The Project Gutenberg EBook of To Infidelity and Back, by Henry F. Lutz

Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing
this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.

This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
Gutenberg file.  Please do not remove it.  Do not change or edit the
header without written permission.

Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the
eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file.  Included is
important information about your specific rights and restrictions in
how the file may be used.  You can also find out about how to make a
donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.


**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**

**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**

*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****


Title: To Infidelity and Back

Author: Henry F. Lutz

Release Date: February, 2005 [EBook #7495]
[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
[This file was first posted on May 11, 2003]

Edition: 10

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TO INFIDELITY AND BACK ***




Produced by Charles Franks




TO INFIDELITY AND BACK


To Infidelity and Back

A Truth-seeker's Religious Autobiography

_How I Found Christ and His Church_

By

EVANGELIST HENRY F. LUTZ

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

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

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

CINCINNATI, OHIO

1911




DEDICATION

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



My Soul Struggle in Symbolism

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

"A TEN YEARS' JOURNEY

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

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

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

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

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




INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baltimore, Md. Peter Ainslie.




PREFACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Millersville, Pa., March 28, 1911.




CONTENTS

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


PART I.--TO INFIDELITY AND BACK.

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


PART II.--FROM SECTARIANISM TO PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.

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






PART I.

TO INFIDELITY AND BACK


CHAPTER I.

To INFIDELITY AND BACK.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Yes, sir," said the preacher.

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

"Yes, sir," replied the preacher.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




CHAPTER II.

MY PARTING MESSAGE TO THE UNITARIAN SCHOOL.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




CHAPTER III.

THE FUNCTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE MIND.


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Conscience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Feelings or Emotions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phrenological Analysis of Mental Faculties.

I. Domestic Propensities (Family Affections).

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

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

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

III. Selfish Sentiments (Promote Self-interests).

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

IV. Moral Sentiments (Religion and Morality).

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

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

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

VI. Intellectual Faculties.

   1. Perceptive Faculties (Perceive physical qualities).

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

   2. Semi-perceptive or Literary Faculties.

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

   3. Reasoning or Reflective Faculties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Intellect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




CHAPTER IV.

LOOKING THROUGH COLORED GLASSES.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




PART II.

HOW I FOUND CHRIST'S CHURCH


CHAPTER I.

SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM.


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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: A STUDY IN MEANING OF WORDS.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Scholars and Churches Admit that Christ Taught Immersion._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Churches Have Changed Immersion to Sprinkling_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         BAPTISM IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE

 THE BIBLE AND IMMERSION    SPRINKLING AND POURING
         REQUIRE:                   REQUIRE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_Sprinkling and Pouring in the New Testament_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




CHAPTER II.

THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.


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

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

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

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

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

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

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

Church-members.

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

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

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

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

Church Officers.

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

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

_The Mission of the Church._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_The Unity of the Church._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Illustration: THE CHURCH THAT JESUS ESTABLISHED]




CHAPTER III.

THE CHURCH SINCE THE APOSTLES.


_The Apostasy of the Church._

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

_The Reformation of the Church._

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

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

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

_A Movement for Christian Union._

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

_The Restoration of the New Testament Creed._

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

_The Restoration of Bible Names._

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

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

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

_The Ordinances Restored._

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

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

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

 _The Bible Restored._

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

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

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

_Restoration of the New Testament Church Government._

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

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

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

_Is One Church as Good as Another?_

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

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

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

 _The Church Triumphant._

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

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

OUR AIM.

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

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

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

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

ARE THESE THINGS TRUE?

SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES AND SEE. ACTS 17:11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WAY OF SALVATION"

(Acts 16:17).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTINUED STEADFASTLY

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

"The disciples were

CALLED CHRISTIANS" (Acts 11:26).

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

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

NO DIVISIONS

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

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

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

ADD TO YOUR FAITH

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

"GOOD WORKS."

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


"WORKS OF THE FLESH

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

THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT

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

"FINALLY,

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

"Now

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




CHAPTER IV.

OUR NEGLECTED FIELDS.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of To Infidelity and Back, by Henry F. Lutz

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TO INFIDELITY AND BACK ***

This file should be named infid10.txt or infid10.zip
Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks get a new NUMBER, infid11.txt
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, infid10a.txt

Produced by Charles Franks

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we usually do not
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
even years after the official publication date.

Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.

Most people start at our Web sites at:
http://gutenberg.net or
http://promo.net/pg

These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).


Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement
can get to them as follows, and just download by date.  This is
also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.

http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03

Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90

Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
as it appears in our Newsletters.


Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)

We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.   Our
projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If the value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text
files per month:  1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+
We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002
If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end.

The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks!
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.

Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated):

eBooks Year Month

    1  1971 July
   10  1991 January
  100  1994 January
 1000  1997 August
 1500  1998 October
 2000  1999 December
 2500  2000 December
 3000  2001 November
 4000  2001 October/November
 6000  2002 December*
 9000  2003 November*
10000  2004 January*


The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.

We need your donations more than ever!

As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people
and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones
that have responded.

As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.

In answer to various questions we have received on this:

We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
request donations in all 50 states.  If your state is not listed and
you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
just ask.

While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to
donate.

International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are
ways.

Donations by check or money order may be sent to:

Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Ave.
Oxford, MS 38655-4109

Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
method other than by check or money order.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154.  Donations are
tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law.  As fund-raising
requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states.

We need your donations more than ever!

You can get up to date donation information online at:

http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html


***

If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
you can always email directly to:

Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>

Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.

We would prefer to send you information by email.


**The Legal Small Print**


(Three Pages)

***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to.

*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.

ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks,
is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook
under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.

Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
any commercial products without permission.

To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from. If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.

THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.

INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following that you do or cause:  [1] distribution of this eBook,
[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook,
or [3] any Defect.

DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:

[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
     eBook or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
     if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable
     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
     including any form resulting from conversion by word
     processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
     *EITHER*:

     [*]  The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
          does *not* contain characters other than those
          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
          author, and additional characters may be used to
          indicate hypertext links; OR

     [*]  The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at
          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
          form by the program that displays the eBook (as is
          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
          OR

     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
          eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
          or other equivalent proprietary form).

[2]  Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this
     "Small Print!" statement.

[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
     gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
     payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
     the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
     legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
     periodic) tax return.  Please contact us beforehand to
     let us know your plans and to work out the details.

WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine readable form.

The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
Money should be paid to the:
"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
hart@pobox.com

[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only
when distributed free of all fees.  Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by
Michael S. Hart.  Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be
used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be
they hardware or software or any other related product without
express permission.]

*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END*