogs of theological speculation, gigantic icebergs of\nindifference, monstrous sharks of procrastination, and ruinous rocks of\nmaterialism; through the strait of darkness and absurdity, over the sea\nof twilight and joy, into the haven of rest.\n\n\"In the ship, religion; pole-star, faith in God; rudder, free will;\ncompass, conscience; sextant, rationalism and experience; anchor, hope;\nguiding chart, creeds and opinions of men vs. the Word of God; pilot,\nJesus Christ.\n\n\"Motto: Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.\n\n\"Prayer: O God! thou knowest the secret desire of my heart. Thou\nknowest how earnestly I have sought the truth. God forbid that my life\nshould be a barren waste; that I should so use the powers that thou\nhast given me that the world shall not be better for my having lived in\nit. Lord, grant I may ever find the work that thou wouldst have me do.\n'Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts, and\nsee if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way\neverlasting. Amen.\"\n\nThis, in substance, was my daily prayer for ten long, dreary years;\nfor, while my intellect was in doubt and confusion, my heart continued\nto cling to God.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nOne of the clearest expounders of the Scriptures in my acquaintance is\nthe author of this book, who honors me in asking that I write these few\nlines of introduction. His experience is full of interest. I have\nlistened night after night with profit to his sermons, and he has dug\nhis way in the most painstaking fashion out of the darkness of unfaith\ninto the beauty and strength of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nThere is no institution like the church of God, for it is founded upon\nthe divine Sonship of Jesus, and his Holy Spirit has given to it divine\nlife, so that Isaiah's prophecy lights up the pathway of victory, when\nit is said: \"He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set\njustice in the earth, and the isles shall wait for his law.\" Its right\nto advance has been disputed, and, at times in its long history, it\nappears to have stood timidly doubting its power and right to soul\nconquest, but this has only been apparent, for every century has\nbrought with it a greater courage, so that in this day believers in\nJesus are speaking in the language of every nation on the earth, and\nhosts of these are as ready to lay down their lives for their faith in\nJesus as did Stephen and James and Paul and that host of martyrs whose\nwilling sacrifices gave strength and solidarity to the early church.\n\nThe ordinances have naturally suffered at the hands of every invasion,\nand, in consequence, some of the most devout have not been able to find\nthe path to the ordinances as practiced in the apostolic days, but the\nskies are brightening, and, without questioning for a moment the\nsincerity and devotion of those who think otherwise, the Scriptures are\nbeing read to-day with more freedom than at any other period in the\nhistory of the church, and its ordinances are gradually coming to light\nin the public mind. God has been patient with us and we must be patient\nwith those who do not think as we do. One of the most important\nproblems now facing us, however, is that all believers shall find a\ncommon way for entrance into the church. When that has been done, a\nlong step will have been taken towards world-wide evangelization.\n\nThe fields are already white unto harvest. This is the day of\nopportunity. Christ is waiting on us. If the time was short, like a\nfurled sail, in Paul's day, how much shorter is it in our day! The\ngospel has been sent to all nations, and God is sending men from all\nnations to America to hear the gospel, so that the lines are crossing\nand recrossing each other and are so many prophecies of the fulfillment\nof the commission of Jesus, when he said: \"All authority hath been\ngiven unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make\ndisciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father\nand of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all\nthings whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even\nunto the end of the world.\"\n\nDeciding for Christ and being baptized into him is only a small part of\nthe work that is to be done. Then begins their training into real\ndiscipleship, when they are to produce the fruit of the Spirit, which\nis \"love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,\nmeekness, self-control.\"\n\nThis book is a contribution to that end, and may those who read its\npages be brought to yield their best to the glory of Him who is our all.\n\nBaltimore, Md. Peter Ainslie.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nThis book contains my religious experience in a forty years' sojourn on\nearth. If any doubt the propriety and value of relating one's religious\nexperience, I would refer them to the case of Paul, who used this\nmethod on a number of occasions. However, we should be careful not to\nmake an improper use of this method and preach our experiences in place\nof the gospel. Paul says: \"We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus\nthe Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake\" (2 Cor. 4:5). We\nshould refer to our experiences simply to help deliver people from\nhuman error and center their attention on the gospel of Christ, which\nalone is the power of God unto salvation.\n\nI do not take any great credit to myself for my experiences recorded in\nthis book, realizing that they were largely the result of my inherited\nproclivities and religious environment. It must be admitted that the\ngreat mass of mankind are what they are in religion, politics, etc., by\nheredity and environment. This is powerfully impressed upon us by the\nministers who give their experience in \"Why I Am What I Am.\" Even the\nfact that it is natural for me to seek to know what is right for\nmyself, I attribute more largely to my natural hereditary mental bent,\nthan to any particular merit of my own. I trust this book will help us\nall to realize the danger of drifting with traditionary religion, and\nthus defeating the revealed truth of Jesus Christ, and the need of\nsearching the truth for ourselves that thus we may be used of God to\nadvance his kingdom of unity and truth. Christian civilization would\nmake much more rapid strides if we all would struggle to find the truth\ninstead of acquiring our ideas through the colored glasses of prejudice\nand ignorance.\n\nMy ancestry on mother's side were German Reformed and on father's side\nLutheran. While a boy I lived for three years with Mennonites and\nattended their church. I attended a Moravian Sunday-school, was taught\nby a Presbyterian Sunday-school teacher, educated at a Unitarian\ntheological school, graduated from a Christian college and a\nCongregational theological seminary, and took postgraduate work at a\nUnited Presbyterian university. I was born and raised in southeastern\nPennsylvania, which may be called \"The Cradle of Religious Liberty\" in\nAmerica. For while the colonies to the north and south persecuted\npeople on account of their religious opinions, Penn opened his\nsettlement to all the religiously persecuted in America and Europe. As\na result Pennsylvania became a great sectarian stronghold. To-day some\ntwenty denominations have either their national headquarters or leading\nnational center in southeastern Pennsylvania. The reader can readily\nsee how my contact with this Babel of sectarianism affected my\nreligious life and experience.\n\nThere are some things that seem too sacred to drag before the public.\nFor years I said very little in my public ministry about my experience\nwith doubt. While, as city evangelist of Greater Pittsburg, I was\nassisting a minister in a revival, he learned incidentally of my\nexperience with infidelity; and as there were a number of skeptics in\nthe community, he urged me to preach on the subject. The message seemed\nto do much good to the large audience that heard it. Since then it has\nbeen repeated a number of times, and the largest auditoriums have not\nbeen able to hold the people who were eager to hear it. This\ndemonstrates that the message supplies a great need, and has encouraged\nme to prepare this book for the public. The Christian Temple in\nBaltimore was packed with people, and on account of the jam the doors\nwere ordered closed by the policeman in charge half an hour before time\nfor the service. At Portsmouth, Va., twenty-five hundred were crowded\ninto a skating-rink, and many failed to get admittance. At Halifax,\nCan., hundreds were turned away. But this has been the experience\nwherever the sermon has been thoroughly advertised. To illustrate this,\nI quote from the Harrisonburg (Va.) papers of Jan. 9, 1911, where the\nsermon was delivered the night before in Assembly Hall, the largest\nauditorium in the city. About sixteen hundred people were jammed in the\nhall and many crowded out. It was the largest audience that ever\nassembled in that city for a religious service.\n\n\"Evangelist Lutz says that on every occasion on which he has delivered\nhis address on 'My Conversion from Infidelity,' no matter how large the\nhall may have been, people have turned away for lack of room. Last\nnight's attendance at Assembly Hall maintained the record. Presumably\nthe hall has never been more closely packed. Seats, stage, box, aisles,\nwindows, doorways, were filled, and many found place in the flies of\nthe theater. A number couldn't find places anywhere and went away. Mr.\nLutz is a fine example of evangelist. He has a magnetic personality and\na strong, oratorical way of talking, fluent in speech and filled with\nfigurative language and the phrases of his profession.\"--_Harrisonburg\nDaily Times._\n\n\"Evangelist H. F. Lutz spoke last night at Assembly Hall on 'The Story\nof My Conversion from Infidelity.' The audience showed close attention\nand earnestness. Many were turned away because of the crowded condition\nof the hall. Many people from the near-town sections came to attend the\nservice.\"--_Harrisonburg Daily News._\n\nI trust that my bitter experience with rationalism, infidelity and\ndoubt will help to reveal their true nature and thus keep many young\nmen from these dangerous rocks, and will help to deliver many others\nfrom this terrible bondage. May the Father graciously bless my humble\nefforts to win souls to Christ and to help bring about Christian union\non the primitive gospel in order to the Christian conquest of the whole\nworld.    Henry F. Lutz.\n\nMillersville, Pa., March 28, 1911.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nDedication Soul's Struggle in Symbolism Introduction by Peter Ainslie\nAuthor's Preface\n\n\nPART I.--TO INFIDELITY AND BACK.\n\nChapter I.--To Infidelity and Back Chapter II.--Parting Message to\nUnitarian School Chapter III.--Functions and Limitations of the Mind\nChapter IV.--Looking Through Colored Glasses\n\n\nPART II.--FROM SECTARIANISM TO PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.\n\nChapter I.--Scriptural Baptism Chapter II.--The New Testament Church\nChapter III.--The Church Since the Apostles Chapter IV.--Our Neglected\nFields\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\nTO INFIDELITY AND BACK\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTo INFIDELITY AND BACK.\n\n\n_To Christ by Way of Rationalism, Unitarianism and Infidelity._\n\nI inherited on the one hand a strong religious nature, and on the other\na tendency to be independent in thought and to question everything\nbefore adopting it as a part of my belief. Ever since I can remember I\nwas a praying boy, and early in life there came to me the desire to\ndevote myself to the ministry of the gospel.\n\nAmong my earliest religious impressions were those received by having\nthe story of the Patriarchs and Jesus read to me in German by a saintly\nold Mennonite for whom I worked on the farm for a year. Among the first\nthings that aroused my reason in religion was the declaration of my\nSunday-school teacher that before we are born we are predestined by God\neither to go to heaven or to hell, and that anything we might do would\nnot alter our eternal destiny. This declaration came like a thunderbolt\ninto my religious life, and stirred up a violent agitation from which\nit took me ten years to fully deliver myself. I was now about fourteen\nyears old, and already had a desire to measure everything in the\ncrucible of logic or cause and effect, and to accept nothing which did\nnot come within the range of my reason. Looking at things from the\nstandpoint of cause and effect, I was naturally caught in the meshes of\nfatalism, and this aggravated the religious agitation above referred to.\n\nAt this time in my life there arose many religious questions, and the\nanswers I received from religious teachers tended to drive me away from\nthe church rather than to it. I feel to-day that if my case had been\nclearly understood and the nature and the limits of the finite mind had\nbeen patiently pointed out to me, in its relation to faith and\nrevelation, I could have been saved years of agony on the sea of\nrationalism. But my questions were not answered and my honest doubts\nwere rebuked, so that I was naturally driven out of sympathy with the\nchurch and Bible, since I judged that my doubts could not be satisfied\nbecause religion itself is unreasonable.\n\nThrough the kindness of Christian people the way opened to prepare\nmyself for the ministry. But by this time many religious doubts and\nperplexities were in the way, and I decided that I would a thousand\ntimes rather be an honest doubter out of the church and ministry than a\nhypocrite in it. Thus my fond hope of entering the ministry had to be\ngiven up, and instead I determined to use the teaching profession as a\nstepping-stone to law, and law as a means of serving humanity.\n\nI was very fond of study, and read scores of books on all kinds of\nsubjects. Emerson was my favorite, and I procured and read his complete\nworks. Gibbon and Macaulay were eagerly read as revealing some of the\nreligious life of the world. Ingersoll, with many others, got his turn.\nBut the book that produced the greatest effect on my life at this time\nwas Fleetwood's \"Life of Christ,\" with a short history of the different\nreligious bodies of the world attached. Through my reading and\nobservations I became greatly perplexed over the religious divisions of\nthe world. I discovered that thousands of people had died as martyrs\nfor all kinds of religions and sects, and that each claimed to have the\ntruth and to teach the right way to heaven. I concluded that since they\nteach such contradictory doctrines they cannot possibly all be right,\nalthough they might all be wrong. I formed a desire to make a thorough\nstudy of all the different religious bodies of the world, to find out\nwhere the truth is, if there is any in religion. My first information\nalong this line was obtained in the above-named history of the\nreligious bodies of the world. Being of a rationalistic turn of mind, I\nwas naturally very favorably impressed with Unitarianism and its\nteaching. I sent for a number of their works and read them with great\ninterest. I learned many things that have been a benediction to my life\never since, but you will see later on how far it satisfied my\nrationalistic proclivities. I learned to my delight that I could enter\na Unitarian theological school to prepare for the ministry without\nfirst joining a church or signing a creed. For a person in my state of\nmind nothing better could have presented itself. I determined to go\nthere and make a thorough study of the Bible and all the different\nreligious bodies, and to fearlessly follow the truth wherever it might\nlead me.\n\nThe time came and I entered the school. And a fine school it was from\nan intellectual standpoint and for the purpose of investigation. I have\nbeen a student at six educational institutions since I left the high\nschool, but this was far ahead of the others for the development of the\nlogical and philosophical faculties. Here there was absolutely no\nrestraint to thought; and all kinds of systems and ideas were\nrepresented, from philosophical anarchy to socialism and from mysticism\nto materialism. The moral and spiritual earnestness I expected to find\namong the Unitarians I did not find, especially among the younger and\nmore radical ones. Its effect, on the whole, was to relax rather than\nintensify the moral fiber. Their ideals seemed so grand and noble that\nI thought those possessed with them could scarcely find time to eat and\nsleep in their zeal to put them into practise; but I discovered that\nthey not only had plenty of time to eat and sleep, but also for\ndancing, card-playing, theater-going, etc. Many of the young men\nstudying for the ministry often spent a large part of the night in\ncard-playing, and the Sunday-school room served also as a\ndancing-floor. Unitarians pride themselves upon the high standard of\nmorality among their people and upon the few prisoners you find among\ntheir members, but this is due to the character of the people they\nreach rather than to the restraining influence of their teaching\n\nMy reading had given me a wrong impression as to the teaching of\nUnitarianism. Like many others, I was fascinated and enticed by the\nwritings of conservative Unitarians, whose contention is largely\nagainst the bad theology of human creeds; but the present-day teaching\nof the vanguard of Unitarianism is an entirely different thing. It\nrejects all the miraculous in the Bible, and, in many cases, even\ndenies the existence of a personal God. All the students were required\nto conduct chapel prayers in turn. Those who did not believe in a\npersonal God explained that they were pronouncing an apostrophe to the\ngreat impersonal and unknowable force working in the universe. I had\nread Channing, Clark, Hale, Emerson, and other conservative Unitarians,\nand found much food for my soul, but I discovered that these were\nconsidered old \"fogies\" and back numbers by most of the students in\nattendance.\n\nBut I must tell you of my evolution along the line of rationalism. My\nrationalistic proclivities were given a free rein. And as a child, when\nleft to run away, will soon stop and return to its mother, so this\nfreedom was the natural cure for my intellectual delusion. To the\nstatement of the creeds, \"The Father is God, and the Son is God, and\nthe Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God,\"\nmy rationalism replied, that is logically inconceivable, therefore I\nbecame a Unitarian. No sooner was I happy in this faith than a\nUniversalist addressed me and said, \"If you want to be rational, you\nmust give up your belief in eternal punishment, for God could not give\neternal punishment for a finite sin.\" As a rationalist, what could I do\nbut yield, and so I became a universalist Unitarian. I felt I had at\nlast found the truth, but my peace was short; for a student accused me\nof being irrational, \"because,\" said he, \"an omnipotent, loving God\nwould give an infinitely large amount of good and an infinitely small\namount of evil; but an infinitely small amount of evil is not\nperceptible, evil is perceptible, therefore there is no such God.\" This\nwas an awful pill and gave a terrible shock to my religious\nsensibilities, but as rationalism was my guide, I had to follow on or\nstand accused as a superstitious coward.\n\nAgain rationalism declared, through my teachers, that all the\nsupernatural must be eliminated from the Bible as mythical and\nunreliable, and so I was robbed of my Christ, my God and my Bible.\nMisguided by rationalism, I thought it my conscientious duty to accept,\nstep by step, the dictates of destructive criticism until the Bible was\nonly inspired to me in religion as Kant in philosophy, Milton in\npoetry, and Beethoven in music. But when I came to the end of the\nmatter I discovered that my conscience, which had urged me along, was\ngone also. For I was gravely taught that conscience is merely a\ncreature of experience and education, and that it is right to lie or do\nanything else so long as you do it out of love. Doubtless you have all\nheard of the farmer and his wife at the World's Fair who went to see\nthe \"Exit.\" There was nothing in it, and of course they had to pay to\nget in again. This was my bitter experience with rationalism. I thought\nI was following a great light, but I discovered there was nothing in\nit, that I was following an _ignis fatuus_. Rationalism has indeed\nproven the \"Exit\" to multitudes, from the peace, joy and moral security\nthat accompany faith in evangelical Christianity into the desert of\ndoubt, darkness and despair.\n\nBut not even here did I find a staying-place. For rationalism, in its\nbold confidence, led me on and on until it brought me to materialism\nand absurdity. In going too far, it revealed its true nature and\ncharacter, and thus led me to see its fallacy and enabled me to get\nfree from its bondage. From atheism it led me to fatalism, and declared\nthat there is no free will and consequently people are not to blame for\ntheir sins and shortcomings. If we \"shall reap as we sow,\" it declared\nthat we cannot give anything to anybody and therefore philanthropy is a\ndelusion.\n\nBut I taught rationalism in guile one day by which it thoroughly\nexhibited the absurdity of its teaching. Its continual song was, \"You\ndare not believe what you cannot conceive to be true.\" So it declared\none day, in its bold folly, that an object cannot move in the space in\nwhich it is, nor in the space in which it is not; therefore you cannot\nconceive of an object moving; therefore you cannot move to walk, eat or\nlive. So the conclusion to which my rationalistic guide finally led me\nwas that I must sit down and die or be irrational. Well, this was too\nmuch for me. I refused to die, and concluded that rationalism is not a\nsafe guide, and commenced to investigate as to where the difficulty lay.\n\nBut before I tell you how I discovered the false tricks of rationalism,\nlet me say that all these things into which rationalism led me were\nagainst my strong religious nature, and gave me continual and\nexcruciating pain. I never for a day ceased to pray to God for help;\nfor while my intellect was held in doubt through the bondage of\nrationalism, my heart held on to God, and thus I was in a mighty\nconflict. In my despair I cried unto God, and when he had accomplished\nhis purpose concerning me, he set me free. Blessed be his name! Surely\n\"he bringeth the blind by a way that they knew not, and leads them into\npaths that they have not known. He makes darkness light before them,\nand crooked things straight, and does not utterly forsake the honest in\nheart.\"\n\nMost people have come to their religious and political position by\nheredity and are held there by inertia. If you can set a person free\nfrom this hereditary inertia, you can convert him to almost anything at\nwill; for it is but few who are sufficiently informed on any subject to\ndefend it against an expert, and none are thus qualified on all\nsubjects. So when I entered this school, free from all hereditary\nideas, determined to accept every position that I could not refute in\nargument, you can imagine my experience. At first I was converted from\none thing to another by the different students and professors until I\nwas about all the \"arians,\" \"isms,\" and \"ists\" ever heard of, together\nwith a number of other things for which they have no names as yet.\n\nBut how did I discover the fallacy of rationalism? and how was I\ndelivered from its mighty clutches by which it had dragged me from one\npitfall to another so ruthlessly? My deliverance came from a source\nwhere you would perhaps least expect it. It was through the study of\nJohn Stuart Mill's \"System of Logic.\" In it I learned \"that\ninconceivability is not a criterion of impossibility,\" as rationalism\nclaims. On the other hand, that we know things to be true that are just\nas inconceivable as that there can be two mountains without a valley\nbetween.\n\nLet me introduce a few of these contradictions or inconceivabilities.\nBefore you can reach your mouth with your hand, you must go over half\nthe distance, then half of the rest, then half of the rest, and so on\n_ad infinitum._ But you cannot make the infinite number of divisions,\nand therefore you cannot reach your lips. Again, you cannot conceive of\nextension of space or time without a limit, nor can you conceive of a\nlimit to space or time. Here conceivability contradicts itself.\nFurthermore, you cannot conceive of existence without a cause, nor of a\ncause without existence. To the statement of the believer that, \"as the\nwonderful mechanism of the watch presumes a designer, so the infinitely\nmore wonderful mechanism of the universe presumes God, the infinite\ndesigner,\" Ingersoll replied that this is simply to jump over the\ndifficulty by an infinite assumption. Ingersoll, on the other hand,\nclaimed that the material universe has always existed; apparently\nunaware that he thus was guilty of the same fallacy of which he accused\nothers, by _assuming_ infinite existence without a cause. The\ndifference is that the believer's assumption gives us a personal God, a\nkind, loving heavenly Father who provides for the eternal bliss and\nwelfare of his children, while Ingersoll's assumption gives death and\ndarkness and despair.\n\nAn object thrown from one point to another is always at some point,\ntherefore it has no time to move from one point to another. And yet we\nknow that it does move, even though we cannot conceive how it can do\nso. Again, suppose that the hour-hand of your clock is at eleven and\nthe minute-hand at twelve. Now, you cannot conceive how the minute-hand\ncan overtake the hour-hand, although you know by observation that it\ndoes overtake it. For by the time the minute-hand gets to eleven, the\nhour-hand has passed on to twelve, and by the time the minute-hand has\nreached twelve, the hour-hand has passed beyond it. Every time the\nminute-hand comes to where the hour-hand now is, the hour-hand has\npassed beyond. The distance becomes less and less, but theoretically,\nor in conceivability, the one can never overtake the other.\n\nThrough this line of reasoning I learned, clearly and once for all,\nthat _inconceivability is not a proof of impossibility;_ but, on the\nother hand, that we know many things to be true that are not\nconceivable to the finite mind, and therefore we must follow truth\nlearned by experience and observation, irrespective of rationalism. In\nthis way the mighty fetters of rationalism that held me in bondage were\ncut and I was set free to search for the truth as it is in Jesus\nChrist. I learned the limitations of the finite intellect and the truth\nof God's word when he says: \"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,\nneither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are\nhigher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my\nthoughts than your thoughts.\" \"Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of\nthis world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom\nknew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save\nthem that believe.\"\n\nAfter the empirical school of philosophy had taught me that we must\nfollow inductions based on experience and observation rather than\nrationalism or conceivability, I began to value Paul's admonition,\n\"Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.\" If inductive\nphilosophers have often been opposed to religion and the Bible, it is\nbecause they have not carried their inductions far enough to cover the\nentire world of facts. It is admitted by all historians and observers\nthat prayer and faith and religious convictions have been among the\nmightiest forces at work in the world, and any system of reasoning that\ndoes not take these facts into consideration is neither philosophical\nnor scientific.\n\nTo illustrate what is meant by saying that we must follow experience\nrather than conceivability, let us suppose that you are suffering from\na malignant disease and you hear of a medicine that has cured this\ndisease whenever it has been tried, and you know of nothing else that\nwill cure it. Would it not be foolish for you to refuse to use the\nmedicine because you cannot conceive how it produces the cure? It might\nbe discovered later that it was not the medicine, but your belief in\nits curative qualities, that produced the result. But this would not\naffect your common-sense duty in the matter. If certain desirable\nresults follow the doing of a certain thing, we are bound to do that\nthing until we know how to get the good results without doing it.\n\nThis reveals the folly and inhumanity of the conduct of some infidels\ntowards religious people. When I was minister of a church in Ohio, I\nwas visited by a noted infidel. After he went on in a tirade against\npreachers and Christians, I asked him if he was not an unhappy man. At\nfirst he denied it; but I called his attention to some of his\nutterances, and he soon admitted that he was a very unhappy man. But he\nsaid he was unhappy because he knew too much, and claimed that\nChristians were so happy because they were ignorant and deluded. He\nclaimed to be a great lover of humanity, and although, according to his\nprofession, he had no God or conscience or judgment to require it of\nhim, he spent his time in spreading the knowledge and wisdom which made\npeople unhappy by destroying that which he admitted gave people great\njoy and peace and happiness. Suppose a man should come to town who is\nas lean as a skeleton and is slowly dying because he is not getting\nenough nourishment out of the food he eats, and should begin to lecture\nwell-nourished and healthy people for eating the food they are eating.\nWould we not put him down as a fool? Well, if he would add the claim\nthat we are well fed because we are ignorant and deluded, while he is\nsuffering and dying because he knows too much on the food question, he\nwould be on a par with many of our infidelic friends.\n\nIt is said that Beecher and Ingersoll were both present at a banquet in\nNew York City. Ingersoll brought a railing accusation against\nChristianity. Everybody expected Beecher to reply, but he held his\npeace until later in the evening, when it became his turn to speak.\nWhen Beecher arose he said: \"When I came to this hall to-night I saw an\nold, crippled woman wending her way across the crowded street on\ncrutches. When she had reached about midway, a burly ruffian came along\nand knocked the crutches out from under her, and she fell splash into\nthe mud.\" Turning to Ingersoll, he said, \"What do you think of that,\nColonel?\" \"The villain!\" replied Ingersoll. Beecher, pointing to\nIngersoll, said: \"Thou art the man! Suffering, heart-broken, dying\nhumanity is wending its way through this world of sorrow and turmoil on\nthe crutches of Christianity. You, sir, come along and knock them out\nfrom under them, but offer nothing in their place.\" It was a crushing\nblow to Ingersoll and his gospel of despair.\n\nWe do not understand how spirit and matter can be inter-related, and we\ncan not conceive that our willing it can move our arm; but this does\nnot deter us from moving, because we know through experience that we\ncan move. We do not understand the philosophy of digestion, and we\ncannot conceive how bread and butter can have any relation to thought\nand life; but we know by experience that they do, and we go on eating\nand living. We cannot conceive how the same grass produces lamb, pork\nand beef; but we keep on raising stock just the same, because we are\nguided by facts learned by experience and observation rather than by\nconceivability. We do reach our mouth, the minute-hand does overtake\nthe hour-hand, objects do move in space, etc., rationalism and\ninconceivability to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\nMan is a religious being, and we know by experience that religion gives\nhim joy and brings him good. If we had no revealed religion, science\nand duty would compel us to develop a religious system out of our\nreligious experiences. This is what has actually been done by the\ndifferent peoples of the earth who know not the revelation of God in\nthe Bible. The secret of the hold that even a false religion has upon\npeople is the fact that it does them good and gives them happiness by\nexercising the pious emotions of their being, even though it may bring\nthem harm in other ways. Even a religion based on human experience is\nbetter than none; for it is better to feed the religious nature on\nhusks than to starve it out altogether. To this agree the words of Paul\nwhen he says that God \"made of one blood all nations of men for to\ndwell on all the face of the earth... that they should seek the Lord,\nif haply they might feel after him, and find him.\" But while man,\nunaided by direct revelation, can grope in the dark and feel after God,\nand can invent systems of religion based on experience that are better\nthan none, any man that accepts facts and testimony will soon discover\nthat God has not thus left us in the dark oil religious matters, but\nhas \"appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness\nby that man whom he has ordained, whereof he has given assurance unto\nall men, in that he has raised him from the dead.\"\n\nIt is said that a lawyer and a noted preacher, who was a lecturer,\nhappened to meet at a hotel breakfast-table. The lawyer suspected that\nhis companion was a preacher, and, as he was an infidel, he thought he\nhad a good opportunity to give a thrust at the Bible.\n\n\"Excuse me,\" said the lawyer, \"I take it from your appearance that you\nare a preacher.\"\n\n\"Yes, sir,\" said the preacher.\n\n\"Well, now,\" said the lawyer, \"don't you find a great many\ncontradictions and difficulties you cannot understand in the Bible?\"\n\n\"Yes, sir,\" replied the preacher.\n\n\"How, then,\" said the lawyer, \"can you continue to believe in it?\"\n\n\"Why,\" said the preacher, \"do you see what I am doing with the bones of\nthis fish? I lay them aside and enjoy the good of the fish. So with the\nBible. I lay aside the things I cannot understand, and feast upon the\nrich spiritual food it contains, willing to wait until all mysteries\nshall be removed hereafter.\"\n\nIf the finite mind could understand everything contained in the Bible,\nit would become worthless as a revelation, for the finite mind could\nproduce it. But since it reveals the infinite mind, we must expect it\nto contain things that the finite mind cannot understand. We can\nunderstand the evidence that it is from God and for our good, and it is\nreasonable that we should accept its great truths by faith, although we\nmay not now be able to see how all the truths it reveals are consistent\nwith each other. \"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear\nGod, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.\"\n\nAs has often been said, no one can do better than to live the pure,\nclean, benevolent life that Jesus inculcated and incarnated. If you\nimitate him in goodness and good deeds, you are pursuing the best\npossible course, even if the Bible is not true. If, on the other hand,\nthe Bible is true, and you do not live for Christ, you are doomed for\never and ever.\n\nHaving been delivered from the bondage of rationalism, I found my way\nback to Christ with comparative ease. If experience and facts are our\nultimate guides, then we must trust the testimony of history. With the\nhelp of the _Bi-Millennial Telescope on the opposite page_, and\nlimitless similar testimony, we can trace the existence of the Bible\nclear to the days of the Apostles. None ever had better means of\nknowing the facts they bore witness to than the Apostles, and none ever\ngave stronger proof that they sincerely told the truth as they knew it.\nThe Gospels being genuine and reliable, the life and words and miracles\nof Jesus they narrate, give sufficient proof of the divinity of Christ\nto satisfy every reasonable demand of the intellect. This is especially\ntrue concerning the resurrection of Christ, on which the proof of\nChristianity hinges. \"He showed himself alive after his passion by many\ninfallible proofs.\" And if he arose from the dead, he was demonstrated\nby it to be the Son of God. And if he is the Son of God, then the Bible\nis the Word of God, for he has endorsed it all. Thus there were\nrestored to me Christ, God and his Word of truth. The thing that robbed\nme of these was rationalism, but it had been proven false and therefore\nwas ruled out of court.\n\nUnitarians used to tell me that Christ was the Son of God, but we all\nare sons of God. I now saw that Christ was _the_ Son of God in the\nspecial and peculiar sense in which he claimed, or he was a fool. When\nhe was on trial he was asked upon oath whether he was the Son of God or\nnot, and he answered \"Yes\" when it cost his life to do so. If he meant\nthat he was the son of God in the same sense in which we are, all he\nwould have had to do was to explain and he could have saved his life.\n\nThe proof that Christianity is from God as revealed in its effect upon\nthe life of individuals, communities and nations, is so apparent and\nhas been pointed out so often that I will give it but a passing notice.\n\"If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching,\nwhether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself,\" was Christ's\nchallenge, and millions have verified it in their own religious\nexperience. Nearly all the voluntary educational and philanthropic\ninstitutions of the world are supported by Christian people, and the\nnations of the earth are prosperous, enlightened and influential in the\nexact proportion as their people are intelligent and consecrated\nfollowers of the lowly Nazarene.\n\nIt was thus that I found my way back to Christ as my Lord and Saviour,\nand I never before fully appreciated the words of Jesus, \"Come unto me,\nall ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.\" The\ntruth dawned upon me gradually, but with irresistible force. How often\nhave we been perplexed and in doubt on some great question of truth or\nduty until finally the solution came to us as if by magic. Through what\nthe psychologists call subconscious cerebration our mind has been\nworking at the great problem even when our conscious attention was\ngiven to other matters. I have had a number of such experiences before\nand since, and, had I not examined them critically, I might easily have\nbeen led to believe they were direct revelations from heaven.\n\nFor many months the great question had been occupying my mind by day\nand by night. Finally the solution came as clear as a revelation from\nGod. It wakened me in the still of the night and ravished my soul with\npeace and joy unspeakable. I arose and took a walk into the country to\na mountain spring and back. I shall never forget that night, and the\necstatic joy it brought to me. My religious nature had been outraged so\nlong that when it was set free it returned to its Lord with a violent\nbound. The fittest words I could find to express my feelings are in the\n103d Psalm: \"Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me,\nbless his holy name.\"\n\nThe question as to what church I should join, or what religious body I\nshould affiliate with, now confronted me and demanded solution. As I\nalready intimated, I was perplexed, and partly led to doubt and\nconfusion by the many different religious bodies, all claiming to be\nright. One of my objects in entering this school was to make a thorough\nstudy of the different religious bodies and their doctrines. One\nincident that helped me in the solution of this problem was an\noccurrence in our New Testament Greek class. The professor declared\nthat all Greek scholars of note are agreed that the proper meaning of\nthe word \"baptism\" in the New Testament is _to immerse_. As I was\nraised in a pedobaptist church, this declaration was a great surprise\nto me, but I looked up the authorities and found that the professor had\nstated the facts correctly.\n\nWe had a class that made a study of the character, government and\nteaching of the different religious bodies. In this study I was\nespecially impressed with the polity and teaching of the people\ndesignated as \"Disciples of Christ,\" or \"Christians.\" I procured their\nliterature and made a thorough study of their position. I naturally\nfound myself in harmony with their teaching. I had myself come to see\nthe folly of enforcing upon all believers the speculative theology of\nthe creeds, and the weakness and waste that result from a divided\nchurch. My experience revealed to me the relative value of human wisdom\nand God's wisdom as found in his Book. The thought of preaching Christ\nrather than theology, and of restoring the apostolic church in its\nteachings, ordinances and practices, came to me as a godsend in my\ncondition of mind. I was, however, very slow to act in this matter, as\nI had been deceived before and it was my desire not to make a mistake\nagain. After a year's consideration and considerable correspondence\nwith one of their preachers, I finally united with the Christian Church\nat New Castle, Pa. I have been preaching the plea for Christian union\non the primitive gospel ever since, and the longer I preach it the more\nI see its beauty and power.\n\nHaving been delivered, through the goodness of God, from this blinding\ncloud of rationalism, let us take a backward look at it and its chief\nproduct--Unitarianism--and let us see what lesson God would teach us\nthrough it. Unitarianism, as a church movement, started near the\nbeginning of the last century. It enlisted many of the best hearts,\nbrains and purses of this country. It had Harvard University back of\nit. It numbered among its followers most of the great poets, historians\nand prose writers of our country. It has flooded the country with free\nliterature, and has furnished to thousands of ministers its standard\nworks without money and without price. No movement ever seemed to have\nsuch mighty agencies back of it to insure its rapid spread. And yet,\nafter a century of effort, what do we see as the result? Only a few\nhundred churches, most of which are numerically weak and enlist only a\ncertain class of people.\n\nMy conviction of the depressing, devitalizing and disintegrating effect\nof Unitarianism has been intensified through my recent experience in\nevangelistic work in New England. The rationalistic liberalism of\nUnitarianism has largely permeated New England Protestantism. It was\nnot an accident that it was in New England, where, to a large body of\nclergymen, a speaker declared, with applause, that \"Protestantism is\ndecaying and will soon be displaced by a new form of Catholicism.\" Here\nProtestantism is indeed decaying through its contact with Unitarian\nteaching, and is already largely displaced by old Catholicism and new\nChristian Science and other antichristian delusions. Nowhere else did I\never see Protestant churches so saturated with worldly pleasures and so\nindifferent about the salvation of souls. It was here I had the\nhumiliating experience of sitting in a union Thanksgiving service where\nthe preacher called the Pilgrim Fathers _religious fanatics_, and spoke\nof words writers of the Pentateuch put into the mouth of Moses to give\nthem influence with the people. Yet I never saw a sign of disapproval\nin the audience or heard a word of criticism. It is true he was a\nUniversalist preacher, but that makes it all the worse. To think that\nProtestantism has so degenerated in a New England city that a preacher\nwho does not believe in the divinity of Christ nor in the inspiration\nof the Bible should be appointed to represent it on such an occasion.\nIt is enough to make the Pilgrim Fathers turn in their graves and groan\nfor pain. Had present-day Protestantism of New England a fraction of\nthe moral and spiritual earnestness that the Pilgrim Fathers possessed,\nit might have been spared the abject humility of sprawling in weakness\nbefore the same vaunting religious intolerance of Catholicism that\nthrough cruel and bloody persecution drove the Pilgrim Fathers to \"the\nbleak New England shore\" for safety and religious liberty.\n\nWhen a prominent Catholic recently aped the Protestant clergymen by\ndeclaring that Protestantism is decaying, the preacher at Tremont\nTemple called it a \"damnable lie.\" This is a hopeful sign, and\nindicates that the sick man is not dead yet. It shows that at least\nsome think it is not true, or wish it not true; and if enough\n get a strong desire that it shall not be true, it will not be true.\nWhen we renounce rationalism and its products it will not be true.\n\nAt a meeting of one of the leading ministerial associations of New\nEngland, at which the writer was present, the speaker of the day\ndeclared that the church has been claiming too much for itself. The\ncontents of the speech indicated that he had reference to its claim of\nsupernatural power to transform the sinner. He also said he had given\nup the effort to reconcile the first chapters of the Bible with\nscience. The significance is in the fact that some Protestants\nacquiesce in such teaching, and that they are in harmony with the\ndoctrines of Unitarianism.\n\nAlthough its advocates must admit that Unitarianism is a monumental\nfailure in organizing churches, it is their boast that it has\npowerfully affected other religious bodies. This fact we admit; but as\nthe effect is devitalizing, disorganizing and ultimately demoralizing,\nwe consider the result the crowning shame rather than the crowning\nglory of Unitarianism.\n\nThat the liberal theology resulting from rationalism and championed in\nthis country by Unitarianism is merely negative and destructive, is\nevidenced on every hand. Dr. Pearson, in the _Missionary Review_, has\nrecently pointed out its fatal effects in the mission fields, and still\nmore recently it has been compelled to confess its own defeat in\nGermany, where it originated and where it has found its chief support.\nThe evidence of this is found in the _Literary Digest_ of Feb. 25,\n1911, where we find the following:\n\n That \"liberal\" theology has made an almost utter failure in Germany\nis asserted by one of its leading spokesmen in a liberal religious\norgan. It consists too much of mere negation, he thinks, and has no\nstrong faith in anything. The masses have rejected it, and the educated\nhave accepted it only in small numbers. Practically it is a failure,\nand he demands a reconstruction along new lines, with new ideals and\nnew methods. This courageous liberal is Rev. Dr. Rittelmeyer, of\nNuremberg, and he writes in the _Christliche Welt_ (Tubingen). Here are\nthe main points of his argument:\n\n\"Let us ask honestly what results modern theology has attained\npractically. As far as the great masses of workingmen are concerned,\npractically nothing has been gained. They either do not understand it\nor they distrust it. All the public discussions and popularization of\nmodern critical views have not found any echo or sympathy among the\nranks of the laboring people.\n\n\"And how about the educated classes? It has long since been the boast\nand hobby of advanced theology that it, and it alone, will satisfy the\nreligious longings of the educated man who has broken with the\ntraditional dogma and doctrines of orthodox Christianity. But what are\nthe actual facts in the case? It is a fact that there are a\nconsiderable number among the educated who thankfully confess that they\ncan accept Christianity only in the form in which it is taught by the\nadvanced theologian. But how exceedingly small this number is! A\nperiodical like the _Christliche Welt_, the only paper of its kind, has\nnot been able to secure more than five thousand subscribers, although\nits contributors are the most brilliant in the land of scholars and\nthinkers; while periodicals that are exponents of the older views are\nread by tens and even hundreds of thousands. There are whole classes of\nsociety among the educated who are antagonistic to liberal tendencies\nin religion. Among these are the officers in the army and the navy,\npractitioners of the technical arts and of engineering, and almost to a\nman the whole world of business. It is foolish to close our eyes to\nthese facts.\"\n\nWhat is the matter? asks this writer. What is the weakness of liberal\nand advanced theological thought? These are some of the answers:\n\n\"One trouble is that modern theology has entirely grown out of\ncriticism. Its weakness is intellectualism; it is a negative movement.\nWe can understand the cry of the orthodox, that advanced theology is\neliminating one thing after the other from our religious thought, and\nthen asks, What is left? True, we answer, God is left. But is it not\nthe case that the modern God-Father faith is generally a very weak and\nattenuated faith in a Providence, and nothing more? And on this\nsubject, too, we quarrel among ourselves, whether a God-Father troubles\nhimself about little things only or about great things too, such as the\nforgiveness of sins. We do the same thing with Jesus. We speak of him\nas of a unique personality, as the highest revelation of the Father,\nand the like, but always connected with a certain skeptical\nundercurrent of thought; but we do not appreciate him in his deepest\nsoul and in the great motives of his life. He is not for modern\ntheology what he is for orthodoxy, the Saviour of the world and the\nRedeemer of mankind.\"\n\n Quite naturally this open confession of a pronounced liberal\nattracts more than ordinary attention. The liberal papers, including\nthe _Christliche Welt_ itself, pass it by without further comment, but\nthe conservatives speak out boldly. Representative of the latter is the\n_Evangelische Lutherische Kirchenzeitung_, of Leipzig, which says:\n\n \"The psychological and spiritual solution of Rittelmeyer's problem\nis not so hard to find. The soul of man can not live on negations. To\nstir the soul there must be positive principles and epoch-making\nhistorical facts, such as are offered by the Scriptural teachings of\nChrist and his words. There can be religious life only where there is\nfaith in him who is the truth and the life. Liberal theology has failed\nbecause it has nothing to offer.\"\n\n\nDr. Harnack, its great high priest, found it an unsatisfying portion,\nand, doubtless influenced by its failure, has resigned and turned his\nenergies into other channels.\n\nUnitarianism appeals almost entirely to the head and but little to the\nheart. It supplies a kind of abnormal stimulant to the intellect, but\nusually freezes out the emotions. It is like the arctic regions, where\nthey have six months of light, but no heat, and where consequently\nthere is no growth of any kind. It is broad, but really superficial and\nshallow. It is like a piece of rubber stretched over a wide surface; it\nis wide, but it becomes very thin. Emerson seemed to recognize how\nshallow rationalism makes people when he declared that \"a small\nconsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds--little philosophers,\nlittle statesmen and little divines.\" The finite mind cannot see the\nconsistency of the great and deep truths of life and God. To try to\ndeal with these great questions with human logic is like manipulating a\ncircle with a break in it. Each reasoner calls attention to the break\nin the circle of logic of others, but dexterously manipulates his own\ncircle so as to hide its missing link.\n\nRationalism is a delusion and a snare, and, when followed to its\nlogical conclusion, leads to absurdity and death. Fortunately, most\npeople who are tainted with this disease do not follow it to its\nlegitimate conclusions. Through preconceived and inherited ideas and\nsentimental inertia, they are held to their moorings. But,\nunfortunately, their pupils are not always thus protected. Many\npreachers who are held in their place by religious habits and\nassociations, give expression to rationalistic ideas that take lodgment\nin the minds of young men who are not surrounded with religious habits\nand associations to hold them; and who, following these rationalistic\nideas to their logical conclusion, are led to doubt and confusion. I\nbelieve that hundreds of thinking young men have been led away from\nChrist and the church in this way, all because they and their teacher\ndid not recognize the true character of rationalism and the proper\nfunctions and limitations of the finite intellect. Mansel gives a\nproper diagnosis of rationalism in the following words:\n\n \"The rationalist . . . assigns to some superior tribunal the right\nof determining what (in revelation) is essential to religion and what\nis not; he claims the privilege of accepting or rejecting any given\nrevelation, wholly or in part, according as it does or does not satisfy\nthe conditions of some higher criterion, to be supplied by human\nconsciousness.\" Rationalism proceeds \"by paring down supposed\nexcrescences. Commencing with a preconceived theory of the purpose of a\nrevelation, and of the form which it ought to assume, it proceeds to\nremove or reduce all that will not harmonize with this leading idea.\"\n\"Rationalism tends to destroy revealed religion altogether, by\nobliterating the whole distinction between the human and the divine. If\nit retain any portion of revealed truth, as such, it does so, not in\nconsequence, but in defiance, of its fundamental principle.\"\n\nBut while many ministers are not much injured apparently by their\nrationalistic taint, many others are, and all are more or less.\nEternity alone will reveal how much faith in God's Word, and therefore\nin God himself, has been weakened or destroyed by this dread mental\ndisease. Look at the destructive ravages of rationalistic criticism of\nthe Bible. The Unitarians have completed this work and have eliminated\nall the supernatural from the Divine Record. But it is the preachers in\nthe evangelical churches who are following the Unitarians afar off in\nthis matter, that are doing the most damage to the faith of Christ's\nfollowers. I have been there, and know how Unitarians look at this\nmatter. They point to these evangelical preachers as an evidence that\nthe entire religious world is rapidly coming to their position. On the\nother hand, they look at these preachers with pity and contempt because\nthey do not follow the thing to its logical conclusion, and drop the\nBible entirely as a supernatural revelation. And I believe the\nUnitarians are right in this. The same fundamental reasons that led the\nrationalistic critics in the evangelical churches to their present\nconclusions will inevitably and logically lead to the Unitarian\nconclusions, whenever preconceived ideas and inherited prejudices are\nsufficiently relaxed. When I first studied this question of destructive\nhigher criticism so called (it is often _hire_ criticism) from the\nrationalistic standpoint and under rationalistic guides, its\nconclusions seemed the most reasonable thing on earth. I wondered that\nI had not seen it myself long before, and I looked with pity upon the\ndeluded victims who did not see it. But after I was delivered from\nrationalism and my eyes were opened, I commenced to study the other\nside of the question and discovered where I was deceived.\n\nLet me give you a few samples of the reasoning of rationalistic\ncriticism as exhibited by its strongest advocates. Where it says that\nJesus walked upon the water, we were gravely informed that Jesus did\nnot walk upon the water at all. It happened to be a foggy morning and\nthe disciples were deceived; he was really walking on the shore. Where\nit says \"one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,\" we were\ninformed that the Greek word here means primarily to prick as with a\npin, to pave the way to belittle the wound of Jesus, despite the fact\nthat the narrative adds, \"straightway there came out blood and water.\"\nThe purpose of this was to make way for the _theory_ that Christ did\nnot die on the cross, but was simply in a lethargy, and when he came to\nin the tomb he pushed the stone away, and this so frightened the\nsoldiers that they took to their heels, thinking it was a ghost, while\nChrist escaped to the mountains, where he lived secretly the rest of\nhis life and finally died a natural death. All this without a scrap of\nhistorical basis, and despite the express declaration of the narrative\nthat an expert, who was sent by Pilate to ascertain if he was dead,\nreported that he was. This is so contrary to the facts of the\nnarrative, and the character of Jesus and his disciples, that it is\nharder to believe it than any miracle recorded in the Bible. Why these\nridiculous and absurd conclusions, despite the historical facts? Simply\nbecause of the necessity to get rid of the supernatural at the mandates\nof rationalism. To preserve such puerilities, the manuscripts were kept\nin a fire-proof vault lest fire should destroy them. The claims of\ndestructive criticism are so absurd and ridiculous, when looked at from\na truly scientific standpoint, that I confine myself in this book to\nexposing the erroneous viewpoint of rationalism, believing that when\nthat is done any one can easily see that there is nothing in it.\nBesides, its quibblings have been often and ably exposed by competent\nauthors and their works are accessible to all. That any one who claims\nto believe the Bible should give his time to teaching innocent and\nuninformed children and adults the conclusions of rationalistic\ncriticism seems almost too absurd to believe; and when it is done under\nthe pretense of honoring the Bible, it is but another illustration of\nhow our moral and intellectual vision can be warped and distorted when\nwe look through the colored glasses of rationalism and bias.\n\nIt is said that a minister kept telling his congregation that different\nparts of the Bible were myths, legends, etc., and not historical. One\nof his members cut out of her Bible every section he said was not true.\nWhen he made a pastoral call she showed him her mutilated Bible. Upon\nhis remonstrance, she replied that he had said that these parts were\nnot reliable, and so she did not want them as a part of her Bible. He\nwas shocked at his own vandalism.\n\nI have shown that the same rationalistic objections that are brought\nagainst facts revealed in the Bible can be brought against facts\nrevealed in nature. The only sensible thing to do is to recognize the\nlimitations of our finite intellects and accept all well-authenticated\nfacts, whether revealed in the Bible or in nature. We must learn that\nin the very nature of things our finite minds cannot fully grasp and\ncomprehend the infinite. Therefore we have God's revelation in the\nBible, which, though not the product of the human intellect, fully\nsatisfies its every reasonable demand.\n\nWe have also learned that man has by nature strong religious emotions,\nwhich, if exercised, give great joy and peace. Even unguided by\nrevelation, they grope after God with the help of the finite intellect.\nThese emotions are blind and were never intended to give us light. They\nare a source of great joy and power, but must be guided and filled by\ndivine revelation to be properly exercised. The neglect of this fact\nhas led to all kinds of mysticism and fanaticism. And while this is\nbetter and more helpful than cold rationalism, it is nevertheless an\nunsafe guide, and does more harm than good to humanity. Faithfulness\ncompels me to say that, as rationalism, so mysticism has found its way\ninto the evangelical churches and has done much to rob God's Word of\nits power and to divide Christ's followers into warring camps. The\nreligion that does not thoroughly enlist, exercise and sanctify the\nhuman emotions is not worth having; but we are not to believe every\nspirit, but to try the spirits by the Word of God. Let us lay aside our\n\"think-so's\" and \"feel-so's,\" and let us turn to the revelation that\ncomes from above, that our intellects may be flooded with light and our\nemotions may be submerged in God's love, so that our entire\nbeing--body, mind and soul--may be filled, occupied and sanctified to\nthe glory of Christ.\n\nWith the Unitarian movement that started at the beginning of the last\ncentury, with so many human instrumentalities back of it, let us\ncompare the Apostolic church which was started in the first third of\nthe first century by a handful of poor, illiterate and despised\nGalileans. Although the wealth and culture and political power of the\nworld were all against them, at the end of the century we are told that\nthey numbered five hundred thousand.\n\nAgain let us compare with Unitarianism, this modern movement for the\nrestoration of primitive Christianity which started somewhat later than\nUnitarianism. Its reproach in the eyes of men--that it has no\nliterature--is its glory in the eyes of God; for the Bible is its\nliterature. Its work has been done chiefly among and through the common\npeople. At the end of the century it numbered among its adherents more\nthan a million and a quarter. While sectarian churches numerically much\nstronger report meager increases and even decreases, it reports an\naverage of over forty thousand increase for the last several years.\n\nThe experiences narrated in this chapter have made real to me the\nbelief that God is in every act of our life. That through his loving\ncare, \"all things work together for good to them that love God.\" When I\nthink of how, in his providence, he took me away from the community and\nreligion of my early neighbors and brought me in a mysterious way to a\nreligion and people I had never heard of, I am overwhelmed with the\nevidence of his hand in it.\n\nTo the honest doubter I would say, take courage, my brother, the Lord\nwill lead you, in his providence, to the way, the truth and the life. I\ncan testify that he brings the spiritually blind by a way that they\nknew not and leads them in paths they have not known. He makes darkness\nlight before them and crooked things straight, and will not forsake\nthem if they continue to sincerely seek for light until he has\naccomplished his purpose concerning them and brought them to the feet\nof Jesus.\n\nTo those out of Christ I will say, that I have tasted and seen that the\nLord is good. After having tried both, I have found a hundred times\nmore real pleasure in than out of Christ. And while I am yet tied to\nclay and suffer many things through the weakness of the flesh, so that\nI groan within myself and long to be entirely delivered from this\nbondage of death, yet I am filled with love, peace, joy and power\nthrough the earnest of the Spirit dwelling in me, and I serve Jesus\npatiently, waiting for the hope set before me, even the coming of our\nSaviour, when this corruptible, mortal body shall be changed into the\nlikeness of the glorified body of Jesus, and I shall be with him and\nshall be like him. Oh, how this hope fills my being with love and joy\nunspeakable! Will you come and accept this salvation? In the Saviour's\nname, who died to purchase it for you, we bid you come. _Come while it\nis called to-day!_\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nMY PARTING MESSAGE TO THE UNITARIAN SCHOOL.\n\n\nDuring my third year at the Meadville Unitarian Theological School,\nafter I became thoroughly convinced that the Unitarian position was\nuntenable, and I had found my way back to Christ, it so happened that\nit was my turn to read a paper and to preach to the school, as the\nmembers of the higher classes preached before the school in turn. In\nthese parting messages I frankly and sincerely presented my change of\nviewpoint, and argued against the Unitarian position as strongly as I\ncould at the time. The school is open, on equal terms, to anybody\nwishing to study for the ministry, no matter what their views, or what\nreligious body they belong to. Everybody is supposed to be perfectly\nfree to hold and express his honest religious opinions. In the spirit\nof this generosity, I patiently listened to all the school could offer\nme in presenting what it believed to be the truth, and gratefully\naccepted every help it could give me in my search for the truth. I felt\nI was acting in entire harmony with the spirit of the founders of the\ninstitution when I used the knowledge and culture imparted to me in\nkindly contending for the truth as I saw it, even when it was against\nthe truth as held by the teachers of the school.\n\nMost of my sermon on \"The Proper Method of Inquiry in Religion\" has\nbeen lost or mislaid. But I have the paper read before the school, and\nthe last part of the sermon. I give these here because it shows how the\nmatter looked to me at that time, and how I treated it in the presence\nof the keen, intellectual audience of students and professors.\n\nThe professor of homiletics, who read and criticised all sermons before\nthey were preached, rather took me to task for my bold attack upon\nUnitarianism, but he admitted to me that, although he had preached and\ntaught it for more than a score of years, there were yearnings in his\nsoul that it did not satisfy. The sermon was listened to with great\nrespect and sympathy, especially by the more conservative students.\nAbout ten years later I received a letter from a young Unitarian\nminister in Massachusetts who referred to the sermon, and said he had\nnever forgotten it, but was often reminded in his experience of how\ntrue it was, especially in what I said about the coldness and\nfruitlessness of Unitarianism.\n\nAlthough the matter in this paper and sermon is largely the same as\nthat in the previous chapter, I present it because, as the line of\nthought is out of the ordinary and somewhat difficult to the general\nreader, its repetition in this conversational style will help to get a\nbetter grasp of the deadly delusions of rationalism. Truth usually has\nto be repeated in various ways before it gets a thorough hold upon the\naverage mind. Therefore \"precept must be upon precept, precept upon\nprecept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a\nlittle\" (Isa. 28:10).\n\n_A Religious Discussion Between Mr. Liberal, Mr. Orthodox and Mr.\nFreethinker_.\n\nSCENE.--Ocean of Life. STEAMBOAT.--Experience.\n\n[The three above-named persons had made each other's acquaintance, and\nhad engaged in discussions with each other on several occasions. They\nnow seat themselves in a group on deck and enter upon the following\ndiscussion.]\n\n_Mr. Liberal_--The great objection to your religion, Mr. Orthodox, is\nthat it violates reason and conscience. To be more specific, let us\nconsider a few instances. There is your doctrine of eternal punishment,\nin which you ascribe fiendish qualities to our dear heavenly Father\nsuch as the most savage human being could not be capable of. Then, take\nyour doctrine of the Trinity, around which most of your dogmas cluster,\nand we see at once that it violates the simplest postulates of reason.\nI know that you will answer that these are all mysteries which are to\nbe accepted on faith. But it is perfectly clear that there is no\nmystery about it. It is as clear as daylight that three cannot be one.\nYou talk about mysteries which we must accept by faith, but all such\ntalk is nonsense and ignores our sacred reason. The idea of getting\nover all difficulties by declaring them mysteries, and exhorting your\nopponents to leap over them by the exercise of faith, is truly, as some\none has said, \"a touchstone for whole classes of explanations based on\nno evidence.\" You orthodox people are the cause of all the infidelity\nthat is afloat in the land. People come in contact with your irrational\nand ridiculous claims, and, taking them as religion itself, they throw\noverboard the whole business, the good with the bad. What we need is a\npure and simple religion that will satisfy man's reason and conscience\nas well as his heart. And we do not have to go far for such a religion,\nfor we find it in the liberal faith which it is my privilege to\nrepresent. Let us compare our grand, simple and rational beliefs with\nyour irrational, absurd and mysterious products of the Dark Ages, and\nsee what a contrast there is between them. Instead of your \"Son is God,\nFather is God, Holy Spirit is God; yet there are not three Gods, but\nonly one,\" we have the simple faith in one heavenly\nFather--all-powerful, all-wise and all-good. No mystery about it. It\nwould be absurd to suppose that such a God could punish his children to\neternity, or that He would require the suffering of the innocent to\nenable him to forgive the guilty. Then, of course, we reject all the\nabsurd dogmas clustering around your conception of the Trinity. The\nsimple belief in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man is\nenough for us. Instead of your endless punishment, we have the\nreasonable belief that the Father punishes simply to bring us good, so\nthat our joy may be greater. This is all perfectly simple, and can be\nunderstood by the uneducated man as well as by the philosopher.\n\n_Mr. Orthodox_--It is an easy thing to make charges; and, as they are\nusually made in sweeping terms, it frequently requires hours of time\nand much explanation to answer the charges made in a few minutes, even\nwhen the charges are false. I shall endeavor to defend myself, but must\nbeg you to give me sufficient time to make myself understood. In the\nfirst place, I claim, as you say, that you cannot understand all the\nmysteries about religious doctrines. They must, to a large extent, be\naccepted by faith. And I claim that it is more reasonable to accept\nthem by faith than to reject them on the ground that you cannot\nunderstand them. This may seem ridiculous to you, but wait until I\nexplain myself further. Take eternal punishment. You say that man is a\nfree agent, and that through his free agency he is able to bring evil\nand punishment upon himself. You say that God has so ordained because\nit is best for man that he should be left free, even though he becomes\nliable to suffer because of it, as it will be for his final good. In\nother words, you claim that God does punish his children for their own\ngood. It seems perfectly just to you that God should punish a person\nbecause he is a free agent, but when we say that man can bring eternal\npunishment upon himself through his free agency, then you think it\nridiculous, although the principle is exactly the same and the only\ndifference is that of degree. But I see that I must be more general in\nmy statements or I will not get far. You bring a host of other charges\nagainst us, either directly or by implication. You say that yours is a\npure and simple religion that can be understood by uneducated people as\nwell as by philosophers. Here we get at the very heart of the\ndifference between us. It is true that your doctrines are _very\nsimple,_ but that is their chief demerit. _They_ are simple, but the\nfacts that they attempt to deal with are very complex. To declare that\nreligious problems are simple is to go counter to the expressed\nopinions of the great thinkers of all ages. Such questions as evil,\ngood, life, immortality, free will, God, and a host of others, are\ndecidedly complex.\n\nThey are largely inscrutable and have always been considered so. And\nyet all the complex realities of life and death which have defied the\ntheologians and philosophers of all ages, you now tell us are very\nsimple, and you carry the simple solution around with you only too glad\nto give it free to everybody. Why is it that all of the thousands of\nworried and distressed souls don't come flocking to you? Why is it that\nthe philosophers and thinkers don't come rushing in from all\ndirections, to get from you the truths they have so long sought after?\nWhy is it that the uneducated masses do not come to you and accept your\nsimple doctrines which they can so easily understand? I know that you\nare ready with a charge of ignorance, prejudice, self-interest, etc.,\nbut I claim that as a rule your charges do not charge. You, believing\nin an all-wise, all-good and all-powerful God, who is Truth itself,\nmust believe in the triumph of truth; and here I agree with you. I\nbelieve that just as soon as truth is brought in contact with error the\nlatter will have to vanish just as sure as the darkness vanishes when a\nlight is brought into a room. Error may apparently linger because of\npeculiar circumstances which we are ignorant of, but as soon as truth\nhas a fair chance of coming directly in contact with error, the victory\nis won. I claim, therefore, that the reason that your explanations are\nnot accepted, is because they do not explain. Your doctrines offer\nprotection to a small part of the man, but leave all the rest exposed\nto the cold and inclement weather. The uneducated do not accept your\ndoctrines because they belie their own experiences.\n\n_Mr. Freethinker_--I hope you will pardon me for interrupting you, Mr.\nOrthodox. You are getting too hot. I think it will be better for you to\ncool off before you continue, and in the meantime I will have my say.\nThat is the greatest objection I have to you religionists--you are all\nfanatics. You get an idea into your head, and then think that the\ncontinuance of the world depends upon you thrusting it into everybody's\nface. Of course you are willing to suffer for your doctrines, and even\nto die for them if need be, but that is the way with all fanatics. Your\nfoolish notions give occasion for amusement to cool-headed free\nthinkers, who see perfectly well that they are all the result of\nself-delusion. I believe in keeping perfectly cool; in always keeping\nthe head as high above the heart as it is in the body. I don't believe\nin attacking a man from behind while he is engaged by another in front,\nbut, during the time Mr. Orthodox is cooling off, I wish to show you,\nMr. Liberal, wherein I differ from you. Your great appeal is to reason,\nand I agree with you entirely on that point; but I don't arrive at your\nconclusions. You have been fixing your eyes on the monstrous outrage of\nreason in your brother's position so steadfastly, and yours is so much\nmore in accordance with reason, that it is not surprising that you\nshould have failed to see the irrationality of your own position.\nFurthermore, you have had a great deal of inherited prejudice to\novercome, and a man cannot be expected to get rid of all those at once,\nespecially when they have reference to the heart or feelings. You say\nthat your God is all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. The inevitable,\nlogical conclusion from that is that such a God would give his children\nan infinitely small amount of evil and an infinitely large amount of\ngood. But such is not the case; therefore, to keep that jewel of\nrationalism which is so dear to you, you must give up your belief in\nsuch a God. Just wait a minute! I know that you are ready to give a lot\nof quibbling that will satisfy some people who follow their prejudices\nand inherited feelings, but I defy the whole world of logicians to show\nthat such a conclusion is less logical than the claim that there can be\nthree in one. You say that it is in the nature of things that God must\ngive us evil that we may enjoy good the more afterwards. But if you\nclear yourself from all prejudice, you will see that this is the old\nmethod of the ostrich of putting its head under the sand and imagining\nthat its entire body is protected. Nay, even worse than that, you don't\neven protect your head. Any man that gives clear sweep to his reason\nwill see that if God must comply with certain conditions, then he is\nnot all-powerful If he is all-powerful, he can give us all good without\nany evil, and if he is all-good it would logically follow that he will\ndo so. Then, again, while affirming that man is a free agent, you at\nthe same time claim that every effect must have a cause, or that\nsomething cannot come out of nothing. Now, the reconciliation of these\ntwo facts has ever defied the reason of mankind. And those that have\nadopted the belief in free will have confessed that reason did not lead\nthem to that conclusion, but experience. On the other hand, the logical\nconclusion is inevitable that man cannot be free. I know that people\nhave endeavored to satisfy themselves to the contrary, and I know that\nsome have really succeeded in deceiving themselves so far as to believe\nthat they could logically hold to it; but I declare that they have\nnever succeeded in convincing any unprejudiced mind, and I defy any\nlogician to prove that the conclusion of free will as consistent with\neternal causation, is less absurd than that two and two make five.\n\nAgain, you preach that what a man sows, that also shall he reap. If\nthat is true, then no person can really give him anything; therefore\nphilanthropy is a delusion. Now, then, Mr. Liberal, you want to be\nreasonable and drop the false position to which your inherited\nprejudices have held you, and adopt my views, which are thoroughly\nsimple and entirely consistent and logical. Belief in God is the\nproduct of superstition, and belief in free will is a self-delusion. I\nknow that you will appeal to intuition in this case, but that is only a\nscapegoat for deluded and illogical minds to hide behind. You see that\nmy conclusion is not only simple and logical, but it is really more\nbeautiful than your complex affair, and you will see it as such after\nyou succeed in overcoming your inherited prejudices. There is no God.\nThe universe is governed by blind law; at least, that is all we know\nabout it. We are evolved from the lowest forms of organic life. What\nabout conscience? Well, that is a matter of education. Of course we\nshould follow it, because it is a safer guide than our present\njudgment, since it represents the judgment of all our ancestors.\nUtility is our only standard of right and wrong in morals, and we\nfollow utility because we are not free and are therefore compelled to\ndo so.\n\n_Mr. Orthodox_--If you are through, Mr. Freethinker, I will now\ncontinue. But I must consider myself your opponent as well as Mr.\nLiberal's. In the first place, I must admit that you are thoroughly\nconsistent with yourself as far as you go. But, my dear fellow, where\ndoes your consistency lead you to? You claim to be a freethinker, and\nyet you conclude that you are an entire slave and even think as you do\nbecause you cannot help it.\n\nI stated at the beginning of my reply to Mr. Liberal that many\nreligious facts must be accepted without thoroughly understanding them,\nand claimed that it is reasonable to so accept them. I will now\nendeavor to explain myself more fully. It seems to me that if anything\nhas been proven, it is that our logical reason is not always a safe\nguide. For example, we cannot conceive of an end to divisibility of\nspace; and therefore we cannot conceive how we can reach a given point.\nNow, practice gives the lie to this conclusion, and if some rationalist\nshould follow his reason here, he would conclude that he can never get\na piece of food into his mouth; or, in other words, the logical\nconclusion would lead to starvation. I know that some will deny this as\na logical conclusion to get out of the difficulty. But I could never\nsee it as otherwise than logical, and I have a goodly list of thinkers\nwho have reached the same conclusion before me. Again, it is admitted\nby all thinkers of all ages that our reason tells us that there cannot\nbe existence without beginning, or, on the other hand, there can be no\nbeginning of existence without something existing before to cause its\nexistence.\n\nThe conclusion is that inconceivability is not an infallible proof of\nthe absence of a fact, and that we must follow our experience even if\nit conflicts with our reason. This is what we claim to do in religion.\nWhether experience is the sole source of knowledge is a question we\nneed not discuss here. It is certainly the only safe method in most\nthings. For example, I wish to know what will cure a certain disease.\nSuppose that I find a medicine that has cured every case in which it\nhas been administered. Would it not be irrational for me to refuse to\nuse that medicine because I cannot conceive how it effects the cure? Of\ncourse it might be possible that the medicine did not effect the cure;\nthat it was the belief in its curative power that produced the effect.\nCases have frequently occurred where a thing was for a long time\nbelieved to be the cause, while future investigation proved that it was\nsome other attendant circumstance that was the real cause. But if our\nexperience is that a given medicine cures a certain disease invariably,\nand that no other known medicine will cure it, we would be foolish not\nto use that medicine. The same is true in religion. If we wish to\naccomplish certain results and we have found a way in which those\ndesirable results can be brought about, and know of no other way to\nbring them about; it would be irrational not to adopt that way, or\nfollow out the requirements of that theory. I told you, Mr. Liberal,\nthat your theory or doctrine was too simple. This is still more true of\nour friend, Mr. Freethinker. You claim to hold very broad, liberal and\nenlightened views. But although they are broad, they are not deep\nenough. They are stretched out over the surface merely, and thus hide\nfrom your view the great ocean of reality below. Yes, you have an\nabundance of light, but not enough heat. In the polar regions they have\nsix months of light in one stretch, but no one would think of starting\na garden there, as there is not enough heat. To the cold reason of some\nbachelor it is perfectly clear and indisputable that the young lover is\na deluded fool and should follow his reason by never marrying. But I\nfondly believe that young lover sees the true worth of one human soul,\nand gives us an idea of the worth we shall see in all souls when we\nshall cease to see through a glass darkly. As the bachelor does not\ntouch the reality in his case, so I believe that our friend, Mr.\nFreethinker, does not touch the great ocean of reality in religion. We\nare convinced by experience that man is free, and that nevertheless\neternal causation does exist. We believe these to be two co-ordinate\ntruths and we are willing to wait until we can solve the mystery; but\nin the meantime we wish to make use of the practical belief in both\ntruths. People are convinced that there is a God who deals out exact\njustice; yet they are also convinced from experience that there is a\nGod who is love who forgives the penitent sinner. That one God can\npossess both of these qualities seems as impossible as that three Gods\ncan be in one God. And yet people are convinced that no other theory\nwill explain their complex experiences, and that living according to no\nother theory will enable them to get the desirable results that they\nknow from experience that they do get. They may be mistaken; but it\nwill be time enough to consider that when some one has a theory that\nwill account better for all their various experiences. Well, you see my\npoint and I shall apply it no further. You see it is simply the\nprinciple that the empirical school of philosophy claims to employ, but\nwhich many of them employ only in the physical realm and fail to carry\ninto the spiritual or religious realm. They must admit that religious\nconvictions are and have been among the strongest, if not the\nstrongest, motive powers in the world's history. And thus their\nphilosophy of life leaves out the greatest pleasures and mightiest\nincentives to action found in life.\n\nBut Mr. Liberal and his friends would tell us that this all refers to\ntheology. That doctrines are of no account. That what we want is works.\nExactly, but don't you see that if after the afore-said experience you\nshould not form the theory that the given medicine cures the given\ndisease and act in accordance with the theory, the result would\nprobably be death instead of health and life? The question is, is it\ntrue to experience? Does it accomplish what it purposes to accomplish\nbetter than any other theory, and can that result be accomplished only\nby following the said theory? According to many authorities, most if\nnot all of our physical actions are performed according to a theory\nbased on induction as to facts in the physical world. Thus we arrive at\nthe conclusion that food nourishes our body because it has always been\nfound to do so. In the same way many people have, through experience\nand facts, come to believe in God who guides them and nourishes them\nspiritually.\n\nIf now we judge by fruits rather than by doctrines, or rather judge our\ndoctrines by their fruits, I claim that the orthodox doctrine is\nsuperior to yours, Mr. Liberal. In the first place, you admit that the\nlower ignorant classes you cannot reach, and you are greatly surprised\nthat they do not eagerly accept your _simple_ doctrines. It is not the\nwhole, but the sick, that need a physician. A religion that cannot help\nthose that need the greatest spiritual help cannot be the religion of\nChrist. But let us suppose that an intelligent foreigner who does not\nunderstand our language nor know our doctrines should attend our\nrespective churches and see the result produced--the pleasure taken in\ncoming and receiving our spiritual medicine. And making allowance for\nall other differences, should observe which helps most to make life\nworth living, and which makes the most and best changes in the\ncharacter of its adherents. He would have no trouble to discover that\northodoxy ministers more to the needy soul than your simple faith.\n\nYou, Mr. Liberal, talk about making infidels of people and drawing them\naway from the church, but I believe it would have been fortunate for\nyou if you had not mentioned this subject; because you, according to\nthe confession of your own men, have driven more people from the\nchurches than any religious body having a similar numerical strength.\nYou tell people to use their reason, and after you have drawn them out\nof the orthodox churches by that bait, they see that they must go\nfurther than your position to satisfy what you call reason, and they\nfind large numbers among you ready to lead them to that logical\nconclusion. It seems that the advocates of your liberal faith have\nalways believed that they were on the verge of accomplishing great\nvictories by drawing the multitudes to them; but as with the victim of\ntuberculosis, who imagines he is getting better all the\n time, it is always expectancy and never realization. If it is\nprejudice that prevents the spread of your belief, then it ought to\ngrow most in New England, where it has largely worn away prejudice. But\nthe facts seem to be that there it is growing the least comparatively;\nwhile out West, where it is a novelty and meeting with opposition, it\nis making the most progress. A person is almost tempted to conclude\nthat if it were not for the opposition of some mistaken people, who do\nnot realize your real error, your progress would come to an end at once.\n\nI believe, Mr. Liberal, that Mr. Freethinker has the best of you\nbecause he vanquished you according to your own method of inquiry. But\nyou are more nearly right according to the true method of inquiry. You\nsee it is the proper method of inquiry that I am contending for. A\nperson with the wrong method of inquiry in his head will only be\nrepulsed by poking dogmas at him and nothing can be done with him until\nhe has discovered the fallacy by following his method to absurdity, its\nnatural conclusion. After that he may be induced to follow the\nempirical method of inquiry with a demonstration that experience and\nwell-authenticated testimony are to be followed rather than rationalism.\n\nWhat follows is the last part of the sermon on \"The Proper Method of\nReligious Inquiry.\" Text: \"Prove all things; hold fast that which is\ngood.\"\n\nIt is not only important that we should appeal to our own experience in\ntrying to discover what is true in religion, but we should also take\ninto consideration the experiences of others. If a man, who is\npartially color blind, should base a science of color on his own\nexperience, it would necessarily be partial or incomplete. So if a\nclass of men, with certain peculiar traits, should build up a system of\ntheology on their religious experiences, it would necessarily be\npartial and not adequate for universal application. Suppose, for\nexample, that a number of persons with large reasoning powers, cold\ntemperaments, and very little religious feeling, should build up a\nreligious system on their experiences. Is it not perfectly clear that\nit would be partial and narrow? It would make no allowance at all for\npeople of strong religious experiences. While it might be of some use\nto these few people, it would never help the great bulk of humanity who\nneed the help of religion the most. To say that a religion is not for\nthe common people is to admit that it is narrow and not true to\nuniversal human nature. Certainly it is not Christian, for the common\npeople heard Jesus gladly; and they ever will hear gladly any one who\npreaches a religion that is true to their own religious experiences.\n\nIn trying to discover what is true in religion, we should also\ncarefully examine the religious experiences of all ages, as recorded in\ntheir religious writings. I shall here quote from an authority on this\npoint, because I think it of much value, and because it is not probable\nthat the writer was influenced by prejudice and preconceived ideas. I\nshall quote from John Stuart Mill's \"System of Logic,\" page 477: \"There\nis a perpetual oscillation in spiritual truths, and in spiritual\ndoctrines of any significance, even when not truths. Their meaning is\nalmost always in a process either of being lost or of being recovered.\nWhoever has attended to the history of the more serious convictions of\nmankind--of the opinion by which the general conduct of their lives is,\nor as they conceive ought to be, more especially regulated--is aware\nthat even when recognizing verbally the same doctrines, they attach to\nthem at different periods a greater or less quantity, and even a\ndifferent kind of meaning. The words in their original acceptation\nconnoted, and the propositions expressed, a complication of outward\nfacts and inward feelings, to different portions of which the general\nmind is more particularly alive in different generations of mankind. To\ncommon minds, only that portion of the meaning is in each generation\nsuggested, of which that generation possesses the counterpart in its\nhabitual experience. But the words and propositions lie ready to\nsuggest to any mind duly prepared to receive the remainder of the\nmeaning. Such individual minds are almost always to be found; and the\nlost meaning, revived by them, again by degrees works its way into the\ngeneral mind.\n\n\"The arrival of this salutary reaction may, however, be materially\nretarded by the shallow conceptions and incautious proceedings of mere\nlogicians. ... These logicians think more of having a clear, than of\nhaving a comprehensive, meaning; and although they perceive that every\nage is adding to the truth which it has received from its predecessors,\nthey fail to see that a counter process of losing, truths already\npossessed, is also constantly going on, and requiring the most sedulous\nattention to counteract it.\"\n\nBut, as a matter of fact, people have, as a rule, followed their\nexperiences in everything, despite the sneers and ridicules of the\nwould-be wise. People have planted their vegetables during the increase\nof the moon despite all ridicule and laughter. And in due time the wise\nmen came to their position, declaring that the sunlight reflected by\nthe moon helps the growth of vegetation. People in all ages have\nbelieved in faith cure under one form or another to the utter amazement\nof the intelligent physicians who made fun of them and pitied their\nignorance. But now, through the facts discovered by hypnotism and other\nmeans, the scientists are coming around and admitting that the old\nwomen were right, that the people really did get help from faith cure.\n\nIn religion, too, people have followed their experience, despite the\nsneers, ridicule and protests of wise men. And, on the whole, I have no\ndoubt that they are better off than if they had listened to the persons\nwho showed them that their beliefs, from a rationalistic standpoint,\nare false; and at the same time offered them beliefs that were about as\nridiculous from a logical standpoint, and which left out all the power\nand good of their own system of belief.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE FUNCTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE MIND.\n\n\nThe objections made to faith are by no means an effect of knowledge,\nbut proceed rather from ignorance of what knowledge is.--_Bishop\nBerkley._\n\nNo difficulty emerges in theology which has not previously emerged in\nphilosophy.--_Sir Wm. Hamilton._\n\nThe human mind inevitably and by virtue of its essential constitution\nfinds itself involved in self-contradictions whenever it ventures on\ncertain courses of speculation.--_Mansel._\n\nIn the last two chapters I presented the reasons that led me to\ninfidelity and back to Christ, as they appeared to me while in the\nthick of the conflict and soon after. In this and following chapters I\nwish to present the matter in the light that has come to me on the\nsubject up to the present date.\n\nAs will be noticed in the previous chapters, the external causes that\ndrove me to infidelity were the theology of creeds, sectarianism and\nthe apparent difficulties in the Bible and in religion. But the real\nunderlying cause was rationalism, or a failure to recognize the proper\nfunctions and limitations of the finite intellect. In later chapters, I\nshall show how I overcame the difficulties about creeds and speculative\ntheology and how I solved the problem of sectarianism by turning to\nChristian union on the primitive gospel. In this chapter I wish to\nspeak more definitely of rationalism or the subjective cause of my\ninfidelity. For, after all, the whole matter resolves itself into a\nquestion of psychology, or science of the mind. What is the profit of\nreading numerous books on the subject, _pro_ and _con_, so long as we\nare reading the books through colored glasses that deceive our vision\nand lead us to apply false tests as to what the truth in the matter is?\n\nThere must be some matters that require our prayerful and serious\nconsideration, when we observe how the most talented, scholarly, devout\nand honest of all ages have been divided into warring camps on\nquestions of religion, politics, medicine and science. Certainly truth\nis not divided; and there must be some mysterious, deceptive mental\npitfalls that have caused this Babel of confusion. When we count the\ncost of this warring conflict of the choicest spirits of the earth in\nwaste, failure, suffering, bloodshed and death, and contemplate the\ngain in prosperity, progress, happiness and conquest over ignorance and\nevil, that would have resulted had all the good been enabled to see\nalike, and thus unite on the truth, we cannot fail to be impressed with\nthe fact that this is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, theme\nthat has ever engaged the attention of mortal man. Well may we ask with\nPilate, \"What is truth?\" Or perhaps the more important question, \"How\ncan we discover what is truth?\" What is there in the nature of the mind\nthat side-tracks the wisest and best in their effort to know the truth?\nWhy was Paul, the conscientious, intellectual giant, so deceived that\nhe \"verily thought he was doing God service\" while destroying the best\nand holiest thing that had ever come to earth? Why did Cotton Mather\nand other saintly, scholarly Christians martyr innocent saints as\nwitches? Why did devout patriots of the North and South slaughter each\nother in cold blood? Why were the scientific theses written at Harvard\nduring forty years, all found out of date by Edward Everett Hale? Why\nare the intelligent and consecrated hosts of Christ wasting\nthree-fourths of their men and money through sectarian divisions? Why\nare the intelligent, patriotic citizens of America divided into two\ncamps on free silver and other issues when the truth and their interest\nare one, and by a united effort they could carry every election for\ntruth and righteousness? Common sense asks, Why? The interests of\nhumanity ask, Why? Love and compassion ask, _Why?_ I believe we must\nfind the answer chiefly in the failure to understand clearly the nature\nand functions of the mind.\n\nThe Nature of Conscience.\n\nTurn, for example, to conscience. What is its nature? Is it a safe\nguide? Does it always tell us what is right? Why has conscience fought\non both sides of every great historical conflict? Surely we should stay\nthis awful, pitiable and destructive conflict of the conscientious; at\nleast, long enough to examine most earnestly into the cause of this\nstrange and disastrous puzzle. If conscience is not a safe guide, then\nwoe betide us; for it is the only moral guide we have, or, at least,\nthe only avenue through which human and divine truth can guide us. For\nit is the moral nature itself.\n\nThe eye without light cannot see, but if we are lost in a forest, the\neye becomes helpless as a guide, even if there is light. Yet the eye is\na safe guide, and in bodily movements it is essentially the only guide\nwe have. We thus learn that to exercise their function the eyes must\nhave light and knowledge of the localities in which they are to act as\na guide. What the eyes are in guiding our bodily movements, that the\nconscience is in guiding our moral actions. But as the eyes without\nlight and knowledge are helpless as a guide, so conscience without love\nand truth is a blind monster. There is conscience and _conscience_. And\nas long as we use the term ambiguously and fail to discriminate between\nconscience proper and the term as used in the looser, larger sense, we\nwill have nothing but confusion. Conscience proper is simply the\nimpulse of the soul that urges us to do right as we see the right. We\ndo not deny that it also embodies the basic element in the soul that\nenables us to discover what is right; but our conviction as to what is\nright is dependent upon knowledge acquired through other faculties.\nWhen we speak of conscience in the loose and general sense, we refer to\nboth of these elements. In this sense conscience is the product of a\nnumber of faculties working together. Thus when we talk about following\nconscience, we mean following the voice of our moral nature, or the\nconvictions of the highest and best aspirations in our soul. Conscience\nshould always be followed as a guide in both its proper and larger\nsense; but as an impulse to do what we believe to be right, it is\ninfallible, while as a guide to knowledge of what is right, it is\nfallible and liable to lead us into all kinds of folly and error.\n\nWhile, therefore, we should always follow our conscience, or our\nhighest conviction of what is right, we should assiduously probe our\nconscience day by day to seek for errors in the part that is dependent\nupon information. In other words, a truly conscientious person not only\nscrupulously does what he believes to be right; but he also constantly\nstrives to get all the truth, that his conscience may be enlightened\nmore and more. To follow our conscience, therefore, in searching for\nand obeying the truth, is our highest duty to God, and it is the _sine\nqua non_ of acceptance with him. This is the \"love of the truth\" (2\nThess. 2:10), \"the good and honest heart\" (Luke 8:15), through which\nthe gospel becomes fruitful. To refuse to follow our conscience, or\nhighest light of duty, as revealed in the Bible or from any other\nsource, is treason toward God in whose image we were morally created;\nand such persons forfeit heaven, no matter how faultless their outward\nacts may be. With God it is a matter of the inner motive, as the entire\nBible reveals. The man who lives a respectable life outwardly, but\nfails to meet his inner moral obligations, is not a good moral man, but\na hypocrite. Therefore no man can ever be saved without morality in the\nfull and true sense of the word. Conscience, then, enlightened by\ntruth, is the voice of God to the soul. The Proverb says, \"The spirit\nof man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all the inward parts\" (Prov.\n20:27), while in Rom. 2:14-16 we read: \"For when Gentiles that have not\nthe law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law,\nare the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law\nwritten in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith,\nand their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them; in\nthe day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my\ngospel, by Jesus Christ.\"\n\nGod wants us to follow our present conviction of duty until by\ninvestigation we discover a better one. Thus God guides the individual\nin his conduct through his conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit\n(Rom. 9:1). But this guidance is only for the individual. It has a\nfallible element in it that needs to be improved by constant and\nvigilant readjustment as the individual increases his knowledge and\nsharpens his conscience by exercise (Rom. 12:2). Alas! how much\nmischief has come from neglect of these facts. How many have tried to\nthrust the leadings of their conscience on others, in and out of\ncreeds. Again, how many good people have become self-righteous and\ndespised those who differed from them because they mistook matters of\nopinion and expediency as matters of conscience, through failing to\nrecognize the fallible, variable element in their conscience. How\nfoolish we act if we do not keep in mind these distinctions. The\ninfidel who claimed that he was unhappy because he knew too much, and\nthat Christians are happy because they are deluded, and then\npromulgated his misery-producing doctrine for conscience' sake, is an\nillustration of the absurdity into which a sensitive but perverted\nconscience will lead a person. But yesterday I met a very conscientious\nyoung man who left the ministry because he could not agree, with\nmembers of the church he was serving, on matters of expediency. On my\ntable lies a letter recently received from a young man who graduated\nfor the ministry last spring, but through doubts, similar to those I\nformerly experienced, left the ministry for conscience' sake. This\nunhappiness of doubters and this testimony of their consciences, even\nwhile they hold opinions that logically rob conscience of any\nauthority, should cause every one to think; and is strong evidence that\nskepticism is unnatural and fundamentally wrong. I followed rationalism\ninto infidelity for conscience' sake. I gave up belief in the\nmiraculous and supernatural in the Bible _for conscience' sake_. But\nafter the rationalists had driven me to this bitter end, through my\nsensitive conscience, I was gravely informed that conscience was a mere\ncreature of education and therefore should only be followed\nconditionally.\n\nI discovered sufficient truth in this claim to open my eyes to the fact\nthat I had been deceived and had followed the fallible part of my\nconscience, which is a creature of education, as though it were\ninfallible and the voice of God.\n\nIt will be noticed that eternal life depends on the infallible element\nof conscience, while stupendous, yet only mundane, interests depend\nupon its fallible element. This is a mystery that perplexes a great\nmany people. Is ignorance an excuse? Does it not matter what you\nbelieve, just so you are honest? The highest and best thing anybody can\never do, is to follow his conscience, or the voice of his highest moral\nand spiritual nature. This the teaching of Scripture from Genesis to\nRevelation. To teach that God would damn a soul for doing this is\ndestructive of all moral distinctions, and is as abominable as the old\ndoctrine that God elects certain people and damns others irrespective\nof their thoughts and conduct. Ignorance is an excuse if it is\n_innocent ignorance_. What about those who are willfully ignorant? or\nthose who have a seared conscience? They are not following their\nconscience at all. Conscience insists that we make every possible\neffort to get the truth. By a seared conscience we mean a person who\ndoes not follow his conscience at all, and he knows it.\n\nWe know that ignorant innocence is an excuse in the sight of God, but\nwe do not know who is innocently ignorant. The former fact is revealed\nto us in the Bible, but the latter is known only to God. Therefore in\nthese matters we should \"judge nothing before the time, until the Lord\ncome, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make\nmanifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall each man have his\npraise from God\" (I Cor. 4:5).\n\nNothing has ever been revealed more clearly in the Bible than that\ninnocent ignorance is an excuse in the sight of God. The cities of\nrefuge and the entire ceremonial law were based upon this fact. Christ\nsaid, \"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do\" (Luke\n23:34). James says, \"To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not,\nto him it is sin\" (Jas. 4:17). In Acts 17:30 we read, \"The times of\nignorance therefore God overlooked.\" In the second chapter of Romans\nPaul makes it clear that each person shall be judged by the light that\ncomes to him, whether in or out of the law or of the gospel. Heathen\npeople, who never heard the gospel, will not be condemned for rejecting\nthe gospel, but for rejecting the light that came to them through their\nconscience and through other sources. \"For this is the condemnation,\nthat light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than\nlight, because their deeds were evil\" (John 3:19). But we will be\ncondemned if we do not do all in our power to bring the gospel to the\nheathen.\n\nWe need not worry about the pious, conscientious peoples scattered\namong the sectarian churches; but we need to worry lest we do not do\nall in our power to make it impossible for them to remain pious and\nconscientious while upholding sectarianism. It is our duty to help them\nto understand the Word; and if, after they understand it, they refuse\nto obey it, they are under condemnation. But we cannot and dare not\ndecide whether they understand it or not. It is ours to preach the\nWord, and it will judge them in that Great Day.\n\nThe ground or mainspring of conscience is love--love of the well-being\nor welfare of all sentient beings, or of all beings capable of enjoying\nhappiness. Our conscience goads us to do what love demands as our duty.\nHe who, through want of discrimination, ignores the love element in\nconscience, becomes a cruel misanthrope, and is misguided by a\nperverted conscience. May the Lord help us to clear up our minds on\nthis subject of conscience so that this divine light may lead us onward\nand upward towards perfection in holiness; and that this eye of the\nmoral nature may not be deprived of love and knowledge and thus\nflounder around like a blind giant spreading misery and suffering\neverywhere.\n\nThe Feelings or Emotions.\n\nPsychology divides the mind into intellect, sensibilities and will.\nThis is doubtless a valuable classification in a general way. But the\nclassification is very general and indefinite. Indeed, school\npsychology has confined itself almost entirely to a consideration of\nthe _general operations_ of the mind and has given us very little light\non the classification of the mental faculties. The limited attempts at\nclassification have varied considerably according to the subjective\nmake-up of the author, as the classifications were based on\nintrospection.\n\nWhile the deductive, axiomatic or intuitive, scholastic or\nintrospective methods of inquiry prevailed in the intellectual world,\nsystems of philosophy, psychology and theology were built up according\nto the peculiar subjective nature of their author, and held the field\nuntil some other strong mind projected its views of the subject and\nthus rivaled or supplanted the other systems. It was the modern\ninductive or empirical method of investigation, introduced by Bacon,\nLocke, Mill and others, that has put knowledge on a real scientific\nbasis and has led to the marvelous scientific and material progress of\nrecent times. I believe the time is not far distant when the old\nmedieval, introspective psychology of the schools will be displaced by\na more scientific system. All that is of value in the old system will\nbe retained, but the most valuable psychological knowledge will come\nfrom the new system. That this need is generally recognized by those\nwho have given the matter most attention, is evidenced by the words of\nthat prince of modern psychologists, Professor James, when he says, \"At\npresent psychology is in the condition of physics before Galileo and\nthe laws of motion or of chemistry before Lavoisier.\" I believe that\nphrenology has blazed the way for this new psychology. It was violently\nattacked by the old-school psychologists because it taught that the\nbrain is the instrument of the mind, that the mind has a plurality of\nfaculties and that various brain functions can be localized. Every one\nconversant with the present literature on physiology and psychology\nwill see that phrenologists have conquered, and that their basic\nprinciples are now accepted by all. It is now simply a matter of the\napplication of these principles by further investigation. The\npsychologists have made some progress in brain localization through\nvarious mechanical and more or less abnormal methods of investigation.\nWhen they come to a more sensible and natural method of inquiry by\nobserving the concomitance between various brain developments and\nvarious mental traits, I feel sure that they will have to admit that\nthe phrenologists are essentially right in their brain localizations,\njust as they have already admitted that they are right in their basic\nprinciples.\n\nThat the tide is already turning is manifest from the following\nquotations.\n\nAlfred Russell Wallace, one of the greatest of scientists, in his book,\n\"The Wonderful Century,\" says: \"I begin with the subject of phrenology,\na science of whose substantial truth and vast importance I have no more\ndoubt than I have of the value and importance of any of the great\nintellectual advances already recorded.\n\n\"In the coming century, phrenology will assuredly attain general\nacceptance. It will prove itself to be the true science of mind. Its\npractical use in education, in self-discipline, in the reformatory\ntreatment of criminals, and in the remedial treatment of the insane,\nwill give it one of the highest places in the hierarchy of sciences;\nand its persistent neglect and obloquy during the last sixty years,\nwill be referred to as an example of the almost incredible narrowness\nand prejudice which prevailed among men of science at the very time\nthey were making such splendid advances in other fields of thought and\naction.\"\n\nBenard Hollander, M.D., F.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., in his late book on\n\"Functions of the Brain,\" says: \"What Gall knew at the close of the\neighteenth century is only just dawning upon the scientists of the\npresent day. The history of Gall and his doctrine is given in these\npages, and will be quite a revelation to the reader. No subject has\never been so thoroughly misrepresented, even by learned men of\nacknowledged authority.\" In his \"Scientific Phrenology,\" Dr. Hollander\nsays: \"In this volume I have laid stress on the strictly phrenological\nmethod of observing special parts of the brain, distinct lobes and\nconvolutions, and comparing their size to development of the rest of\nthe brain--which, if applied in conjunction with the study of the\nmental characteristics of our fellow-beings, would enable us to make\nobservations by the million. This method, which was considered\nunscientific, and hence shunned, for a long time, has found favor with\nscientists, since the author's first papers on scientific phrenology\nwere published in 1886, and was for the first time advocated publicly\nlast year by Dr. Cunningham, professor of anatomy in Dublin University,\nin his presidential address to the Anthropological Section of the\nBritish Association at their meeting in Glasgow. Dr. Cunningham was\nupheld by Sir Wm. Turner, professor of anatomy at Edinburgh University\nand president of the General Medical Council, who, like Sir Sam. Wilks,\nthe expresident of the College of Physicians, and the late Sir James\nPaget, besides others with whom I have not come in contact, have always\nkept an open mind on this subject. In Germany, Dr. Landois, professor\nof physiology at Griefswalt, has been long urging a reinvestigation of\nGall's doctrines; Dr. R. Sommer, professor of clinical psychiatry at\nGriessen, recommends it, not dogmatically, but as a working hypothesis;\nand the Swiss professor of physiology, Dr. Von Bunge, in his text-book\njust published, acts as pioneer in devoting two chapters to a\nrehabilitation of Gall; Dr. Mobius, of Leipsic, has published several\nbooks on the same subject, and, quite lately, the renowned professor of\npsychiatry in the University of Vienna, Dr. R. Von Krafft-Ebing, has\njoined in the defense of this great discovery.\"\n\nBeecher said that if he were in the pulpit without his knowledge of\nphrenology, he would feel like a mariner at sea without a compass; and\nhe declared: \"All my life long I have been in the habit of using\nphrenology as that which solves the practical phenomena of life. I\nregard it far more useful, practical and sensible than any other system\nof mental philosophy which has yet been evolved.\"\n\nHorace Mann said: \"I declare myself a hundred times more indebted to\nphrenology than to all the metaphysical works that I ever read. . . . I\nlook upon phrenology as the guide to philosophy and the handmaid of\nChristianity. Whoever disseminates true phrenology is a public\nbenefactor.\"\n\nJoseph Cook declared: \"Choosing a foreman or clerk, guiding the\neducation of children, settling my judgment of men in public or private\nlife, estimating a wife or husband, and their fitness for each other,\nor endeavoring to understand myself and to select the right occupation,\nthere is no advice of which I so often feel the need as that of a\nthoroughly able, scientific, experienced and Christian phrenologist.\"\n\nOliver Wendell Holmes changed his views on phrenology in his maturer\nyears and said: \"We owe phrenology a great debt. It has melted the\nworld's conscience in its crucible and cast it in a new mould, with\nfeatures less like those of Moloch and more like those of humanity.\"\n\nAndrew Carnegie said: \"Not to know phrenology is sure to keep you\nstanding on the 'Bridge of Sighs' all your life.\"\n\nI think the superiority of the phrenological classification of the\nmental powers to that of other systems of psychology will be apparent\nfrom the following:\n\nPhrenological Analysis of Mental Faculties.\n\nI. Domestic Propensities (Family Affections).\n\n 1. Amativeness--Love between the sexes.\n 2. Conjugality--Matrimony, love of one.\n 3. Parental Love--Regard for offspring, pets, etc.\n 4. Friendship, sociability.\n 5. Inhabitiveness--Love of home.\n 6. Continuity--One thing at a time.\n\nII. Selfish Propensities (Lookout for \"No. 1\").\n\n   1. Vitativeness--Love of life.\n   2. Combativeness--Resistance, defense.\n   3. Destructiveness--Executiveness, force.\n   4. Alimentiveness--Appetite, hunger.\n   5. Acquisitiveness--Accumulation.\n   6. Secretiveness--Policy, management.\n   7. Bibativeness--Fondness for liquids.\n\nIII. Selfish Sentiments (Promote Self-interests).\n\n   1. Cautiousness--Prudence, provision.\n   2. Approbativeness--Ambition, display.\n   3. Self-esteem--Self-respect, dignity.\n   4. Firmness--Decision, perseverance.\n\nIV. Moral Sentiments (Religion and Morality).\n\n   1. Conscientiousness--Justice, equity.\n   2. Hope--Expectation, enterprise.\n   3. Spirituality--Intuition, faith, credulity.\n   4. Veneration--Devotion, respect.\n   5. Benevolence--Kindness, goodness.\n\nV. Semi-intellectual Sentiments (Self-perfecting Group).\n\n   1. Constructiveness--Mechanical ingenuity.\n   2. Ideality--Refinement, taste, purity.\n   3. Sublimity--Love of grandeur, infinitude.\n   4. Imitation--Copying, patterning.\n   5. Mirthfulness--Jocoseness, wit, fun.\n   6. Human Nature--Perception of motives.\n   7. Agreeableness--Pleasantness, suavity.\n\nVI. Intellectual Faculties.\n\n   1. Perceptive Faculties (Perceive physical qualities).\n\n    (1) Individuality--Observation, desire to see.\n    (2) Form--Recollection of shape.\n    (3) Size--Measuring by the eye.\n    (4) Weight--Balancing, climbing.\n    (5) Color--Judgment of colors.\n    (6) Order--Method, system, arrangement.\n    (7) Calculation--Mental arithmetic.\n    (8) Locality--Recollection of places.\n\n   2. Semi-perceptive or Literary Faculties.\n\n    (1) Eventuality--Memory of facts.\n    (2) Time--Cognizance of duration.\n    (3) Tune--Sense of harmony and melody.\n    (4) Language--Expression of ideas.\n\n   3. Reasoning or Reflective Faculties.\n\n    (1) Causality--Applying causes to effects.\n    (2) Comparison--Inductive reasoning.\n\nNOTE.--These definitions are taken from \"The Self-instructor,\" Fowler &\nWells Co., New York, the leading phrenological publishing-house.\n\nI have received more help for my practical work in the ministry from\nphrenology than from any other half-dozen studies, except the Bible.\nEven if its physical basis could not be substantiated, its analysis of\nthe mental faculties is far better and more helpful than that of any\nother system of psychology. While it places the intellectual, moral and\nspiritual faculties at the top as supreme, it is just as vitally\ninterested in the care of the body, education, discipline,\nself-culture, choice of occupation, matrimonial adaptation, heredity\nand all the practical affairs of life. How could a person be more\nhealthy, happy and successful than by normally and harmoniously\ndeveloping all his faculties as phrenology points them out to him?\n\nPhrenology teaches that the mind has certain elementary, selective\ninstincts, or propensities and sentiments, that attract to them the\nmental food germane to their function just as the various cells of the\nbody select from the blood the elements required. I say that these\ninstincts have selective power, but they are subject to perversion, and\ndependent upon the guidance of judgment and knowledge, just as\nconscience does. Take, for example, the appetite for different kinds of\nfood, the faculty of music, judgment of color, beauty, etc.; and you\nwill see at once that they have selective power, but that this power\ncan become perverted, and thus lead to great difference of opinion.\nNotice that while these faculties are not infallible guides, and need\nthe earnest help of other faculties to be the most useful to us, no one\ncan deny that they point toward truth on these subjects, and are our\nproper and only guides along these lines.\n\nSome of the faculties of the mind inspire the specialized affections;\nas, love for wife, children, home, friends, etc., which are at the very\nfoundation of our Christian civilization. These special affections have\ntheir proper claims upon us, and in so far as they are neglected we\nbecome unhappy; but when they exert more than their proper influence,\nthey warp our judgment and more or less unbalance our character. How\nmany people are blinded to truth because of selfish love for their\nchildren, or their home, or their party, or their church.\n\nThere are some things that the feelings cannot do. For example, they\ncannot give us information about facts outside of the mind. The faculty\nof love cannot reveal to a young man the existence of a young lady; but\nwhen he gets acquainted with her through what he sees and hears, he can\nfeel that he loves her; and after learning that she is willing to\nbecome his, he can and will feel happy because of the fact. The world\nis full of folly, division and fanaticism because people look to their\nfeelings or impressions for things that they cannot furnish. Thus\npeople have claimed immediate knowledge of God, of pardon, of the will\nof God, of their perfection and security, etc., through their feelings.\nIt is true that God created all nations \"that they should seek God, if\nhaply they might feel [Professor Green says the Greek word here means\n'to feel or grope for or after, as persons in the dark'] after him and\nfind him\" (Acts 17:27). When we see the condition of the heathen\nnations to whom the revelation of the Bible has not come, we must admit\nthat they are indeed \"groping or feeling in the dark after God,\" as\ntheir superstitions and idolatries abundantly testify.\n\nOf course people feel good whenever they follow their conscience, or\nbest conviction of duty; but the feeling of conscience cannot tell them\nof the gospel of Christ, and of the pardon it makes possible to them.\nJust as people who trust their \"reason,\" or their \"think so's,\" as the\nvoice of God, naturally reject the Bible as a revelation from God, so\nthose that trust their \"feel so's\" will naturally have no use for the\nBible in conversion, sanctification or as an evidence of pardon. It is\neasy to become so self-confident about our feelings, or impressions, as\nto believe them to be axiomatic truths or direct revelations from God.\nThis has been one of the most fruitful sources of strife and divisions\nin religion, and the handicap that for centuries held the world in\nmedieval darkness. The false prophets of the Old Testament were very\nreligious men. That is, they had strong hereditary religious faculties.\nBut these strong religious feelings, perverted, led them to trusting\nthe imaginations and impressions of their hearts as the will of God\ninstead of following his will as revealed in the Bible (Jer. 23:16, 17,\n28, 30-32).\n\nConscience is a safe guide; but it is not an infallible guide, and it\nis our duty to perfect it day by day by seeking more truth and obeying\nit. Our instincts or feelings are safe guides within certain\nlimitations; but they are not perfect guides, and it is our duty to\nstrengthen, guide and restrain them with the knowledge and help that\nother faculties can supply.\n\nThe Intellect.\n\nLet us now see what light we can get concerning the intellect. What are\nits functions and limitations? Is it safe as a guide? According to the\nphrenological classification, the intellectual faculties are divided\ninto three classes; viz.: the perceptive, literary and reasoning\nfaculties. The perceptive faculties bring us into relationship with the\nexternal world, and through them we learn about the color, size, form,\nweight, etc., of material objects. If the phrenologists are right, then\nneither those who claim that the mind is like a blank sheet and knows\nnothing but what it gets from without, nor those who ascribe almost\neverything to innate, intuitive ideas, are wholly correct. As usual,\nthe truth lies midway between the two extremes. The mind has innate,\nintuitive powers of perception, selection and discrimination without\nwhich material objects, events and thoughts could make no more\nimpression upon us than upon a fence-rail. But these innate powers are\nsubject to improvement by heredity and culture and their dictates must\nbe carefully watched and corrected by other faculties, as they are\nfallible and most of them subject to perversion and delusion. As the\nconscience and sentiments although not infallible, are our only guides\nin their sphere; so our perceptive faculties are good and safe, but not\nperfect, guides. These perceptive faculties, in a measure, help and\ncorrect each other's impressions; and through optical illusions,\nexpectant attention, dreams, etc., we learn that their dictates must be\ncarefully watched and verified. The latest voice of science is that all\nthe sensation produced by physical stimulants can also be produced by\nthe imagination; so that people can feel cold, heat, pain, etc., when\nthere is no physical cause for them. These things should not make us\nskeptical about our perceptive powers, but rather cautiously critical.\n\nIf we turn to the reasoning faculties we find that they have been the\ncause of most contention and misunderstanding. On the one hand have\nbeen the extreme intuitionalists, or deductive theorizers, who for\ncenturies limited philosophical thought almost entirely to fruitless,\nabstract, deductive reasoning based upon premises that had no real\nfoundation in facts. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, the mind may\nbecome so accustomed to conceiving of a thing as true that it seems\nlike an axiomatic truth, although facts discovered later may show that\nit was an error. Thus the time was before modern discoveries, when\npeople could not conceive of persons living under the earth walking\nwith their heads down, or of objects attracted towards each other\nwithout some material object to connect them and thus draw them\ntogether.\n\nOther extremists have looked upon the mind as a blank sheet, or have\nbecome so skeptical of its intuitive impressions that they mistrust its\nguidance almost entirely, especially in religious matters; although,\nstrange to say, they inconsistently seem to trust it all the more in\nmaterial things.\n\nIt cannot be denied that our \"think so's,\" \"feel so's,\" impressions,\nprejudices and inherited or preconceived ideas may seem as infallible\nto us as any so-called axiomatic or intuitive truths. This delusion of\nthe mind has led to multitudes of errors and has held people in bondage\nto ignorance and superstition in all centuries and in all countries. It\nhas ever been the greatest hindrance to progress. Closely allied to\nthis and reinforcing it is the inertia of the mind, through which it\nnaturally continues to run in the grooves in which it has been running.\nAfter awhile the grooves or ruts become so deep and smooth that it\nseems next to impossible to turn out of them without breaking something\nor upsetting the mental team. We see on every hand how hard it is to\nget away from the ideas we have inherited or in which we have lived a\nlong time. When truth, like a vine-dresser, has attempted to trim off\nthese unnecessary and injurious accretions, it has always raised the\nhue and cry that the foundations of truth were being destroyed.\n\nWhen Mansel, in his Bampton lectures of 1858, showed that the finite\nintellect is inadequate and helpless in trying to grasp the truth where\n_infinity_ of any kind is involved, the cry was raised that he robbed\nreason of its glory and authority, tore away the very foundation of\nreligion and of all truth, and opened the way to all kinds of\nskepticism. But the very purpose of that marvelous piece of reasoning\nwas to lead people to the truth as revealed in the Bible and to keep\nthem from setting it aside or robbing it of its power because it\ntranscends their finite intellects. Good but misled people, in all\nages, have set aside or limited God's Word by their \"think so's\" or\n\"feel so's,\" which were mistakingly taken as an infallible test of\ntruth. Just as man by feeling knew not God (Acts 17:27), so man by\nwisdom knew not God; and it pleased God by the foolishness of a\nrevealed gospel to save such as accept it by faith (I Cor. 1:21).\nPresident Schurman voices the highest conclusion of philosophy when he\nsays that the farthest reason can go is to assert that _God is\nnecessary as a working theory_. To this we can add conceptions of God\nrevealed in our moral nature (Rom. 1:19, 20). But what a lifeless\nskeleton this is compared to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ our\nSaviour.\n\nBacon, Locke, Mill and others have joined in the battle to destroy a\nfalse trust in subjective impressions without subjecting them to a\nfearless test of observed facts as revealed in experience, observation\nand testimony. This is not intellectual skepticism that destroys all\nthe authority of reason and leaves us to imbecility. Just as the\nconscience, sentiments and perceptive faculties are our safe, proper\nand necessary guides, although not infallible, so our logical reason is\nour safe and necessary guide to truth, although helpless to grasp and\nunderstand infinite truths and likely to deceive us unless we carefully\ntest its impressions or conceptions by experience and facts. Reason is\nthe eye of the intellect as conscience is of the moral nature. But as\nthe eye is helpless as a guide without light, and the conscience\nwithout love, so reason is helpless and worthless as a guide without\nfacts. There is no conflict between theory and practise if the theory\ntakes into consideration all the facts. For example, if from the fact\nthat a horse can trot a mile in three minutes on the race-track, one\nshould conclude that he can trot from one city to another five miles\naway in fifteen minutes, the theory would be false, because it did not\ntake into consideration the condition of the road and the fact that a\nhorse cannot keep up the same speed for a long distance. Whatever\nimpressions or conceptions of the mind may be self-evident or axiomatic\ntruths, it is certain that our highest conception of truth must be\ntaken as our only and necessary guide; but, knowing the variable part\nof our judgment, and knowing how very likely we are to be mistaken in\nour \"think so's\" and \"feel so's,\" we should ever be on the alert to\nverify or rectify our convictions by the help of experience and facts.\nThe question as to how much of our intellectual power is intuitive and\ninnate, or how much is acquired and dependent upon truth learned by\ninduction, is not so important after all. For the powers of the mind\nwhich enable it to learn truths through induction from facts observed\nand experienced come from God just as much as the powers that enable us\nto see truth intuitively.\n\nIf we take the consensus of all the mental faculties, we have the\nwonderful human intelligence created but little lower than the angels\nand crowned with glory and honor (Ps. 8:5). Created in the very image\nof God himself (Gen. 1:27), man is an intelligence with the threefold\nguidance of intellect, conscience and sentiments which give him\nabundant light for his daily walk in the fear of the Lord. But even our\nso-called \"consciousness,\" including all these powers, is fallible and\nsubject to deception, perversion and delusion and therefore it needs\nthe help of the truth revealed in the Bible and the help of all the\ntruth we can learn from life and science to enable us to fulfill our\nhighest destiny and to continue to progress Godward and heavenward.\n\nLet us remember that love is the arch that unites and supports all the\nmental faculties and all the operations of the mind. On it hang all the\nlaw and prophets, and the gospel as well. Let us rejoice and glory in\nour wonderful heritage of intelligence, but, knowing the limitations of\nour finite minds, let us walk humbly before God and our fellow-men.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nLOOKING THROUGH COLORED GLASSES.\n\n\nDifferences of Opinion; the Cause and Cure. What Should Be Our Attitude\nToward Those Who Differ from Us?\n\nThe above headings will give you some idea of the matter I wish to\nbring before you in this chapter. From the previous chapters you will\nlearn that it was through years of bitter experience that I was\nprepared to write this chapter. I write it in love and humility and\npray that it may be blessed in warning many of pitfalls in searching\nfor truth and may lead to more charity in dealing with those who differ\nfrom us.\n\nI have spoken of the sad and lamentable differences of opinion among\nthe best people on earth during all times and on all subjects. What was\nsaid in the previous chapter about the fallible, variable voices of the\ndifferent parts of the mind blazes the way for a more detailed study of\nthese factors in leading people to error and therefore into divisions.\nLearning of these weaknesses of the mind, that so easily lead to a\nperversion of truth, one might hastily conclude that there is no norm\nof truth and therefore that people cannot see alike. Indeed, the\ndifferences of opinion in religion and other matters are often condoned\nby the assertion that \"people cannot see alike.\" Is this true, and, if\nso, how far?\n\nOver against the statement that people cannot see things alike, I put\nthe indisputable statement that they cannot possibly see things\n_unlike_ if they see them at all. Every person on earth sees red as\nred, unless, indeed, he is color blind, and then he does not see it at\nall, in the proper sense of the word. Two and two make four to every\nmind in the universe. Given the same premises, every logical mind will\ncome to the same conclusion and cannot possibly come to any other\nconclusion. The whole law and order of the universe is based upon this\nfact, and without it no science or order would be possible.\n\nWe will discover that the differences of opinion among men are not to\nbe ascribed to the intellect so much as to the will and sensibilities.\nWe wish to refer now to a chief cause of division of opinion, and the\nonly one that involves blame; viz.: the human will. Multitudes of\npeople are divided who see things alike and are of the same opinion so\nfar as the intellect is concerned, but the trouble lies in the will\npower. They deliberately do that which they know is not right, for\nselfish reasons. If this were the only cause of division, our problem\nwould be an easy one. For then the only proper attitude of the\nrighteous towards those who differ from them, would be that of\nunqualified opposition. Indeed, we are always tempted to act on this\nbasis by trusting in ourselves that we are right, and treating those\nwho differ from us as wrong and guilty and as deserving nothing but our\ncondemnation. If guilt were the only cause of division, we would have\nbut two political parties, the one containing all the righteous and the\nother all the wicked. From a religious standpoint there would be but\ntwo classes; viz., saints and sinners. But the problem before us is not\nsuch an easy one. The causes that lead to differences of opinion are\nnumerous and complex. It is not an easy matter to get at the truth,\nalthough we might think at first thought that it is. Every one seems to\nbe surrounded by an atmosphere that reflects, refracts, bends, twists,\ndistorts and colors the rays of truth as they come to him.\n\nNeither age, talent, experience, education, piety nor honesty make a\nman error-proof; as may be readily discovered even by a child. For the\npeople around us who possess these qualities are divided among all the\ndifferent religious and political parties. And when people are divided\ninto different parties, that teach contradictory doctrines, they cannot\npossibly all be right, although they may all be wrong.\n\nInquiring more particularly into the causes of division of opinion,\naside from guilt, we shall discover the following to be among them:\nfinite, limited faculties, limited and false ideas, obtained through\nheredity and ignorance, preconceived ideas and prejudices.\n\nIn the search for truth, as in almost everything else, there are two\nextremes, both of which should be avoided. On the one hand are those\nwho are too ready to accept new ideas without proper examination. They\nare \"tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.\"\nAt the other extreme stand the narrow, self-righteous bigots who\nabsolutely refuse to even examine the claim of any truth they do not\nalready possess. They know it all without finding it out. It matters\nnot whether you speak of politics, religion or anything else, they know\nall about it without investigation. They never read any but their own\nparty papers and books and never hear any but their own speakers and\npreachers.\n\nIt is said that a father and son got into a religious discussion. The\nfather was an infidel and the son tried to convert him to Christianity.\nThey argued and argued until midnight. Finally the father said, \"Son,\nthere is no use talking, you can't convert me if you argue all night; I\nam established.\" The next morning they went for a load of wood, and as\nthey left the woods the horse got balky and wouldn't move an inch.\n\"What is the matter with this horse, anyway?\" asked the father. \"Why,\"\nreplied the son, \"he is established.\" The Bible says, \"Be ye not as the\nhorse or as the mule, which have no understanding.\" It is bad enough\nfor a mule to get balky, but what a pity that man, created in the image\nof God, should become balky and refuse to learn the truths that make\nfor his peace and progress and for the enlargement of the kingdom of\nheaven.\n\nAn Arabic proverb says: \"Mankind are four. He who knows not and knows\nnot he knows not; he is a fool, shun him. He who knows not and knows\nthat he knows not; he is simple, teach him. He who knows and knows not\nthat he knows; he is asleep, wake him. And he who knows and knows that\nhe knows; he is wise, follow him.\" The trouble is to know who \"knows\nnot and knows not that he knows not,\" and who \"knows and knows that he\nknows.\" For they both speak with absolute assurance that they are right.\n\nIllustrations of how blissfully ignorant of truth we can be are found\nin the facts that Capt. John Smith sailed up the James River to reach\nIndia and that the Indians planted gunpowder.\n\nIt is said that on Lookout Mountain there is a building with windows so\nconstructed that if you look out through the one you see a snowstorm;\nthrough another, you see it raining; while through a third, the sun is\nshining. Thus it is that we look at truth through the colored glasses\nof prejudice and selfish interests, and see what is not.\n\nProbably you have heard about the two Irishmen who get into a\nfist-fight over a soap sign. One insisted that it read \"Ivory Soap,\"\nand the other, \"It Floats.\" They saw it from a different angle, and\nthat often accounts for differences of opinion.\n\nHow expectant attention can deceive us was illustrated a few years ago\nwhen Crystal Palace, London, was on fire. A large throng of people were\nin distress because they saw a favorite monkey burning on the roof. The\nmonkey was later found safe in an adjoining building. It was an old\ncoat that the imagination of the crowd had transformed into a monkey.\nThus it is that people see ghosts, and almost anything they are looking\nfor, through a vivid imagination.\n\nIn multitudes of cases people are divided because they use words in a\ndifferent sense, or misunderstand their significance. Years ago, when I\nwas keeping my father's books, there used to come into the office a\nbright young man who had more natural ability than education. We were\nboth fond of discussion, and often had informal debates. One day we\ndebated on \"Woman suffrage.\" I opened up on the subject and as I\nproceeded my opponent got restless to reply. When he took the floor he\nexploded something as follows: \"I am opposed to 'Woman Suf-fer-age'\nwith every drop of vitality within my skin. I will use hand, tongue and\npurse against 'Woman Suf-fer-age.' In short, I am so bitterly opposed\nto 'Woman Suf-fer-age' for the all-sufficing reason that I don't want\nwomen to suffer.\" I said, \"Amen!\" and we were agreed for once. You\nsmile, and yet three-fourths of our differences would vanish if we\npatiently conferred together long enough to understand each other\nclearly.\n\nThe courts recognize that the best of people are blinded when their own\ninterests are involved, and reject jurymen on this basis. Who expects\nparents to be perfectly impartial in their judgment when their own\nchildren are involved?\n\nThe difference of opinion on the slavery question was largely a matter\nof geographical location, and 90 per cent, of us belong to the\npolitical or religious party to which our parents belonged or to the\none to which our associations or environment drew us. Had we been born\nin the Catholic Church most of us would be good, faithful Catholics, as\nall history demonstrates, and as our own lives in other directions\nabundantly prove. In a series of articles entitled \"Why I Am What I\nAm,\" one of the most noted preachers in this country candidly admits\nthat his church relationship is a mere matter of birth. This truth is\nnot very congenial to our boasted independence of thought and\ninvestigation, but it is the truth nevertheless. The power of the\nabove-named fetters to hold us in bondage to error is illustrated in\nall history, sacred and secular. It took Peter about ten years after\nPentecost, with special miraculous manifestations, to see that Gentiles\nwere _creatures_ as well as Jews, and that therefore he was\ncommissioned to preach to them also. Paul, the pious, earnest and\nconscientious, \"verily thought he was doing God service\" in persecuting\nthe Saviour who had been pointed out as the Christ by many infallible\nproofs. The Jews crucified the Lord of glory largely through ignorance,\ndue to their being blinded by their traditions, or inherited religious\nideas, and therefore Jesus prayed on the cross, \"Father, forgive them,\nfor they know not what they do.\" Luther was mighty in throwing off his\ninherited ideas, and yet he retained so many of them that any church\nthat would to-day practise and teach just as Luther did, would be\nconsidered very near to the Roman Catholic Church. Cotton Mather, one\nof the most enlightened men that ever lived, believed in witches and\nhung them, and many of the pious and enlightened people of New England\nshared this belief with him. Good, pious neighbors will give testimony\nin court, as to what they saw and heard, of the most contradictory\ncharacter. In nine cases out of ten, we find in the Bible just what we\nbring to it; and thus the most pious and best educated see the most\ncontradictory doctrines in the same passages of Scripture and fight for\nthem with the greatest tenacity, all in the name of conscience. And the\nsaddest thing about it all is that all these people show by their\nconsecrated lives that they love God and are sincerely trying to serve\nhim. In politics, we see the same pitiable state of affairs. In 1896\nabout one-half of our good Christian men voted for the free coinage of\nsilver to save their country, and the other half voted for a gold\nstandard for the same reason. It does not require any argument to prove\nthat at least half of these voters were so blinded by ignorance and\nparty bias that they did not see the truth, and possibly all of them\nwere. What a great pity that the good Christian people should be thus\ndivided through party bias and prejudice and go to slaughtering each\nother, like the enemies of Israel; so that they simply neutralize each\nother's influence and power, while the enemy of right runs off with the\nvictory and spoil. It is this mixture of the good with the bad in two\npolitical parties that enables evil to hold its own; while if all the\ngood were united, through the truth, into one political party, arrayed\nagainst all the bad in another political party, they could carry this\ncountry for Jesus Christ at every election.\n\nHaving considered the causes that lead to differences of opinion, how,\nin the light of these facts, should we treat those who differ from us?\n\nIn the first place, we should deal with them in humility. When we see\nhow the great and good men of all history have been hindered from\nseeing the plainest and simplest truths by their inherited and\npreconceived ideas, it should take the conceit out of us and make us\nvery fearful lest we are suffering with the same dread disease. For it\nis to be noted that hardly any one who suffers from this malady is\naware of it. Cromwell's words to Parliament will bear a universal\napplication, when he said, \"I beseech you, by the bowels of the Lord,\nthat you conceive it possible that you may be mistaken.\" Not only is it\npossible, but it is probable, that we are mistaken in a great many of\nour ideas. Therefore we should approach others in an humble, teachable\nspirit. Let us not imagine that we know it all, and treat those who\ndiffer from us with self-righteous scorn and contempt.\n\nAnd that leads me to say that we should treat those who differ from us,\nwith love, respect and sympathy. I believe that more reformers have\nbeen crippled in their efforts by failing in this than in any other\nway. We are likely to attribute all our failures to the sin and bad\ncharacter of others, when the fault often lies in ourselves. God gives\na vision of some great truth or needed reform; as, for example, the\nprohibition of the liquor traffic, or the union of God's people on the\nprimitive gospel. The message is sweet to us, and so we go on our way\nwith great joy, feeling sure that we will soon convert everybody to our\nrighteous cause. But, alas! we soon discover that people will not\nconvert very fast. Our argument seems to us more clear and infallible\nevery time we repeat it, and yet the people fail to come to our\nposition. And so we are likely to lose faith in the people, and come to\nthe conclusion that it is nothing but sin and guilt that causes them to\nreject our message. The next step is to forget our own weaknesses,\ntrust in ourselves that we are right, and treat with hate and contempt\nthose who differ from us. Treating our opponents with hate and scorn,\nwe lose both our humility and Christian character, and develop into the\nmost hideous and ungodly characters on earth, self-righteous Pharisees.\nAnd so it happens that we reformers often need reformation worse than\nthose whom we seek to reform. But you say, did not Jesus and the\nApostles severely denounce sinners? Yes, but they always first made\nsure that they were sinners. Jesus could read men's hearts and,\ntherefore, made no mistake, while Paul always reasoned with his\nopponents out of the Scriptures in love and humility, and only\ncondemned them after clear and positive evidence that the fault was in\ntheir motive. Paul says, in writing to Timothy, \"the servant of the\nLord must not strive; but must be gentle unto all men, apt to teach,\npatient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God\nperadventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the\ntruth.\" And, where he exhorts to \"reprove\" and \"rebuke,\" it is with\n\"all longsuffering.\" James says, \"The wrath of man worketh not the\nrighteousness of God\" We are never commanded to despise, hate or\ndenounce any man; but, on the other hand, we are to love every one,\neven our enemies.\n\nWe are all human, and when it is as clear as daylight to us that we\nhave the truth and argument on our side, it is a great temptation to\ncut to pieces and roast our opponents. But is it Christ-like to do it?\nDo we forget how long it took us to come to the position that now seems\nso clear to us? Some one has said that, in dealing with children, \"we\nshould remember that they are left-handed,\" and this is certainly true\nof people in their relation to truth. The slowness with which people\ntake up new ideas is a merit as well as a fault. We could have no\nstability and progress anywhere if it were not for this inertia in\nconvictions. \"The Athenians and strangers sojourning there spent their\ntime in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing,\" and\nif we would all be occupied in that way, not much would be accomplished\nin the world. If we would become disciples of every propagandist whose\narguments we cannot answer on the spur of the moment, there would be\nnothing but change and confusion. Realizing the difficulties in the way\nof finding truth, and observing how even the wisest and best have been\ndeceived and ensnared in error, naturally ought to make people\nconservative in accepting new ideas, and the same reasons should make\nus patient with those who differ from us. They usually need our patient\nand sympathetic instruction more than our contempt, hatred and\ndenunciation.\n\nAll this being true, we should never forget, however, that it is our\nsacred duty to treat those who differ from us, _in truth_. There are\ntwo attitudes that are very easy to take. The one is to treat our\ndifferences with childish sentimentalism, saying, \"Peace, peace,\" when\nthere is or ought not to be any peace. The other is to hate and abuse\nthose who differ from us, and to treat their opinions as beneath our\ncontempt. But the difficult thing to do is to tell the whole truth, as\nwe see it, and to do it in love and humility. We are under obligation\nto tell the truth boldly whatever the outcome may be. To those who\nthreaten us and command us not to tell the truth, we must reply in the\nlanguage of Peter and John: \"Whether it be right in the sight of God to\nhearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak\nthe things which we have seen and heard.\" When people cry, \"Peace,\npeace,\" at the expense of truth and right, and want us to speak \"smooth\nthings\" instead of God's Word, we must take warning from God's words to\nEzekiel, which apply to every preacher of truth, \"When I say unto the\nwicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor\nspeakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life: the\nsame wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require\nat thine hand.\" Paul went into the Jewish synagogues repeatedly to lead\nthem into the full truth, although he raised strife and contention in\nso doing, and even suffered violence at their hands. Unfortunately, a\nlarge per cent. of Christians have formed a conspiracy of silence on\nmatters in which they differ. We have so little of the Spirit of Christ\nthat we cannot even talk over our differences without getting angry and\nexhibiting the fruits of the flesh. And so we say, \"We will agree to\ndisagree,\" and we continue to nourish, pet and worship our differences\nas if they were gods. This puts a mighty padlock on the growth into the\nunity of the faith and knowledge and judgment which Christ and the\nApostles enjoined upon us. We need to get the New Testament conception\nof the hideousness and sinfulness of all divisions among God's people.\nAnd while we recognize the fact that there will always be differences\nof opinion as long as we are ignorant and sinful and weak, nevertheless\nit is our Christian duty to use our utmost effort to diminish and\nremove these differences. There always will be sin in this world but we\ndare not be satisfied with it or abide in it; but, on the other hand,\nwe must fight it with all the power we possess. The same is true with\ndivisions and differences of opinion.\n\nWe must, however, not overlook the important differences between\nmatters of faith and of opinion. Matters of faith are directly revealed\nin the Bible, and upon these all Christians can and must agree as soon\nas they get a fair look at them. While matters of opinion, which are\nnot directly revealed in the Bible, but are inferred from things\nrevealed, are important, they are not all important, like matters of\nfaith. But the more we overcome the hindrances to finding truth, of\nwhich we have spoken, the more we will be of the same mind and judgment\nin all things. For truth is not divided, and we will all see it alike\nin so far as we see clearly. As a rule, we can readily unite on the\nmost important truths, and therefore on those we need to unite on for\nour present duty. While, if, through lack of faith, we turn away from\nthe clear duty to seek one that is easier, and requires less sacrifice,\nwe usually become hopelessly divided and thus fail in our effort.\n\nIn conclusion, having a clear conception of the baneful and ruinous\neffect of differences of opinion, and being aware of the powerful\ncauses which hinder us from getting at the truth and thus divide us,\nlet us strive day and night, in prayer and labor, to get the truth\nourselves and to lead others into the truth. For in and through the\ntruth, we shall, with \"one mind\" and \"one soul,\" go conquering and to\nconquer, in the name of King Jesus, for the enlargement of his kingdom\nof love, peace and joy.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nHOW I FOUND CHRIST'S CHURCH\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nSCRIPTURAL BAPTISM.\n\n\nOne of the chief things that led me to identify myself with the people\nworking for Christian union, was my experience with regard to baptism.\nIndeed, I am more and more convinced that baptism is the main key to\nthe question of Christian union. We can differ on questions of\ntheoretical theology and still work together in harmony in practical\nChristian activities. But if we differ on the question of baptism, we\ncannot take the first step in preaching the gospel and in leading souls\nto Christ, in the New Testament way, without getting into conflict. The\nonly way that union meetings of different denominations have been at\nall possible, has been by ignoring the plain teaching and practice of\nthe Apostles on the question of baptism. We never can have Christian\nunion in the authority of Christ, which is the only union which will\nsatisfy his prayer and demand, until we agree on the two simple\nordinances which are the forms in which the gospel embodies itself to\nbless our souls. And, fortunately, these are the easiest things to\nunite on. When free from prejudice, there is no question on which\nChristians can more easily agree than that of baptism, as the testimony\nof the scholars and churches that follow in this chapter abundantly\ndemonstrate. The consummation of Christian union will have to patiently\nwait until inherited and acquired prejudices become sufficiently\nallayed so that all Christians can look at the question of baptism\ndispassionately. Then it will be discovered that we all agree on this\nquestion and the main barrier to Christian union will be removed. In\nour weakness we want to procure Christian union without giving up our\nsectarian ideas that have been superadded to the New Testament\nteaching, and that have caused our division. And so we try to\ncompromise by \"agreeing to disagree\" or by ignoring the teachings of\nthe New Testament. But such efforts must be futile and disappointing.\nWe can never unite on the gospel until we agree in the gospel teaching.\nWe can never unite in obeying the Master until we unite in our opinions\nas to what the Master has commanded us to do. But, thank God, the field\nis rapidly ripening for this agreement and consequent union.\n\nAs is usually the case, I received my early ideas on baptism by\nheredity and environment, so far as I had any ideas on the subject. The\nreligious people with whom I was associated in my early life taught and\npracticed sprinkling and infant baptism, and, of course, I assumed that\nthey must be right in the matter. Although I read the Bible through\nseveral times, I did not see its teaching on this subject, as I was not\nparticularly interested in it. For reasons explained in previous\nchapters--that we look through colored glasses--multitudes of people\ndaily read their Bible who never see what is in it; but imagine, as a\nmatter of course, that it teaches what they bring to it through\nhereditary and preconceived ideas.\n\nAs already stated, I was first led to think on this subject while I\nstudied New Testament Greek under President Cary, of the Meadville\nTheological School. When we came to the word _baptizoo_, Dr. Cary told\nthe class that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of the\nword in the mouth of Jesus was _to immerse_. This statement was a great\nsurprise to me, and I decided to discover for myself whether this was\nthe fact or not. This was the beginning of my investigation of the\nsubject of baptism. I found that Dr. Cary was correct in his statement.\nWhat influenced me greatly was the fact that the German rationalists,\nwho are recognized as among the best scholars of the world, and who are\nperfectly impartial on this subject, as they do not care what the Bible\nteaches about baptism, all say that baptism is immersion, without ever\nhinting at a possibility for difference of opinion. I investigated the\nmatter for several years, as I found opportunity, until there was not\nthe shadow of a doubt left in my mind that immersion is New Testament\nbaptism.\n\nWhile a student at Oberlin Theological Seminary, I found that all the\nauthorities they used in New Testament Greek, taught immersion, while\ntheir churches practise sprinkling. In studying Hebrews in the Greek,\nwe used Dr. Westcott's commentary. When we came to Heb. 10:22, \"having\nour bodies washed with pure water,\" Dr. Westcott said this referred to\nthe \"laver of regeneration\" or the primitive practice of immersion.\nWhen we studied Romans in Greek, we used Dr. Sanday's International\nCritical Commentary. The professor told us it was the very best and\nprobably would be for years to come. When we came to Rom. 6:4, \"buried\nwith him through baptism,\" Dr. Sanday never raised a doubt about the\nmeaning, but in eloquent words spoke about the beautiful representation\nof burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism. This astonished me\nvery much, as Drs. Westcott and Sanday were noted Episcopalian\nscholars, and the Episcopal churches practise sprinkling. We used Dr.\nThayer's New Testament Greek lexicon, which the professor informed us\nwas the very best in the English language. This lexicon defined\n_baptizoo_ as meaning _to dip_, and never hinted that sprinkling or\npouring might be its meaning. As I said above, I found Dr. Cary correct\nin claiming that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of\nthe word in the mouth of Jesus was _to immerse_, and I have never been\nable to get hold of a single New Testament lexicon that defines\n_baptizoo_ as ever meaning to sprinkle or pour.\n\nThe following chart and facts will help us to get at the truth about\nthe meaning of the Greek word _baptizoo_ without quoting from a long\nlist of lexicons:\n\n[Illustration: A STUDY IN MEANING OF WORDS.]\n\nYou notice in the chart that we have three separate and distinct words\nin the Greek for immersion, sprinkling and pouring; and these words\nhave their primary or proper, secondary or tropical meanings, all of\nwhich must be differentiated. The primary or proper meaning has\nreference to specific acts, the secondary meaning refers to things done\nby means of these specific acts, while the tropical or metaphorical\nmeaning departs from the specific meaning of the words and therefore\ncannot have reference to the specific outward acts indicated by the\nwords. For this reason it is a law of language, recognized by all\nscholars, that you must give a word its primary or proper meaning when\nit is employed in commanding an outward act, unless the context demands\nanother meaning.\n\nNotice the English words _shoot_, _hang_ and _poison_. These express\nspecific outward acts; and, then, in their secondary meaning, they mean\nto kill, but always to kill in the way indicated by the primary meaning\nof the word. A man can be hung, shot or poisoned without being killed;\nbut if it is reported that he was hung, shot or poisoned, we would all\nunderstand that he was killed. However, you cannot conceive of words so\nchanging their meaning, that when it is said a man was hung, it means\nthat he was shot, or when it is said he was poisoned, it means he was\nhung. No more is it conceivable that when the Greek word _baptizoo_ (to\nimmerse) was used, it meant to cleanse by sprinkling (_rantizoo_), or\nwhen the word _rantizoo_ (to sprinkle) was used, it meant to cleanse by\nimmersing (_baptizoo_). These words refer primarily to separate and\ndistinct outward acts. It is true they may meet in their secondary\nmeaning in the idea _to cleanse_; but they always refer to cleansing in\nthe way indicated by the primary meaning of the word used. When they\ntravel so far from their primary or proper meaning, which has reference\nto specific outward acts, that their meaning is said to be tropical or\nmetaphorical, they lose their specific idea and have no longer any\nreference to the specific acts denoted by the words.\n\nIt is true that words can and do often change or enlarge their meaning.\nBut this is always to supply a need created by the lack of a proper\nword to express an associated idea. Now, both the specific and general\nideas with reference to the application of water are so copiously\nsupplied with words in the Greek, that they preclude the necessity of\nchanging the meaning of a word like _baptizoo_ to supply such a need.\nWe have _louoo_, to wash or bathe the body; _niptoo_, to wash a part of\nthe body, as the hands, feet, face, etc.; _plunoo_, to wash clothes;\n_brechoo_, to wet, to rain; _katharizoo_, to cleanse; _ekcheoo_, to\npour; _rantizoo_, to sprinkle; _baptizoo_, to immerse, etc.\n\nThus we have a threefold guard to keep _baptizoo_ to its primary or\nproper meaning of _to dip_ or _immerse_. First, an abundance of Greek\nwords to express every general and specific idea about the application\nof water, except that of immersion; second, the fact that a tropical\nmeaning of a word cannot refer to the specific outward act indicated by\nthe word; and third, the law of interpretation which demands that a\nword be given its primary or proper meaning in commandments, or plain\nnarrative, unless the context expressly demands a different meaning.\n\nThe above definitions of the word _baptizoo_ are taken from Dr.\nThayer's \"New Testament Greek Lexicon.\" In reply to letters inquiring\nabout Dr. Thayer's \"New Testament Greek Lexicon,\" the following\nanswers-were received. It is the \"best\" (Professor Hodge, of\nPrinceton); it is the \"very best\" (Dr. Alexander, of Vanderbilt\nUniversity); \"nothing can compare with it\" (Dr Hersman, president of\nthe Southwestern Presbyterian University). This opinion is practically\nmade unanimous from the fact that Dr. Thayer's Lexicon is used at all\nof the leading schools in the country.\n\nA request for an authoritative lexicon that gives \"sprinkle\" or \"pour\"\nas a meaning of _baptizoo_, elicited the following answers: \"There is\nno such lexicon\" (Professor Humphreys, of the University of Virginia,\nand Professor D'ooge, of Colby University); \"I know of none\" (Professor\nFlagg, of Cornell); \"I do not know of any\" (Professor Tyler, of\nAmherst). \"_Baptizoo_ means _to immerse_. All lexicographers and\ncritics of any note are agreed in this.\"--_Dr. Moses Stuart._\n\nThus we learn, through the testimony of experts, without consulting all\nthe numerous Greek lexicons, that they define the word _baptizoo_ as\nmeaning _to immerse_ and that none of them say it means _to sprinkle_\nor _to pour_.\n\nThe great mass of Christians know nothing about the Greek experts who\nmake the lexicons, but are much better acquainted with and influenced\nby the great church leaders and church standards. Therefore we present\nthe following quotations:\n\n_Scholars and Churches Admit that Christ Taught Immersion._\n\nNOTE.--These quotations are taken from a tract of mine on baptism.\n\nI. _Council of Toledo_, 633 (Catholic): \"We observe a single immersion\nin baptism.\"\n\n2. _Council of Cologne_, 1280 (Catholic): \"That he who baptizes when he\nimmerses the candidate in water,\" etc.\n\n3. _Martini_ (Roman Catholic): \"In all of the pontificals and rituals I\nhave seen (except that of Madeleine de Beulieu), and I have seen many,\nancient as well as more recent, immersion is prescribed.\"\n\n4. _Dollinger_ (Roman Catholic): \"Baptism was administered by an entire\nimmersion in water.\" (Chu. History, vol. 2, p. 294.) \"A mere pouring or\nsprinkling was never thought of.\" (First Age of Chu., p. 318.) \"Baptism\nby immersion continued to be the prevailing practice of the church as\nlate as the fourteenth century.\" (Hist. Ch., vol. 2, p. 295.)\n\n5. _Ritual of Greek Catholic Church_: \"The priest immerses him, saying\nthe servant of God is immersed, in the name of the Father,\" etc.\n\n6. _Russian Catechism_ (Greek Catholic): \"This they hold to be a point\nnecessary, that no part of the child be undipped in water,\" etc.\n\n7. _Alex. De Stourdza_ (native Greek): \"The verb baptize, _immergo_,\nhas, in fact, but one sole acceptation. It signifies, literally and\nalways, to plunge. Baptism and immersion are, therefore, identical, and\nto say baptism is by aspersion is as if one should say, immersion by\naspersion, or any other absurdity of the same nature.\" (Con. sur LaDoc.\net L'Esprit, p. 87.)\n\n8. _Dr. Kyriasko_, of University of Athens, Greece: \"The verb baptize\nin the Greek language never has the meaning of to pour or to sprinkle,\nbut invariably that of to dip.\" (Letter to C. G. Jones, Lynchburg, Va.)\n\n9. _Syrian Ritual_ (Nestorians): \"The priest immerses him in water,\nsaying such a one is baptized in the name of the Father,\" etc.\n\n10. _Martin Luther_: \"Baptism is a Greek word. In Latin it can be\ntranslated immersion, as when we plunge something into water, that it\nmay be completely covered with water; they ought to have been\ncompletely immersed.\" (The Sacrament of Baptism.)\n\n11. _Lutheran Catechism_, p. 216: \"In what did this act (baptism)\nconsist?\" Answer: \"The one to be baptized was first immersed in water,\nsignifying death, and then he was drawn out again and was dressed with\na new dress, as if he now were a different new being.\"\n\n12. _John Calvin_ (Presbyterian): \"The word baptize signifies to\nimmerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed by\nthe ancient church.\" (Inst. Book 4, c. 15.)\n\n13. _Richard Baxter_ (Presbyterian): \"It is commonly confessed by us to\nthe Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that in the Apostles'\ntime the baptized were dipped over head in the water.\" (Dis. Right to\nSac., p. 70.)\n\n14. _Dr. W. D. Powell_, while in Athens, Greece, wrote: \"I found that\nall churches in Greece--the Presbyterian included--are compelled to\nimmerse candidates for baptism, for, as one of the professors remarked,\n'the commonest day laborer understands nothing else for _baptizoo_ but\nimmersion.'\"\n\n15. _Zwingle_ (Reformed): \"When ye were immersed into the water of\nbaptism, ye wrere engrafted into the death of Christ.\" (Com. Rom. 6:3.)\n\n16. _John Wesley_ (Methodist): \"We are buried with him, alluding to the\nancient manner of baptizing by immersion.\" (Notes on N. T., Rom. 6:4.)\n\"Baptized according to the custom of the first church and the rule of\nthe Church of England, by immersion.\" (Journal, vol. I, p. 20.) In\nSavannah, Ga., Sept., 1737, Wesley was found guilty of breaking the\nlaws of the realm, among other things \"by refusing to baptize Mr.\nParker's child otherwise than by dipping.\" (Jour., vol. I, pp. 42, 43.)\n\n17. _The Methodist Discipline_ of 1846, and the old Discipline compiled\nby Wesley himself, assert that \"Jesus was baptized in the river of\nJordan, and that the sixth of Romans means simply a burial in water.\"\n\n18. _Adam Clark_ (Methodist): \"As they received baptism as an emblem of\ndeath, in voluntarily going under the water, so they received it as an\nemblem of the resurrection into eternal life, in coming up out of the\nwater.\" (Com., vol. 4, N. T.)\n\n19. _Prayer Book_ (Church of England): \"The priest shall dip him in the\nwater, discreetly and warily.\"\n\n20. _Conybeare and Howson_ (Episcopalians): \"It is needless to add that\nbaptism was administered by immersion, the convert being plunged\nbeneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of\nsin, then raised from this momentary burial to represent his\nresurrection to the life of righteousness. It must be a subject of\nregret that the general discontinuance of this original form of baptism\nhas rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important\npassages of Scripture.\" (Life of St. Paul.)\n\n26. _Prof. L. L. Paine_ (Congregational): \"It may be honestly asked by\nsome, Was immersion the primitive form of baptism? As to the question\nof fact, the testimony is ample and decisive. It is a point on which\nancient, medieval and modern historians alike, Catholic and Protestant,\nLutheran and Calvinist, have no controversy. No historian who cares for\nhis reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of\nthe name would wish to.\"\n\n27. _Dr. George Campbell_ (Presbyterian): \"I have heard a disputant of\nthis stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word\nrendered in the N. T. baptize means more properly to sprinkle than to\nplunge. One who argues in this manner never fails, with persons of\nknowledge, to betray the cause he would defend; and though in respect\nto the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as arguments,\nsometimes better, yet a candid mind will disdain to take the help of a\nfalsehood even in support of the truth.\" (Lect. on Pul. El. Lect, 10,\npp. 294, 295.)\n\n28. _Philip Schaff_ (Un. Theo. Sem.): \"The baptism of Christ in the\nriver Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the N. T., are\nall in favor of immersion rather than sprinkling, as is freely admitted\nby the best exegetes, Catholic and Protestant, English and German.\nNothing can be gained by an unnatural exegesis.\" (Teaching of Apostles,\npp. 55,56.)\n\n29. _Paul_: \"We are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as\nChrist was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so\nwe also should walk in newness of life.\" (Rom. 6:4.)\n\n30. _Peter_ says our bodies are washed in baptism, (1 Pet. I:23.)\n\n31. _Mark_: \"Jesus--was baptized in [Marg., Greek, _into_] the Jordan\"\n(Mark 1:9, A. R. V.). He could not have been baptized _into the water_\nwithout being immersed.\n\n_Churches Have Changed Immersion to Sprinkling_.\n\n1. The first record of sprinkling for baptism is that of Novatian, A.\nD. 250. It was thought he was dying and, as he could not be immersed,\nthey sprinkled water on him. Thus originated what was called _clinic_\nor _death-bed_ baptism. Its introduction was vigorously opposed for\ncenturies and clinics were not admitted to sacred orders, many doubting\ntheir baptism.\n\n2. _Pope Stephen III_. In 754 the monks of Cressy asked Stephen III.:\n\"Is it lawful, in case of necessity, occasioned by sickness, to baptize\nan infant by pouring water on its head from a cup or the hands?\" The\nPope replied: \"Such a baptism, performed in such a case of necessity,\nshall be accounted valid.\" Basnage says: \"This was accounted the first\nlaw against immersion.\"\n\n3. _The Council of Ravenna_, 1311, decreed: \"Baptism is to be\nadministered by trine aspersion or immersion.\" This was the first\nauthority for sprinkling except in case of sickness.\n\n4. _Cardinal Gibbons_ (R. Catholic): \"Since the twelfth century the\npractice of baptizing by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church,\nas this manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by\nimmersion.\" (Faith of Our Fathers, p. 275.)\n\n5. _Bishop of Bossuet_ (R. Catholic): \"The case (communion under one\nkind) was much the same as that of baptism by immersion, as clearly\ngrounded on Scripture as communion under both kinds could be, and\nwhich, nevertheless, had been changed into infusion, with as much ease\nand as little contradiction as communion under one kind was\nestablished, so that the same reason stood for retaining one as the\nother. It is a fact most certainly avowed in the Reformation, although\nsome will cavil at it, that baptism was instituted by immersing the\nwhole body in water. This fact, I say, is unanimously acknowledged by\nall the divines of the Reformation: by Luther, by Melancthon, by\nCalvin, by Casaubon, by Grotius, by all the rest.\" (Varia. Protest.,\nvol. 2, p. 370.)\n\n6. _Archbishop Kenrick_ (R. Catholic): \"The change of discipline which\nhas taken place as to baptism should not surprise us, for, although the\nchurch is but the dispenser of the sacraments which her Divine Spouse\ninstituted, she rightfully exercises a discretionary power as to the\nmanner of their adminstration. Immersion was well suited to the Eastern\nnations, whose habits and climate prepared them for it, and was,\ntherefore, practiced in the commencement, whenever necessity did not\nprevent it. Cases, which at first were exceptional, gradually\nmultiplied, so that, at length, the ordinary mode of baptism was by\naffusion. The church wisely sanctioned that which, although less\nsolemn, is equally effectual. The power of binding and loosing, which\nshe received from Christ, warrants this exercise of governing wisdom.\nIt is not for the individuals to question a right which has been at all\ntimes claimed and exercised by those to whom the dispensation of the\nmysteries is divinely intrusted.\" (Kenrick on Bap., p. 174.)\n\n7. _Haydock, Endorsed by Pope Pius IX_.: \"The church, which cannot\nchange the least article of faith, is not so tied up in matters of\ndiscipline and ceremony. Not only the Catholic Church, but also the\npretended reformed churches, have altered the primitive custom in\ngiving the sacrament of baptism and now allow of baptisms by sprinkling\nand pouring water upon the person baptized.\" (Notes on Douay Bible,\nMatt. 3:16.)\n\n8. _Lutheran Catechism_, p. 208: \"What is baptism?\" Answer: \"To dip\nunder water.\" \"Do we still baptize in that way?\" Answer: \"No; because\nof the rough climate, the subject now is only sprinkled.\"\n\n9. _John Calvin_ (Presbyterian): \"Wherefore the church did grant\nliberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat,\nexcepting the substance. It is of no consequence at all whether the\nperson that is baptized is totally immersed, or whether he is merely\nsprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter of choice to\nthe churches in different regions.\"\n\n10. _Westminster Assembly_ (Presbyterian), 1643: \"In the Assembly of\nDivines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether\nimmersion or sprinkling should be adopted; 25 voted for sprinkling, and\n24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the\nearnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in\nthat assembly.\" (Edinburgh Ency., vol. 3, p. 236.)\n\n11. _Dr. Wall_ (Episcopalian): \"One would have thought that the cold\ncountries should have been the first that should have changed the\ncustom from dipping to affusion. But by history it appears that the\ncold climates held the custom of dipping as long as any; for England,\nwhich is one of the coldest, was one of the latest that admitted this\nalteration of the ordinary way. . . . The offices or liturgies for\npublic baptism in the Church of England did all along, so far as I can\nlearn, enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling.\nThe Prayer Book, printed in 1549, adds: 'And if the child be weak, it\nshall suffice to pour water upon it'\" (Wall's Hist. Inft. Bap., vol. 3,\npp. 575,579.)\n\n12. _Dean Stanley_ (Episcopalian): In speaking of immersion, he says:\n\"The cold climate of Russia has not been found an obstacle to its\ncontinuance throughout that vast empire. Even in the Church of England\nit is still observed in theory. The Rubric in the public baptism for\ninfants enjoins that, unless for special causes, they are to be dipped,\nnot sprinkled.\" (Institutes, pp. 18,19.) The Church of England has\nchanged to sprinkling, but its creed teaches immersion.\n\n13. _Sir John Floyer_: \"I have now given what testimony I could find in\nour English authors, to prove the practice of immersion from the time\nthe Britons and Saxons were baptized, till King James' days, when the\npeople grew peevish with all ancient ceremonies, and through the love\nof novelty and the niceness of parents, and the pretense of modesty,\nthey laid aside immersion.\" (History of Cold Bathing, p. 61.)\n\n14. _Bishop A. C. Coxe, editor of Ante-Nicene Fathers_ (Episcopalian):\n\"The word (_baptizo_) means to dip. In the Church of England dipping is\neven now the primary rule. But it is not the ordinary custom. It\nsurvived far down into Queen Elizabeth's time, but seems to have died\nout early in the seventeenth century. I ought to add that in France\n(unreformed) the custom of dipping became obsolete long before it was\ndisused in England. But for this bad example, my own opinion is, that\ndipping would still prevail among Anglicans. I wish that all Christians\nwould restore the primitive practice.\" (In a letter to J. T. Christian.)\n\nThus we have the testimony of all the scholars in all the churches, who\nare recognized as Greek experts outside of their own party, that the\nNew Testament teaches immersion and that it has been changed to\nsprinkling and pouring by human authority. We do not believe that this\nchange was made with a bad motive. It was evidently done in sincerity\nand in the honest belief that it was the right thing to do. We must\naccept the honest testimony of these scholarly experts that the New\nTestament teaches immersion, but we certainly believe they were\nmistaken in taking the liberty to change Christ's command. If we take\nsuch liberties, all of the commandments of Christ will soon be set\naside and confusion will be worse confounded. Indeed, it is this very\nliberty of substituting what men thought best for the things revealed\nin the New Testament, that has caused our present sectarian divisions\nby adding human names, creeds, customs, etc., to the primitive gospel.\n\n_Scriptures to Show It is Wrong to Change Christ's Commands_.\n\n\"They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the\neverlasting covenant\" (Isa. 24:5).\n\n\"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the\ncommandments of men. For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold\nthe tradition of men. Ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep\nyour own tradition. Making the word of God of none effect through your\ntradition, which ye have delivered; and many such like things ye do\"\n(Mark 7:7-9, 13).\n\n\"Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man\ndisannulleth, or addeth thereto\" (Gal. 3: 15).\n\n\"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat\nof rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is\nas iniquity and idolatry\" (I Sam. 15:22,23).\n\n\"He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer\nshall be abomination\" (Prov. 28:9).\n\n\"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken\nhim unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. And every one\nthat heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be\nlikened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; and\nthe rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat\nupon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it\" (Matt.\n7:24, 26,27).\n\n\"If ye love me, keep my commandments. He that hath my commandments and\nkeepeth them, he it is that loveth me. If a man love me, he will keep\nmy words. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you\" (John\n14: 15,21,23; 15:14). \"Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things\nwhich I say\" (Luke 6:46).\n\n\"And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God,\nbeing baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers\nrejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of\nhim\" (Luke 7:29,30.)\n\n\"And hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.\nHe that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,\nand the truth is not in him\" (I John 2: 3,4).\n\nBut, after all, the very best way for ordinary people to learn the\nmeaning of baptism, is to go to the English Bible. Although human\nauthority and prejudice have hindered the translators from translating\nthe Greek word, and thus telling us what it means in English, the\ncontexts and sidelights on the subject make its meaning so plain that\nall can readily see it if divested of prejudice and preconceived ideas.\n\nBy reading the introduction to the English Revised Bible, you will\nlearn that the translators of the Authorized Version were forbidden to\ntranslate the word. Other translators have followed their example; so\nthat it is neither translated to _sprinkle, to pour_ nor _to immerse_\nin our standard English Bibles. The Greek word _baptisma_ has simply\nhad the last letter dropped and been carried over into English bodily.\nBut the word has been translated in numerous editions in various\nlanguages, and whenever it has been translated, it was always by the\nword _immerse_ or an equivalent term. No scholar, in any language, has\never had the temerity to translate it _to sprinkle_ or _to pour_. Even\nour English translators translate it when it is not used as an\necclesiastical term. And when they translate it, they say it means _to\ndip_. In 2 Kings 5:14, we read of Naaman, \"He went down and _dipped_\n[_baptizato_] himself seven times in Jordan.\" We may not have a\nsufficient knowledge of Greek to determine what Jesus meant when he\ncommanded us to be baptized. But the Apostles certainly understood him;\nand if we can find out what they did when they baptized, and we do the\nsame thing, then we know we are right, and have done what Christ\ncommanded.\n\nLet us turn to the Sacred Record and see what they did when they\nbaptized.\n\nWe read: \"And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and\nall they of Jerusalem, and they were baptized of him _in the river\nJordan_, confessing their sins. . . . And it came to pass in those\ndays, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of\nJohn _in_ [Greek _into_, marg. of A. R. V.] _the Jordan_. And\nstraightway _coming up out of the water_, he saw the heavens opened,\nand the Spirit like a dove descending upon him\" (Mark 1:5,9,10). \"John\nwas baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, _because there was much water\nthere_\" (John 3:23). \"And they _both went down into the water_, both\nPhilip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when _they came up out\nof the water_ . . . he went on his way rejoicing\" (Acts 8:38,39). \"We\nare _buried_ with him _by baptism_,\" \"_planted_ in the likeness of his\ndeath,\" \"and _raised_ in the likeness of his resurrection\" (Rom.\n6:4,5). \"Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and _our\nbodies washed_ with pure water\" (Heb. 10:22). \"Except a man be _born of\nthe water_ and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven\"\n(John 3:5). The italics are mine.\n\nThe following chart summarizes our study of baptism in the English\nBible:\n\n         BAPTISM IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE\n\n THE BIBLE AND IMMERSION    SPRINKLING AND POURING\n         REQUIRE:                   REQUIRE:\n\n1. Water. Acts 8:36; 10:47        1. Water\n\n2. Much water. John 3:23          2. Little water\n\n3. Going to water. Mark 1:9       3. Bringing water\n\n4. Going into water. Acts 8:38    4. Staying out of water\n\n5. Putting into water. Mark 1:9   5. Putting water on\n          (Margin of A. R. V)\n\n6. Form of burial. Col. 2:12      6. No form of burial\n\n7. Form of planting. Rom 6:5      7. No form of planting\n\n8. Form of birth. John 3:5        8. No form of birth\n\n9. Form of resurrection.          9. No form of resurrection\n          Rom. 6:4\n\n10. Form of doctrine. Rom. 6:17   10. No form of doctrine\n\n11. Bodies washed. Heb. 10:22     11. Head wet\n\n12. Coming up out of the water.   12. No getting out\n          Mark 1:10\n\nWe thus learn that in being baptized they _went to water_, to _much\nwater_, went _into the water_, were _put into the water_, were _buried\nin the water, planted in the water, born out of the water, raised out\nof the water_, had their _bodies washed_ and _came up out of the\nwater_. If we do these things, we are Scripturally baptized and have\nbeen immersed.\n\nThe following passages are the only places where sprinkling and pouring\nare found in the New Testament:\n\n_Sprinkling and Pouring in the New Testament_.\n\n 1. Heb. 9:13.--Blood.\n 2. Heb. 9:19.--Blood.\n 3. Heb. 9:21.--Blood.\n 4. Heb. 10:22.--Hearts.\n 5. Heb. 11:28.--Blood.\n 6. Heb. 12:24.--Blood.\n 7. 1 Pet. 1:2.--Blood.\n 8. Matt. 26:7,12.--Ointment.\n 9. John 2:15.--Money.\n 10. Acts 10:45.--Spirit.\n 11. John 13:5.--Water.\n 12. Luke 10:34.--Oil and Wine.\n 13. Rev. 14:10.--Wrath.\n\nYou will notice that none of these Scriptures refer to baptism and that\nnone of the Scriptures that do refer to baptism hint at sprinkling or\npouring as the action. Sprinkling and pouring for baptism must come\nfrom some other source. We have already learned whence they came.\n\nSome people will argue against immersion for hours, and when they are\ndriven into their last trenches, and about to be caught, they try to\nescape by saying, \"Baptism doesn't amount to anything at any rate, it's\na mere form. The great thing is Holy Spirit baptism.\"\n\nTo begin with, Holy Spirit baptism is not baptism at all, strictly\nspeaking. It is only figurative baptism. It is not always called\nbaptism. It is called _an anointing_ (Luke 4: 18), _a drinking_ (1 Cor.\n12: 13), _an enduing_ (Luke 24:49), a _filling_ (Acts 2:4), and a\n_sealing_ (Eph. 1:13). No person can be literally sprinkled or poured\nwith the Holy Spirit, or immersed into Him, as the Holy Spirit is a\nperson. The figurative meaning of baptism is to overwhelm, and to be\nbaptized with the Holy Spirit is to be submerged or overwhelmed in His\npower, or to come completely under His control. Holy Spirit baptism is\nnot a command to obey, but a promise to enjoy. It can only be\nadministered by Christ himself (John 1:33). Therefore, whenever in the\nNew Testament baptism is commanded for preachers to administer or\nsinners to obey, it can never refer to Holy Spirit baptism, but must\nalways refer to water baptism.\n\nIn the light of New Testament teaching and practise, it is marvelous\nthat any one who claims to follow its guidance, can make light of\nbaptism. \"Baptism a mere form?\" Then, why did Christ walk eighty miles\nto be baptized of John, and insist that it was necessary for him to be\nbaptized \"to fulfil all righteousness\"? (Matt. 3: 13-17). \"Baptism a\nmere form?\" Then, why, in giving his commission to all gospel workers,\ndid Christ say, \"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations,\nbaptizing them\"? (Matt. 28: 19). Those who neglect to baptize their\nconverts have certainly not wholly obeyed their Lord. \"Baptism a mere\nform?\" Then, why did Jesus say, \"Go ye into all the world and preach\nthe gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized\nshall be saved\"? (Mark 16:15, 16). Not only is every preacher commanded\nto baptize every convert, but every convert is also commanded to be\nbaptized; and baptism is made one of the conditions of salvation with\nevery proper gospel subject. \"Baptism a mere form?\" Then, why did Jesus\nsay to Nicodemus, \"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born\nof water and of the Spirit, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God\"?\n(John 3:5). All church standards refer this to baptism. \"Baptism a mere\nform?\" Then, why did Peter, on Pentecost, when he used \"the keys of the\nkingdom,\" revealed Christ's will and testament for sinners, and thus\nproclaimed the conditions of salvation, or of forgiveness, to all whom\nthe Lord should call through the gospel, say to penitent seekers,\n\"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus\nChrist unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift\nof the Holy Spirit\"? (Acts 2:38). And why is it said, \"They then that\nreceived his word were baptized\"? (Acts 2:41). Will not the same follow\nto-day if people will receive the Word of God without any subtractions?\n\"Baptism a mere form?\" Then, why is it said of the Samaritans that\n\"when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the\nkingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both\nmen and women\"? (Acts 8: 12). Will not the same follow to-day when\npeople believe the whole gospel? \"Baptism a mere form?\" Then, why is it\nsaid of the eunuch that when Philip \"preached unto him Jesus,\" he said,\n\"Behold, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized?\"? And why\ndid he not go \"on his way rejoicing\" before he \"came up out of the\nwater\"? (Acts 8:35,39). If our converts do not ask for baptism, and we\nsend them away as finished products without going down into the water\nwith them, are we preaching and practising the same gospel as did the\nprimitive evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? \"Baptism a\nmere form?\" Then, why did not even Christ himself speak peace to the\nsoul of Saul, but sent him to Damascus and directed Ananias to tell him\nwhat he must do, who said to him, \"And now why tarriest thou? arise,\nand be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the\nLord\"? (Acts 9: 6, 7; 22: 16). Does not the Lord send his servants\nto-day with the same message to those who put off their obedience to\nhim in baptism? \"Baptism a mere form?\" Then, why was there a special\nmiraculous demonstration to avoid objections to the baptism of the\nhousehold of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts; and why did Peter\ncommand them to be baptized with water, after they had received the\nbaptism of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 10:44-48). Does not this show that\nHoly Spirit baptism was not to displace water baptism? \"Baptism a mere\nform?\" Then, why was Lydia baptized as soon as she gave \"heed unto the\nthings which were spoken by Paul\"? (Acts 16: 14, 15). If properly\ninstructed, will not all people be baptized as soon as they are willing\nto give heed unto the word of the Lord? \"Baptism a mere form?\" Then,\nwhy, when the Philippian jailor was told by Paul and Silas what he\n\"must do to be saved,\" was he baptized \"immediately,\" \"the same hour of\nthe night\"? (Acts 16: 29-33). Will not the same gospel, if preached in\nthe same way, have the same effect to-day? \"Baptism a mere form?\" Then,\nwhy is it said that \"many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were\nbaptized\"? (Acts 18:8). Will not those who hear and believe in\nsincerity to-day also be baptized? \"Baptism a mere form?\" Then, why is\nit said by the Holy Spirit that Priscilla and Aquila expounded unto\nApollos \"the way of God more accurately,\" after \"he was mighty in the\nscriptures\" and \"had been instructed in the way of the Lord,\" and\n\"taught accurately the things of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of\nJohn\"? (Acts 18:24-26). If the Lord was then concerned to have\npreachers set right on water baptism, even when their gospel knowledge\nwas accurate in every other particular, does he not have a similar\nconcern now? and if our hearts are in perfect accord with his, will his\nconcern not be our concern? \"Baptism a mere form?\" Then, why was it\nPaul's first concern, when he came to Ephesus, to set the brethren\nright on water baptism, even though they were called \"disciples,\" and\nhad already been baptized (immersed) once? (Acts 19: 1-7). This shows\nthat baptism is not a mere outward act, but is important because of its\nrelation to the Lord Jesus, an obedient heart, and to the Holy Spirit.\nIf the Lord, through the Apostle, directed these disciples to be\nbaptized a second time, when they found they were not Scripturally\nbaptized, are not these his directions for to-day also? and should not\nhis preachers show people the truth if they have not been Scripturally\nbaptized, and, if possible, induce them to obey the Scriptural baptism,\neven when they thought they had been Scripturally baptized?\n\nIt is true that Paul said to the Corinthians, \"I thank God that I\nbaptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; _lest any man should say\nthat ye were baptized into my name._ And I baptized also the household\nof Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For\nChrist sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel\" (1 Cor. 1:\n14-17). In the words I have placed in italics, we are told why he was\nglad he baptized only a few of them. It was lest they should be his\npartisans, as they were divided on human leaders. We certainly dare not\nso interpret the words, \"for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to\npreach the gospel,\" as to contradict the commission of Christ and all\nthe numerous clear Scriptures we have just quoted. He evidently meant\nthat he himself did not do the baptizing, but had others do that part\nof the work, while he gave his time and strength to the preaching of\nthe gospel. The same was true of Jesus himself, as we learn from John\n4:1, 2: \"When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that\nJesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus\nhimself baptized not, but his disciples).\" He baptized them and he\ndidn't baptize them. That is, he commanded them to be baptized and had\nhis disciples perform the act. So evidently with Paul. If he meant that\nhis converts were not to be baptized, then he would certainly not have\nbaptized any of them.\n\nThat Paul was zealous in seeing that all his converts were baptized, is\napparent from the cases already quoted, especially the baptism of the\nEphesians. For when he discovered that their baptism was not\nScriptural, he, first of all, insisted that they be baptized again. It\nis further apparent from his teaching in his Epistles. In 1 Cor. 12:13\nwe read, \"For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body ... and\nwere all made to drink of one Spirit.\" In Gal. 3:26, 27, we read, \"For\nye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of\nyou as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.\" In Rom. 6:3, 4, we\nread, \"Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ\nJesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him\nthrough baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the\ndead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness\nof life.\" In Col. 2: 12, we have similar language, \"having been buried\nwith him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith\nin the working of God, who also raised him from the dead.\" In Heb.\n10:22, it is said, \"Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil\nconscience: and having our body washed with pure water.\" After reading\nthese Scriptures, no one can doubt that Paul had all his converts\nbaptized, and believed in baptism just as strongly as Christ and Peter.\n\nThat Peter had the same opinion about baptism near the end of his life,\nas at Pentecost, is evident from his words in I Pet. 3:21: \"Which also\nafter a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting\naway the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience\ntoward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.\"\n\nThat to refuse to be baptized after knowing that Christ has commanded\nit is to disobey him and to rebel against his authority, is clear from\nthe words of the Holy Spirit recorded in Luke 7: 29, 30: \"And all the\npeople when they heard, and the publicans, justified God, being\nbaptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers\nrejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him.\"\n\nAnd yet, despite all these Scriptures, many pious saints are so blinded\nby their prejudices and traditions, that instead of encouraging and\nexhorting people to obey this command to be baptized, that is given to\ntest the soul's complete surrender to Christ, and is called the\n\"obedience of faith\" or of the gospel, they encourage people to live in\ndisobedience to Christ by affirming that baptism is \"a mere form\" or\n\"non-essential.\" If subordinates in an army or earthly kingdom act thus\nand use their influence to induce others to disobey the orders of those\nover them, they are punished for treason. Any army that is thoroughly\nunited in the authority of its commander and cheerfully and promptly\nobeys his orders, is usually successful; while the largest and best\narmy on earth would be doomed to defeat the moment its officers and men\nwould disobey orders and each do as he pleases, or as he thinks best.\nThe reason Christ's, army on earth to-day is weak and constantly\ndefeated and retreating is because his orders are disregarded and the\n\"think so's\" and traditions of men are followed instead. Implicit\nobedience to the few simple commands of Christ would at once unite all\nhis followers into one invincible army that would enable the world to\nbelieve and know that he is the Christ of God (John 17:20, 23).\n\nIf anything is clear, it is that Christianity is a personal matter.\nThat each individual must meet and accept for himself the claims of\nChrist. No one can be saved by proxy. No one can go to heaven because\nof the faith, obedience or prayers of a parent, wife, husband, sister\nor brother. This being true, as Christ has commanded every creature to\nbe baptized (Mark 15: 15, 16; Acts 2: 38, etc.), it is evident that\ninfant baptism is not valid. The parents cannot obey for the child,\nhowever good their intentions. The child, when it reaches the age of\naccountability, must face the commandments of Christ for itself, and\neither deliberately obey or disobey and reject him. If infants remained\ninfants, they would do no harm in the church, even if they could do no\ngood. But they will grow into accountability and then the church is\nfull of unconverted people.\n\nMay we prayerfully do all in our power to hasten the day when all of\nChrist's followers will forsake the traditions, in which men have\nchanged Christ's teaching on baptism, and will gloriously reunite in\nhis will on this command which is so clearly revealed in the New\nTestament.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.\n\n\n\"See that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed\nthee.\"--Heb. 8: 5.\n\nIntroduction. My early ideas of the church, its doctrines, and of the\nteachings of Christ as revealed in the New Testament, were rather\ngeneral and vague. As is usual, it was chiefly a matter of hereditary\ntraditions. After I found my way back to Christ and to belief in the\nWord of God, the question naturally arose, which church shall I join,\nif any? Sectarian divisions had a hand in driving me into infidelity\nand confusion, and I was now compelled to investigate more closely this\nstrange puzzle. As I have already intimated, what I learned at\nMeadville about baptism and the teachings of the various religious\nbodies, had directed my attention to the people generally known as\n\"Disciples of Christ\" or \"Christians,\" who are working for Christian\nunion through the restoration of the primitive church. I will now give\nthe result of my study of the model church as revealed in the New\nTestament.\n\nNOTE.--Most of this and the following chapter are taken from my booklet\non \"The Church of Christ: What It Is, and Why It Exists.\"\n\nTHE CHURCH OF CHRIST.\n\nThe primary meaning of the word _church_ is a local body of Christians\norganized for work and worship (Acts 14:27). From this its meaning\nenlarged so as to apply to the members of all the churches (Eph. 3:10),\nand finally to all the saints in heaven and on earth (Heb. 12:23).\n\n_Of Christ_ expresses the church's relationship to Christ. It is\nChrist's church. He bought it (Eph. 5:25), built it (Matt. 16:18), and\nis its foundation (1 Cor. 3:11). It is his body (Rom. 12:5), of which\nhe is head (Col. 1:18) and which is so identified with him that it is\ncalled Christ (1 Cor. 12:12); it is his kingdom over which he is king\n(Matt. 16:19); it is a fold of which he is the shepherd (John 10:16);\nhe is a vine of which the members are branches (John 15:5); it is his\nhouse (Heb. 3:6); it is his dearly beloved wife (Eph. 5:25; 2 Cor.\n11:2). Christ so loves the church and identifies himself with it\nbecause of the sweet, loving, spiritual fellowship there is between\nhimself and it; and because it is his visible representative here on\nearth, and the instrument through which the Holy Spirit's work in the\nconversion of the world and the sanctification of believers, is carried\non.\n\nOther names given to the church are \"church of God\" (I Cor. 1:2),\n\"churches of God\" (I Thess. 2:14), \"churches of saints\" (I Cor. 14:\n33), \"temple of God and of the Holy Spirit\" (I Cor. 3:16), and \"the\npillar and ground of the truth\" (I Tim. 3:15). All these names are\nScriptural and proper when used in the proper way.\n\nChurch-members.\n\nThe members of the church or churches of Christ are called \"Christians\"\n(Acts 11:26; I Pet. 4:14, 16), \"disciples\" (Acts 9:1), \"saints\" (Rom.\n1:7), \"brethren\" (I Cor. 15:6), \"members\" (Rom. 12:5), etc., all of\nwhich names are right when used to express the proper idea or\nrelationship.\n\nThe Greek word for church is _ekkleesia_ and comes from _ekkaleoo_,\nwhich means _to call out_ or _summon forth_; and members of the church\nare the ones who have been called of God (2 Tim. 1:9) through the\ngospel (2 Thess. 2:14) from a life of sin to a life of holy service\n(Acts 26:16-18). Church-members or Christians are said to be \"saved,\"\n\"elected,\" \"washed,\" \"sanctified,\" \"redeemed,\" \"recreated,\"\n\"regenerated,\" \"translated,\" \"espoused,\" \"converted,\" \"reconciled,\"\n\"adopted,\" \"quickened,\" \"resurrected,\" etc. This gives us an idea of\nthe radical change that must take place before a person can become a\ntrue church-member. It will be noticed that the change expressed by\nthese terms is twofold. The one is subjective, and the other objective.\nThe one is a change of heart or character, and the other is a change of\nstate or relationship to God. The heart is changed by the Holy Spirit\n(John 3:5), through the preached gospel (1 Pet. 1:23), which leads to\nfaith (Rom. 10:17; Acts 15:9) and repentance (Acts 2:38); while the\nattitude toward God is changed by confession (Rom. 10:9), obedience in\nbaptism (Acts 2:38) and by God's pardon to the sinner (Acts 2:38). The\nnecessity of this twofold change is manifest from Christ's teaching\nwhen he says, \"Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them\" (Matt.\n28:19), \"Preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is\nbaptized shall be saved\" (Mark 16:16), and \"Except a man be born of\nwater and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God\" (John\n3:5). Also by the teaching of the Apostles when they say, \"Repent, and\nbe baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the\nremission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost\"\n(Acts 2:38), \"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and\nwash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord\" (Acts 22:16), \"Not\nby works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his\nmercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of\nthe Holy Ghost\" (Tit. 3: 5), \"For ye are all the children of God by\nfaith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into\nChrist have put on Christ\" (Gal. 3:26, 27), \"For by one Spirit we are\nall baptized into one body...and have been all made to drink into one\nSpirit\" (1 Cor. 12:13), \"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth\nalso now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but\nthe answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of\nJesus Christ\" (1 Pet. 3:21), \"Know ye not, that so many of us as were\nbaptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we\nare buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was\nraised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also\nshould walk in newness of life\" (Rom. 6:3, 4).\n\nIf it were God's purpose to simply save individuals, privately and\nwithout human agency, the subjective change of heart is all that would\nbe necessary. But a home must be provided for the nurture of the\nnew-born spiritual babes and a church organized to herald the gospel to\nevery creature; therefore, a definite act of open committal or\nenlistment is required in baptism. When this becomes thoroughly\nunderstood, the emphasis the New Testament puts on baptism will be\nappreciated, and people will no longer avoid the passages that refer to\nit, or try to explain them away. Neither faith, repentance nor baptism\nhave any saving virtue in themselves. They are important only because\nof their relation to Christ and the sinner. As Christ has made them\nconditions of salvation to those who have heard the gospel, they must\neither obey or be rejected because of a rebellious heart (Luke 7:29,\n30).\n\nWe learn that to be qualified for membership in Christ's church a\nperson must know the Lord (Heb. 8:11), must believe in him (Acts 8:37),\nmust repent of his sins (Acts 2:38), must confess him as Christ (Rom.\n10:9), and must obey him from the heart in baptism (Rom. 6:17). All\nthese are conscious, personal acts that must be performed by the person\nbecoming a member. No one can become a member by purchase, fleshly\nbirth, or the obedience of parents or other persons. It will also be\nnoticed that according to the teaching of the New Testament the\nconditions of salvation and church membership are the same. The New\nTestament never speaks of persons as saved or Christians who are not\nmembers of the church of Christ where they live.\n\nChurch Officers.\n\nOn the divine side the church of Christ is a kingdom with a\nconstitution and an absolute ruler. But the administration of this\nkingdom, as it comes in contact with the varying conditions that\nconfront it in the world, is left to the local church with its\nofficers. Officers are elected to increase the efficiency of the church\nin service (Acts 6:1-7). In Eph. 4:11, 12, we learn what the officers\nof the church of Christ are and why they are appointed. \"And he gave\nsome apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some\npastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of\nthe ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.\" Deacons were\nalso appointed to serve tables and assist in other ways (Acts 6:1-7;\nPhil, 1:1). The Apostles were personally commissioned by Christ (John\n20:21-23; Acts 26: 16), miraculously inspired to teach (1 Cor. 2:12,\n13; 1 Pet. 1:12) and endowed to perform miracles (2 Cor. 12: 12) and to\nconfer miracle-working power on others (Acts 8:17, 18). After the\nchurch was thoroughly established and the New Testament written the\napostolic office with its miraculous accompaniments ceased (Heb. 2:3,\n4; 1 Cor. 13:8). Prophets were appointed by miraculous endowment and\nended with the same. Evangelists, elders and deacons are the permanent\nofficers of the church of Christ. The special work of evangelists or\npreachers is to make disciples and to organize and strengthen churches.\nElders, or bishops, or pastors are local church officers, a plurality\nof which was appointed in each church (Acts 14:23). Their function is\nconcerned with the spiritual welfare of the church. The work of deacons\nhas already been indicated. The qualifications of evangelists, elders\nor bishops and deacons are given in the epistles to Timothy and Titus.\nThe church officers are selected by the members (Acts 6: 1-7), and\nimportant matters of discipline are decided by a majority vote of the\nchurch (2 Cor. 2:6, see Greek). The local church government then is\nadministered by a majority vote of its members and by the officers\nauthorized by such a majority. Outside of Christ and the Apostles the\nNew Testament does not recognize any authority higher than that vested\nin the local churches. General ecclesiastical organizations and church\ndignitaries with high-sounding titles are human inventions that were\nadded later. Where there is no organized church to act, individual\nChristians have authority to administer the affairs of the church or\nkingdom (Acts 8: 4; 9: 10-18; ii: 19-21). The only apostolic succession\nendorsed in the Bible is that which results from following the example\nof the Apostles in teaching and practice.\n\nA Christian's work in the local church is obligatory under Christ. In\naddition to the local church work, early Christians co-operated in work\ncovering a large territory and scope; and formed a simple organization\nfor this purpose (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:18, 19, 23). This example shows\nthat voluntary organization of individual Christians for general\nco-operative work is proper and Scriptural. Of this nature are\nmissionary societies and benevolent associations which are formed to\ncarry on general work, but have no ecclesiastical authority.\n\n_The Mission of the Church._\n\nThe mission of the church is to perpetuate and perfect itself and to\nadd to its membership, through evangelization, the entire world as far\nand as fast as possible. The fundamental means adopted to carry out\nthis mission is the church service. Our word _church_ is not derived\nfrom the New Testament word used in speaking of the body of believers,\nand it has a tendency to hide the real idea of the New Testament. It\nprimarily refers to a church building, then to the body of believers\nworshiping in the building, and finally to believers in general. The\ninspired writers use the word _ekkleesia_, which means a gathering of\npeople called from their homes into some public place. A correct\ntranslation would be _\"assembly\"_ or _\"congregation,\"_ as it has\nreference primarily to a local body of Christians assembled for work\nand worship. If this primary idea were restored, it would make mightily\nfor the strengthening of Christ's kingdom. We usually put the emphasis\non the church _in general, universal_ and _invisible,_ while the Holy\nSpirit puts the emphasis on the _local, visible_ and _tangible_ church.\nOur practical duties are connected almost entirely with the local\nchurch to which we belong and through which we chiefly help to build up\nthe general and invisible church. The church is the assembled\nChristians first of all, and the first duty of Christians is to\nassemble (Heb. 10:25). For people to say that they belong to the church\n(assembly), who do not assemble or attend the church services, is an\nanomaly, strictly speaking.\n\nThe purpose of the assembly or church services is revealed to us in\nActs 2:42, where we have a record of the practice of the first church\nof Christ. We read, \"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles'\nteaching and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.\"\nHere are four things mentioned as belonging to the service of the\nchurch. The first has reference to teaching the Word of God or, more\nespecially, the teachings of Christ as revealed through his Apostles in\nthe New Testament. The Apostles received their teaching through the\ninspiration of the Holy Spirit who revealed in the New Testament all\nthings necessary for our guidance and edification (2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3).\nChrist gave his Apostles commandments before his ascension (Acts 1:2),\nwhich they were to teach to the church (Matt. 28:20), and the church is\nexhorted to give heed to these commandments (2 Pet. 3:2). Not all the\ncommandments that Christ gave while on earth are for the church, but\nonly those he instructed the Apostles to teach after the descent of the\nHoly Spirit and the establishment of the church on Pentecost. Paul\nexhorts Timothy to commit unto faithful men, who are able to teach\nothers, the things he had heard from him (2 Tim. 2:2), and further\nexhorts him, \"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that\nneedeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth\" (2 Tim.\n2:15); \"I charge thee therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ,\nwho shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his\nkingdom; preach the word, be instant in season and out of season;\nreprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine\" (2 Tim.\n4:1, 2). Alas! how often this last solemn charge of Paul goes unheeded.\nWe preach in season and out of season, but do we preach the Word of God\nas we ought? The emphasis the New Testament puts on the Word of God can\nscarcely be overestimated. It is the incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23)\nemployed by the Holy Spirit to beget the Christian (Jas. 1:18; 1 Cor.\n4:15); it is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17) by which he pierces\nthe sinner's hard heart (Heb. 4:12) and brings conviction to his soul\n(John 16:8,9); it is the nourishment for the new-born spiritual babe (1\nPet. 2:2); it is the means used by the Spirit to strengthen, sanctify\nand build up the members of the church (1 Thess. 2:13; John 17:17; Acts\n20:32); it \"is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,\nfor instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect,\nthoroughly furnished unto all good works\" (2 Tim. 3:16,17). No other\nbooks were used in the early church as authoritative and all efforts to\nreplace it or to supplement it with human creeds, catechisms or\ndisciplines is an unwarranted effort to steady the ark of the Lord.\n\nThe second item of the public services is _fellowship_. The original\nword here is _koinoonia_, which, according to Dr. Thayer, means \"joint\nparticipation,\" \"a benefaction jointly contributed, a collection.\" The\nword sometimes refers to joint participation in religious privileges\nand sometimes to joint collections or contributions made for gospel\nwork. It seems to have the latter meaning here, as spiritual communion\nis embodied in the next item. That this was a feature of the public\nservice is apparent from the words of Paul in I Cor. 16:2, \"Upon the\nfirst day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God\nhath prospered him.\" The Emphatic Diaglott translates thus, \"Every\nfirst day of the week let each of you lay something by itself,\ndepositing as he may be prospered.\" While Paul gives these directions\nin reference to a particular collection taken for the poor saints in\nJudea, it is evidently given because it embodies the divine wisdom as\nto the best way of raising church money. It teaches that _each_\nchurch-member is to give _weekly, according to his ability_. When this\nprecept is practiced and we restore the liberality of the primitive\nchurch (Acts 2:44, 45; 4:32, 35), there will be no financial problem in\nthe church.\n\nThe third item in church worship, according to Acts 2: 42, is the\n\"breaking of bread,\" or the Lord's Supper. This was the most important\nthing in the early church service. It was to commemorate the death of\nChrist and to point forward to his second coming (I Cor. 11:26). Every\nChristian is under obligation to partake of the Lord's Supper (I Cor.\n11:24), but each must examine himself before eating lest he eat\ncondemnation to his soul (I Cor. 11:28, 29). The greatest thing in the\nLord's Supper is a spiritual eating or communion (John 6:32-58), and\nthis is needed frequently. The primitive churches of Christ observed\nthe Lord's Supper whenever they met for worship (I Cor. 11:20), and\nthis we learn was every first day of the week. \"Upon the first day of\nthe week when the disciples came together to break bread\" (Acts 20:7).\nThe Greek article \"tee\" here indicates that it was on _every_ first day\nof the week that they met to break bread and this is confirmed by I\nCor. 16:2. The early churches never met for worship on the seventh day\nof the week or on the Sabbath, but always on the first day of the week,\nor on the Lord's Day, in commemoration of Christ's resurrection from\nthe dead. It was the practice at first to have a meal in connection\nwith the Lord's Supper, but as this led to abuse it was abolished by\nPaul (1 Cor. 11:20-22, 34). The feet-washing which is commonly supposed\nto have taken place at the time Christ first broke bread with his\ndisciples, was simply a custom in vogue in that country, which Christ\nused to teach a lesson on humility. We have no record that the Apostles\never washed feet as a church ordinance or desired others to do so. When\nChrist washed feet it was not at a public church meeting, but at a\nprivate feast.\n\nThe fourth item in church worship, as mentioned in Acts 2:42, is\n\"prayers.\" The primitive church believed profoundly in prayer. In fact,\nthe entire New Testament is the record of a prolonged prayer-meeting.\nPaul, in writing to Timothy, says, \"I exhort therefore that, first of\nall, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made\nfor all men\" (1 Tim. 2:1), and Christ admonishes his disciples to\n\"watch and pray\" (Matt. 26:41).\n\nSelf-preservation is the first duty, upon which all our helpfulness to\nothers depends. So it is with the church. Its first duty is to\nperpetuate and strengthen itself through the means of grace God has\nprovided; but it will become sick and soon die, if it does not reach\nout in loving services to others. It is commissioned to \"make disciples\nof all nations\" (Matt. 28:18), but it cannot do this by merely\nproclaiming the gospel to all people. Paul preached the gospel in many\nlands, and a few missionaries could soon evangelize the entire world if\nthis were all that is necessary. God spent thousands of years to\nprepare the soil for Paul's preaching and confirmed his message with\nmiracles. We cannot evangelize the world by giving a few dollars to\nsend a few missionaries to preach a few sermons. Most of the work of\nmissionaries is educational and philanthropic, or, in other words,\npreparatory. It will require the best and united efforts of all\nChristians to entirely open the door of faith among the heathen. Christ\nsays, \"Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good\nworks and glorify your Father which is in heaven\" (Matt. 5:16). Peter\nexhorts Christians, \"Having your behavior seemly among the Gentiles,\nthat, wherein they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your\ngood works which they behold, glorify God\" (I Pet. 2: 12). The churches\nneed the miracle of good works, through the power of the Holy Spirit,\nto confirm the message of our missionaries. The acts that emanate from\nso-called Christian nations and people do more to hinder than to help\nthe missionaries. If Christians will, by the power of the Spirit, live\nthe life of Christ in the home, in business, in politics and\neverywhere, the heathen will soon glorify God in Christ because of the\ngood works which they behold. \"Herein is my Father glorified, that ye\nbear much fruit\" (John 15:8).\n\nIt is the mission of the church to bring heaven down to earth. If this\nis the high and holy calling of the church, is it a wonder that Christ\nso loved it as to give his life for it? The church is the \"pillar and\nground of the truth\" or the material organization through which heaven\nis bearing its message of love to this sin-cursed world. Speaking of\nthe church, Paul says, \"If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him\nshall God destroy\" (1 Cor. 3:17). All who attain unto the mind of\nChrist will love the church and give themselves for it.\n\n_The Unity of the Church._\n\nIt was God's eternal purpose to unite all things in Christ (Eph. 1:9,\n10). Christ declared that he would establish but one fold (John 10:\n16); he prayed that all his followers might be perfectly united and put\nthat union as a necessary condition for the conversion of the world\n(John 17:20-23); he died to unite all in one body (Eph. 2: 14-16), of\nwhich he is the head (Col. 1: 18).\n\nIf we turn to the book of Acts, we discover that the Holy Spirit,\nthrough the Apostles, did establish but one church, and that it was\nthoroughly united in love, teaching and practice.\n\nIf there ever was an excuse for different Christian denominations, it\nwas for a Jewish Christian denomination and a Gentile Christian\ndenomination; but the Holy Spirit did not establish such denominations\nand Paul put forth the effort of his life to prevent such a breach.\nWhere in all history can you find twelve men more radically different\nmentally and temperamentally than the Apostles? Yet the Holy Spirit did\nnot establish separate churches to cater to and further develop these\ntemperamental eccentricities. All were united in one church so they\ncould counterbalance and complement each other and thus perfect their\nown character and give greater symmetry to the church. \"And when the\nday of Pentecost was fully come they were all with _one accord in one\nplace_\" (Acts 2:1). After three thousand were added unto them we read,\n\"They continued daily with _one accord_ in the temple\" (Acts 2: 46),\nwhile farther on we read, \"And the multitude of them that believed were\nof _one heart_ and of _one soul_\" (Acts 4: 32). From the Epistles of\nPaul we learn that there was but one church in each community. Christ's\nrelation to the church makes it impossible for Christians to be loyal\nto him and at the same time divided. All must be perfectly united in\nallegiance to him as king, lie is the head of the body of which his\nfollowers are members. All the members of the body are perfectly united\nto each other and to the head; and, although the members may differ in\nfunction, they are all directed by the same commandments, motives and\npurposes. As soon as a tendency toward division became manifest it was\nseverely rebuked and ascribed to the carnal nature. Paul, in writing to\nthe Corinthians, says, \"Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of\nour Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same things, and that\nthere be no division among you; but that ye be perfectly joined\ntogether in the same mind and in the same judgment\" ... \"For ye are yet\ncarnal; for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and\ndivisions, are ye not carnal and walk as men?\" (I Cor. 1: 10; 3:3).\n\nThe seven landmarks of Christian union are revealed by Paul in the\nfirst six verses of the fourth chapter of Ephesians: \"I therefore, the\nprisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling\nwherewith you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with\nlongsuffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep\nthe unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and\none Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling;\none Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is\nover all, and through all, and in all.\"\n\nAs long as these seven unities--one body, one Spirit, one hope, one\nLord, one faith, one baptism and one Father--are maintained, it will be\nimpossible for a divided church to exist.\n\nOn the other hand, divisions will speedily disappear as soon as these\nseven unities are restored.\n\nI add the following chart of the New Testament church, which will serve\nas a summary and as a guide in the further study of this important\nsubject:\n\n[Illustration: THE CHURCH THAT JESUS ESTABLISHED]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE CHURCH SINCE THE APOSTLES.\n\n\n_The Apostasy of the Church._\n\nThe apostolic unity of the church was maintained for about three\nhundred years. During this period the church endured the ten great,\ngeneral persecutions directed against it by the world-ruling Roman\nEmpire, which resulted in the martyrdom of almost all of the Apostles\nand multitudes of other Christians. Despite the opposition of the\nmightiest powers on earth, the church scored the most marvelous\nvictories and was on a fair way to conquer the whole world for Christ.\nSatan, perceiving that his opposition to a united church under the\nleadership of Christ was fruitless, now tried to get within the church\nand to shear it of its power by confusing its counsels and dividing its\nforces. Christ said, \"Every city or house divided against itself shall\nnot stand\" (Matt. 12:25), and Satan knew that if he could get\nChristians to exhaust their energies by contending with each other,\ntheir conquest of the world would be at an end. He filled the church\nwith speculative philosophy, heathen idolatry and the worldly spirit in\ngeneral. As always, he used the pride, vanity and ambition of\nindividuals to accomplish his purpose. If fallible human leaders and\ntheir opinions could be put in the place of the infallible Christ and\nhis teachings, the work would be done; because this would arouse the\nopposition of other ambitious human leaders and thus the church would\nbe torn asunder and exhausted with internal strife and divisions. Alas\nthat the church did not heed the earnest warning of Paul, \"Now I\nbeseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences\ncontrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For\nthey that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own\nbelly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the\nsimple\" (Rom. 16:17, 18). The selfishness of leaders and the lazy,\ncareless indifference of the masses who blindly follow on, is what\nmakes the creation and perpetuation of divisions among Christians\npossible. Perceiving that the division of the church would destroy its\npower, its leaders strove with might and main to preserve its unity.\nHad they exalted the Christ and used his Word, the sword of the Spirit,\nthey would have succeeded. But they were ambitious and worked for a\nunited church so they could use its power to exalt themselves and their\nopinions and crush those opposed to them. Human creeds, as standards of\northodoxy, were invented, and more stress was put on correct\nspeculative opinions than on faith in Christ and Christ-like living.\nPersons who would not subscribe to the speculative opinions of man-made\ncreeds were persecuted and anathematized. The church formed a league\nwith worldly rulers and used the strong arm of the law to crush those\nwho would not accept its human standards of orthodoxy. The Inquisition,\nwith the dungeon, stocks, guillotine and other diabolical means of\ntorture, was called into requisition. It is claimed that no less than\nfifty million human beings were martyred in this effort of the\necclesiastical hierarchy, calling itself the church, to maintain unity\non a human creed. Although this effort at union was largely successful,\nit was not Christian union. Paul says that Christian union is where\nChristians are of the same mind and judgment and all speak the same\nthings (1 Cor. 1:10), while this union was maintained by suppressing\nconscientious convictions and their utterance.\n\n_The Reformation of the Church._\n\nThe effort at a forced union on a speculative human creed was never\nentirely successful. In the fastnesses of the mountains the Waldenses,\nAlbigenses and others, maintained their religious freedom. The fire of\nreligious liberty was smouldering, but not extinguished. It was covered\nwith the black coals of ecclesiastical ignorance, brutality and\ntyranny; but by and by it worked its way to the light and illuminated\nthe darkness of the age. The great Reformation burst forth into a\nmighty inextinguishable flame all over Europe, and, overleaping great\nbarriers, it blazed forth in America. The ecclesiastical shackles were\ntorn asunder and the people were set free. I speak of the ultimate\noutcome, for this end was only attained after centuries of effort.\nHereditary religious ideas, prejudices and customs become petrified,\nand it is only with the most desperate and long-continued efforts that\nindividuals and bodies of people can free themselves from them. Failing\nto recognize how they are blinded through hereditary bias, environment\nand limited ideas, people imagine they have attained unto the ultimate\ntruth, and thus their growth in knowledge ceases and they become\nfossilized into a sectarian party. People imagine that they are free\nwhen they are delivered from religious and political tyrants that\npersecute and oppress them; but their greatest bondage, and the one\nthat makes the others possible, is the hereditary and acquired\nprejudice, bias, bigotry and ignorance within themselves. The struggle\nof the Reformation was for religious freedom. This struggle was by no\nmeans always unselfish and consistent. Protestants as well as Roman\nCatholics used force to crush those that would not submit to their\ncreeds. Both in Europe and in America men's bodies were tortured and\ndestroyed with the hope of saving their souls and in the endeavor to\nmaintain the unity of the church. Even where the church and the state\nwere separated so that the church could not use the civil law to\npersecute its opponents, other means of coercion were used, such as\nboycotting, ostracism, excommunication and anathemas. The idea of the\nRoman Catholic Church is that you cannot trust the people to interpret\nthe Bible for themselves; the Pope and the church must do it for them.\n\nThe idea of Protestant sectarian creeds is largely the same. The\nmembers cannot be trusted to interpret the Bible for themselves, so the\ncreed-makers have to do it for them. The difference is in degree and\npower of oppression rather than in kind. The entire idea is\nfundamentally wrong. Speculative theology cannot save any one and\nsectarian creeds are harder to understand than the Bible itself. The\npeople need the living, loving, personal Christ, and not the dry husks\nof speculative theology. We want uniformity in matters of faith that\nare clearly revealed and in allegiance to Christ, but do not need it in\nspeculative opinions based on inferences as to what the Bible teaches.\n\nFreedom is absolutely necessary to progress and civilization. But\nfreedom may be turned into a curse as well as a blessing. Criminals\nwant freedom to gratify the lusts of the flesh (Gal. 5:13). Those in\nbondage to their own carnal nature must be put under restraint by those\ngoverned by moral principles. Even Christians need to be guided and\ngoverned in spiritual matters, and have always felt this need. The\ntrouble has been that mortal men have been accepted as authoritative\nspiritual guides, or have tried to control the religious convictions\nand practices of their fellow-men by force. Christ is the Christian's\nonly safe and proper guide. As a final result of the Reformation the\nChristian people in America and parts of Europe were set free from\nreligious tyranny and left to choose their spiritual guides. Although\nthey professed that the Bible was their only authority, they accepted\nhuman leaders and their opinions as guides and permitted these to\ninterpret the Bible for them. Thus the freedom of the Reformation was\nturned into the curse of division and sectarianism. Divided\nProtestantism is better than the religious tyranny of the Dark Ages;\nbut it is bad, and will be replaced with the Christian union of the New\nTestament when loyalty to Christ and his Word is substituted for\nloyalty to human leaders and their opinions embodied in creeds. Christ\nsaid, \"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation\"\n(Matt. 12:25). The truth of this has been sadly demonstrated in our\ndivided Christianity. In how many homes has sectarian division wrought\nhavoc with its religious life! How many husbands and wives have been\nlost to active service for the Master because of the chilling effect of\nindifference or opposition through sectarian differences! How many\nchildren have become indifferent or disgusted with religion, because\ntheir parents differed in their religious convictions! Again, look at\nthe effect of sectarian division in a community. Five church buildings\nand preachers where one could do the work, while the balance could be\ndevoted to the evangelization of the heathen. But the financial loss is\nthe least. Preachers are poorly supported and therefore poorly equipped\nfor their work, and people are encouraged to join the churches on\nalmost any conditions through rivalry and the need of support for so\nmany churches. Sinners go unrebuked through fear that their financial\nsupport will be lost; and, if disciplined, they are often received with\nopen arms into a rival church. When we look at the kingdom of Christ at\nlarge, we see how it has come to desolation because of divisions.\nMillions of dollars are wasted in rival churches, colleges, papers,\npreachers, books, etc.; while the heathen stand with amazed incredulity\nbefore the missionaries of a babel of denominations. Verily the\nreformed church needs reforming.\n\n_A Movement for Christian Union._\n\nDivided Protestantism reached its climax in America at the beginning of\nthe last century. This land of freedom offered a congenial soil for its\nperfect development and unfolding. Thus were exhibited more fully than\never before the sin and folly of such divisions. The forces of Christ\nwere largely wasted and defeated through sectarian strife, and there\nwas the bitterest feeling even between different branches of the same\ndenomination. Infidelity was rampant in the land and Christianity was\nat a low ebb. However, the love of the Master was strong in many\nhearts, and these longed and prayed for better things. As by divine\ninspiration, a great union movement sprang up simultaneously in\ndifferent parts of the country. The outcome was what may be called the\nAmerican Reformation, but is more properly called the Restoration\nmovement. The burning desire of the promoters of this movement was a\nreunion of the divided followers of Christ. After a thorough and\nprayerful consideration of the subject, it was decided that the only\npossible basis of union is the Bible; and so the motto was adopted,\n\"Where the Bible speaks we will speak, and where the Bible is silent we\nwill be silent.\" It was decided to require a \"thus saith the Lord\" or\nan apostolic example for every item of teaching or practice. The\nreformers expected to bring about Christian union without leaving their\nrespective denominations and forming a separate religious body. But an\napplication of their motto in the study of the Bible led to results\nthat they never dreamed of. They were compelled to give up their\nsectarian practices one by one, and soon found themselves forced out of\nthe denominational bodies. It now became clear to them that the real\ncause of the origin and perpetuation of sectarian divisions was the\nhuman element, in teaching and practice, added to the church since the\ndays of the Apostles; and that nothing but their removal and the\nrestoration of the primitive church in name, creed and deed, could\nbring the Christian union of New Testament times. Learning that, aside\nfrom the Apostles, there was no ecclesiastical authority or\norganization in New Testament times, above the local church, they\nproceeded to organize local churches of Christ after the primitive\nmodel, and invited both saints and sinners to unite with them in this\nwork and in protesting against the sin of sectarian divisions.\n\n_The Restoration of the New Testament Creed._\n\nIn the evolution of the movement for Christian union, it was soon\ndiscovered that human creeds, as standards of church or ministerial\nfellowship, are divisive in their nature and prevent the reunion of\nGod's people. All claim to get their creed from the Bible; but since\ncreeds contradict each other in doctrine, they cannot all be right,\nalthough they may all be wrong. Human creeds are responsible for most\nof the heresy trials and have armed most of the infidelic attacks upon\nthe church. The only way to permanently solve the creed problem is to\nrestore the divine creed given by the Holy Spirit to the primitive\nchurch. This is the only true Apostles' Creed and the only one that\nwill never need any revision. This is none other than the _divinity of\nChrist_, the central truth of revelation and of Christianity. Jesus\nsaid, in answer to Peter's confession, \"Thou art the Christ, the Son of\nthe living God,\" \"Upon this rock I will build my church\" (Matt. 16: 16,\n18). John declared of his Gospel, \"These are written, that ye might\nbelieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye\nmight have life through his name\" (John 20:31). Paul commanded,\n\"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved\" (Acts\n16:31), and said, \"Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,\nwhich is Jesus Christ\" (1 Cor. 3:11). This is what the Apostles\npreached everywhere, and required as a condition for baptism and church\nmembership; and it is the only creed they ever required. The church is\nnot founded upon a system of speculative theology that even the learned\ncannot understand, but upon the loving, divine personality of Jesus\nChrist, the Son of the living God. Get Jesus in the heart, and belief\nin his word and a Christ-like life will inevitably follow. This is the\nonly creed that can reunite divided Christendom. Christians cannot\nunite on human leaders and their finite opinions, but they can all\nunite on Christ.\n\n_The Restoration of Bible Names._\n\nIt was further discovered that human names for God's people were\ndivisive in nature and a barrier to Christian union. There is nothing\nin a name until it becomes authoritatively attached to a person or\nthing, but after it becomes so attached, there is as much in the name\nas in the person or thing. Since the name Andrew Carnegie became\nattached to him, it is worth as much in money and influence as Mr.\nCarnegie himself is worth. Thus it is that there is salvation in the\nname of Christ. \"For there is none other name under heaven given among\nmen, whereby we must be saved\" (Acts 4:12).\n\nThe Bible names given to the church and to the followers of Christ,\nexpress true ideas and relationships; while the human names since added\nexpress false and unscriptural ideas and relationships. The church and\nits members should be named after Christ because they belong to him;\nfor the same reason it is wrong to call them after any other person or\nthing.\n\nPaul writes, \"Every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos;\nand I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified\nfor you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?\" \"For while one\nsaith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?\"\n(I Cor. 1:12, 13; 3:4). \"I pray you,\" said Luther, \"leave my name\nalone, and do not call yourselves Lutherans, but Christians. Who is\nLuther? My doctrine is not mine. I was not crucified for any one. Paul\nwould not that any should call themselves of Paul, nor of Peter, but of\nChrist. How, then, does it fit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes,\nto give my name to the children of Christ! Cease to cling to these\nparty names and distinctions! Away with them all and let us call\nourselves Christians, after him from whom our doctrine comes!\" Those\nengaged in this restoration movement heed the admonitions of Paul and\nLuther and call themselves \"Christians,\" or \"disciples of Christ,\"\nwhile they call the churches, \"churches of Christ\" or \"churches of\nGod.\" They do not use these names in a sectarian, but in a Scriptural,\nsense. They do not claim to be the \"only Christians,\" but aim to be\n\"Christians only.\" We read in Acts II:26, \"The disciples were called\nChristians first at Antioch.\" \"If any man suffer as a Christian,\" says\nPeter, \"let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this name\"\n(I Pet. 4: 16). Any name used to designate a part of the followers of\nChrist and to separate them from the rest, is wrong, because it\nexpresses a wrong and unscriptural idea. \"Would to God,\" said Wesley,\n\"that all sectarian names were forgotten, and that we, as humble,\nloving disciples, might sit down at the Master's feet, read his holy\nword, imbibe his spirit, and transcribe his life into our own!\" John\nsays, \"We shall see his face and his name shall be in our foreheads\"\n(Rev. 22:4).\n\n_The Ordinances Restored._\n\nIn addition to the restoration of the New Testament creed and names, it\nwas found that there can be no organic Christian union, after the\nprimitive type, without a restoration of the ordinances as administered\nby the Apostles. Protestants all accept two ordinances, baptism and the\nLord's Supper, but they differ greatly in the manner of observing them.\nSome have open and others close communion. Some observe the Lord's\nSupper monthly, others quarterly and still others annually. In looking\nfor apostolic precepts and examples, it was found that the early\nChristians met on every first day of the week to break bread; and that\neach Christian was commanded by Christ to partake of the Lord's Supper,\nafter examining himself to see that his heart was prepared for this\nspiritual feast. We have neither the authority to decide the frequency\nof the service, nor who shall partake of the Supper.\n\nThe greatest hindrance to a practical working union of the followers of\nChrist is the babel of teaching and practice as to baptism. Some hold\nthat the mere baptism of infants will save them, while others belittle\nbaptism or ignore it altogether. Some baptize infants, others only\nadults. Some sprinkle, some pour, and others immerse for baptism. Some\nsprinkle, pour or immerse, just as the candidate wishes it. Does the\nNew Testament teach this babel of confusion or has it come from human\ninventions and additions? It has already been pointed out that only\nthose who had previously been born of the Spirit, or undergone a change\nof heart through faith and repentance, were baptized by the Apostles.\nWe are told that Jesus never baptized any one (John 4:2), therefore he\nnever baptized any infants. If we examine carefully the cases of\nhousehold baptism recorded in the New Testament, we will find that in\neach case infants are necessarily excluded; as those baptized \"heard\"\n(Acts 10:33), \"believed\" (Acts 16:34), \"were comforted\" (Acts 16:40),\n\"addicted themselves to the ministry\" (1 Cor. 16:16), etc. These acts\nall refer to people who had reached the age of intelligence and\naccountability and, therefore, cannot refer to infants. Infant baptism\nis based on two errors that crept into the church--the doctrines of\ninfant damnation and baptismal regeneration. Infants are saved without\nbaptism, for Jesus said \"of such is the kingdom of heaven\" (Matt.\n19:14), and baptism is of value only because of its relation to Christ\nand the faith of the sinner (Mark 16:16). The greatest emphasis we can\nput on baptism is to say that Christ commanded it and made it a\ncondition of salvation to those that hear the gospel and have the\nopportunity to obey it. To refuse to obey this or any other commandment\nof Christ, reveals a rebellious heart that cannot be saved.\n\nOf the action of baptism we speak in a previous chapter, therefore we\nneed not treat of it here only to say that all churches agree that the\nimmersion of a penitent believer in water is Scriptural baptism, and\nthis is the only practice on which all can unite. Thousands of those\nthat are contented to be Christians only have given up sprinkling and\nbeen immersed after studying the Bible on the subject.\n\n _The Bible Restored._\n\nChristian union on the primitive gospel necessitates the restoration of\nthe Bible to its proper place and authority. Sectarianism has largely\ndisplaced it with creeds and other human standards. Recently I read the\nfollowing in an introduction to a catechism: \"This catechism has well\nbeen called a Bible for the laity.\" When we remember how contradictory,\nand, therefore, erroneous, these human deductions as to Bible teaching\nare, we can see the need of putting them aside and restoring the Bible\nas the Christian's all-sufficient and only sufficient guide.\n\nThe Bible has also been thrust aside and kept from the people by false\ntheories of conversion and the consequent erroneous practices in\nevangelistic work. People have been taught that they are totally\ndepraved and can do nothing towards their conversion, that faith is a\ndirect gift of God, that the Holy Spirit converts sinners by immediate\nmiraculous power, that the evidence of pardon is in dreams, visions or\nfeelings, and that sinners have to wait until God by entreaties is\nreconciled to save them. All these theories are erroneous and logically\nset aside the entire gospel plan of salvation. The Holy Spirit, through\nthe Apostles, used the truths of the Word or gospel to convict sinners,\nand taught penitents, out of the New Testament, on what conditions they\ncould inherit the salvation Christ purchased on the cross. The sinners\nthat wanted to be saved accepted this salvation by complying with\nChrist's conditions of pardon, and went on their way rejoicing, because\nthey had the infallible Word of God for it that they were saved. In\nother words, the Apostles preached the gospel, and penitent sinners\nwere immediately saved by believing it (Mark 16:16), repenting of their\nsins (Acts 2:38) and openly committing themselves to Christ in baptism\n(Acts 22:16).\n\nFinally, the Bible has become a meaningless riddle and uninteresting to\nmost people because it is not rightly divided. It is assumed that all\nparts of the Bible are addressed to everybody. This is far from the\ntruth. While we must recognize the unity and interdependence of the\nentire Bible and that each part teaches great spiritual truths for all,\nwe must also remember that its different parts contain specific\nprecepts addressed to different classes of people and only applicable\nto them. Thus the Mosaic law was for the Jews only, and was superseded\nby the gospel (Gal. 3:24, 25). Turning to the New Testament, we find\nthat the four Gospels were written to make believers (John 20:31), the\nActs of the Apostles, \"Book of Conversions,\" to tell and show people\nhow to be saved or become Christians (see chapters 2, 8, 16, etc.),\nwhile the rest of the New Testament is addressed to Christians or\nchurch-members as their rule of faith and practice. The churches in\nthis Restoration movement aim to restore the Bible to its primitive\nplace in producing penitents, guiding them unto salvation and in giving\nall instructions to the churches needed for their edification and\nguidance.\n\n_Restoration of the New Testament Church Government._\n\nWe have learned that all sectarian divisions have resulted from\nexalting human leaders and their opinions. Ambitious ecclesiastics have\nexalted themselves with the help of misguided people; and, usurping\nauthority, have lorded it over God's heritage. How wide the difference\nbetween the simplicity of the primitive gospel and the pompous\necclesiastical organizations and titles of modern times! It is\nself-evident that Christian union cannot be restored until this\necclesiastical machinery be put aside and the administration of\nChrist's kingdom be again entrusted to the local churches and their\nofficers as in New Testament times.\n\nIt will be noticed that this modern movement for Christian union does\nnot seek to introduce new doctrines into the religious world. It seeks\nrather the restoration of the old Jerusalem gospel with its doctrines,\nordinances and fruits. Its promoters thoroughly believe in all the\ntruths accepted by evangelical bodies and simply strive to remove the\nsectarian growths that have fastened themselves to the old ship Zion\nduring its course through the centuries. Among its favorite mottoes are\nthese:\n\n   No Book but the Bible.\n   No Creed but the Christ.\n   No Plea but the Gospel.\n   No Name but the Divine.\n   In Christ--Unity.\n   In Opinions--Liberty.\n   In all Things--Charity.\n\n_Is One Church as Good as Another?_\n\nThe mere hint that there might be something in the doctrines of\ndifferent churches that is erroneous and needs to be dropped or\nmodified, is usually met with a frown of disfavor, by the\nsupersensitive sectarian world. The sectarian sore is grown over with\nthe agreement to disagree, and woe unto the doctor that insists on\nprobing the wound to effect a cure. The effort at probing is usually\nmet with the declaration, \"One church is just as good as another, they\nare all aiming for the same place.\" Let us try to discover what truth\nor error is wrapped up in this statement, and what are the religious\nconditions that inspire such declarations. In the first place, it shows\na disposition to apologize for sectarian doctrines rather than to\ndefend them. This is a hopeful sign. All the large denominations in\nAmerica originated in European countries under the bitter religious\ncontroversies and cruel political strife that followed the Dark Ages.\nIt was these stormy and abnormal conditions that gave birth to these\nsects and largely moulded their peculiar doctrines. One extreme begot\nanother, and while each of these denominations emphasized some\nneglected religious truth, it emphasized it so strongly as to often\ntwist it into an untruth or out of proper relationship to other truths.\nThe people in free America are not interested in the polemical\ncontroversies that resulted from religious and political conditions in\nthe old countries. Thus it has come to pass that scarcely any\ndenomination seriously and persistently urges the ideas that gave it\nbirth, and their creeds have to be revised continually to hold their\npreachers and church-members. The result is that the great mass of the\nmembers of the sectarian churches neither know nor care what the creeds\nof their churches teach. I say that this is a hopeful sign, but there\nis also a great danger involved in it. Learning that the doctrines of\ntheir own and other denominations are not of saving or vital\nimportance, people are likely to jump to the conclusion that no\nreligious doctrines are of vital importance, and so lose their interest\nin Christianity. No one can deny that thousands have reached this\ncondition, and are either members of no church or merely nominal,\nindifferent members. Since all sectarian doctrines are of human origin\nand of no vital, saving importance, we can endorse the statement that,\nfrom a sectarian standpoint, one church is just as good as another.\n\nWe will also grant, for the sake of the argument, that from the\nstandpoint of piety, talent, learning and consecration, one church, on\nan average, is just as good as another. But does this go to the bottom\nof the subject? The doctor who, through ignorance of medical science,\ngives your child medicine that cripples it for life or kills it, may be\njust as good morally and intellectually as other doctors who know their\nbusiness. His blunder of ignorance may not destroy his hope of heaven;\nbut is that a reason why you would just as soon have him treat your\nchild as another doctor? So sectaries who teach erroneous doctrines may\nbe just as honest, consecrated and learned as those who teach the\ngospel truth; but does it make no difference to the cause of Christ and\nthe salvation of souls, whether they teach sectarian vagaries that\ndivide and desolate the church, or exalt the Christ and his Word so as\nto unite all his followers in the conquest of the world? But, you ask,\nhow can good and learned people differ so in their beliefs? We may not\nunderstand how it is, but we know it is and ever has been so. Our minds\nare so constituted that we must see all truths alike, logically,\nmathematically and in every other way, if we see them at all. The\ntrouble is that our vision is so warped through prejudice and limited\nideas and information that we fail to see the simplest truths, and find\nin the Bible and elsewhere what we bring with us through heredity and\nenvironment. The Bible recognizes this truth. Jesus prayed, \"Father,\nforgive them, for they know not what they do\" (Luke 23:34). Paul says,\n\"I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief\" (1 Tim.\n1:13), and again, \"The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now\ncommandeth all men everywhere to repent\" (Acts 17:30). It may seem\nparadoxical, but it is nevertheless true, that the greatest hindrance\nto the spread of the truth of God has come from pious, consecrated and\nGod-fearing souls who were misled by their hereditary prejudices. The\nmajority of those converted under the preaching of the Apostles, as\nrecorded in the New Testament, were devout saints who needed to be\ndelivered from their hereditary Jewish prejudices and enlisted in the\nre-alignment of religious forces for the conquest of the world for\nChrist and his kingdom. The Pentecostians were \"devout men,\" the eunuch\nwas a devout worshiper, Saul of Tarsus was a conscientious man,\nCornelius was devout and a philanthropist. A large per cent of the Jews\nwere honest and devout people, but were fighting against Christ because\nthey were blinded by hereditary religious ideas. Peter, even after\nPentecost, was subject to these influences, for it took ten years, with\nspecial miraculous manifestations, before he could see that Gentiles\nwere creatures to whom the gospel was to be preached as well as to the\nJews. While sectarian divisions are largely due to selfish and wicked\nmen, most of them are due to devout Christians who are misled by\ninherited prejudices or simply drift with the tide.\n\nIf these things are true, we should tremble lest we are upholding error\nand opposing the truth unintentionally through hereditary bias. We\nshould make a prayerful and diligent search for the truth as it is in\nChrist Jesus. Although we have discovered that none of the sectarian\ndoctrines are of vital importance, let us remember that it is different\nwith \"the faith [system of teaching] which was once for all delivered\nunto the saints\" (Jude 3) by the Apostles and for which we are duty\nbound to \"earnestly contend.\" Since so many devout and learned\npreachers are teaching so many contradictory doctrines, which cannot\nall be true, let us not accept their statements unchallenged, but let\nus test them (I John 4:1-6) by searching the Scriptures daily to see if\nthese things are so (Acts 17:11). After that we are assured that we\nhave found the truth ourselves, let us \"be gentle unto all men, apt to\nteach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves:\nif God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of\nthe truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the\ndevil, who are taken captive by him at his will\" (2 Tim. 2:24-26). In\nview of the fact that at least the great majority of the members of\ndenominational churches must be in error, it should be a crowning glory\nto change one's religious affiliations through an investigation of the\ntruth. The hope of the cause of Christ lies with those who, hearing the\nvoice of God's truth in their conscience, are ready to obey it, even if\nit results in breaking the dearest human ties and leads to ostracism\nand persecution. Almost all the promoters of this union movement have\nthemselves found their way out of sectarianism after heart-rending\nefforts to rid themselves from their hereditary prejudices and errors.\nThey are simply entreating others to do what they themselves have done,\n for the sake of Christ's cause, and help to establish local churches\nof Christ after the Apostolic model. That they have fundamentally\nreoccupied the primitive ground is admitted by all who have fairly\ninvestigated the subject. If they are yet in error on any points, they\nare in a position and ready to correct these as fast as they discover\nthem through a further study of God's Word.\n\n _The Church Triumphant._\n\nChrist declares that the evangelization of the world is dependent upon\nChristian union. Therefore, the ultimate triumph of his church\nnecessitates the triumph of Christian union. We praise God for every\nmovement that looks toward a closer union of Christians; but we are\nsure that nothing short of the removal of every vestige of\ndenominationalism and the complete restoration of the one body or\nchurch of New Testament times will satisfy the demands of God's Word. A\nnumber of forces such as the Sunday-school, C.E., Y.M.C.A., Evangelical\nAlliance and Church Federation are destroying the sectarian spirit and\nthe field is getting ripe unto the harvest for the restoration of the\nunity of the early church with its converting power. The success of\nthis movement for Christian union on the primitive gospel has been\nphenomenal. In eighty years its adherents have increased from ten\nthousand to about one and a third millions. The per cent of gain in\nmembership, from 1890 to 1905, in the six American religious bodies\nthat number a million each was as follows: Christians or disciples of\nChrist, 94 per cent.; Roman Catholics, 73 per cent.; Lutherans, 51 per\ncent.; Methodists, 40 per cent.; Baptists, 38 per cent., and\nPresbyterians, 35 per cent. Barring out the Catholics and Lutherans,\nwho get most of their gain by immigration, the Christians or churches\nof Christ show more than double the gain of the other three bodies. We\nglory in this growth only as the glory of Christ is involved in it. It\nis an earnest of what Christian union will do even through very\nimperfect instruments. What will the harvest be, when the prayer of\nJesus is answered and all his followers are united in one \"glorious\nchurch, holy and without blemish, not having spot or wrinkle or any\nsuch thing\" (Eph. 5:27), going forth to the evangelization of the world\n\"fair as the moon, clear as the sun, terrible as an army with banners,\"\n\"looking forth as the morning\" (S. of Sol. 6: 10)! May the prayer of\nJesus for the union of his followers be our prayer, and may we do all\nin our power to bring a speedy answer! Amen.\n\nThe following is a splendid statement of the aim of the Restoration\nmovement. I do not know its author:\n\nOUR AIM.\n\n1. The restoration of primitive Christianity and consequent union of\nall the followers of Christ in one body.\n\n2. To build a church of Christ, without a denominational name, creed or\nother barrier to Christian unity, whose terms of fellowship shall be as\nbroad as the conditions of salvation and identical with them.\n\n3. To lead sinners to Christ in the clear light of the New Testament\nteaching and example.\n\nI have summarized the situation as I see it as follows:\n\nARE THESE THINGS TRUE?\n\nSEARCH THE SCRIPTURES AND SEE. ACTS 17:11.\n\n1. Christ wants all of his followers to be united in one church as they\nwere the first three centuries (John 17:20, 21; 1 Cor. 1:10-13; Eph.\n4:1-6; Rom. 15:5-7).\n\n2. Sects and divisions among Christians are wasteful, carnal and sinful\nand result from exalting human leaders and their opinions above Christ\nand his opinions revealed through his Apostles (1 Cor. 3:1-4; Rom.\n16:17, 18; Gal. 5:20).\n\n3. As soon as we drop human names, creeds and customs and build\nchurches after the divine model, by teaching and practising as the\nApostles did, the unity of the primitive church will be restored (Heb.\n8:5; 1 Cor. 11:16; Jude 3).\n\n4. Churches on an average are about the same in piety and consecration,\nbut so long as they teach contradictory doctrines they cannot all be\nright, but may be wrong. _Therefore you should examine for yourself and\nbe sure you are guided by God's Word rather than by inherited\ntraditions which perpetuate sects_ (Mark 7:6-13).\n\nThe following _guide to salvation,_ which I take from one of my\ncirculars used in gospel work, has the merit of being taken entirely\nfrom the Word of God, except the word \"warning\" and the few words in\nparentheses. If it is in harmony with the context, and we sincerely\nbelieve it is, then it is an infallible guide, and those who follow it\ncannot be mistaken.\n\n\"These men are the servants of the most high God which show unto us\n\nTHE WAY OF SALVATION\"\n\n(Acts 16:17).\n\n\"WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?\" (Acts 16:30; 2:37; 9:6).\n\n\"_Believe_ (unbeliever) on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be\nsaved\" (Acts 16:31). (See also Acts 8: 12, 37; Mark 16:16; Rom.\n10:9-11, 17; John 3:18; 20:31; 1 John 5:1.)\n\nWARNING.--\"He that believeth not shall be damned\" (Mark 16:16).\n\n\"_Repent_ (believers) and be baptized for the remission of sins and ye\nshall receive _the gift of the Holy Ghost_\" (Acts 2:38). (See also Acts\n8:22; 26: 20; Luke 24:47; 2 Cor. 7:9, 10.)\n\nWARNING.--\"Except ye repent, ye shall all perish\" (Luke 13:5).\n\n\"_Confess_ (penitent believer) with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and thou\nshalt be saved\" (Rom. 10:9, 10). (See also Matt. 10:32; 16:16; 26:63; 1\nTim. 6:13; 1 John 4:15.)\n\nWARNING.--\"Whosoever shall deny me, him will I also deny\" (Matt. 10:33).\n\n\"_Be baptized_ (confessor) and wash away thy sins\" (Acts 22:16). (See\nalso Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Gal. 3:26, 27; 1 Pet. 3:21.)\n\nWARNING.--\"Rejected the counsel of God, being not baptized\" (Luke 7:30).\n\n_\"Walk in newness of life\"_ (those buried with Christ in baptism) (Rom.\n6:4).\n\nWARNING.--\"Walk not after the flesh,\" \"For to be carnally minded is\ndeath\" (Rom. 8:1, 6).\n\n\"Then they that _gladly received_ his _word were baptized;_ and the\n_same day_ there were _added unto them_ (joined church) about three\nthousand souls. And they\n\nCONTINUED STEADFASTLY\n\nin the _apostles' doctrine_ (no human creed) and _fellowship _(weekly\ncollections, 1 Cor. 16:1, 2), and in _breaking of bread_ (weekly\ncommunion, Acts 20:7), and in _prayers\"_ (attending prayer-meetings,\nActs 2:41, 42).\n\n\"The disciples were\n\nCALLED CHRISTIANS\" (Acts 11:26).\n\n\"For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; _are\nye not carnal?\"_ (1 Cor. 3:4). \"If ye are reproached for the _name_ of\nChrist, blessed are ye... if a man suffer as _a Christian_, let him\nglorify God in _this name\"_ (1 Pet. 4:14-16, R.V.).\n\n\"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the _name_ of our Lord Jesus Christ,\nthat ye all _speak the same thing,_ and that there be\n\nNO DIVISIONS\n\namong you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the _same mind_\nand in the _same judgment._ Now this I say, that every one of you\nsaith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of\nChrist: _is Christ divided_ (I Cor. 12: 12)? _Was Paul crucified for\nyou?_ or were ye baptized in (into) the name of Paul?\" (I Cor. i:\n10-13). \"Therefore,\n\nGO ON UNTO PERFECTION\" (Heb. 6:1).\n\n\"_Grace_ and _peace_ be _multiplied_ unto you through the _knowledge_\nof God and of Jesus our Lord. According as his divine power _hath given\nunto us all things_ (in Bible) that pertain unto _life_ and\n_godliness,_ through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory\nand virtue. Whereby are given unto us _exceeding great and precious\npromises;_ that by these ye might be partakers of the _divine nature_,\nhaving escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And\nbeside this giving all diligence,\n\nADD TO YOUR FAITH\n\n_virtue_ (courage); and to virtue, _knowledge;_ and to knowledge,\n_temperance_ (self-control); and to temperance, _patience;_ and to\npatience, _godliness;_ and to godliness, _brotherly kindness_ (love of\nbrethren); and to brotherly kindness, _charity_ (love of _everybody_).\nFor if _these things_ be in you, and _abound,_ they make you that ye\nshall _neither_ be _barren nor unfruitful_ in the _knowledge_ of our\nLord Jesus Christ. But _he that lacketh these things_ is _blind,_ and\ncannot see afar off, and hath _forgotten_ that he was purged from his\nold sins. _Wherefore,_ the rather, brethren, _give diligence_ to _make_\nyour calling and _election sure,_ for if ye do these things, ye shall\nnever fail: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you\n_abundantly_ into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus\nChrist\" (2 Pet. 2:2-11).\n\n\"GOOD WORKS.\"\n\n\"For the _grace of God_ that bringeth _salvation_ hath appeared _to all\nmen, teaching us_ that _denying ungodliness_ and _worldly lusts,_ we\nshould _live soberly, righteous_ and _godly_ in this present world;\n_looking for that blessed hope_ and the glorious appearing of the great\nGod and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who _gave himself for us,_ that he\nmight redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a _peculiar\npeople, zealous of good works_\" (Tit. 2: 11-14).\n\n\n\"WORKS OF THE FLESH\n\nare manifest, which are these: _Adultery, fornication, uncleanness,\nlasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,\nwrath, strife, seditions (parties), heresies (sects--R. V.), envying,\nmurders, drunkenness, revellings,_ and _such like;_ of the which I tell\nyou before, as I have told you in the past, that _they which do such\nthings shall not inherit the kingdom of God._ But\n\nTHE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT\n\nis _love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,\nmeekness, temperance,_ against such there is _no law\"_ (Gal. 5:19-22).\n\n\"FINALLY,\n\nbrethren, whatsoever things are _true,_ whatsoever things are _honest,_\nwhatsoever things are _just,_ whatsoever things are _pure,_ whatsoever\nthings are _lovely,_ whatsoever things are _of good report;_ if there\nbe any _virtue,_ and if there be any _praise, think on these things\"_\n(Phil. 4:8).\n\n\"Now\n\nunto him that is able to do _exceeding abundantly above all that we ask\nor think,_ according to _the power that worketh in us,_ unto him be\nglory _in the church by Jesus Christ_ throughout all ages, world\nwithout end. Amen\" (Eph. 3:20, 21).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nOUR NEGLECTED FIELDS.\n\n\nNOTE.--This chapter is an address that was delivered at the Centennial\nConvention of the movement for the restoration of primitive\nChristianity, held at Pittsburg, Pa., during October, 1909. It is here\ngiven because it deals with the same general subject as the rest of the\nbook and shows why and how the reunion of the followers of Christ on\nthe primitive gospel is the greatest issue before the Christian world\nto-day.\n\nAsk the brotherhood what \"Our Neglected Fields\" are, and the answer\nwill come in a multitude of voices speaking from diverse viewpoints\naccording to each speaker's knowledge, experience and field of\noperation. This is natural and proper. If your wife is not the best\nwoman in the world, you are not much of a husband. If your country is\nnot the best country on earth, you are not much of a patriot. Love for\neverybody and everything in general is a good thing in its way, but the\nspecialized affections are of still greater importance in the world's\nprogress heavenward. But while this babel of appeals in behalf of\ndifferent places, classes and kinds of work is natural and proper, it\ndoes not solve the problem as to what are really our neglected fields\nand as to the relative amount of work and money we should give to the\nvarious calls.\n\nStanding on the banks of the Mississippi, it is impossible to determine\nthe origin of the various color elements in the water; but if we go to\nthe source, it is easy to discover that the red mud comes from the\nArkansas, the black mud from the Missouri and the coal dust from the\nOhio. So if we wish to discover the principles that will guide us in\nselecting fields of operation, we must go back to the fountain-head of\nthe New Testament. If we are in the streets of a strange city, all is\nconfusion as to the lay of the land; but if we climb to the hilltop in\nthe rear of the city, we can readily get our bearings. So we must climb\nto the hilltop with Christ and the Apostles and from there get our\nbearings in our missionary operations. Let us then turn to the New\nTestament and see if we can discover where we should go first and the\nrelative importance of the individual and society, the earthly and the\nheavenly, the temporal and eternal, the material and spiritual, and\ntheir relationship to each other.\n\nIn looking for the scope of gospel work, we discover that the salvation\nof the individual and his attainment unto eternal life is the supreme\naim in view. From the multitude of Scriptures that teach this we select\nthe following: \"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only\nbegotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but\nhave eternal life\" (John 3:16). \"Go ye into all the world, and preach\nthe gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized\nshall be saved\" (Mark 16:15,16). \"Who will render to every man\naccording to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for\nglory and honor and incorruption, eternal life\" (Rom. 2:7). The\nScriptures are just as clear in placing the spiritual, eternal and\nheavenly infinitely above the material, temporal and earthly: \"We look\nnot at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen;\nfor the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are\nnot seen are eternal\" (2 Cor. 4:18). \"Set your mind on the things which\nare above, not on the things which are upon the earth\" (Col. 3:2).\n\"Took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions, knowing that ye have\nfor yourselves a better possession and an abiding one\" (Heb. 10:34).\n\"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth... but lay up for\nyourselves treasures in heaven... for where your treasure is, there\nwill your heart be also\" (Matt. 6:19-21). \"For our citizenship is in\nheaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who\nshall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be\nconformed to the body of his glory\" (Phil. 3:20, 21). At best a very\nsmall per cent of Christians can ever hope to attain unto wealth and\nworldly success; and to present these things as an incentive to\ngodliness is but mockery, for \"if we have only hoped in Christ in this\nlife, we are of all men most pitiable\" (1 Cor. 15:19). We are\nconstantly tempted to be deceived by the delusion that wealth, health\nand worldly success necessarily bring happiness, while the opposite is\nas often true, as these things are not an end in themselves.\n\nWhile the Scriptures thus clearly teach that the supreme effort of\nChristianity is to prepare people for a glorious hereafter, good works\nin this life are demanded and are of vital importance. It is the nature\nof godliness to seek the well-being of others, in this life and the\nlife to come, and no soul can remain saved without doing all in its\npower to minister unto others. \"Ye tithe mint and anise and cummin and\nhave left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy\nand faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the\nother undone\" (Matt. 23:23). \"Created in Christ Jesus for good works,\nwhich God afore prepared that we should walk in them\" (Eph. 2:10). The\npromise of eternal life is to them who continue patiently in well-doing\n(Rom. 2:7). \"Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it\naway\" (John 15:2). In all his works and words God seeks to reveal his\nlove to men with the purpose of wooing them back to himself, and good\nworks of love have an important place in winning souls to Christ. Thus\nJesus did many works of mercy through which he made manifest his and\nthe Father's love for sinners. \"Even so let your light shine before men\nthat they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in\nheaven\" (Matt. 5:16). \"Having your behavior seemly among the Gentiles,\nthat wherein they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your\ngood works, which they behold, glorify God\" (I Pet. 2:12). \"That even\nif any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the\nbehavior of their wives\" (I Pet. 3:1). Emerson says, \"What you are\nspeaks so loud, I cannot hear what you say.\" This is, alas! too true of\nour Christianity. Unless our love for people is incarnated in the good\nworks of our lives, sinners will lose faith in us and in our religion.\nThis does not mean that the church is to forsake prayer and the Word of\nGod to serve tables, or forsake its spiritual ministries and mainly\nturn its energies to ministering to the physical, social and\nintellectual man. Chiefly, the church, through its spiritual\nministries, is to inspire its members and others to good works of love\nin their daily walk and conversation. As the anchor of the buoy or the\nballast of the ship holds it upright, so the good works of Christians\nhold the spiritual salvation aloft to be seen of men, and commend it to\na dying world.\n\nHaving considered the scope of gospel work as revealed in the New\nTestament, let us next inquire where we shall go first. As we cannot go\neverywhere at once, where shall we begin, and where shall we go next?\nIs this left to chance, or is an order of procedure revealed in the New\nTestament? We believe that there is, and that it is of the greatest\nimportance that this order should be followed. Christ gave the order of\nmarch in Acts 1:8, \"Ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in\nall Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.\" If\nwe have any doubt as to the interpretation, the Apostles interpret it\nfor us in their work under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Other\nthings being equal, they went to the nearest territory first. Again, we\nnotice that the Apostles were especially led to the cities, the great\ncenters of population. This enabled them to reach most people in a\ngiven time. Beginning at Jerusalem, their missionary journeys were\ndetermined by the location of the leading cities. Furthermore, we learn\nfrom the teaching and practice of Christ and the Apostles, that they\nwent to the ripest fields first. Christ came to the Jews, the best\nprepared people on earth, to gather a nucleus for his coming kingdom\nand to scatter preparatory light for the gospel message. The Apostles\ncommenced their gospel work at Jerusalem on Pentecost because the most\ndevout and enlightened saints on earth were gathered there. For this\nreason the order was first the Jews and then the Gentiles (Acts 13:46,\n47). Paul passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia and came to\nThessalonica because a synagogue of the Jews was there (Acts 17:1). The\nSpirit forbade him to go to Asia and Bithynia and led him by Mysia into\nMacedonia because there were hearts there ready to receive the message\n(Acts 16:6-10). Christ commanded Paul to depart from Jerusalem because\nthey would not receive his testimony there (Acts 22:17-21). Open doors\nwere considered as guides by Paul in his missionary operations (I Cor.\n16:8; 2 Cor. 2:12, 13; Acts 14:27; Col. 4:3).\n\nSumming up, we find that the Apostles, in their effort to preach the\ngospel to every creature, were guided by nearness of territory, density\nof population and ripeness of field. That is, all things considered,\nthey went along the line of least resistance. This is the way of mercy\nand common sense as well as of Scripture, as it is the quickest way to\nreach every creature. It enlarges the army of conquest as fast as\npossible and always meets the enemy at the point of least resistance.\n\nIt will help us to understand the matter if we keep in mind that it was\nnot only the purpose of Christ to save individuals here and there, but\nalso to organize a salvation society or church through which to carry\nthe gospel to the ends of the earth, provide a home for the new-born\nspiritual babes and to extend his reign on earth as far and as fast as\npossible.\n\nThe matter will become still plainer if we consider another principle\ntaught and practised by Christ and the Apostles; viz., the necessity an\nabsolute union of the forces of God under Christ for the accomplishment\nof his work. Christ said, \"Every kingdom divided against itself is\nbrought to desolation: and every city or house divided against itself\nshall not stand,\" and he prayed for a perfect union among his followers\nin order that the world might believe in him (Matt. 12:25; John 17:20,\n21). Paul says, \"Whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye\nnot carnal? For when one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of\nApollos; are ye not carnal?\" (I Cor. 3:3, 4). Again he says, \"If ye\nbite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of\nanother\" (Gal. 5:15). Divisions inevitably lead to weakness, waste and\ndefeat. A small army united in the authority of a wise commander can\ndefeat the largest army on earth if it be divided through every officer\ndoing as he pleases or as he thinks best. Therefore Christ demanded\nabsolute union in his authority, and the Apostles first of all worked\nfor a union of Jews and Gentiles in one body or working force. If the\npurpose had only been to save individuals, the Jews might have been\nsaved as Jews, but the object was to enlist the Jews with the Gentiles\nin God's new army of conquest. This new union under Christ, or\nre-alignment of religious forces, was so important that the salvation\nof both Jews and Gentiles was conditioned on their entering it, and, if\nnecessary, all other unions and alliances had to be broken to maintain\nthis. All race and class distinctions must succumb. \"There can be\nneither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be\nno male nor female; for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus\" (Gal.\n3:28). Not even family ties were permitted to interfere with this union\nin the authority of Christ. \"He that loveth father or mother more than\nme, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than\nme, is not worthy of me. For I came to set a man at variance with his\nfather, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law\nagainst her mother-in-law: and a man's foes shall be they of his own\nhousehold\" (Matt. 10:35-37). The subjection of wives to their husbands\nand of children to their parents is limited \"in the Lord\" (Col. 3: 18,\n20).\n\nSumming up the New Testament principles that are to guide us in our\ngospel work, we may say that we are to go as a united force along the\nline of least resistance, making the eternal salvation of the\nindividual our supreme aim.\n\nThe Restoration movement became necessary because one of the\nfundamental principles of the gospel had been violated; viz.: that of\nChristian union. The success of this movement for Christian union on\nthe primitive gospel has been phenomenal. In eighty years its adherents\nhave increased from ten thousand to one and a third millions. But what\nare these among so many? The work has but fairly begun, and the field\nis just beginning to ripen for the larger harvest. Sectarianism is\nstill present in all of its hideousness, but the people are beginning\nto see the desolation and sinfulness of divisions and are groping in\nthe dark in various efforts at solution. However, a careful\ninvestigation will reveal the fact that the great drift towards\ndenominational union is more due to a dying faith in sectarian\ndoctrines than to a growing faith in the doctrines \"once for all\ndelivered to the saints.\" About a year ago it was declared in a large\nmeeting of clergymen that \"Protestantism is decaying and will be\ndisplaced by some sort of a new Catholicism.\" The statement was\nvigorously applauded. This simply means that sectarian Protestantism is\ndecaying. It should be remembered that every large religious body in\nAmerica, except that represented here to-day, originated in Europe\nunder the shadow of Roman Catholicism and under political, social and\nreligious conditions entirely different from those that now prevail in\nAmerica. These sectarian systems brought to America have been thawed\nout by our free American religious atmosphere so that there is not a\nlarge sectarian body that would dare to promulgate seriously and\npersistently the basic principles that gave birth to it in Europe. The\nconsequence is that sects are hastening to revise their creeds so as to\nget rid of their out-of-date features as gracefully as possible. One of\nthe leading arguments for union with other denominations used at the\nrecent Canadian General Assembly was that \"it would give the church an\nopportunity to revise its creeds, and to remove the barnacles and\ncobwebs that had gathered around them.\" The leading speaker declared\nthat \"not a single minister present would dare to enforce his own\ninterpretation of the Confession of Faith.\" The ministers hesitate to\nenforce these hereditary traditions, and the members neither know nor\ncare what the creeds teach, and, therefore, we hear on every hand, \"One\nchurch is just as good as another.\"\n\nWe thank God for this relaxing of sectarianism and for the trend toward\nChristian union. But the movement involves a grave danger. Having lost\nfaith in their distinctive sectarian doctrines, which they considered\nsynonymous with New Testament teaching, many sectarian people are\nrapidly drifting into indifference, worldliness and unbelief. Forsaking\nhuman leaders and their doctrines, they are in danger of also forsaking\nthe Apostles as religious leaders and their doctrines once for all\ndelivered to the saints. Sectarianism is bad, but sectarian life and\nstrife is better than a lifeless, conviction-less, graveyard,\nsentimental union that is the result of a dying faith. In a union\nrevival in an Eastern city practically all the Protestant churches\nworked together for a month, and we could not count five definite\ncommittals to Christ. Any small sectarian church alone could have\naccomplished greater definite results. After reducing their doctrines\nso as to avoid all that would give offense to any, they become so thin\nthat there is but little to contend for.\n\nThe indifference to the doctrines of the creeds and the New Testament\nwhich is hastening the disintegration of sectarianism, is partly due to\ninfidelity in the churches. Discerning critics cannot fail to see that\nmuch of the drift toward denominational union is due to the leadership\nof preachers who, through rationalism, have lost faith in the\ninspiration of the Bible and consequently in evangelical Christianity.\nAs I was a student for three years at a Unitarian theological school\nand have gone through the process myself, I am able to speak on this\nsubject as perhaps few of our brethren can. Misguided by rationalism, I\nthought it my conscientious duty to accept, step by step, the dictates\nof destructive criticism until the Bible was only inspired to me in\nreligion as Kant in philosophy, Milton in poetry and Beethoven in\nmusic. But when I came to the end of the business I discovered that my\nconscience, that had urged me along, was gone also. For I was gravely\ntaught that conscience is simply a creation of experience and education\nand that it is right to lie or do anything else so long as you do it\nout of love. Doubtless you have all heard of the farmer and his wife at\nthe World's Fair, who went to see the \"Exit.\" There was nothing in it\nand of course they had to pay to get in again. This was my bitter\nexperience with rationalism. I thought I was following a great light,\nbut I discovered there was nothing in it, that I was following an\n_ignis fatuus_. Rationalism has indeed proven the \"Exit\" to multitudes,\nfrom the peace, joy and moral security that accompany faith in\nevangelical Christianity into the desert of doubt, darkness and\ndespair. To those preachers who, through rationalism, have lost faith\nin the inspiration of the Bible, doctrines are no longer a hindrance to\nunion, for they have lost faith in all evangelical doctrines and\ntherefore selfishness and utility draw them toward union.\n\nIf this is the religious condition to-day, you can see that we are in\ndanger of religious anarchy and spiritual death. We are told that the\nsplendid civilizations of Greece and Rome were made possible through\nthe moral integrity and manhood inspired by their heathen religious\nsystems. When unbelief in these systems originated among the\nphilosophers and through them permeated the mass of the people,\nmorality and sincerity were displaced by policy, distrust and\ndeception, which brought utter ruin to the social and civil fabric. How\nmuch greater must the calamity be if the faith, integrity and morality\nunderlying our splendid Christian civilization should be destroyed by\nthe antichristian doctrines already taught in the classroom at some of\nthe leading schools. The only hope lies in a return to \"the faith once\nfor all delivered to the saints.\" I believe we have been raised up for\nthis hour. Our past work and opportunities are but a drop in the bucket\ncompared with our present opportunities for work. As never before, it\nbehooves us to raise the banner of New Testament Christianity as a\nstandard to rally and reorganize the divided, confused and retreating\nhosts of Christ. It is not a question of staying at Jerusalem until\neach individual is converted, but the question is whether we will ever\ngo to the Jerusalem of teeming millions in our land who have never even\nheard the plea for Christian union on the primitive gospel. Just as the\nApostles went to saints (pious Jews) and sinners and demanded upon pain\nof their eternal condemnation that they unite under King Jesus, so we\nmust go to the saints of the sects and sinners of the world and insist\nthat they unite under the non-sectarian banner of Christ, in order that\nthe whole world may believe in him as God's Son. As in the days of the\nApostles, so now we need a re-alignment of religious forces in order to\nconquer the world for Christ.\n\nHaving learned the New Testament principles that should guide us in our\nmissionary operations, and through these discovered our chief sphere of\nwork in view of the present situation, let us turn to special\nmissionary problems that constantly suggest themselves to us and\nconsider our duty towards them and their relationship to the great\nmission that rests upon us as a distinctive people. I refer to the\nIndians, Mormons, Jews, immigrants, the lower and slum districts of our\ncities, the mountaineers of the Appalachian system, the millions of\nunevangelized negroes in the South, etc.\n\nConcerning these problems I wish to call your attention to the\nfollowing considerations:\n\nFirst, these problems are largely educational, legal, social and\nphilanthropic, and as such should be solved by the united effort of all\nthe good citizens of the land. Keeping in mind the New Testament\nprinciples that are to guide us, we can readily see that Christians\nshould do many things that the church was not ordained to do. The\nchurch, as a church, should not go into politics and business. On the\nother hand, the church, through its spiritual ministries, should\ninspire its members to enter business, politics, philanthropic\nassociations, etc., in order, as far as possible, to incarnate\nChristian principles in their life in the world. We may differ as to\nthe finer distinctions, but none of us would advocate a union of church\nand state or of church and business. As this is a nation in which\nChristians can control the laws, they can do much through good\ncitizenship to solve these questions and bring these classes within the\nreach of the spiritual gospel. One of the great duties of the church in\nbehalf of these people is, through their spiritual ministries, to\nconstrain their members to make and enforce proper laws for their\neducation, protection and improvement. Christianity is the religion of\na book, and the first thing needful to bring these classes to an\nintelligent Christian faith is at least a common-school English\neducation. Those of us who have lived in cities that are largely\nforeign know that the public schools are doing more to bring these\nclasses within gospel reach than all other agencies combined.\n\nSecond, I wish to throw out a warning against engendering or\nencouraging the class spirit which we find so severely condemned in the\nNew Testament. In the New Testament we read nothing about churches for\ndifferent classes or about different classes as separate missionary\nproblems, but the effort is to reach all classes through the local\nchurches along the line of least resistance. The best thing on earth\nfor these various classes is that they might be brought into vital\ntouch with the best Christian people in our local churches. Some have\neven gone so far as to claim that we cannot reach the slum element, but\nmust leave that to the Salvation Army, etc. If that is true, so much\nthe worse for our Christianity. A truly New Testament church is the\nincarnation of the wisdom and love of God for reaching any and all\nclasses of people. The class spirit is the outgrowth of ignorance,\nprejudice and selfishness and is always sinful among Christians. Our\nexperience with tuberculosis and with the modern complicated industrial\nand political systems, is thrusting upon us anew Christ's teaching\nabout the brotherhood of man or the solidarity of the race. On the\nwhole, it is true that the race suffers or rejoices, rises or falls,\ntogether. We condemn the segregation of foreign races in different\nsections of our large cities. But the segregation of the better, or at\nleast more fortunate, classes, is just as bad and more disastrous to\nthe welfare of the city. Social settlements and institutional churches\nare manifestations of the Christ spirit, but they are only proxies and\nexcuses for the mass of Christians and but samples and crumbs in place\nof the square meal that a square deal would supply. What these\ninstitutions are doing in a comparatively unnatural and artificial way\nis simply a hint of what could and would be done if all church-members\nwould practise the Christ spirit in all their daily walk and\nconversation. To give a few dollars to help pay a few mission workers\nto live Christ in the slum districts is all right, but is no adequate\nsubstitute for all Christians giving all their life to uplift and save\ntheir country and the whole world. The best institutional church is the\none that through its spiritual ministries inspires its members to live\nChrist in politics, in business, in society, in the home and everywhere\nelse. So far as possible, let us minimize and discourage the class\nspirit in every way, shape and form. It is marvelous what the true\nChrist spirit will do along this line. A church of Christ was recently\norganized at Romney, W. Va., with two-thirds of the members foreign\nborn. With a few days' effort nineteen Italians recently joined the\nChristian Church at Uhrichsville, O. Similar results have followed\nfaithful efforts in New York City and at many other places. If in love\nand faith we would make a serious effort to reach these classes through\nthe local churches, we would do ten times more to reach and help them\nthan by seeking to reach them as classes.\n\nIn the third place, we must avoid the materializing tendency of the age\nin our gospel work. The constant tendency is to lose sight of the\nspiritual, invisible and eternal, to be blinded by the things of this\nworld and to be conformed to them. In reading popular books on Home\nMissions we cannot but be grieved at the flings and thrusts at the old\nevangelism and the laudations of the new evangelism. For the context\nshows that the teaching is away from the spiritual and eternal\nsalvation of the individual, which the New Testament makes the chief\nand ultimate thing, to the material and temporal things of this earth,\nwhich the New Testament makes a means to a higher end. To prove that\nthe old evangelism is defunct, attention is called to the fact that\nseven thousand sectarian congregations did not have a single convert in\nan entire year. But can that be said of true New Testament evangelism?\nHow prone we are to forget that only a comparatively few can attain\nunto worldly success according to the standard of public opinion and\nnone so as to be satisfied with the effort. For the more we get the\nmore we want in wealth and fame and pleasure, and none of these things\nin themselves bring happiness or well-being, which is the real thing\nthe soul hungers for. Who can estimate the eternal good B. F. Mills did\nwhile he pointed individuals to the Lamb of God and thus filled their\nsouls with new life, hope and courage to do and to dare for self and\nothers because \"of the joy that was set before them\"? But in an evil\nday he became spiritually near-sighted and spoke about saving society\nrather than the individual, and now he is reputed to be a hotel-keeper,\nministering to the material comforts of his fellow-men. Oh, what a fall\nwas there! But only an example of multitudes who have become\nnear-sighted and unfruitful through a so-called new evangelism that is\nnot new. While giving good works their proper and important place, let\nus never forget that to save the individual soul for eternity through\nthe gospel is the chief work of the church, and that it must ever\nsubordinate the temporal and material to the spiritual and eternal.\n\nFurthermore, it is well to remember that our sectarian neighbors,\nhaving largely lost faith in what they once considered their\ndistinctive mission, are naturally turning much of their energy to\ngeneral educational, philanthropic and civilizing work. Under the\ncircumstances it is natural and proper that they should give relatively\nmore of their energies to this kind of work than we, as we have a\ndistinctive mission that demands our chief effort.\n\nThe classes enumerated above present indeed great missionary problems.\nWe should keep in mind the entire field and never plan for anything\nshort of reaching, as soon as possible, every creature with the gospel.\nBut accepting the guidance of the Holy Spirit, revealed in the New\nTestament, we must go to the ends of the earth as a body united in\nChrist and his truth, along the line of least resistance, ever keeping\nin mind the spiritual and eternal salvation of the individual as the\nultimate aim.\n\nThese things being true, I still believe, as we have always taught,\nthat the reunion of God's people on the primitive gospel is at present\nthe overshadowing issue before us and that in working for its\naccomplishment we are doing the utmost in our power to solve all\nmissionary problems. Christ can never conquer with a hopelessly divided\narmy. Sectarianism ties up three-fourths of the men and money and kills\nthree-fourths of the spiritual power that could otherwise be used to\nsolve all missionary problems. Unite all saints in Christ and set free\nthese forces, and within this generation the world will believe and\nknow that Jesus is the Christ whom God sent into the world (John 17:20,\n21, 23). I believe that God has providentially prepared both us and the\nfield, and unless we perform the mission set before us he will raise up\nanother people through whom to bring about Christian union on the\nprimitive gospel, to our eternal shame, but to their eternal glory.\nThus it seems that, pre-eminently, our neglected fields lie among the\nteeming millions of America, ripe unto the harvest for our plea, but\nwho, through our negligence, have not even heard that there is such a\nplea.\n\nGrapes of Eshcol have been gathered from every corner of our land,\nproving that it is a land flowing with milk and honey for primitive\nChristianity. Look at the wonders done in Oklahoma. Go to Southern\nCalifornia and see the recent record. Go to the great Northwest, both\nin Canada and the United States, and see the ripeness of the field. If\nwe turn to the southeast we gather just as large clusters of grapes in\nFlorida and along the coast. See the marvels accomplished in\nWashington, our capital. Two churches offered to us because we are\nnon-sectarian. Turn to Baltimore and see the marvelous growth. Two\nfields offered to us because we stand for Christian union. Look at the\nrecent and abundant fruit in conservative Pennsylvania, or pass on to\nNew York and see the wonders at East Orange and in Brooklyn among the\nRussians. Wherever we turn, the field is riper than ever and we must\nhaste to garner it in or the abundant crop will perish. The heart of\nthe country is already largely ours. Let us go forward with enlarged\nnumbers and renewed vigor, knowing that the God of the harvest is with\nus and we are well able to possess the land. While greatly increasing\nall our other activities, let us push the Home Society to the front\nwhere it belongs according to every principle of Scripture, mercy,\neconomy, efficiency and common sense. If we will renew among us the\nzeal and self-denial of the pioneers of this movement, we will soon\ngloriously triumph to His honor and praise.","title":"To Infidelity and Back","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":50996}