CHAPTER I.

Produced by Charles Franks

TO INFIDELITY AND BACK

To Infidelity and Back

A Truth-seeker's Religious Autobiography

_How I Found Christ and His Church_

By

EVANGELIST HENRY F. LUTZ

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

etc._

"I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them

in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before

them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them and

not forsake them"--Isa. 42:16.

"Slight tastes of philosophy may perchance move one to atheism, but

fuller draughts lead back to religion"--Lord Bacon

CINCINNATI, OHIO

1911

DEDICATION

To the sacred memory of the pioneers of the great Restoration Movement

of the nineteenth century, who forsook the religious associations of a

lifetime and cheerfully endured poverty, persecution and every hardship

in their endeavor to restore Christian union on the primitive gospel,

and who held forth a beacon-light that helped me to find the truth in

its simplicity as it is in Christ Jesus.

My Soul Struggle in Symbolism

Upon the fly-leaf of my Bible I find the following, which was written

shortly after I emerged from the stormy sea of heartrending agony

through which I passed in my conflict with sectarianism, rationalism,

infidelity and doubt. It was not written for the public, but was simply

an effort of my soul to express in a measure, through human symbols,

the painful experiences through which it passed. It will seem

extravagant language to those who have never had their souls lacerated

by doubt and despair. But the sensitive souls who have endured similar

experiences will understand, and it is with the hope of reaching and

helping them that it is given to the public.

"A TEN YEARS' JOURNEY

From the childhood land of ignorant innocence to the kingdom of Christ:

by way of deserts of negation; mountains of assumption; rivers of

irony, sarcasm and conceit; bays of contention; gulfs of liberalism;

and oceans of infidelity, doubt and confusion--swept by undercurrents

of selfish passion, tempests of blind sentiment, maelstroms of fear and

despair; covered with black clouds of prejudice and preconceived ideas,

dense fogs of theological speculation, gigantic icebergs of

indifference, monstrous sharks of procrastination, and ruinous rocks of

materialism; through the strait of darkness and absurdity, over the sea

of twilight and joy, into the haven of rest.

"In the ship, religion; pole-star, faith in God; rudder, free will;

compass, conscience; sextant, rationalism and experience; anchor, hope;

guiding chart, creeds and opinions of men vs. the Word of God; pilot,

Jesus Christ.

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

"Prayer: O God! thou knowest the secret desire of my heart. Thou

knowest how earnestly I have sought the truth. God forbid that my life

should be a barren waste; that I should so use the powers that thou

hast given me that the world shall not be better for my having lived in

it. Lord, grant I may ever find the work that thou wouldst have me do.

'Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts, and

see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way

everlasting. Amen."

This, in substance, was my daily prayer for ten long, dreary years;

for, while my intellect was in doubt and confusion, my heart continued

to cling to God.

INTRODUCTION

One of the clearest expounders of the Scriptures in my acquaintance is

the author of this book, who honors me in asking that I write these few

lines of introduction. His experience is full of interest. I have

listened night after night with profit to his sermons, and he has dug

his way in the most painstaking fashion out of the darkness of unfaith

into the beauty and strength of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is no institution like the church of God, for it is founded upon

the divine Sonship of Jesus, and his Holy Spirit has given to it divine

life, so that Isaiah's prophecy lights up the pathway of victory, when

it is said: "He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set

justice in the earth, and the isles shall wait for his law." Its right

to advance has been disputed, and, at times in its long history, it

appears to have stood timidly doubting its power and right to soul

conquest, but this has only been apparent, for every century has

brought with it a greater courage, so that in this day believers in

Jesus are speaking in the language of every nation on the earth, and

hosts of these are as ready to lay down their lives for their faith in

Jesus as did Stephen and James and Paul and that host of martyrs whose

willing sacrifices gave strength and solidarity to the early church.

The ordinances have naturally suffered at the hands of every invasion,

and, in consequence, some of the most devout have not been able to find

the path to the ordinances as practiced in the apostolic days, but the

skies are brightening, and, without questioning for a moment the

sincerity and devotion of those who think otherwise, the Scriptures are

being read to-day with more freedom than at any other period in the

history of the church, and its ordinances are gradually coming to light

in the public mind. God has been patient with us and we must be patient

with those who do not think as we do. One of the most important

problems now facing us, however, is that all believers shall find a

common way for entrance into the church. When that has been done, a

long step will have been taken towards world-wide evangelization.

The fields are already white unto harvest. This is the day of

opportunity. Christ is waiting on us. If the time was short, like a

furled sail, in Paul's day, how much shorter is it in our day! The

gospel has been sent to all nations, and God is sending men from all

nations to America to hear the gospel, so that the lines are crossing

and recrossing each other and are so many prophecies of the fulfillment

of the commission of Jesus, when he said: "All authority hath been

given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make

disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father

and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all

things whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even

unto the end of the world."

Deciding for Christ and being baptized into him is only a small part of

the work that is to be done. Then begins their training into real

discipleship, when they are to produce the fruit of the Spirit, which

is "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

meekness, self-control."

This book is a contribution to that end, and may those who read its

pages be brought to yield their best to the glory of Him who is our all.

Baltimore, Md. Peter Ainslie.

PREFACE

This book contains my religious experience in a forty years' sojourn on

earth. If any doubt the propriety and value of relating one's religious

experience, I would refer them to the case of Paul, who used this

method on a number of occasions. However, we should be careful not to

make an improper use of this method and preach our experiences in place

of the gospel. Paul says: "We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus

the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake" (2 Cor. 4:5). We

should refer to our experiences simply to help deliver people from

human error and center their attention on the gospel of Christ, which

alone is the power of God unto salvation.

I do not take any great credit to myself for my experiences recorded in

this book, realizing that they were largely the result of my inherited

proclivities and religious environment. It must be admitted that the

great mass of mankind are what they are in religion, politics, etc., by

heredity and environment. This is powerfully impressed upon us by the

ministers who give their experience in "Why I Am What I Am." Even the

fact that it is natural for me to seek to know what is right for

myself, I attribute more largely to my natural hereditary mental bent,

than to any particular merit of my own. I trust this book will help us

all to realize the danger of drifting with traditionary religion, and

thus defeating the revealed truth of Jesus Christ, and the need of

searching the truth for ourselves that thus we may be used of God to

advance his kingdom of unity and truth. Christian civilization would

make much more rapid strides if we all would struggle to find the truth

instead of acquiring our ideas through the colored glasses of prejudice

and ignorance.

My ancestry on mother's side were German Reformed and on father's side

Lutheran. While a boy I lived for three years with Mennonites and

attended their church. I attended a Moravian Sunday-school, was taught

by a Presbyterian Sunday-school teacher, educated at a Unitarian

theological school, graduated from a Christian college and a

Congregational theological seminary, and took postgraduate work at a

United Presbyterian university. I was born and raised in southeastern

Pennsylvania, which may be called "The Cradle of Religious Liberty" in

America. For while the colonies to the north and south persecuted

people on account of their religious opinions, Penn opened his

settlement to all the religiously persecuted in America and Europe. As

a result Pennsylvania became a great sectarian stronghold. To-day some

twenty denominations have either their national headquarters or leading

national center in southeastern Pennsylvania. The reader can readily

see how my contact with this Babel of sectarianism affected my

religious life and experience.

There are some things that seem too sacred to drag before the public.

For years I said very little in my public ministry about my experience

with doubt. While, as city evangelist of Greater Pittsburg, I was

assisting a minister in a revival, he learned incidentally of my

experience with infidelity; and as there were a number of skeptics in

the community, he urged me to preach on the subject. The message seemed

to do much good to the large audience that heard it. Since then it has

been repeated a number of times, and the largest auditoriums have not

been able to hold the people who were eager to hear it. This

demonstrates that the message supplies a great need, and has encouraged

me to prepare this book for the public. The Christian Temple in

Baltimore was packed with people, and on account of the jam the doors

were ordered closed by the policeman in charge half an hour before time

for the service. At Portsmouth, Va., twenty-five hundred were crowded

into a skating-rink, and many failed to get admittance. At Halifax,

Can., hundreds were turned away. But this has been the experience

wherever the sermon has been thoroughly advertised. To illustrate this,

I quote from the Harrisonburg (Va.) papers of Jan. 9, 1911, where the

sermon was delivered the night before in Assembly Hall, the largest

auditorium in the city. About sixteen hundred people were jammed in the

hall and many crowded out. It was the largest audience that ever

assembled in that city for a religious service.

"Evangelist Lutz says that on every occasion on which he has delivered

his address on 'My Conversion from Infidelity,' no matter how large the

hall may have been, people have turned away for lack of room. Last

night's attendance at Assembly Hall maintained the record. Presumably

the hall has never been more closely packed. Seats, stage, box, aisles,

windows, doorways, were filled, and many found place in the flies of

the theater. A number couldn't find places anywhere and went away. Mr.

Lutz is a fine example of evangelist. He has a magnetic personality and

a strong, oratorical way of talking, fluent in speech and filled with

figurative language and the phrases of his profession."--_Harrisonburg

Daily Times._

"Evangelist H. F. Lutz spoke last night at Assembly Hall on 'The Story

of My Conversion from Infidelity.' The audience showed close attention

and earnestness. Many were turned away because of the crowded condition

of the hall. Many people from the near-town sections came to attend the

service."--_Harrisonburg Daily News._

I trust that my bitter experience with rationalism, infidelity and

doubt will help to reveal their true nature and thus keep many young

men from these dangerous rocks, and will help to deliver many others

from this terrible bondage. May the Father graciously bless my humble

efforts to win souls to Christ and to help bring about Christian union

on the primitive gospel in order to the Christian conquest of the whole

world. Henry F. Lutz.

Millersville, Pa., March 28, 1911.

CONTENTS

Dedication Soul's Struggle in Symbolism Introduction by Peter Ainslie

Author's Preface

PART I.--TO INFIDELITY AND BACK.

Chapter I.--To Infidelity and Back Chapter II.--Parting Message to

Unitarian School Chapter III.--Functions and Limitations of the Mind

Chapter IV.--Looking Through Colored Glasses

PART II.--FROM SECTARIANISM TO PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.

Chapter I.--Scriptural Baptism Chapter II.--The New Testament Church

Chapter III.--The Church Since the Apostles Chapter IV.--Our Neglected

Fields

PART I.

TO INFIDELITY AND BACK

CHAPTER I.

To INFIDELITY AND BACK.

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

I inherited on the one hand a strong religious nature, and on the other

a tendency to be independent in thought and to question everything

before adopting it as a part of my belief. Ever since I can remember I

was a praying boy, and early in life there came to me the desire to

devote myself to the ministry of the gospel.

Among my earliest religious impressions were those received by having

the story of the Patriarchs and Jesus read to me in German by a saintly

old Mennonite for whom I worked on the farm for a year. Among the first

things that aroused my reason in religion was the declaration of my

Sunday-school teacher that before we are born we are predestined by God

either to go to heaven or to hell, and that anything we might do would

not alter our eternal destiny. This declaration came like a thunderbolt

into my religious life, and stirred up a violent agitation from which

it took me ten years to fully deliver myself. I was now about fourteen

years old, and already had a desire to measure everything in the

crucible of logic or cause and effect, and to accept nothing which did

not come within the range of my reason. Looking at things from the

standpoint of cause and effect, I was naturally caught in the meshes of

fatalism, and this aggravated the religious agitation above referred to.

At this time in my life there arose many religious questions, and the

answers I received from religious teachers tended to drive me away from

the church rather than to it. I feel to-day that if my case had been

clearly understood and the nature and the limits of the finite mind had

been patiently pointed out to me, in its relation to faith and

revelation, I could have been saved years of agony on the sea of

rationalism. But my questions were not answered and my honest doubts

were rebuked, so that I was naturally driven out of sympathy with the

church and Bible, since I judged that my doubts could not be satisfied

because religion itself is unreasonable.

Through the kindness of Christian people the way opened to prepare

myself for the ministry. But by this time many religious doubts and

perplexities were in the way, and I decided that I would a thousand

times rather be an honest doubter out of the church and ministry than a

hypocrite in it. Thus my fond hope of entering the ministry had to be

given up, and instead I determined to use the teaching profession as a

stepping-stone to law, and law as a means of serving humanity.

I was very fond of study, and read scores of books on all kinds of

subjects. Emerson was my favorite, and I procured and read his complete

works. Gibbon and Macaulay were eagerly read as revealing some of the

religious life of the world. Ingersoll, with many others, got his turn.

But the book that produced the greatest effect on my life at this time

was Fleetwood's "Life of Christ," with a short history of the different

religious bodies of the world attached. Through my reading and

observations I became greatly perplexed over the religious divisions of

the world. I discovered that thousands of people had died as martyrs

for all kinds of religions and sects, and that each claimed to have the

truth and to teach the right way to heaven. I concluded that since they

teach such contradictory doctrines they cannot possibly all be right,

although they might all be wrong. I formed a desire to make a thorough

study of all the different religious bodies of the world, to find out

where the truth is, if there is any in religion. My first information

along this line was obtained in the above-named history of the

religious bodies of the world. Being of a rationalistic turn of mind, I

was naturally very favorably impressed with Unitarianism and its

teaching. I sent for a number of their works and read them with great

interest. I learned many things that have been a benediction to my life

ever since, but you will see later on how far it satisfied my

rationalistic proclivities. I learned to my delight that I could enter

a Unitarian theological school to prepare for the ministry without

first joining a church or signing a creed. For a person in my state of

mind nothing better could have presented itself. I determined to go

there and make a thorough study of the Bible and all the different

religious bodies, and to fearlessly follow the truth wherever it might

lead me.

The time came and I entered the school. And a fine school it was from

an intellectual standpoint and for the purpose of investigation. I have

been a student at six educational institutions since I left the high

school, but this was far ahead of the others for the development of the

logical and philosophical faculties. Here there was absolutely no

restraint to thought; and all kinds of systems and ideas were

represented, from philosophical anarchy to socialism and from mysticism

to materialism. The moral and spiritual earnestness I expected to find

among the Unitarians I did not find, especially among the younger and

more radical ones. Its effect, on the whole, was to relax rather than

intensify the moral fiber. Their ideals seemed so grand and noble that

I thought those possessed with them could scarcely find time to eat and

sleep in their zeal to put them into practise; but I discovered that

they not only had plenty of time to eat and sleep, but also for

dancing, card-playing, theater-going, etc. Many of the young men

studying for the ministry often spent a large part of the night in

card-playing, and the Sunday-school room served also as a

dancing-floor. Unitarians pride themselves upon the high standard of

morality among their people and upon the few prisoners you find among

their members, but this is due to the character of the people they

reach rather than to the restraining influence of their teaching

My reading had given me a wrong impression as to the teaching of

Unitarianism. Like many others, I was fascinated and enticed by the

writings of conservative Unitarians, whose contention is largely

against the bad theology of human creeds; but the present-day teaching

of the vanguard of Unitarianism is an entirely different thing. It

rejects all the miraculous in the Bible, and, in many cases, even

denies the existence of a personal God. All the students were required

to conduct chapel prayers in turn. Those who did not believe in a

personal God explained that they were pronouncing an apostrophe to the

great impersonal and unknowable force working in the universe. I had

read Channing, Clark, Hale, Emerson, and other conservative Unitarians,

and found much food for my soul, but I discovered that these were

considered old "fogies" and back numbers by most of the students in

attendance.

But I must tell you of my evolution along the line of rationalism. My

rationalistic proclivities were given a free rein. And as a child, when

left to run away, will soon stop and return to its mother, so this

freedom was the natural cure for my intellectual delusion. To the

statement of the creeds, "The Father is God, and the Son is God, and

the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but one God,"

my rationalism replied, that is logically inconceivable, therefore I

became a Unitarian. No sooner was I happy in this faith than a

Universalist addressed me and said, "If you want to be rational, you

must give up your belief in eternal punishment, for God could not give

eternal punishment for a finite sin." As a rationalist, what could I do

but yield, and so I became a universalist Unitarian. I felt I had at

last found the truth, but my peace was short; for a student accused me

of being irrational, "because," said he, "an omnipotent, loving God

would give an infinitely large amount of good and an infinitely small

amount of evil; but an infinitely small amount of evil is not

perceptible, evil is perceptible, therefore there is no such God." This

was an awful pill and gave a terrible shock to my religious

sensibilities, but as rationalism was my guide, I had to follow on or

stand accused as a superstitious coward.

Again rationalism declared, through my teachers, that all the

supernatural must be eliminated from the Bible as mythical and

unreliable, and so I was robbed of my Christ, my God and my Bible.

Misguided by rationalism, I thought it my conscientious duty to accept,

step by step, the dictates of destructive criticism until the Bible was

only inspired to me in religion as Kant in philosophy, Milton in

poetry, and Beethoven in music. But when I came to the end of the

matter I discovered that my conscience, which had urged me along, was

gone also. For I was gravely taught that conscience is merely a

creature of experience and education, and that it is right to lie or do

anything else so long as you do it out of love. Doubtless you have all

heard of the farmer and his wife at the World's Fair who went to see

the "Exit." There was nothing in it, and of course they had to pay to

get in again. This was my bitter experience with rationalism. I thought

I was following a great light, but I discovered there was nothing in

it, that I was following an _ignis fatuus_. Rationalism has indeed

proven the "Exit" to multitudes, from the peace, joy and moral security

that accompany faith in evangelical Christianity into the desert of

doubt, darkness and despair.

But not even here did I find a staying-place. For rationalism, in its

bold confidence, led me on and on until it brought me to materialism

and absurdity. In going too far, it revealed its true nature and

character, and thus led me to see its fallacy and enabled me to get

free from its bondage. From atheism it led me to fatalism, and declared

that there is no free will and consequently people are not to blame for

their sins and shortcomings. If we "shall reap as we sow," it declared

that we cannot give anything to anybody and therefore philanthropy is a

delusion.

But I taught rationalism in guile one day by which it thoroughly

exhibited the absurdity of its teaching. Its continual song was, "You

dare not believe what you cannot conceive to be true." So it declared

one day, in its bold folly, that an object cannot move in the space in

which it is, nor in the space in which it is not; therefore you cannot

conceive of an object moving; therefore you cannot move to walk, eat or

live. So the conclusion to which my rationalistic guide finally led me

was that I must sit down and die or be irrational. Well, this was too

much for me. I refused to die, and concluded that rationalism is not a

safe guide, and commenced to investigate as to where the difficulty lay.

But before I tell you how I discovered the false tricks of rationalism,

let me say that all these things into which rationalism led me were

against my strong religious nature, and gave me continual and

excruciating pain. I never for a day ceased to pray to God for help;

for while my intellect was held in doubt through the bondage of

rationalism, my heart held on to God, and thus I was in a mighty

conflict. In my despair I cried unto God, and when he had accomplished

his purpose concerning me, he set me free. Blessed be his name! Surely

"he bringeth the blind by a way that they knew not, and leads them into

paths that they have not known. He makes darkness light before them,

and crooked things straight, and does not utterly forsake the honest in

heart."

Most people have come to their religious and political position by

heredity and are held there by inertia. If you can set a person free

from this hereditary inertia, you can convert him to almost anything at

will; for it is but few who are sufficiently informed on any subject to

defend it against an expert, and none are thus qualified on all

subjects. So when I entered this school, free from all hereditary

ideas, determined to accept every position that I could not refute in

argument, you can imagine my experience. At first I was converted from

one thing to another by the different students and professors until I

was about all the "arians," "isms," and "ists" ever heard of, together

with a number of other things for which they have no names as yet.

But how did I discover the fallacy of rationalism? and how was I

delivered from its mighty clutches by which it had dragged me from one

pitfall to another so ruthlessly? My deliverance came from a source

where you would perhaps least expect it. It was through the study of

John Stuart Mill's "System of Logic." In it I learned "that

inconceivability is not a criterion of impossibility," as rationalism

claims. On the other hand, that we know things to be true that are just

as inconceivable as that there can be two mountains without a valley

between.

Let me introduce a few of these contradictions or inconceivabilities.

Before you can reach your mouth with your hand, you must go over half

the distance, then half of the rest, then half of the rest, and so on

_ad infinitum._ But you cannot make the infinite number of divisions,

and therefore you cannot reach your lips. Again, you cannot conceive of

extension of space or time without a limit, nor can you conceive of a

limit to space or time. Here conceivability contradicts itself.

Furthermore, you cannot conceive of existence without a cause, nor of a

cause without existence. To the statement of the believer that, "as the

wonderful mechanism of the watch presumes a designer, so the infinitely

more wonderful mechanism of the universe presumes God, the infinite

designer," Ingersoll replied that this is simply to jump over the

difficulty by an infinite assumption. Ingersoll, on the other hand,

claimed that the material universe has always existed; apparently

unaware that he thus was guilty of the same fallacy of which he accused

others, by _assuming_ infinite existence without a cause. The

difference is that the believer's assumption gives us a personal God, a

kind, loving heavenly Father who provides for the eternal bliss and

welfare of his children, while Ingersoll's assumption gives death and

darkness and despair.

An object thrown from one point to another is always at some point,

therefore it has no time to move from one point to another. And yet we

know that it does move, even though we cannot conceive how it can do

so. Again, suppose that the hour-hand of your clock is at eleven and

the minute-hand at twelve. Now, you cannot conceive how the minute-hand

can overtake the hour-hand, although you know by observation that it

does overtake it. For by the time the minute-hand gets to eleven, the

hour-hand has passed on to twelve, and by the time the minute-hand has

reached twelve, the hour-hand has passed beyond it. Every time the

minute-hand comes to where the hour-hand now is, the hour-hand has

passed beyond. The distance becomes less and less, but theoretically,

or in conceivability, the one can never overtake the other.

Through this line of reasoning I learned, clearly and once for all,

that _inconceivability is not a proof of impossibility;_ but, on the

other hand, that we know many things to be true that are not

conceivable to the finite mind, and therefore we must follow truth

learned by experience and observation, irrespective of rationalism. In

this way the mighty fetters of rationalism that held me in bondage were

cut and I was set free to search for the truth as it is in Jesus

Christ. I learned the limitations of the finite intellect and the truth

of God's word when he says: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,

neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are

higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my

thoughts than your thoughts." "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of

this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom

knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save

them that believe."

After the empirical school of philosophy had taught me that we must

follow inductions based on experience and observation rather than

rationalism or conceivability, I began to value Paul's admonition,

"Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." If inductive

philosophers have often been opposed to religion and the Bible, it is

because they have not carried their inductions far enough to cover the

entire world of facts. It is admitted by all historians and observers

that prayer and faith and religious convictions have been among the

mightiest forces at work in the world, and any system of reasoning that

does not take these facts into consideration is neither philosophical

nor scientific.

To illustrate what is meant by saying that we must follow experience

rather than conceivability, let us suppose that you are suffering from

a malignant disease and you hear of a medicine that has cured this

disease whenever it has been tried, and you know of nothing else that

will cure it. Would it not be foolish for you to refuse to use the

medicine because you cannot conceive how it produces the cure? It might

be discovered later that it was not the medicine, but your belief in

its curative qualities, that produced the result. But this would not

affect your common-sense duty in the matter. If certain desirable

results follow the doing of a certain thing, we are bound to do that

thing until we know how to get the good results without doing it.

This reveals the folly and inhumanity of the conduct of some infidels

towards religious people. When I was minister of a church in Ohio, I

was visited by a noted infidel. After he went on in a tirade against

preachers and Christians, I asked him if he was not an unhappy man. At

first he denied it; but I called his attention to some of his

utterances, and he soon admitted that he was a very unhappy man. But he

said he was unhappy because he knew too much, and claimed that

Christians were so happy because they were ignorant and deluded. He

claimed to be a great lover of humanity, and although, according to his

profession, he had no God or conscience or judgment to require it of

him, he spent his time in spreading the knowledge and wisdom which made

people unhappy by destroying that which he admitted gave people great

joy and peace and happiness. Suppose a man should come to town who is

as lean as a skeleton and is slowly dying because he is not getting

enough nourishment out of the food he eats, and should begin to lecture

well-nourished and healthy people for eating the food they are eating.

Would we not put him down as a fool? Well, if he would add the claim

that we are well fed because we are ignorant and deluded, while he is

suffering and dying because he knows too much on the food question, he

would be on a par with many of our infidelic friends.

It is said that Beecher and Ingersoll were both present at a banquet in

New York City. Ingersoll brought a railing accusation against

Christianity. Everybody expected Beecher to reply, but he held his

peace until later in the evening, when it became his turn to speak.

When Beecher arose he said: "When I came to this hall to-night I saw an

old, crippled woman wending her way across the crowded street on

crutches. When she had reached about midway, a burly ruffian came along

and knocked the crutches out from under her, and she fell splash into

the mud." Turning to Ingersoll, he said, "What do you think of that,

Colonel?" "The villain!" replied Ingersoll. Beecher, pointing to

Ingersoll, said: "Thou art the man! Suffering, heart-broken, dying

humanity is wending its way through this world of sorrow and turmoil on

the crutches of Christianity. You, sir, come along and knock them out

from under them, but offer nothing in their place." It was a crushing

blow to Ingersoll and his gospel of despair.

We do not understand how spirit and matter can be inter-related, and we

can not conceive that our willing it can move our arm; but this does

not deter us from moving, because we know through experience that we

can move. We do not understand the philosophy of digestion, and we

cannot conceive how bread and butter can have any relation to thought

and life; but we know by experience that they do, and we go on eating

and living. We cannot conceive how the same grass produces lamb, pork

and beef; but we keep on raising stock just the same, because we are

guided by facts learned by experience and observation rather than by

conceivability. We do reach our mouth, the minute-hand does overtake

the hour-hand, objects do move in space, etc., rationalism and

inconceivability to the contrary notwithstanding.

Man is a religious being, and we know by experience that religion gives

him joy and brings him good. If we had no revealed religion, science

and duty would compel us to develop a religious system out of our

religious experiences. This is what has actually been done by the

different peoples of the earth who know not the revelation of God in

the Bible. The secret of the hold that even a false religion has upon

people is the fact that it does them good and gives them happiness by

exercising the pious emotions of their being, even though it may bring

them harm in other ways. Even a religion based on human experience is

better than none; for it is better to feed the religious nature on

husks than to starve it out altogether. To this agree the words of Paul

when he says that God "made of one blood all nations of men for to

dwell on all the face of the earth... that they should seek the Lord,

if haply they might feel after him, and find him." But while man,

unaided by direct revelation, can grope in the dark and feel after God,

and can invent systems of religion based on experience that are better

than none, any man that accepts facts and testimony will soon discover

that God has not thus left us in the dark oil religious matters, but

has "appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness

by that man whom he has ordained, whereof he has given assurance unto

all men, in that he has raised him from the dead."

It is said that a lawyer and a noted preacher, who was a lecturer,

happened to meet at a hotel breakfast-table. The lawyer suspected that

his companion was a preacher, and, as he was an infidel, he thought he

had a good opportunity to give a thrust at the Bible.

"Excuse me," said the lawyer, "I take it from your appearance that you

are a preacher."

"Yes, sir," said the preacher.

"Well, now," said the lawyer, "don't you find a great many

contradictions and difficulties you cannot understand in the Bible?"

"Yes, sir," replied the preacher.

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

"Why," said the preacher, "do you see what I am doing with the bones of

this fish? I lay them aside and enjoy the good of the fish. So with the

Bible. I lay aside the things I cannot understand, and feast upon the

rich spiritual food it contains, willing to wait until all mysteries

shall be removed hereafter."

If the finite mind could understand everything contained in the Bible,

it would become worthless as a revelation, for the finite mind could

produce it. But since it reveals the infinite mind, we must expect it

to contain things that the finite mind cannot understand. We can

understand the evidence that it is from God and for our good, and it is

reasonable that we should accept its great truths by faith, although we

may not now be able to see how all the truths it reveals are consistent

with each other. "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear

God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

As has often been said, no one can do better than to live the pure,

clean, benevolent life that Jesus inculcated and incarnated. If you

imitate him in goodness and good deeds, you are pursuing the best

possible course, even if the Bible is not true. If, on the other hand,

the Bible is true, and you do not live for Christ, you are doomed for

ever and ever.

Having been delivered from the bondage of rationalism, I found my way

back to Christ with comparative ease. If experience and facts are our

ultimate guides, then we must trust the testimony of history. With the

help of the _Bi-Millennial Telescope on the opposite page_, and

limitless similar testimony, we can trace the existence of the Bible

clear to the days of the Apostles. None ever had better means of

knowing the facts they bore witness to than the Apostles, and none ever

gave stronger proof that they sincerely told the truth as they knew it.

The Gospels being genuine and reliable, the life and words and miracles

of Jesus they narrate, give sufficient proof of the divinity of Christ

to satisfy every reasonable demand of the intellect. This is especially

true concerning the resurrection of Christ, on which the proof of

Christianity hinges. "He showed himself alive after his passion by many

infallible proofs." And if he arose from the dead, he was demonstrated

by it to be the Son of God. And if he is the Son of God, then the Bible

is the Word of God, for he has endorsed it all. Thus there were

restored to me Christ, God and his Word of truth. The thing that robbed

me of these was rationalism, but it had been proven false and therefore

was ruled out of court.

Unitarians used to tell me that Christ was the Son of God, but we all

are sons of God. I now saw that Christ was _the_ Son of God in the

special and peculiar sense in which he claimed, or he was a fool. When

he was on trial he was asked upon oath whether he was the Son of God or

not, and he answered "Yes" when it cost his life to do so. If he meant

that he was the son of God in the same sense in which we are, all he

would have had to do was to explain and he could have saved his life.

The proof that Christianity is from God as revealed in its effect upon

the life of individuals, communities and nations, is so apparent and

has been pointed out so often that I will give it but a passing notice.

"If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching,

whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself," was Christ's

challenge, and millions have verified it in their own religious

experience. Nearly all the voluntary educational and philanthropic

institutions of the world are supported by Christian people, and the

nations of the earth are prosperous, enlightened and influential in the

exact proportion as their people are intelligent and consecrated

followers of the lowly Nazarene.

It was thus that I found my way back to Christ as my Lord and Saviour,

and I never before fully appreciated the words of Jesus, "Come unto me,

all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." The

truth dawned upon me gradually, but with irresistible force. How often

have we been perplexed and in doubt on some great question of truth or

duty until finally the solution came to us as if by magic. Through what

the psychologists call subconscious cerebration our mind has been

working at the great problem even when our conscious attention was

given to other matters. I have had a number of such experiences before

and since, and, had I not examined them critically, I might easily have

been led to believe they were direct revelations from heaven.

For many months the great question had been occupying my mind by day

and by night. Finally the solution came as clear as a revelation from

God. It wakened me in the still of the night and ravished my soul with

peace and joy unspeakable. I arose and took a walk into the country to

a mountain spring and back. I shall never forget that night, and the

ecstatic joy it brought to me. My religious nature had been outraged so

long that when it was set free it returned to its Lord with a violent

bound. The fittest words I could find to express my feelings are in the

103d Psalm: "Bless the Lord, O my soul; and all that is within me,

bless his holy name."

The question as to what church I should join, or what religious body I

should affiliate with, now confronted me and demanded solution. As I

already intimated, I was perplexed, and partly led to doubt and

confusion by the many different religious bodies, all claiming to be

right. One of my objects in entering this school was to make a thorough

study of the different religious bodies and their doctrines. One

incident that helped me in the solution of this problem was an

occurrence in our New Testament Greek class. The professor declared

that all Greek scholars of note are agreed that the proper meaning of

the word "baptism" in the New Testament is _to immerse_. As I was

raised in a pedobaptist church, this declaration was a great surprise

to me, but I looked up the authorities and found that the professor had

stated the facts correctly.

We had a class that made a study of the character, government and

teaching of the different religious bodies. In this study I was

especially impressed with the polity and teaching of the people

designated as "Disciples of Christ," or "Christians." I procured their

literature and made a thorough study of their position. I naturally

found myself in harmony with their teaching. I had myself come to see

the folly of enforcing upon all believers the speculative theology of

the creeds, and the weakness and waste that result from a divided

church. My experience revealed to me the relative value of human wisdom

and God's wisdom as found in his Book. The thought of preaching Christ

rather than theology, and of restoring the apostolic church in its

teachings, ordinances and practices, came to me as a godsend in my

condition of mind. I was, however, very slow to act in this matter, as

I had been deceived before and it was my desire not to make a mistake

again. After a year's consideration and considerable correspondence

with one of their preachers, I finally united with the Christian Church

at New Castle, Pa. I have been preaching the plea for Christian union

on the primitive gospel ever since, and the longer I preach it the more

I see its beauty and power.

Having been delivered, through the goodness of God, from this blinding

cloud of rationalism, let us take a backward look at it and its chief

product--Unitarianism--and let us see what lesson God would teach us

through it. Unitarianism, as a church movement, started near the

beginning of the last century. It enlisted many of the best hearts,

brains and purses of this country. It had Harvard University back of

it. It numbered among its followers most of the great poets, historians

and prose writers of our country. It has flooded the country with free

literature, and has furnished to thousands of ministers its standard

works without money and without price. No movement ever seemed to have

such mighty agencies back of it to insure its rapid spread. And yet,

after a century of effort, what do we see as the result? Only a few

hundred churches, most of which are numerically weak and enlist only a

certain class of people.

My conviction of the depressing, devitalizing and disintegrating effect

of Unitarianism has been intensified through my recent experience in

evangelistic work in New England. The rationalistic liberalism of

Unitarianism has largely permeated New England Protestantism. It was

not an accident that it was in New England, where, to a large body of

clergymen, a speaker declared, with applause, that "Protestantism is

decaying and will soon be displaced by a new form of Catholicism." Here

Protestantism is indeed decaying through its contact with Unitarian

teaching, and is already largely displaced by old Catholicism and new

Christian Science and other antichristian delusions. Nowhere else did I

ever see Protestant churches so saturated with worldly pleasures and so

indifferent about the salvation of souls. It was here I had the

humiliating experience of sitting in a union Thanksgiving service where

the preacher called the Pilgrim Fathers _religious fanatics_, and spoke

of words writers of the Pentateuch put into the mouth of Moses to give

them influence with the people. Yet I never saw a sign of disapproval

in the audience or heard a word of criticism. It is true he was a

Universalist preacher, but that makes it all the worse. To think that

Protestantism has so degenerated in a New England city that a preacher

who does not believe in the divinity of Christ nor in the inspiration

of the Bible should be appointed to represent it on such an occasion.

It is enough to make the Pilgrim Fathers turn in their graves and groan

for pain. Had present-day Protestantism of New England a fraction of

the moral and spiritual earnestness that the Pilgrim Fathers possessed,

it might have been spared the abject humility of sprawling in weakness

before the same vaunting religious intolerance of Catholicism that

through cruel and bloody persecution drove the Pilgrim Fathers to "the

bleak New England shore" for safety and religious liberty.

When a prominent Catholic recently aped the Protestant clergymen by

declaring that Protestantism is decaying, the preacher at Tremont

Temple called it a "damnable lie." This is a hopeful sign, and

indicates that the sick man is not dead yet. It shows that at least

some think it is not true, or wish it not true; and if enough

get a strong desire that it shall not be true, it will not be true.

When we renounce rationalism and its products it will not be true.

At a meeting of one of the leading ministerial associations of New

England, at which the writer was present, the speaker of the day

declared that the church has been claiming too much for itself. The

contents of the speech indicated that he had reference to its claim of

supernatural power to transform the sinner. He also said he had given

up the effort to reconcile the first chapters of the Bible with

science. The significance is in the fact that some Protestants

acquiesce in such teaching, and that they are in harmony with the

doctrines of Unitarianism.

Although its advocates must admit that Unitarianism is a monumental

failure in organizing churches, it is their boast that it has

powerfully affected other religious bodies. This fact we admit; but as

the effect is devitalizing, disorganizing and ultimately demoralizing,

we consider the result the crowning shame rather than the crowning

glory of Unitarianism.

That the liberal theology resulting from rationalism and championed in

this country by Unitarianism is merely negative and destructive, is

evidenced on every hand. Dr. Pearson, in the _Missionary Review_, has

recently pointed out its fatal effects in the mission fields, and still

more recently it has been compelled to confess its own defeat in

Germany, where it originated and where it has found its chief support.

The evidence of this is found in the _Literary Digest_ of Feb. 25,

1911, where we find the following:

That "liberal" theology has made an almost utter failure in Germany

is asserted by one of its leading spokesmen in a liberal religious

organ. It consists too much of mere negation, he thinks, and has no

strong faith in anything. The masses have rejected it, and the educated

have accepted it only in small numbers. Practically it is a failure,

and he demands a reconstruction along new lines, with new ideals and

new methods. This courageous liberal is Rev. Dr. Rittelmeyer, of

Nuremberg, and he writes in the _Christliche Welt_ (Tubingen). Here are

the main points of his argument:

"Let us ask honestly what results modern theology has attained

practically. As far as the great masses of workingmen are concerned,

practically nothing has been gained. They either do not understand it

or they distrust it. All the public discussions and popularization of

modern critical views have not found any echo or sympathy among the

ranks of the laboring people.

"And how about the educated classes? It has long since been the boast

and hobby of advanced theology that it, and it alone, will satisfy the

religious longings of the educated man who has broken with the

traditional dogma and doctrines of orthodox Christianity. But what are

the actual facts in the case? It is a fact that there are a

considerable number among the educated who thankfully confess that they

can accept Christianity only in the form in which it is taught by the

advanced theologian. But how exceedingly small this number is! A

periodical like the _Christliche Welt_, the only paper of its kind, has

not been able to secure more than five thousand subscribers, although

its contributors are the most brilliant in the land of scholars and

thinkers; while periodicals that are exponents of the older views are

read by tens and even hundreds of thousands. There are whole classes of

society among the educated who are antagonistic to liberal tendencies

in religion. Among these are the officers in the army and the navy,

practitioners of the technical arts and of engineering, and almost to a

man the whole world of business. It is foolish to close our eyes to

these facts."

What is the matter? asks this writer. What is the weakness of liberal

and advanced theological thought? These are some of the answers:

"One trouble is that modern theology has entirely grown out of

criticism. Its weakness is intellectualism; it is a negative movement.

We can understand the cry of the orthodox, that advanced theology is

eliminating one thing after the other from our religious thought, and

then asks, What is left? True, we answer, God is left. But is it not

the case that the modern God-Father faith is generally a very weak and

attenuated faith in a Providence, and nothing more? And on this

subject, too, we quarrel among ourselves, whether a God-Father troubles

himself about little things only or about great things too, such as the

forgiveness of sins. We do the same thing with Jesus. We speak of him

as of a unique personality, as the highest revelation of the Father,

and the like, but always connected with a certain skeptical

undercurrent of thought; but we do not appreciate him in his deepest

soul and in the great motives of his life. He is not for modern

theology what he is for orthodoxy, the Saviour of the world and the

Redeemer of mankind."

Quite naturally this open confession of a pronounced liberal

attracts more than ordinary attention. The liberal papers, including

the _Christliche Welt_ itself, pass it by without further comment, but

the conservatives speak out boldly. Representative of the latter is the

_Evangelische Lutherische Kirchenzeitung_, of Leipzig, which says:

"The psychological and spiritual solution of Rittelmeyer's problem

is not so hard to find. The soul of man can not live on negations. To

stir the soul there must be positive principles and epoch-making

historical facts, such as are offered by the Scriptural teachings of

Christ and his words. There can be religious life only where there is

faith in him who is the truth and the life. Liberal theology has failed

because it has nothing to offer."

Dr. Harnack, its great high priest, found it an unsatisfying portion,

and, doubtless influenced by its failure, has resigned and turned his

energies into other channels.

Unitarianism appeals almost entirely to the head and but little to the

heart. It supplies a kind of abnormal stimulant to the intellect, but

usually freezes out the emotions. It is like the arctic regions, where

they have six months of light, but no heat, and where consequently

there is no growth of any kind. It is broad, but really superficial and

shallow. It is like a piece of rubber stretched over a wide surface; it

is wide, but it becomes very thin. Emerson seemed to recognize how

shallow rationalism makes people when he declared that "a small

consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds--little philosophers,

little statesmen and little divines." The finite mind cannot see the

consistency of the great and deep truths of life and God. To try to

deal with these great questions with human logic is like manipulating a

circle with a break in it. Each reasoner calls attention to the break

in the circle of logic of others, but dexterously manipulates his own

circle so as to hide its missing link.

Rationalism is a delusion and a snare, and, when followed to its

logical conclusion, leads to absurdity and death. Fortunately, most

people who are tainted with this disease do not follow it to its

legitimate conclusions. Through preconceived and inherited ideas and

sentimental inertia, they are held to their moorings. But,

unfortunately, their pupils are not always thus protected. Many

preachers who are held in their place by religious habits and

associations, give expression to rationalistic ideas that take lodgment

in the minds of young men who are not surrounded with religious habits

and associations to hold them; and who, following these rationalistic

ideas to their logical conclusion, are led to doubt and confusion. I

believe that hundreds of thinking young men have been led away from

Christ and the church in this way, all because they and their teacher

did not recognize the true character of rationalism and the proper

functions and limitations of the finite intellect. Mansel gives a

proper diagnosis of rationalism in the following words:

"The rationalist . . . assigns to some superior tribunal the right

of determining what (in revelation) is essential to religion and what

is not; he claims the privilege of accepting or rejecting any given

revelation, wholly or in part, according as it does or does not satisfy

the conditions of some higher criterion, to be supplied by human

consciousness." Rationalism proceeds "by paring down supposed

excrescences. Commencing with a preconceived theory of the purpose of a

revelation, and of the form which it ought to assume, it proceeds to

remove or reduce all that will not harmonize with this leading idea."

"Rationalism tends to destroy revealed religion altogether, by

obliterating the whole distinction between the human and the divine. If

it retain any portion of revealed truth, as such, it does so, not in

consequence, but in defiance, of its fundamental principle."

But while many ministers are not much injured apparently by their

rationalistic taint, many others are, and all are more or less.

Eternity alone will reveal how much faith in God's Word, and therefore

in God himself, has been weakened or destroyed by this dread mental

disease. Look at the destructive ravages of rationalistic criticism of

the Bible. The Unitarians have completed this work and have eliminated

all the supernatural from the Divine Record. But it is the preachers in

the evangelical churches who are following the Unitarians afar off in

this matter, that are doing the most damage to the faith of Christ's

followers. I have been there, and know how Unitarians look at this

matter. They point to these evangelical preachers as an evidence that

the entire religious world is rapidly coming to their position. On the

other hand, they look at these preachers with pity and contempt because

they do not follow the thing to its logical conclusion, and drop the

Bible entirely as a supernatural revelation. And I believe the

Unitarians are right in this. The same fundamental reasons that led the

rationalistic critics in the evangelical churches to their present

conclusions will inevitably and logically lead to the Unitarian

conclusions, whenever preconceived ideas and inherited prejudices are

sufficiently relaxed. When I first studied this question of destructive

higher criticism so called (it is often _hire_ criticism) from the

rationalistic standpoint and under rationalistic guides, its

conclusions seemed the most reasonable thing on earth. I wondered that

I had not seen it myself long before, and I looked with pity upon the

deluded victims who did not see it. But after I was delivered from

rationalism and my eyes were opened, I commenced to study the other

side of the question and discovered where I was deceived.

Let me give you a few samples of the reasoning of rationalistic

criticism as exhibited by its strongest advocates. Where it says that

Jesus walked upon the water, we were gravely informed that Jesus did

not walk upon the water at all. It happened to be a foggy morning and

the disciples were deceived; he was really walking on the shore. Where

it says "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side," we were

informed that the Greek word here means primarily to prick as with a

pin, to pave the way to belittle the wound of Jesus, despite the fact

that the narrative adds, "straightway there came out blood and water."

The purpose of this was to make way for the _theory_ that Christ did

not die on the cross, but was simply in a lethargy, and when he came to

in the tomb he pushed the stone away, and this so frightened the

soldiers that they took to their heels, thinking it was a ghost, while

Christ escaped to the mountains, where he lived secretly the rest of

his life and finally died a natural death. All this without a scrap of

historical basis, and despite the express declaration of the narrative

that an expert, who was sent by Pilate to ascertain if he was dead,

reported that he was. This is so contrary to the facts of the

narrative, and the character of Jesus and his disciples, that it is

harder to believe it than any miracle recorded in the Bible. Why these

ridiculous and absurd conclusions, despite the historical facts? Simply

because of the necessity to get rid of the supernatural at the mandates

of rationalism. To preserve such puerilities, the manuscripts were kept

in a fire-proof vault lest fire should destroy them. The claims of

destructive criticism are so absurd and ridiculous, when looked at from

a truly scientific standpoint, that I confine myself in this book to

exposing the erroneous viewpoint of rationalism, believing that when

that is done any one can easily see that there is nothing in it.

Besides, its quibblings have been often and ably exposed by competent

authors and their works are accessible to all. That any one who claims

to believe the Bible should give his time to teaching innocent and

uninformed children and adults the conclusions of rationalistic

criticism seems almost too absurd to believe; and when it is done under

the pretense of honoring the Bible, it is but another illustration of

how our moral and intellectual vision can be warped and distorted when

we look through the colored glasses of rationalism and bias.

It is said that a minister kept telling his congregation that different

parts of the Bible were myths, legends, etc., and not historical. One

of his members cut out of her Bible every section he said was not true.

When he made a pastoral call she showed him her mutilated Bible. Upon

his remonstrance, she replied that he had said that these parts were

not reliable, and so she did not want them as a part of her Bible. He

was shocked at his own vandalism.

I have shown that the same rationalistic objections that are brought

against facts revealed in the Bible can be brought against facts

revealed in nature. The only sensible thing to do is to recognize the

limitations of our finite intellects and accept all well-authenticated

facts, whether revealed in the Bible or in nature. We must learn that

in the very nature of things our finite minds cannot fully grasp and

comprehend the infinite. Therefore we have God's revelation in the

Bible, which, though not the product of the human intellect, fully

satisfies its every reasonable demand.

We have also learned that man has by nature strong religious emotions,

which, if exercised, give great joy and peace. Even unguided by

revelation, they grope after God with the help of the finite intellect.

These emotions are blind and were never intended to give us light. They

are a source of great joy and power, but must be guided and filled by

divine revelation to be properly exercised. The neglect of this fact

has led to all kinds of mysticism and fanaticism. And while this is

better and more helpful than cold rationalism, it is nevertheless an

unsafe guide, and does more harm than good to humanity. Faithfulness

compels me to say that, as rationalism, so mysticism has found its way

into the evangelical churches and has done much to rob God's Word of

its power and to divide Christ's followers into warring camps. The

religion that does not thoroughly enlist, exercise and sanctify the

human emotions is not worth having; but we are not to believe every

spirit, but to try the spirits by the Word of God. Let us lay aside our

"think-so's" and "feel-so's," and let us turn to the revelation that

comes from above, that our intellects may be flooded with light and our

emotions may be submerged in God's love, so that our entire

being--body, mind and soul--may be filled, occupied and sanctified to

the glory of Christ.

With the Unitarian movement that started at the beginning of the last

century, with so many human instrumentalities back of it, let us

compare the Apostolic church which was started in the first third of

the first century by a handful of poor, illiterate and despised

Galileans. Although the wealth and culture and political power of the

world were all against them, at the end of the century we are told that

they numbered five hundred thousand.

Again let us compare with Unitarianism, this modern movement for the

restoration of primitive Christianity which started somewhat later than

Unitarianism. Its reproach in the eyes of men--that it has no

literature--is its glory in the eyes of God; for the Bible is its

literature. Its work has been done chiefly among and through the common

people. At the end of the century it numbered among its adherents more

than a million and a quarter. While sectarian churches numerically much

stronger report meager increases and even decreases, it reports an

average of over forty thousand increase for the last several years.

The experiences narrated in this chapter have made real to me the

belief that God is in every act of our life. That through his loving

care, "all things work together for good to them that love God." When I

think of how, in his providence, he took me away from the community and

religion of my early neighbors and brought me in a mysterious way to a

religion and people I had never heard of, I am overwhelmed with the

evidence of his hand in it.

To the honest doubter I would say, take courage, my brother, the Lord

will lead you, in his providence, to the way, the truth and the life. I

can testify that he brings the spiritually blind by a way that they

knew not and leads them in paths they have not known. He makes darkness

light before them and crooked things straight, and will not forsake

them if they continue to sincerely seek for light until he has

accomplished his purpose concerning them and brought them to the feet

of Jesus.

To those out of Christ I will say, that I have tasted and seen that the

Lord is good. After having tried both, I have found a hundred times

more real pleasure in than out of Christ. And while I am yet tied to

clay and suffer many things through the weakness of the flesh, so that

I groan within myself and long to be entirely delivered from this

bondage of death, yet I am filled with love, peace, joy and power

through the earnest of the Spirit dwelling in me, and I serve Jesus

patiently, waiting for the hope set before me, even the coming of our

Saviour, when this corruptible, mortal body shall be changed into the

likeness of the glorified body of Jesus, and I shall be with him and

shall be like him. Oh, how this hope fills my being with love and joy

unspeakable! Will you come and accept this salvation? In the Saviour's

name, who died to purchase it for you, we bid you come. _Come while it

is called to-day!_

CHAPTER II.

MY PARTING MESSAGE TO THE UNITARIAN SCHOOL.

During my third year at the Meadville Unitarian Theological School,

after I became thoroughly convinced that the Unitarian position was

untenable, and I had found my way back to Christ, it so happened that

it was my turn to read a paper and to preach to the school, as the

members of the higher classes preached before the school in turn. In

these parting messages I frankly and sincerely presented my change of

viewpoint, and argued against the Unitarian position as strongly as I

could at the time. The school is open, on equal terms, to anybody

wishing to study for the ministry, no matter what their views, or what

religious body they belong to. Everybody is supposed to be perfectly

free to hold and express his honest religious opinions. In the spirit

of this generosity, I patiently listened to all the school could offer

me in presenting what it believed to be the truth, and gratefully

accepted every help it could give me in my search for the truth. I felt

I was acting in entire harmony with the spirit of the founders of the

institution when I used the knowledge and culture imparted to me in

kindly contending for the truth as I saw it, even when it was against

the truth as held by the teachers of the school.

Most of my sermon on "The Proper Method of Inquiry in Religion" has

been lost or mislaid. But I have the paper read before the school, and

the last part of the sermon. I give these here because it shows how the

matter looked to me at that time, and how I treated it in the presence

of the keen, intellectual audience of students and professors.

The professor of homiletics, who read and criticised all sermons before

they were preached, rather took me to task for my bold attack upon

Unitarianism, but he admitted to me that, although he had preached and

taught it for more than a score of years, there were yearnings in his

soul that it did not satisfy. The sermon was listened to with great

respect and sympathy, especially by the more conservative students.

About ten years later I received a letter from a young Unitarian

minister in Massachusetts who referred to the sermon, and said he had

never forgotten it, but was often reminded in his experience of how

true it was, especially in what I said about the coldness and

fruitlessness of Unitarianism.

Although the matter in this paper and sermon is largely the same as

that in the previous chapter, I present it because, as the line of

thought is out of the ordinary and somewhat difficult to the general

reader, its repetition in this conversational style will help to get a

better grasp of the deadly delusions of rationalism. Truth usually has

to be repeated in various ways before it gets a thorough hold upon the

average mind. Therefore "precept must be upon precept, precept upon

precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a

little" (Isa. 28:10).

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

Freethinker_.

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

[The three above-named persons had made each other's acquaintance, and

had engaged in discussions with each other on several occasions. They

now seat themselves in a group on deck and enter upon the following

discussion.]

_Mr. Liberal_--The great objection to your religion, Mr. Orthodox, is

that it violates reason and conscience. To be more specific, let us

consider a few instances. There is your doctrine of eternal punishment,

in which you ascribe fiendish qualities to our dear heavenly Father

such as the most savage human being could not be capable of. Then, take

your doctrine of the Trinity, around which most of your dogmas cluster,

and we see at once that it violates the simplest postulates of reason.

I know that you will answer that these are all mysteries which are to

be accepted on faith. But it is perfectly clear that there is no

mystery about it. It is as clear as daylight that three cannot be one.

You talk about mysteries which we must accept by faith, but all such

talk is nonsense and ignores our sacred reason. The idea of getting

over all difficulties by declaring them mysteries, and exhorting your

opponents to leap over them by the exercise of faith, is truly, as some

one has said, "a touchstone for whole classes of explanations based on

no evidence." You orthodox people are the cause of all the infidelity

that is afloat in the land. People come in contact with your irrational

and ridiculous claims, and, taking them as religion itself, they throw

overboard the whole business, the good with the bad. What we need is a

pure and simple religion that will satisfy man's reason and conscience

as well as his heart. And we do not have to go far for such a religion,

for we find it in the liberal faith which it is my privilege to

represent. Let us compare our grand, simple and rational beliefs with

your irrational, absurd and mysterious products of the Dark Ages, and

see what a contrast there is between them. Instead of your "Son is God,

Father is God, Holy Spirit is God; yet there are not three Gods, but

only one," we have the simple faith in one heavenly

Father--all-powerful, all-wise and all-good. No mystery about it. It

would be absurd to suppose that such a God could punish his children to

eternity, or that He would require the suffering of the innocent to

enable him to forgive the guilty. Then, of course, we reject all the

absurd dogmas clustering around your conception of the Trinity. The

simple belief in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man is

enough for us. Instead of your endless punishment, we have the

reasonable belief that the Father punishes simply to bring us good, so

that our joy may be greater. This is all perfectly simple, and can be

understood by the uneducated man as well as by the philosopher.

_Mr. Orthodox_--It is an easy thing to make charges; and, as they are

usually made in sweeping terms, it frequently requires hours of time

and much explanation to answer the charges made in a few minutes, even

when the charges are false. I shall endeavor to defend myself, but must

beg you to give me sufficient time to make myself understood. In the

first place, I claim, as you say, that you cannot understand all the

mysteries about religious doctrines. They must, to a large extent, be

accepted by faith. And I claim that it is more reasonable to accept

them by faith than to reject them on the ground that you cannot

understand them. This may seem ridiculous to you, but wait until I

explain myself further. Take eternal punishment. You say that man is a

free agent, and that through his free agency he is able to bring evil

and punishment upon himself. You say that God has so ordained because

it is best for man that he should be left free, even though he becomes

liable to suffer because of it, as it will be for his final good. In

other words, you claim that God does punish his children for their own

good. It seems perfectly just to you that God should punish a person

because he is a free agent, but when we say that man can bring eternal

punishment upon himself through his free agency, then you think it

ridiculous, although the principle is exactly the same and the only

difference is that of degree. But I see that I must be more general in

my statements or I will not get far. You bring a host of other charges

against us, either directly or by implication. You say that yours is a

pure and simple religion that can be understood by uneducated people as

well as by philosophers. Here we get at the very heart of the

difference between us. It is true that your doctrines are _very

simple,_ but that is their chief demerit. _They_ are simple, but the

facts that they attempt to deal with are very complex. To declare that

religious problems are simple is to go counter to the expressed

opinions of the great thinkers of all ages. Such questions as evil,

good, life, immortality, free will, God, and a host of others, are

decidedly complex.

They are largely inscrutable and have always been considered so. And

yet all the complex realities of life and death which have defied the

theologians and philosophers of all ages, you now tell us are very

simple, and you carry the simple solution around with you only too glad

to give it free to everybody. Why is it that all of the thousands of

worried and distressed souls don't come flocking to you? Why is it that

the philosophers and thinkers don't come rushing in from all

directions, to get from you the truths they have so long sought after?

Why is it that the uneducated masses do not come to you and accept your

simple doctrines which they can so easily understand? I know that you

are ready with a charge of ignorance, prejudice, self-interest, etc.,

but I claim that as a rule your charges do not charge. You, believing

in an all-wise, all-good and all-powerful God, who is Truth itself,

must believe in the triumph of truth; and here I agree with you. I

believe that just as soon as truth is brought in contact with error the

latter will have to vanish just as sure as the darkness vanishes when a

light is brought into a room. Error may apparently linger because of

peculiar circumstances which we are ignorant of, but as soon as truth

has a fair chance of coming directly in contact with error, the victory

is won. I claim, therefore, that the reason that your explanations are

not accepted, is because they do not explain. Your doctrines offer

protection to a small part of the man, but leave all the rest exposed

to the cold and inclement weather. The uneducated do not accept your

doctrines because they belie their own experiences.

_Mr. Freethinker_--I hope you will pardon me for interrupting you, Mr.

Orthodox. You are getting too hot. I think it will be better for you to

cool off before you continue, and in the meantime I will have my say.

That is the greatest objection I have to you religionists--you are all

fanatics. You get an idea into your head, and then think that the

continuance of the world depends upon you thrusting it into everybody's

face. Of course you are willing to suffer for your doctrines, and even

to die for them if need be, but that is the way with all fanatics. Your

foolish notions give occasion for amusement to cool-headed free

thinkers, who see perfectly well that they are all the result of

self-delusion. I believe in keeping perfectly cool; in always keeping

the head as high above the heart as it is in the body. I don't believe

in attacking a man from behind while he is engaged by another in front,

but, during the time Mr. Orthodox is cooling off, I wish to show you,

Mr. Liberal, wherein I differ from you. Your great appeal is to reason,

and I agree with you entirely on that point; but I don't arrive at your

conclusions. You have been fixing your eyes on the monstrous outrage of

reason in your brother's position so steadfastly, and yours is so much

more in accordance with reason, that it is not surprising that you

should have failed to see the irrationality of your own position.

Furthermore, you have had a great deal of inherited prejudice to

overcome, and a man cannot be expected to get rid of all those at once,

especially when they have reference to the heart or feelings. You say

that your God is all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. The inevitable,

logical conclusion from that is that such a God would give his children

an infinitely small amount of evil and an infinitely large amount of

good. But such is not the case; therefore, to keep that jewel of

rationalism which is so dear to you, you must give up your belief in

such a God. Just wait a minute! I know that you are ready to give a lot

of quibbling that will satisfy some people who follow their prejudices

and inherited feelings, but I defy the whole world of logicians to show

that such a conclusion is less logical than the claim that there can be

three in one. You say that it is in the nature of things that God must

give us evil that we may enjoy good the more afterwards. But if you

clear yourself from all prejudice, you will see that this is the old

method of the ostrich of putting its head under the sand and imagining

that its entire body is protected. Nay, even worse than that, you don't

even protect your head. Any man that gives clear sweep to his reason

will see that if God must comply with certain conditions, then he is

not all-powerful If he is all-powerful, he can give us all good without

any evil, and if he is all-good it would logically follow that he will

do so. Then, again, while affirming that man is a free agent, you at

the same time claim that every effect must have a cause, or that

something cannot come out of nothing. Now, the reconciliation of these

two facts has ever defied the reason of mankind. And those that have

adopted the belief in free will have confessed that reason did not lead

them to that conclusion, but experience. On the other hand, the logical

conclusion is inevitable that man cannot be free. I know that people

have endeavored to satisfy themselves to the contrary, and I know that

some have really succeeded in deceiving themselves so far as to believe

that they could logically hold to it; but I declare that they have

never succeeded in convincing any unprejudiced mind, and I defy any

logician to prove that the conclusion of free will as consistent with

eternal causation, is less absurd than that two and two make five.

Again, you preach that what a man sows, that also shall he reap. If

that is true, then no person can really give him anything; therefore

philanthropy is a delusion. Now, then, Mr. Liberal, you want to be

reasonable and drop the false position to which your inherited

prejudices have held you, and adopt my views, which are thoroughly

simple and entirely consistent and logical. Belief in God is the

product of superstition, and belief in free will is a self-delusion. I

know that you will appeal to intuition in this case, but that is only a

scapegoat for deluded and illogical minds to hide behind. You see that

my conclusion is not only simple and logical, but it is really more

beautiful than your complex affair, and you will see it as such after

you succeed in overcoming your inherited prejudices. There is no God.

The universe is governed by blind law; at least, that is all we know

about it. We are evolved from the lowest forms of organic life. What

about conscience? Well, that is a matter of education. Of course we

should follow it, because it is a safer guide than our present

judgment, since it represents the judgment of all our ancestors.

Utility is our only standard of right and wrong in morals, and we

follow utility because we are not free and are therefore compelled to

do so.

_Mr. Orthodox_--If you are through, Mr. Freethinker, I will now

continue. But I must consider myself your opponent as well as Mr.

Liberal's. In the first place, I must admit that you are thoroughly

consistent with yourself as far as you go. But, my dear fellow, where

does your consistency lead you to? You claim to be a freethinker, and

yet you conclude that you are an entire slave and even think as you do

because you cannot help it.

I stated at the beginning of my reply to Mr. Liberal that many

religious facts must be accepted without thoroughly understanding them,

and claimed that it is reasonable to so accept them. I will now

endeavor to explain myself more fully. It seems to me that if anything

has been proven, it is that our logical reason is not always a safe

guide. For example, we cannot conceive of an end to divisibility of

space; and therefore we cannot conceive how we can reach a given point.

Now, practice gives the lie to this conclusion, and if some rationalist

should follow his reason here, he would conclude that he can never get

a piece of food into his mouth; or, in other words, the logical

conclusion would lead to starvation. I know that some will deny this as

a logical conclusion to get out of the difficulty. But I could never

see it as otherwise than logical, and I have a goodly list of thinkers

who have reached the same conclusion before me. Again, it is admitted

by all thinkers of all ages that our reason tells us that there cannot

be existence without beginning, or, on the other hand, there can be no

beginning of existence without something existing before to cause its

existence.

The conclusion is that inconceivability is not an infallible proof of

the absence of a fact, and that we must follow our experience even if

it conflicts with our reason. This is what we claim to do in religion.

Whether experience is the sole source of knowledge is a question we

need not discuss here. It is certainly the only safe method in most

things. For example, I wish to know what will cure a certain disease.

Suppose that I find a medicine that has cured every case in which it

has been administered. Would it not be irrational for me to refuse to

use that medicine because I cannot conceive how it effects the cure? Of

course it might be possible that the medicine did not effect the cure;

that it was the belief in its curative power that produced the effect.

Cases have frequently occurred where a thing was for a long time

believed to be the cause, while future investigation proved that it was

some other attendant circumstance that was the real cause. But if our

experience is that a given medicine cures a certain disease invariably,

and that no other known medicine will cure it, we would be foolish not

to use that medicine. The same is true in religion. If we wish to

accomplish certain results and we have found a way in which those

desirable results can be brought about, and know of no other way to

bring them about; it would be irrational not to adopt that way, or

follow out the requirements of that theory. I told you, Mr. Liberal,

that your theory or doctrine was too simple. This is still more true of

our friend, Mr. Freethinker. You claim to hold very broad, liberal and

enlightened views. But although they are broad, they are not deep

enough. They are stretched out over the surface merely, and thus hide

from your view the great ocean of reality below. Yes, you have an

abundance of light, but not enough heat. In the polar regions they have

six months of light in one stretch, but no one would think of starting

a garden there, as there is not enough heat. To the cold reason of some

bachelor it is perfectly clear and indisputable that the young lover is

a deluded fool and should follow his reason by never marrying. But I

fondly believe that young lover sees the true worth of one human soul,

and gives us an idea of the worth we shall see in all souls when we

shall cease to see through a glass darkly. As the bachelor does not

touch the reality in his case, so I believe that our friend, Mr.

Freethinker, does not touch the great ocean of reality in religion. We

are convinced by experience that man is free, and that nevertheless

eternal causation does exist. We believe these to be two co-ordinate

truths and we are willing to wait until we can solve the mystery; but

in the meantime we wish to make use of the practical belief in both

truths. People are convinced that there is a God who deals out exact

justice; yet they are also convinced from experience that there is a

God who is love who forgives the penitent sinner. That one God can

possess both of these qualities seems as impossible as that three Gods

can be in one God. And yet people are convinced that no other theory

will explain their complex experiences, and that living according to no

other theory will enable them to get the desirable results that they

know from experience that they do get. They may be mistaken; but it

will be time enough to consider that when some one has a theory that

will account better for all their various experiences. Well, you see my

point and I shall apply it no further. You see it is simply the

principle that the empirical school of philosophy claims to employ, but

which many of them employ only in the physical realm and fail to carry

into the spiritual or religious realm. They must admit that religious

convictions are and have been among the strongest, if not the

strongest, motive powers in the world's history. And thus their

philosophy of life leaves out the greatest pleasures and mightiest

incentives to action found in life.

But Mr. Liberal and his friends would tell us that this all refers to

theology. That doctrines are of no account. That what we want is works.

Exactly, but don't you see that if after the afore-said experience you

should not form the theory that the given medicine cures the given

disease and act in accordance with the theory, the result would

probably be death instead of health and life? The question is, is it

true to experience? Does it accomplish what it purposes to accomplish

better than any other theory, and can that result be accomplished only

by following the said theory? According to many authorities, most if

not all of our physical actions are performed according to a theory

based on induction as to facts in the physical world. Thus we arrive at

the conclusion that food nourishes our body because it has always been

found to do so. In the same way many people have, through experience

and facts, come to believe in God who guides them and nourishes them

spiritually.

If now we judge by fruits rather than by doctrines, or rather judge our

doctrines by their fruits, I claim that the orthodox doctrine is

superior to yours, Mr. Liberal. In the first place, you admit that the

lower ignorant classes you cannot reach, and you are greatly surprised

that they do not eagerly accept your _simple_ doctrines. It is not the

whole, but the sick, that need a physician. A religion that cannot help

those that need the greatest spiritual help cannot be the religion of

Christ. But let us suppose that an intelligent foreigner who does not

understand our language nor know our doctrines should attend our

respective churches and see the result produced--the pleasure taken in

coming and receiving our spiritual medicine. And making allowance for

all other differences, should observe which helps most to make life

worth living, and which makes the most and best changes in the

character of its adherents. He would have no trouble to discover that

orthodoxy ministers more to the needy soul than your simple faith.

You, Mr. Liberal, talk about making infidels of people and drawing them

away from the church, but I believe it would have been fortunate for

you if you had not mentioned this subject; because you, according to

the confession of your own men, have driven more people from the

churches than any religious body having a similar numerical strength.

You tell people to use their reason, and after you have drawn them out

of the orthodox churches by that bait, they see that they must go

further than your position to satisfy what you call reason, and they

find large numbers among you ready to lead them to that logical

conclusion. It seems that the advocates of your liberal faith have

always believed that they were on the verge of accomplishing great

victories by drawing the multitudes to them; but as with the victim of

tuberculosis, who imagines he is getting better all the

time, it is always expectancy and never realization. If it is

prejudice that prevents the spread of your belief, then it ought to

grow most in New England, where it has largely worn away prejudice. But

the facts seem to be that there it is growing the least comparatively;

while out West, where it is a novelty and meeting with opposition, it

is making the most progress. A person is almost tempted to conclude

that if it were not for the opposition of some mistaken people, who do

not realize your real error, your progress would come to an end at once.

I believe, Mr. Liberal, that Mr. Freethinker has the best of you

because he vanquished you according to your own method of inquiry. But

you are more nearly right according to the true method of inquiry. You

see it is the proper method of inquiry that I am contending for. A

person with the wrong method of inquiry in his head will only be

repulsed by poking dogmas at him and nothing can be done with him until

he has discovered the fallacy by following his method to absurdity, its

natural conclusion. After that he may be induced to follow the

empirical method of inquiry with a demonstration that experience and

well-authenticated testimony are to be followed rather than rationalism.

What follows is the last part of the sermon on "The Proper Method of

Religious Inquiry." Text: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is

good."

It is not only important that we should appeal to our own experience in

trying to discover what is true in religion, but we should also take

into consideration the experiences of others. If a man, who is

partially color blind, should base a science of color on his own

experience, it would necessarily be partial or incomplete. So if a

class of men, with certain peculiar traits, should build up a system of

theology on their religious experiences, it would necessarily be

partial and not adequate for universal application. Suppose, for

example, that a number of persons with large reasoning powers, cold

temperaments, and very little religious feeling, should build up a

religious system on their experiences. Is it not perfectly clear that

it would be partial and narrow? It would make no allowance at all for

people of strong religious experiences. While it might be of some use

to these few people, it would never help the great bulk of humanity who

need the help of religion the most. To say that a religion is not for

the common people is to admit that it is narrow and not true to

universal human nature. Certainly it is not Christian, for the common

people heard Jesus gladly; and they ever will hear gladly any one who

preaches a religion that is true to their own religious experiences.

In trying to discover what is true in religion, we should also

carefully examine the religious experiences of all ages, as recorded in

their religious writings. I shall here quote from an authority on this

point, because I think it of much value, and because it is not probable

that the writer was influenced by prejudice and preconceived ideas. I

shall quote from John Stuart Mill's "System of Logic," page 477: "There

is a perpetual oscillation in spiritual truths, and in spiritual

doctrines of any significance, even when not truths. Their meaning is

almost always in a process either of being lost or of being recovered.

Whoever has attended to the history of the more serious convictions of

mankind--of the opinion by which the general conduct of their lives is,

or as they conceive ought to be, more especially regulated--is aware

that even when recognizing verbally the same doctrines, they attach to

them at different periods a greater or less quantity, and even a

different kind of meaning. The words in their original acceptation

connoted, and the propositions expressed, a complication of outward

facts and inward feelings, to different portions of which the general

mind is more particularly alive in different generations of mankind. To

common minds, only that portion of the meaning is in each generation

suggested, of which that generation possesses the counterpart in its

habitual experience. But the words and propositions lie ready to

suggest to any mind duly prepared to receive the remainder of the

meaning. Such individual minds are almost always to be found; and the

lost meaning, revived by them, again by degrees works its way into the

general mind.

"The arrival of this salutary reaction may, however, be materially

retarded by the shallow conceptions and incautious proceedings of mere

logicians. ... These logicians think more of having a clear, than of

having a comprehensive, meaning; and although they perceive that every

age is adding to the truth which it has received from its predecessors,

they fail to see that a counter process of losing, truths already

possessed, is also constantly going on, and requiring the most sedulous

attention to counteract it."

But, as a matter of fact, people have, as a rule, followed their

experiences in everything, despite the sneers and ridicules of the

would-be wise. People have planted their vegetables during the increase

of the moon despite all ridicule and laughter. And in due time the wise

men came to their position, declaring that the sunlight reflected by

the moon helps the growth of vegetation. People in all ages have

believed in faith cure under one form or another to the utter amazement

of the intelligent physicians who made fun of them and pitied their

ignorance. But now, through the facts discovered by hypnotism and other

means, the scientists are coming around and admitting that the old

women were right, that the people really did get help from faith cure.

In religion, too, people have followed their experience, despite the

sneers, ridicule and protests of wise men. And, on the whole, I have no

doubt that they are better off than if they had listened to the persons

who showed them that their beliefs, from a rationalistic standpoint,

are false; and at the same time offered them beliefs that were about as

ridiculous from a logical standpoint, and which left out all the power

and good of their own system of belief.

CHAPTER III.

THE FUNCTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE MIND.

The objections made to faith are by no means an effect of knowledge,

but proceed rather from ignorance of what knowledge is.--_Bishop

Berkley._

No difficulty emerges in theology which has not previously emerged in

philosophy.--_Sir Wm. Hamilton._

The human mind inevitably and by virtue of its essential constitution

finds itself involved in self-contradictions whenever it ventures on

certain courses of speculation.--_Mansel._

In the last two chapters I presented the reasons that led me to

infidelity and back to Christ, as they appeared to me while in the

thick of the conflict and soon after. In this and following chapters I

wish to present the matter in the light that has come to me on the

subject up to the present date.

As will be noticed in the previous chapters, the external causes that

drove me to infidelity were the theology of creeds, sectarianism and

the apparent difficulties in the Bible and in religion. But the real

underlying cause was rationalism, or a failure to recognize the proper

functions and limitations of the finite intellect. In later chapters, I

shall show how I overcame the difficulties about creeds and speculative

theology and how I solved the problem of sectarianism by turning to

Christian union on the primitive gospel. In this chapter I wish to

speak more definitely of rationalism or the subjective cause of my

infidelity. For, after all, the whole matter resolves itself into a

question of psychology, or science of the mind. What is the profit of

reading numerous books on the subject, _pro_ and _con_, so long as we

are reading the books through colored glasses that deceive our vision

and lead us to apply false tests as to what the truth in the matter is?

There must be some matters that require our prayerful and serious

consideration, when we observe how the most talented, scholarly, devout

and honest of all ages have been divided into warring camps on

questions of religion, politics, medicine and science. Certainly truth

is not divided; and there must be some mysterious, deceptive mental

pitfalls that have caused this Babel of confusion. When we count the

cost of this warring conflict of the choicest spirits of the earth in

waste, failure, suffering, bloodshed and death, and contemplate the

gain in prosperity, progress, happiness and conquest over ignorance and

evil, that would have resulted had all the good been enabled to see

alike, and thus unite on the truth, we cannot fail to be impressed with

the fact that this is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, theme

that has ever engaged the attention of mortal man. Well may we ask with

Pilate, "What is truth?" Or perhaps the more important question, "How

can we discover what is truth?" What is there in the nature of the mind

that side-tracks the wisest and best in their effort to know the truth?

Why was Paul, the conscientious, intellectual giant, so deceived that

he "verily thought he was doing God service" while destroying the best

and holiest thing that had ever come to earth? Why did Cotton Mather

and other saintly, scholarly Christians martyr innocent saints as

witches? Why did devout patriots of the North and South slaughter each

other in cold blood? Why were the scientific theses written at Harvard

during forty years, all found out of date by Edward Everett Hale? Why

are the intelligent and consecrated hosts of Christ wasting

three-fourths of their men and money through sectarian divisions? Why

are the intelligent, patriotic citizens of America divided into two

camps on free silver and other issues when the truth and their interest

are one, and by a united effort they could carry every election for

truth and righteousness? Common sense asks, Why? The interests of

humanity ask, Why? Love and compassion ask, _Why?_ I believe we must

find the answer chiefly in the failure to understand clearly the nature

and functions of the mind.

The Nature of Conscience.

Turn, for example, to conscience. What is its nature? Is it a safe

guide? Does it always tell us what is right? Why has conscience fought

on both sides of every great historical conflict? Surely we should stay

this awful, pitiable and destructive conflict of the conscientious; at

least, long enough to examine most earnestly into the cause of this

strange and disastrous puzzle. If conscience is not a safe guide, then

woe betide us; for it is the only moral guide we have, or, at least,

the only avenue through which human and divine truth can guide us. For

it is the moral nature itself.

The eye without light cannot see, but if we are lost in a forest, the

eye becomes helpless as a guide, even if there is light. Yet the eye is

a safe guide, and in bodily movements it is essentially the only guide

we have. We thus learn that to exercise their function the eyes must

have light and knowledge of the localities in which they are to act as

a guide. What the eyes are in guiding our bodily movements, that the

conscience is in guiding our moral actions. But as the eyes without

light and knowledge are helpless as a guide, so conscience without love

and truth is a blind monster. There is conscience and _conscience_. And

as long as we use the term ambiguously and fail to discriminate between

conscience proper and the term as used in the looser, larger sense, we

will have nothing but confusion. Conscience proper is simply the

impulse of the soul that urges us to do right as we see the right. We

do not deny that it also embodies the basic element in the soul that

enables us to discover what is right; but our conviction as to what is

right is dependent upon knowledge acquired through other faculties.

When we speak of conscience in the loose and general sense, we refer to

both of these elements. In this sense conscience is the product of a

number of faculties working together. Thus when we talk about following

conscience, we mean following the voice of our moral nature, or the

convictions of the highest and best aspirations in our soul. Conscience

should always be followed as a guide in both its proper and larger

sense; but as an impulse to do what we believe to be right, it is

infallible, while as a guide to knowledge of what is right, it is

fallible and liable to lead us into all kinds of folly and error.

While, therefore, we should always follow our conscience, or our

highest conviction of what is right, we should assiduously probe our

conscience day by day to seek for errors in the part that is dependent

upon information. In other words, a truly conscientious person not only

scrupulously does what he believes to be right; but he also constantly

strives to get all the truth, that his conscience may be enlightened

more and more. To follow our conscience, therefore, in searching for

and obeying the truth, is our highest duty to God, and it is the _sine

qua non_ of acceptance with him. This is the "love of the truth" (2

Thess. 2:10), "the good and honest heart" (Luke 8:15), through which

the gospel becomes fruitful. To refuse to follow our conscience, or

highest light of duty, as revealed in the Bible or from any other

source, is treason toward God in whose image we were morally created;

and such persons forfeit heaven, no matter how faultless their outward

acts may be. With God it is a matter of the inner motive, as the entire

Bible reveals. The man who lives a respectable life outwardly, but

fails to meet his inner moral obligations, is not a good moral man, but

a hypocrite. Therefore no man can ever be saved without morality in the

full and true sense of the word. Conscience, then, enlightened by

truth, is the voice of God to the soul. The Proverb says, "The spirit

of man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all the inward parts" (Prov.

20:27), while in Rom. 2:14-16 we read: "For when Gentiles that have not

the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law,

are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law

written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith,

and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them; in

the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my

gospel, by Jesus Christ."

God wants us to follow our present conviction of duty until by

investigation we discover a better one. Thus God guides the individual

in his conduct through his conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit

(Rom. 9:1). But this guidance is only for the individual. It has a

fallible element in it that needs to be improved by constant and

vigilant readjustment as the individual increases his knowledge and

sharpens his conscience by exercise (Rom. 12:2). Alas! how much

mischief has come from neglect of these facts. How many have tried to

thrust the leadings of their conscience on others, in and out of

creeds. Again, how many good people have become self-righteous and

despised those who differed from them because they mistook matters of

opinion and expediency as matters of conscience, through failing to

recognize the fallible, variable element in their conscience. How

foolish we act if we do not keep in mind these distinctions. The

infidel who claimed that he was unhappy because he knew too much, and

that Christians are happy because they are deluded, and then

promulgated his misery-producing doctrine for conscience' sake, is an

illustration of the absurdity into which a sensitive but perverted

conscience will lead a person. But yesterday I met a very conscientious

young man who left the ministry because he could not agree, with

members of the church he was serving, on matters of expediency. On my

table lies a letter recently received from a young man who graduated

for the ministry last spring, but through doubts, similar to those I

formerly experienced, left the ministry for conscience' sake. This

unhappiness of doubters and this testimony of their consciences, even

while they hold opinions that logically rob conscience of any

authority, should cause every one to think; and is strong evidence that

skepticism is unnatural and fundamentally wrong. I followed rationalism

into infidelity for conscience' sake. I gave up belief in the

miraculous and supernatural in the Bible _for conscience' sake_. But

after the rationalists had driven me to this bitter end, through my

sensitive conscience, I was gravely informed that conscience was a mere

creature of education and therefore should only be followed

conditionally.

I discovered sufficient truth in this claim to open my eyes to the fact

that I had been deceived and had followed the fallible part of my

conscience, which is a creature of education, as though it were

infallible and the voice of God.

It will be noticed that eternal life depends on the infallible element

of conscience, while stupendous, yet only mundane, interests depend

upon its fallible element. This is a mystery that perplexes a great

many people. Is ignorance an excuse? Does it not matter what you

believe, just so you are honest? The highest and best thing anybody can

ever do, is to follow his conscience, or the voice of his highest moral

and spiritual nature. This the teaching of Scripture from Genesis to

Revelation. To teach that God would damn a soul for doing this is

destructive of all moral distinctions, and is as abominable as the old

doctrine that God elects certain people and damns others irrespective

of their thoughts and conduct. Ignorance is an excuse if it is

_innocent ignorance_. What about those who are willfully ignorant? or

those who have a seared conscience? They are not following their

conscience at all. Conscience insists that we make every possible

effort to get the truth. By a seared conscience we mean a person who

does not follow his conscience at all, and he knows it.

We know that ignorant innocence is an excuse in the sight of God, but

we do not know who is innocently ignorant. The former fact is revealed

to us in the Bible, but the latter is known only to God. Therefore in

these matters we should "judge nothing before the time, until the Lord

come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make

manifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall each man have his

praise from God" (I Cor. 4:5).

Nothing has ever been revealed more clearly in the Bible than that

innocent ignorance is an excuse in the sight of God. The cities of

refuge and the entire ceremonial law were based upon this fact. Christ

said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke

23:34). James says, "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not,

to him it is sin" (Jas. 4:17). In Acts 17:30 we read, "The times of

ignorance therefore God overlooked." In the second chapter of Romans

Paul makes it clear that each person shall be judged by the light that

comes to him, whether in or out of the law or of the gospel. Heathen

people, who never heard the gospel, will not be condemned for rejecting

the gospel, but for rejecting the light that came to them through their

conscience and through other sources. "For this is the condemnation,

that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than

light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19). But we will be

condemned if we do not do all in our power to bring the gospel to the

heathen.

We need not worry about the pious, conscientious peoples scattered

among the sectarian churches; but we need to worry lest we do not do

all in our power to make it impossible for them to remain pious and

conscientious while upholding sectarianism. It is our duty to help them

to understand the Word; and if, after they understand it, they refuse

to obey it, they are under condemnation. But we cannot and dare not

decide whether they understand it or not. It is ours to preach the

Word, and it will judge them in that Great Day.

The ground or mainspring of conscience is love--love of the well-being

or welfare of all sentient beings, or of all beings capable of enjoying

happiness. Our conscience goads us to do what love demands as our duty.

He who, through want of discrimination, ignores the love element in

conscience, becomes a cruel misanthrope, and is misguided by a

perverted conscience. May the Lord help us to clear up our minds on

this subject of conscience so that this divine light may lead us onward

and upward towards perfection in holiness; and that this eye of the

moral nature may not be deprived of love and knowledge and thus

flounder around like a blind giant spreading misery and suffering

everywhere.

The Feelings or Emotions.

Psychology divides the mind into intellect, sensibilities and will.

This is doubtless a valuable classification in a general way. But the

classification is very general and indefinite. Indeed, school

psychology has confined itself almost entirely to a consideration of

the _general operations_ of the mind and has given us very little light

on the classification of the mental faculties. The limited attempts at

classification have varied considerably according to the subjective

make-up of the author, as the classifications were based on

introspection.

While the deductive, axiomatic or intuitive, scholastic or

introspective methods of inquiry prevailed in the intellectual world,

systems of philosophy, psychology and theology were built up according

to the peculiar subjective nature of their author, and held the field

until some other strong mind projected its views of the subject and

thus rivaled or supplanted the other systems. It was the modern

inductive or empirical method of investigation, introduced by Bacon,

Locke, Mill and others, that has put knowledge on a real scientific

basis and has led to the marvelous scientific and material progress of

recent times. I believe the time is not far distant when the old

medieval, introspective psychology of the schools will be displaced by

a more scientific system. All that is of value in the old system will

be retained, but the most valuable psychological knowledge will come

from the new system. That this need is generally recognized by those

who have given the matter most attention, is evidenced by the words of

that prince of modern psychologists, Professor James, when he says, "At

present psychology is in the condition of physics before Galileo and

the laws of motion or of chemistry before Lavoisier." I believe that

phrenology has blazed the way for this new psychology. It was violently

attacked by the old-school psychologists because it taught that the

brain is the instrument of the mind, that the mind has a plurality of

faculties and that various brain functions can be localized. Every one

conversant with the present literature on physiology and psychology

will see that phrenologists have conquered, and that their basic

principles are now accepted by all. It is now simply a matter of the

application of these principles by further investigation. The

psychologists have made some progress in brain localization through

various mechanical and more or less abnormal methods of investigation.

When they come to a more sensible and natural method of inquiry by

observing the concomitance between various brain developments and

various mental traits, I feel sure that they will have to admit that

the phrenologists are essentially right in their brain localizations,

just as they have already admitted that they are right in their basic

principles.

That the tide is already turning is manifest from the following

quotations.

Alfred Russell Wallace, one of the greatest of scientists, in his book,

"The Wonderful Century," says: "I begin with the subject of phrenology,

a science of whose substantial truth and vast importance I have no more

doubt than I have of the value and importance of any of the great

intellectual advances already recorded.

"In the coming century, phrenology will assuredly attain general

acceptance. It will prove itself to be the true science of mind. Its

practical use in education, in self-discipline, in the reformatory

treatment of criminals, and in the remedial treatment of the insane,

will give it one of the highest places in the hierarchy of sciences;

and its persistent neglect and obloquy during the last sixty years,

will be referred to as an example of the almost incredible narrowness

and prejudice which prevailed among men of science at the very time

they were making such splendid advances in other fields of thought and

action."

Benard Hollander, M.D., F.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., in his late book on

"Functions of the Brain," says: "What Gall knew at the close of the

eighteenth century is only just dawning upon the scientists of the

present day. The history of Gall and his doctrine is given in these

pages, and will be quite a revelation to the reader. No subject has

ever been so thoroughly misrepresented, even by learned men of

acknowledged authority." In his "Scientific Phrenology," Dr. Hollander

says: "In this volume I have laid stress on the strictly phrenological

method of observing special parts of the brain, distinct lobes and

convolutions, and comparing their size to development of the rest of

the brain--which, if applied in conjunction with the study of the

mental characteristics of our fellow-beings, would enable us to make

observations by the million. This method, which was considered

unscientific, and hence shunned, for a long time, has found favor with

scientists, since the author's first papers on scientific phrenology

were published in 1886, and was for the first time advocated publicly

last year by Dr. Cunningham, professor of anatomy in Dublin University,

in his presidential address to the Anthropological Section of the

British Association at their meeting in Glasgow. Dr. Cunningham was

upheld by Sir Wm. Turner, professor of anatomy at Edinburgh University

and president of the General Medical Council, who, like Sir Sam. Wilks,

the expresident of the College of Physicians, and the late Sir James

Paget, besides others with whom I have not come in contact, have always

kept an open mind on this subject. In Germany, Dr. Landois, professor

of physiology at Griefswalt, has been long urging a reinvestigation of

Gall's doctrines; Dr. R. Sommer, professor of clinical psychiatry at

Griessen, recommends it, not dogmatically, but as a working hypothesis;

and the Swiss professor of physiology, Dr. Von Bunge, in his text-book

just published, acts as pioneer in devoting two chapters to a

rehabilitation of Gall; Dr. Mobius, of Leipsic, has published several

books on the same subject, and, quite lately, the renowned professor of

psychiatry in the University of Vienna, Dr. R. Von Krafft-Ebing, has

joined in the defense of this great discovery."

Beecher said that if he were in the pulpit without his knowledge of

phrenology, he would feel like a mariner at sea without a compass; and

he declared: "All my life long I have been in the habit of using

phrenology as that which solves the practical phenomena of life. I

regard it far more useful, practical and sensible than any other system

of mental philosophy which has yet been evolved."

Horace Mann said: "I declare myself a hundred times more indebted to

phrenology than to all the metaphysical works that I ever read. . . . I

look upon phrenology as the guide to philosophy and the handmaid of

Christianity. Whoever disseminates true phrenology is a public

benefactor."

Joseph Cook declared: "Choosing a foreman or clerk, guiding the

education of children, settling my judgment of men in public or private

life, estimating a wife or husband, and their fitness for each other,

or endeavoring to understand myself and to select the right occupation,

there is no advice of which I so often feel the need as that of a

thoroughly able, scientific, experienced and Christian phrenologist."

Oliver Wendell Holmes changed his views on phrenology in his maturer

years and said: "We owe phrenology a great debt. It has melted the

world's conscience in its crucible and cast it in a new mould, with

features less like those of Moloch and more like those of humanity."

Andrew Carnegie said: "Not to know phrenology is sure to keep you

standing on the 'Bridge of Sighs' all your life."

I think the superiority of the phrenological classification of the

mental powers to that of other systems of psychology will be apparent

from the following:

Phrenological Analysis of Mental Faculties.

I. Domestic Propensities (Family Affections).

1. Amativeness--Love between the sexes.

2. Conjugality--Matrimony, love of one.

3. Parental Love--Regard for offspring, pets, etc.

4. Friendship, sociability.

5. Inhabitiveness--Love of home.

6. Continuity--One thing at a time.

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

1. Vitativeness--Love of life.

2. Combativeness--Resistance, defense.

3. Destructiveness--Executiveness, force.

4. Alimentiveness--Appetite, hunger.

5. Acquisitiveness--Accumulation.

6. Secretiveness--Policy, management.

7. Bibativeness--Fondness for liquids.

III. Selfish Sentiments (Promote Self-interests).

1. Cautiousness--Prudence, provision.

2. Approbativeness--Ambition, display.

3. Self-esteem--Self-respect, dignity.

4. Firmness--Decision, perseverance.

IV. Moral Sentiments (Religion and Morality).

1. Conscientiousness--Justice, equity.

2. Hope--Expectation, enterprise.

3. Spirituality--Intuition, faith, credulity.

4. Veneration--Devotion, respect.

5. Benevolence--Kindness, goodness.

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

1. Constructiveness--Mechanical ingenuity.

2. Ideality--Refinement, taste, purity.

3. Sublimity--Love of grandeur, infinitude.

4. Imitation--Copying, patterning.

5. Mirthfulness--Jocoseness, wit, fun.

6. Human Nature--Perception of motives.

7. Agreeableness--Pleasantness, suavity.

VI. Intellectual Faculties.

1. Perceptive Faculties (Perceive physical qualities).

(1) Individuality--Observation, desire to see.

(2) Form--Recollection of shape.

(3) Size--Measuring by the eye.

(4) Weight--Balancing, climbing.

(5) Color--Judgment of colors.

(6) Order--Method, system, arrangement.

(7) Calculation--Mental arithmetic.

(8) Locality--Recollection of places.

2. Semi-perceptive or Literary Faculties.

(1) Eventuality--Memory of facts.

(2) Time--Cognizance of duration.

(3) Tune--Sense of harmony and melody.

(4) Language--Expression of ideas.

3. Reasoning or Reflective Faculties.

(1) Causality--Applying causes to effects.

(2) Comparison--Inductive reasoning.

NOTE.--These definitions are taken from "The Self-instructor," Fowler &

Wells Co., New York, the leading phrenological publishing-house.

I have received more help for my practical work in the ministry from

phrenology than from any other half-dozen studies, except the Bible.

Even if its physical basis could not be substantiated, its analysis of

the mental faculties is far better and more helpful than that of any

other system of psychology. While it places the intellectual, moral and

spiritual faculties at the top as supreme, it is just as vitally

interested in the care of the body, education, discipline,

self-culture, choice of occupation, matrimonial adaptation, heredity

and all the practical affairs of life. How could a person be more

healthy, happy and successful than by normally and harmoniously

developing all his faculties as phrenology points them out to him?

Phrenology teaches that the mind has certain elementary, selective

instincts, or propensities and sentiments, that attract to them the

mental food germane to their function just as the various cells of the

body select from the blood the elements required. I say that these

instincts have selective power, but they are subject to perversion, and

dependent upon the guidance of judgment and knowledge, just as

conscience does. Take, for example, the appetite for different kinds of

food, the faculty of music, judgment of color, beauty, etc.; and you

will see at once that they have selective power, but that this power

can become perverted, and thus lead to great difference of opinion.

Notice that while these faculties are not infallible guides, and need

the earnest help of other faculties to be the most useful to us, no one

can deny that they point toward truth on these subjects, and are our

proper and only guides along these lines.

Some of the faculties of the mind inspire the specialized affections;

as, love for wife, children, home, friends, etc., which are at the very

foundation of our Christian civilization. These special affections have

their proper claims upon us, and in so far as they are neglected we

become unhappy; but when they exert more than their proper influence,

they warp our judgment and more or less unbalance our character. How

many people are blinded to truth because of selfish love for their

children, or their home, or their party, or their church.

There are some things that the feelings cannot do. For example, they

cannot give us information about facts outside of the mind. The faculty

of love cannot reveal to a young man the existence of a young lady; but

when he gets acquainted with her through what he sees and hears, he can

feel that he loves her; and after learning that she is willing to

become his, he can and will feel happy because of the fact. The world

is full of folly, division and fanaticism because people look to their

feelings or impressions for things that they cannot furnish. Thus

people have claimed immediate knowledge of God, of pardon, of the will

of God, of their perfection and security, etc., through their feelings.

It is true that God created all nations "that they should seek God, if

haply they might feel [Professor Green says the Greek word here means

'to feel or grope for or after, as persons in the dark'] after him and

find him" (Acts 17:27). When we see the condition of the heathen

nations to whom the revelation of the Bible has not come, we must admit

that they are indeed "groping or feeling in the dark after God," as

their superstitions and idolatries abundantly testify.

Of course people feel good whenever they follow their conscience, or

best conviction of duty; but the feeling of conscience cannot tell them

of the gospel of Christ, and of the pardon it makes possible to them.

Just as people who trust their "reason," or their "think so's," as the

voice of God, naturally reject the Bible as a revelation from God, so

those that trust their "feel so's" will naturally have no use for the

Bible in conversion, sanctification or as an evidence of pardon. It is

easy to become so self-confident about our feelings, or impressions, as

to believe them to be axiomatic truths or direct revelations from God.

This has been one of the most fruitful sources of strife and divisions

in religion, and the handicap that for centuries held the world in

medieval darkness. The false prophets of the Old Testament were very

religious men. That is, they had strong hereditary religious faculties.

But these strong religious feelings, perverted, led them to trusting

the imaginations and impressions of their hearts as the will of God

instead of following his will as revealed in the Bible (Jer. 23:16, 17,

28, 30-32).

Conscience is a safe guide; but it is not an infallible guide, and it

is our duty to perfect it day by day by seeking more truth and obeying

it. Our instincts or feelings are safe guides within certain

limitations; but they are not perfect guides, and it is our duty to

strengthen, guide and restrain them with the knowledge and help that

other faculties can supply.

The Intellect.

Let us now see what light we can get concerning the intellect. What are

its functions and limitations? Is it safe as a guide? According to the

phrenological classification, the intellectual faculties are divided

into three classes; viz.: the perceptive, literary and reasoning

faculties. The perceptive faculties bring us into relationship with the

external world, and through them we learn about the color, size, form,

weight, etc., of material objects. If the phrenologists are right, then

neither those who claim that the mind is like a blank sheet and knows

nothing but what it gets from without, nor those who ascribe almost

everything to innate, intuitive ideas, are wholly correct. As usual,

the truth lies midway between the two extremes. The mind has innate,

intuitive powers of perception, selection and discrimination without

which material objects, events and thoughts could make no more

impression upon us than upon a fence-rail. But these innate powers are

subject to improvement by heredity and culture and their dictates must

be carefully watched and corrected by other faculties, as they are

fallible and most of them subject to perversion and delusion. As the

conscience and sentiments although not infallible, are our only guides

in their sphere; so our perceptive faculties are good and safe, but not

perfect, guides. These perceptive faculties, in a measure, help and

correct each other's impressions; and through optical illusions,

expectant attention, dreams, etc., we learn that their dictates must be

carefully watched and verified. The latest voice of science is that all

the sensation produced by physical stimulants can also be produced by

the imagination; so that people can feel cold, heat, pain, etc., when

there is no physical cause for them. These things should not make us

skeptical about our perceptive powers, but rather cautiously critical.

If we turn to the reasoning faculties we find that they have been the

cause of most contention and misunderstanding. On the one hand have

been the extreme intuitionalists, or deductive theorizers, who for

centuries limited philosophical thought almost entirely to fruitless,

abstract, deductive reasoning based upon premises that had no real

foundation in facts. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, the mind may

become so accustomed to conceiving of a thing as true that it seems

like an axiomatic truth, although facts discovered later may show that

it was an error. Thus the time was before modern discoveries, when

people could not conceive of persons living under the earth walking

with their heads down, or of objects attracted towards each other

without some material object to connect them and thus draw them

together.

Other extremists have looked upon the mind as a blank sheet, or have

become so skeptical of its intuitive impressions that they mistrust its

guidance almost entirely, especially in religious matters; although,

strange to say, they inconsistently seem to trust it all the more in

material things.

It cannot be denied that our "think so's," "feel so's," impressions,

prejudices and inherited or preconceived ideas may seem as infallible

to us as any so-called axiomatic or intuitive truths. This delusion of

the mind has led to multitudes of errors and has held people in bondage

to ignorance and superstition in all centuries and in all countries. It

has ever been the greatest hindrance to progress. Closely allied to

this and reinforcing it is the inertia of the mind, through which it

naturally continues to run in the grooves in which it has been running.

After awhile the grooves or ruts become so deep and smooth that it

seems next to impossible to turn out of them without breaking something

or upsetting the mental team. We see on every hand how hard it is to

get away from the ideas we have inherited or in which we have lived a

long time. When truth, like a vine-dresser, has attempted to trim off

these unnecessary and injurious accretions, it has always raised the

hue and cry that the foundations of truth were being destroyed.

When Mansel, in his Bampton lectures of 1858, showed that the finite

intellect is inadequate and helpless in trying to grasp the truth where

_infinity_ of any kind is involved, the cry was raised that he robbed

reason of its glory and authority, tore away the very foundation of

religion and of all truth, and opened the way to all kinds of

skepticism. But the very purpose of that marvelous piece of reasoning

was to lead people to the truth as revealed in the Bible and to keep

them from setting it aside or robbing it of its power because it

transcends their finite intellects. Good but misled people, in all

ages, have set aside or limited God's Word by their "think so's" or

"feel so's," which were mistakingly taken as an infallible test of

truth. Just as man by feeling knew not God (Acts 17:27), so man by

wisdom knew not God; and it pleased God by the foolishness of a

revealed gospel to save such as accept it by faith (I Cor. 1:21).

President Schurman voices the highest conclusion of philosophy when he

says that the farthest reason can go is to assert that _God is

necessary as a working theory_. To this we can add conceptions of God

revealed in our moral nature (Rom. 1:19, 20). But what a lifeless

skeleton this is compared to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ our

Saviour.

Bacon, Locke, Mill and others have joined in the battle to destroy a

false trust in subjective impressions without subjecting them to a

fearless test of observed facts as revealed in experience, observation

and testimony. This is not intellectual skepticism that destroys all

the authority of reason and leaves us to imbecility. Just as the

conscience, sentiments and perceptive faculties are our safe, proper

and necessary guides, although not infallible, so our logical reason is

our safe and necessary guide to truth, although helpless to grasp and

understand infinite truths and likely to deceive us unless we carefully

test its impressions or conceptions by experience and facts. Reason is

the eye of the intellect as conscience is of the moral nature. But as

the eye is helpless as a guide without light, and the conscience

without love, so reason is helpless and worthless as a guide without

facts. There is no conflict between theory and practise if the theory

takes into consideration all the facts. For example, if from the fact

that a horse can trot a mile in three minutes on the race-track, one

should conclude that he can trot from one city to another five miles

away in fifteen minutes, the theory would be false, because it did not

take into consideration the condition of the road and the fact that a

horse cannot keep up the same speed for a long distance. Whatever

impressions or conceptions of the mind may be self-evident or axiomatic

truths, it is certain that our highest conception of truth must be

taken as our only and necessary guide; but, knowing the variable part

of our judgment, and knowing how very likely we are to be mistaken in

our "think so's" and "feel so's," we should ever be on the alert to

verify or rectify our convictions by the help of experience and facts.

The question as to how much of our intellectual power is intuitive and

innate, or how much is acquired and dependent upon truth learned by

induction, is not so important after all. For the powers of the mind

which enable it to learn truths through induction from facts observed

and experienced come from God just as much as the powers that enable us

to see truth intuitively.

If we take the consensus of all the mental faculties, we have the

wonderful human intelligence created but little lower than the angels

and crowned with glory and honor (Ps. 8:5). Created in the very image

of God himself (Gen. 1:27), man is an intelligence with the threefold

guidance of intellect, conscience and sentiments which give him

abundant light for his daily walk in the fear of the Lord. But even our

so-called "consciousness," including all these powers, is fallible and

subject to deception, perversion and delusion and therefore it needs

the help of the truth revealed in the Bible and the help of all the

truth we can learn from life and science to enable us to fulfill our

highest destiny and to continue to progress Godward and heavenward.

Let us remember that love is the arch that unites and supports all the

mental faculties and all the operations of the mind. On it hang all the

law and prophets, and the gospel as well. Let us rejoice and glory in

our wonderful heritage of intelligence, but, knowing the limitations of

our finite minds, let us walk humbly before God and our fellow-men.

CHAPTER IV.

LOOKING THROUGH COLORED GLASSES.

Differences of Opinion; the Cause and Cure. What Should Be Our Attitude

Toward Those Who Differ from Us?

The above headings will give you some idea of the matter I wish to

bring before you in this chapter. From the previous chapters you will

learn that it was through years of bitter experience that I was

prepared to write this chapter. I write it in love and humility and

pray that it may be blessed in warning many of pitfalls in searching

for truth and may lead to more charity in dealing with those who differ

from us.

I have spoken of the sad and lamentable differences of opinion among

the best people on earth during all times and on all subjects. What was

said in the previous chapter about the fallible, variable voices of the

different parts of the mind blazes the way for a more detailed study of

these factors in leading people to error and therefore into divisions.

Learning of these weaknesses of the mind, that so easily lead to a

perversion of truth, one might hastily conclude that there is no norm

of truth and therefore that people cannot see alike. Indeed, the

differences of opinion in religion and other matters are often condoned

by the assertion that "people cannot see alike." Is this true, and, if

so, how far?

Over against the statement that people cannot see things alike, I put

the indisputable statement that they cannot possibly see things

_unlike_ if they see them at all. Every person on earth sees red as

red, unless, indeed, he is color blind, and then he does not see it at

all, in the proper sense of the word. Two and two make four to every

mind in the universe. Given the same premises, every logical mind will

come to the same conclusion and cannot possibly come to any other

conclusion. The whole law and order of the universe is based upon this

fact, and without it no science or order would be possible.

We will discover that the differences of opinion among men are not to

be ascribed to the intellect so much as to the will and sensibilities.

We wish to refer now to a chief cause of division of opinion, and the

only one that involves blame; viz.: the human will. Multitudes of

people are divided who see things alike and are of the same opinion so

far as the intellect is concerned, but the trouble lies in the will

power. They deliberately do that which they know is not right, for

selfish reasons. If this were the only cause of division, our problem

would be an easy one. For then the only proper attitude of the

righteous towards those who differ from them, would be that of

unqualified opposition. Indeed, we are always tempted to act on this

basis by trusting in ourselves that we are right, and treating those

who differ from us as wrong and guilty and as deserving nothing but our

condemnation. If guilt were the only cause of division, we would have

but two political parties, the one containing all the righteous and the

other all the wicked. From a religious standpoint there would be but

two classes; viz., saints and sinners. But the problem before us is not

such an easy one. The causes that lead to differences of opinion are

numerous and complex. It is not an easy matter to get at the truth,

although we might think at first thought that it is. Every one seems to

be surrounded by an atmosphere that reflects, refracts, bends, twists,

distorts and colors the rays of truth as they come to him.

Neither age, talent, experience, education, piety nor honesty make a

man error-proof; as may be readily discovered even by a child. For the

people around us who possess these qualities are divided among all the

different religious and political parties. And when people are divided

into different parties, that teach contradictory doctrines, they cannot

possibly all be right, although they may all be wrong.

Inquiring more particularly into the causes of division of opinion,

aside from guilt, we shall discover the following to be among them:

finite, limited faculties, limited and false ideas, obtained through

heredity and ignorance, preconceived ideas and prejudices.

In the search for truth, as in almost everything else, there are two

extremes, both of which should be avoided. On the one hand are those

who are too ready to accept new ideas without proper examination. They

are "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."

At the other extreme stand the narrow, self-righteous bigots who

absolutely refuse to even examine the claim of any truth they do not

already possess. They know it all without finding it out. It matters

not whether you speak of politics, religion or anything else, they know

all about it without investigation. They never read any but their own

party papers and books and never hear any but their own speakers and

preachers.

It is said that a father and son got into a religious discussion. The

father was an infidel and the son tried to convert him to Christianity.

They argued and argued until midnight. Finally the father said, "Son,

there is no use talking, you can't convert me if you argue all night; I

am established." The next morning they went for a load of wood, and as

they left the woods the horse got balky and wouldn't move an inch.

"What is the matter with this horse, anyway?" asked the father. "Why,"

replied the son, "he is established." The Bible says, "Be ye not as the

horse or as the mule, which have no understanding." It is bad enough

for a mule to get balky, but what a pity that man, created in the image

of God, should become balky and refuse to learn the truths that make

for his peace and progress and for the enlargement of the kingdom of

heaven.

An Arabic proverb says: "Mankind are four. He who knows not and knows

not he knows not; he is a fool, shun him. He who knows not and knows

that he knows not; he is simple, teach him. He who knows and knows not

that he knows; he is asleep, wake him. And he who knows and knows that

he knows; he is wise, follow him." The trouble is to know who "knows

not and knows not that he knows not," and who "knows and knows that he

knows." For they both speak with absolute assurance that they are right.

Illustrations of how blissfully ignorant of truth we can be are found

in the facts that Capt. John Smith sailed up the James River to reach

India and that the Indians planted gunpowder.

It is said that on Lookout Mountain there is a building with windows so

constructed that if you look out through the one you see a snowstorm;

through another, you see it raining; while through a third, the sun is

shining. Thus it is that we look at truth through the colored glasses

of prejudice and selfish interests, and see what is not.

Probably you have heard about the two Irishmen who get into a

fist-fight over a soap sign. One insisted that it read "Ivory Soap,"

and the other, "It Floats." They saw it from a different angle, and

that often accounts for differences of opinion.

How expectant attention can deceive us was illustrated a few years ago

when Crystal Palace, London, was on fire. A large throng of people were

in distress because they saw a favorite monkey burning on the roof. The

monkey was later found safe in an adjoining building. It was an old

coat that the imagination of the crowd had transformed into a monkey.

Thus it is that people see ghosts, and almost anything they are looking

for, through a vivid imagination.

In multitudes of cases people are divided because they use words in a

different sense, or misunderstand their significance. Years ago, when I

was keeping my father's books, there used to come into the office a

bright young man who had more natural ability than education. We were

both fond of discussion, and often had informal debates. One day we

debated on "Woman suffrage." I opened up on the subject and as I

proceeded my opponent got restless to reply. When he took the floor he

exploded something as follows: "I am opposed to 'Woman Suf-fer-age'

with every drop of vitality within my skin. I will use hand, tongue and

purse against 'Woman Suf-fer-age.' In short, I am so bitterly opposed

to 'Woman Suf-fer-age' for the all-sufficing reason that I don't want

women to suffer." I said, "Amen!" and we were agreed for once. You

smile, and yet three-fourths of our differences would vanish if we

patiently conferred together long enough to understand each other

clearly.

The courts recognize that the best of people are blinded when their own

interests are involved, and reject jurymen on this basis. Who expects

parents to be perfectly impartial in their judgment when their own

children are involved?

The difference of opinion on the slavery question was largely a matter

of geographical location, and 90 per cent, of us belong to the

political or religious party to which our parents belonged or to the

one to which our associations or environment drew us. Had we been born

in the Catholic Church most of us would be good, faithful Catholics, as

all history demonstrates, and as our own lives in other directions

abundantly prove. In a series of articles entitled "Why I Am What I

Am," one of the most noted preachers in this country candidly admits

that his church relationship is a mere matter of birth. This truth is

not very congenial to our boasted independence of thought and

investigation, but it is the truth nevertheless. The power of the

above-named fetters to hold us in bondage to error is illustrated in

all history, sacred and secular. It took Peter about ten years after

Pentecost, with special miraculous manifestations, to see that Gentiles

were _creatures_ as well as Jews, and that therefore he was

commissioned to preach to them also. Paul, the pious, earnest and

conscientious, "verily thought he was doing God service" in persecuting

the Saviour who had been pointed out as the Christ by many infallible

proofs. The Jews crucified the Lord of glory largely through ignorance,

due to their being blinded by their traditions, or inherited religious

ideas, and therefore Jesus prayed on the cross, "Father, forgive them,

for they know not what they do." Luther was mighty in throwing off his

inherited ideas, and yet he retained so many of them that any church

that would to-day practise and teach just as Luther did, would be

considered very near to the Roman Catholic Church. Cotton Mather, one

of the most enlightened men that ever lived, believed in witches and

hung them, and many of the pious and enlightened people of New England

shared this belief with him. Good, pious neighbors will give testimony

in court, as to what they saw and heard, of the most contradictory

character. In nine cases out of ten, we find in the Bible just what we

bring to it; and thus the most pious and best educated see the most

contradictory doctrines in the same passages of Scripture and fight for

them with the greatest tenacity, all in the name of conscience. And the

saddest thing about it all is that all these people show by their

consecrated lives that they love God and are sincerely trying to serve

him. In politics, we see the same pitiable state of affairs. In 1896

about one-half of our good Christian men voted for the free coinage of

silver to save their country, and the other half voted for a gold

standard for the same reason. It does not require any argument to prove

that at least half of these voters were so blinded by ignorance and

party bias that they did not see the truth, and possibly all of them

were. What a great pity that the good Christian people should be thus

divided through party bias and prejudice and go to slaughtering each

other, like the enemies of Israel; so that they simply neutralize each

other's influence and power, while the enemy of right runs off with the

victory and spoil. It is this mixture of the good with the bad in two

political parties that enables evil to hold its own; while if all the

good were united, through the truth, into one political party, arrayed

against all the bad in another political party, they could carry this

country for Jesus Christ at every election.

Having considered the causes that lead to differences of opinion, how,

in the light of these facts, should we treat those who differ from us?

In the first place, we should deal with them in humility. When we see

how the great and good men of all history have been hindered from

seeing the plainest and simplest truths by their inherited and

preconceived ideas, it should take the conceit out of us and make us

very fearful lest we are suffering with the same dread disease. For it

is to be noted that hardly any one who suffers from this malady is

aware of it. Cromwell's words to Parliament will bear a universal

application, when he said, "I beseech you, by the bowels of the Lord,

that you conceive it possible that you may be mistaken." Not only is it

possible, but it is probable, that we are mistaken in a great many of

our ideas. Therefore we should approach others in an humble, teachable

spirit. Let us not imagine that we know it all, and treat those who

differ from us with self-righteous scorn and contempt.

And that leads me to say that we should treat those who differ from us,

with love, respect and sympathy. I believe that more reformers have

been crippled in their efforts by failing in this than in any other

way. We are likely to attribute all our failures to the sin and bad

character of others, when the fault often lies in ourselves. God gives

a vision of some great truth or needed reform; as, for example, the

prohibition of the liquor traffic, or the union of God's people on the

primitive gospel. The message is sweet to us, and so we go on our way

with great joy, feeling sure that we will soon convert everybody to our

righteous cause. But, alas! we soon discover that people will not

convert very fast. Our argument seems to us more clear and infallible

every time we repeat it, and yet the people fail to come to our

position. And so we are likely to lose faith in the people, and come to

the conclusion that it is nothing but sin and guilt that causes them to

reject our message. The next step is to forget our own weaknesses,

trust in ourselves that we are right, and treat with hate and contempt

those who differ from us. Treating our opponents with hate and scorn,

we lose both our humility and Christian character, and develop into the

most hideous and ungodly characters on earth, self-righteous Pharisees.

And so it happens that we reformers often need reformation worse than

those whom we seek to reform. But you say, did not Jesus and the

Apostles severely denounce sinners? Yes, but they always first made

sure that they were sinners. Jesus could read men's hearts and,

therefore, made no mistake, while Paul always reasoned with his

opponents out of the Scriptures in love and humility, and only

condemned them after clear and positive evidence that the fault was in

their motive. Paul says, in writing to Timothy, "the servant of the

Lord must not strive; but must be gentle unto all men, apt to teach,

patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God

peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the

truth." And, where he exhorts to "reprove" and "rebuke," it is with

"all longsuffering." James says, "The wrath of man worketh not the

righteousness of God" We are never commanded to despise, hate or

denounce any man; but, on the other hand, we are to love every one,

even our enemies.

We are all human, and when it is as clear as daylight to us that we

have the truth and argument on our side, it is a great temptation to

cut to pieces and roast our opponents. But is it Christ-like to do it?

Do we forget how long it took us to come to the position that now seems

so clear to us? Some one has said that, in dealing with children, "we

should remember that they are left-handed," and this is certainly true

of people in their relation to truth. The slowness with which people

take up new ideas is a merit as well as a fault. We could have no

stability and progress anywhere if it were not for this inertia in

convictions. "The Athenians and strangers sojourning there spent their

time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing," and

if we would all be occupied in that way, not much would be accomplished

in the world. If we would become disciples of every propagandist whose

arguments we cannot answer on the spur of the moment, there would be

nothing but change and confusion. Realizing the difficulties in the way

of finding truth, and observing how even the wisest and best have been

deceived and ensnared in error, naturally ought to make people

conservative in accepting new ideas, and the same reasons should make

us patient with those who differ from us. They usually need our patient

and sympathetic instruction more than our contempt, hatred and

denunciation.

All this being true, we should never forget, however, that it is our

sacred duty to treat those who differ from us, _in truth_. There are

two attitudes that are very easy to take. The one is to treat our

differences with childish sentimentalism, saying, "Peace, peace," when

there is or ought not to be any peace. The other is to hate and abuse

those who differ from us, and to treat their opinions as beneath our

contempt. But the difficult thing to do is to tell the whole truth, as

we see it, and to do it in love and humility. We are under obligation

to tell the truth boldly whatever the outcome may be. To those who

threaten us and command us not to tell the truth, we must reply in the

language of Peter and John: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to

hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak

the things which we have seen and heard." When people cry, "Peace,

peace," at the expense of truth and right, and want us to speak "smooth

things" instead of God's Word, we must take warning from God's words to

Ezekiel, which apply to every preacher of truth, "When I say unto the

wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor

speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life: the

same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require

at thine hand." Paul went into the Jewish synagogues repeatedly to lead

them into the full truth, although he raised strife and contention in

so doing, and even suffered violence at their hands. Unfortunately, a

large per cent. of Christians have formed a conspiracy of silence on

matters in which they differ. We have so little of the Spirit of Christ

that we cannot even talk over our differences without getting angry and

exhibiting the fruits of the flesh. And so we say, "We will agree to

disagree," and we continue to nourish, pet and worship our differences

as if they were gods. This puts a mighty padlock on the growth into the

unity of the faith and knowledge and judgment which Christ and the

Apostles enjoined upon us. We need to get the New Testament conception

of the hideousness and sinfulness of all divisions among God's people.

And while we recognize the fact that there will always be differences

of opinion as long as we are ignorant and sinful and weak, nevertheless

it is our Christian duty to use our utmost effort to diminish and

remove these differences. There always will be sin in this world but we

dare not be satisfied with it or abide in it; but, on the other hand,

we must fight it with all the power we possess. The same is true with

divisions and differences of opinion.

We must, however, not overlook the important differences between

matters of faith and of opinion. Matters of faith are directly revealed

in the Bible, and upon these all Christians can and must agree as soon

as they get a fair look at them. While matters of opinion, which are

not directly revealed in the Bible, but are inferred from things

revealed, are important, they are not all important, like matters of

faith. But the more we overcome the hindrances to finding truth, of

which we have spoken, the more we will be of the same mind and judgment

in all things. For truth is not divided, and we will all see it alike

in so far as we see clearly. As a rule, we can readily unite on the

most important truths, and therefore on those we need to unite on for

our present duty. While, if, through lack of faith, we turn away from

the clear duty to seek one that is easier, and requires less sacrifice,

we usually become hopelessly divided and thus fail in our effort.

In conclusion, having a clear conception of the baneful and ruinous

effect of differences of opinion, and being aware of the powerful

causes which hinder us from getting at the truth and thus divide us,

let us strive day and night, in prayer and labor, to get the truth

ourselves and to lead others into the truth. For in and through the

truth, we shall, with "one mind" and "one soul," go conquering and to

conquer, in the name of King Jesus, for the enlargement of his kingdom

of love, peace and joy.

PART II.

HOW I FOUND CHRIST'S CHURCH

CHAPTER I.

SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM.

One of the chief things that led me to identify myself with the people

working for Christian union, was my experience with regard to baptism.

Indeed, I am more and more convinced that baptism is the main key to

the question of Christian union. We can differ on questions of

theoretical theology and still work together in harmony in practical

Christian activities. But if we differ on the question of baptism, we

cannot take the first step in preaching the gospel and in leading souls

to Christ, in the New Testament way, without getting into conflict. The

only way that union meetings of different denominations have been at

all possible, has been by ignoring the plain teaching and practice of

the Apostles on the question of baptism. We never can have Christian

union in the authority of Christ, which is the only union which will

satisfy his prayer and demand, until we agree on the two simple

ordinances which are the forms in which the gospel embodies itself to

bless our souls. And, fortunately, these are the easiest things to

unite on. When free from prejudice, there is no question on which

Christians can more easily agree than that of baptism, as the testimony

of the scholars and churches that follow in this chapter abundantly

demonstrate. The consummation of Christian union will have to patiently

wait until inherited and acquired prejudices become sufficiently

allayed so that all Christians can look at the question of baptism

dispassionately. Then it will be discovered that we all agree on this

question and the main barrier to Christian union will be removed. In

our weakness we want to procure Christian union without giving up our

sectarian ideas that have been superadded to the New Testament

teaching, and that have caused our division. And so we try to

compromise by "agreeing to disagree" or by ignoring the teachings of

the New Testament. But such efforts must be futile and disappointing.

We can never unite on the gospel until we agree in the gospel teaching.

We can never unite in obeying the Master until we unite in our opinions

as to what the Master has commanded us to do. But, thank God, the field

is rapidly ripening for this agreement and consequent union.

As is usually the case, I received my early ideas on baptism by

heredity and environment, so far as I had any ideas on the subject. The

religious people with whom I was associated in my early life taught and

practiced sprinkling and infant baptism, and, of course, I assumed that

they must be right in the matter. Although I read the Bible through

several times, I did not see its teaching on this subject, as I was not

particularly interested in it. For reasons explained in previous

chapters--that we look through colored glasses--multitudes of people

daily read their Bible who never see what is in it; but imagine, as a

matter of course, that it teaches what they bring to it through

hereditary and preconceived ideas.

As already stated, I was first led to think on this subject while I

studied New Testament Greek under President Cary, of the Meadville

Theological School. When we came to the word _baptizoo_, Dr. Cary told

the class that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of the

word in the mouth of Jesus was _to immerse_. This statement was a great

surprise to me, and I decided to discover for myself whether this was

the fact or not. This was the beginning of my investigation of the

subject of baptism. I found that Dr. Cary was correct in his statement.

What influenced me greatly was the fact that the German rationalists,

who are recognized as among the best scholars of the world, and who are

perfectly impartial on this subject, as they do not care what the Bible

teaches about baptism, all say that baptism is immersion, without ever

hinting at a possibility for difference of opinion. I investigated the

matter for several years, as I found opportunity, until there was not

the shadow of a doubt left in my mind that immersion is New Testament

baptism.

While a student at Oberlin Theological Seminary, I found that all the

authorities they used in New Testament Greek, taught immersion, while

their churches practise sprinkling. In studying Hebrews in the Greek,

we used Dr. Westcott's commentary. When we came to Heb. 10:22, "having

our bodies washed with pure water," Dr. Westcott said this referred to

the "laver of regeneration" or the primitive practice of immersion.

When we studied Romans in Greek, we used Dr. Sanday's International

Critical Commentary. The professor told us it was the very best and

probably would be for years to come. When we came to Rom. 6:4, "buried

with him through baptism," Dr. Sanday never raised a doubt about the

meaning, but in eloquent words spoke about the beautiful representation

of burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism. This astonished me

very much, as Drs. Westcott and Sanday were noted Episcopalian

scholars, and the Episcopal churches practise sprinkling. We used Dr.

Thayer's New Testament Greek lexicon, which the professor informed us

was the very best in the English language. This lexicon defined

_baptizoo_ as meaning _to dip_, and never hinted that sprinkling or

pouring might be its meaning. As I said above, I found Dr. Cary correct

in claiming that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of

the word in the mouth of Jesus was _to immerse_, and I have never been

able to get hold of a single New Testament lexicon that defines

_baptizoo_ as ever meaning to sprinkle or pour.

The following chart and facts will help us to get at the truth about

the meaning of the Greek word _baptizoo_ without quoting from a long

list of lexicons:

[Illustration: A STUDY IN MEANING OF WORDS.]

You notice in the chart that we have three separate and distinct words

in the Greek for immersion, sprinkling and pouring; and these words

have their primary or proper, secondary or tropical meanings, all of

which must be differentiated. The primary or proper meaning has

reference to specific acts, the secondary meaning refers to things done

by means of these specific acts, while the tropical or metaphorical

meaning departs from the specific meaning of the words and therefore

cannot have reference to the specific outward acts indicated by the

words. For this reason it is a law of language, recognized by all

scholars, that you must give a word its primary or proper meaning when

it is employed in commanding an outward act, unless the context demands

another meaning.

Notice the English words _shoot_, _hang_ and _poison_. These express

specific outward acts; and, then, in their secondary meaning, they mean

to kill, but always to kill in the way indicated by the primary meaning

of the word. A man can be hung, shot or poisoned without being killed;

but if it is reported that he was hung, shot or poisoned, we would all

understand that he was killed. However, you cannot conceive of words so

changing their meaning, that when it is said a man was hung, it means

that he was shot, or when it is said he was poisoned, it means he was

hung. No more is it conceivable that when the Greek word _baptizoo_ (to

immerse) was used, it meant to cleanse by sprinkling (_rantizoo_), or

when the word _rantizoo_ (to sprinkle) was used, it meant to cleanse by

immersing (_baptizoo_). These words refer primarily to separate and

distinct outward acts. It is true they may meet in their secondary

meaning in the idea _to cleanse_; but they always refer to cleansing in

the way indicated by the primary meaning of the word used. When they

travel so far from their primary or proper meaning, which has reference

to specific outward acts, that their meaning is said to be tropical or

metaphorical, they lose their specific idea and have no longer any

reference to the specific acts denoted by the words.

It is true that words can and do often change or enlarge their meaning.

But this is always to supply a need created by the lack of a proper

word to express an associated idea. Now, both the specific and general

ideas with reference to the application of water are so copiously

supplied with words in the Greek, that they preclude the necessity of

changing the meaning of a word like _baptizoo_ to supply such a need.

We have _louoo_, to wash or bathe the body; _niptoo_, to wash a part of

the body, as the hands, feet, face, etc.; _plunoo_, to wash clothes;

_brechoo_, to wet, to rain; _katharizoo_, to cleanse; _ekcheoo_, to

pour; _rantizoo_, to sprinkle; _baptizoo_, to immerse, etc.

Thus we have a threefold guard to keep _baptizoo_ to its primary or

proper meaning of _to dip_ or _immerse_. First, an abundance of Greek

words to express every general and specific idea about the application

of water, except that of immersion; second, the fact that a tropical

meaning of a word cannot refer to the specific outward act indicated by

the word; and third, the law of interpretation which demands that a

word be given its primary or proper meaning in commandments, or plain

narrative, unless the context expressly demands a different meaning.

The above definitions of the word _baptizoo_ are taken from Dr.

Thayer's "New Testament Greek Lexicon." In reply to letters inquiring

about Dr. Thayer's "New Testament Greek Lexicon," the following

answers-were received. It is the "best" (Professor Hodge, of

Princeton); it is the "very best" (Dr. Alexander, of Vanderbilt

University); "nothing can compare with it" (Dr Hersman, president of

the Southwestern Presbyterian University). This opinion is practically

made unanimous from the fact that Dr. Thayer's Lexicon is used at all

of the leading schools in the country.

A request for an authoritative lexicon that gives "sprinkle" or "pour"

as a meaning of _baptizoo_, elicited the following answers: "There is

no such lexicon" (Professor Humphreys, of the University of Virginia,

and Professor D'ooge, of Colby University); "I know of none" (Professor

Flagg, of Cornell); "I do not know of any" (Professor Tyler, of

Amherst). "_Baptizoo_ means _to immerse_. All lexicographers and

critics of any note are agreed in this."--_Dr. Moses Stuart._

Thus we learn, through the testimony of experts, without consulting all

the numerous Greek lexicons, that they define the word _baptizoo_ as

meaning _to immerse_ and that none of them say it means _to sprinkle_

or _to pour_.

The great mass of Christians know nothing about the Greek experts who

make the lexicons, but are much better acquainted with and influenced

by the great church leaders and church standards. Therefore we present

the following quotations:

_Scholars and Churches Admit that Christ Taught Immersion._

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

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

in baptism."

2. _Council of Cologne_, 1280 (Catholic): "That he who baptizes when he

immerses the candidate in water," etc.

3. _Martini_ (Roman Catholic): "In all of the pontificals and rituals I

have seen (except that of Madeleine de Beulieu), and I have seen many,

ancient as well as more recent, immersion is prescribed."

4. _Dollinger_ (Roman Catholic): "Baptism was administered by an entire

immersion in water." (Chu. History, vol. 2, p. 294.) "A mere pouring or

sprinkling was never thought of." (First Age of Chu., p. 318.) "Baptism

by immersion continued to be the prevailing practice of the church as

late as the fourteenth century." (Hist. Ch., vol. 2, p. 295.)

5. _Ritual of Greek Catholic Church_: "The priest immerses him, saying

the servant of God is immersed, in the name of the Father," etc.

6. _Russian Catechism_ (Greek Catholic): "This they hold to be a point

necessary, that no part of the child be undipped in water," etc.

7. _Alex. De Stourdza_ (native Greek): "The verb baptize, _immergo_,

has, in fact, but one sole acceptation. It signifies, literally and

always, to plunge. Baptism and immersion are, therefore, identical, and

to say baptism is by aspersion is as if one should say, immersion by

aspersion, or any other absurdity of the same nature." (Con. sur LaDoc.

et L'Esprit, p. 87.)

8. _Dr. Kyriasko_, of University of Athens, Greece: "The verb baptize

in the Greek language never has the meaning of to pour or to sprinkle,

but invariably that of to dip." (Letter to C. G. Jones, Lynchburg, Va.)

9. _Syrian Ritual_ (Nestorians): "The priest immerses him in water,

saying such a one is baptized in the name of the Father," etc.

10. _Martin Luther_: "Baptism is a Greek word. In Latin it can be

translated immersion, as when we plunge something into water, that it

may be completely covered with water; they ought to have been

completely immersed." (The Sacrament of Baptism.)

11. _Lutheran Catechism_, p. 216: "In what did this act (baptism)

consist?" Answer: "The one to be baptized was first immersed in water,

signifying death, and then he was drawn out again and was dressed with

a new dress, as if he now were a different new being."

12. _John Calvin_ (Presbyterian): "The word baptize signifies to

immerse, and it is certain that the rite of immersion was observed by

the ancient church." (Inst. Book 4, c. 15.)

13. _Richard Baxter_ (Presbyterian): "It is commonly confessed by us to

the Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that in the Apostles'

time the baptized were dipped over head in the water." (Dis. Right to

Sac., p. 70.)

14. _Dr. W. D. Powell_, while in Athens, Greece, wrote: "I found that

all churches in Greece--the Presbyterian included--are compelled to

immerse candidates for baptism, for, as one of the professors remarked,

'the commonest day laborer understands nothing else for _baptizoo_ but

immersion.'"

15. _Zwingle_ (Reformed): "When ye were immersed into the water of

baptism, ye wrere engrafted into the death of Christ." (Com. Rom. 6:3.)

16. _John Wesley_ (Methodist): "We are buried with him, alluding to the

ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." (Notes on N. T., Rom. 6:4.)

"Baptized according to the custom of the first church and the rule of

the Church of England, by immersion." (Journal, vol. I, p. 20.) In

Savannah, Ga., Sept., 1737, Wesley was found guilty of breaking the

laws of the realm, among other things "by refusing to baptize Mr.

Parker's child otherwise than by dipping." (Jour., vol. I, pp. 42, 43.)

17. _The Methodist Discipline_ of 1846, and the old Discipline compiled

by Wesley himself, assert that "Jesus was baptized in the river of

Jordan, and that the sixth of Romans means simply a burial in water."

18. _Adam Clark_ (Methodist): "As they received baptism as an emblem of

death, in voluntarily going under the water, so they received it as an

emblem of the resurrection into eternal life, in coming up out of the

water." (Com., vol. 4, N. T.)

19. _Prayer Book_ (Church of England): "The priest shall dip him in the

water, discreetly and warily."

20. _Conybeare and Howson_ (Episcopalians): "It is needless to add that

baptism was administered by immersion, the convert being plunged

beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life of

sin, then raised from this momentary burial to represent his

resurrection to the life of righteousness. It must be a subject of

regret that the general discontinuance of this original form of baptism

has rendered obscure to popular apprehension some very important

passages of Scripture." (Life of St. Paul.)

26. _Prof. L. L. Paine_ (Congregational): "It may be honestly asked by

some, Was immersion the primitive form of baptism? As to the question

of fact, the testimony is ample and decisive. It is a point on which

ancient, medieval and modern historians alike, Catholic and Protestant,

Lutheran and Calvinist, have no controversy. No historian who cares for

his reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of

the name would wish to."

27. _Dr. George Campbell_ (Presbyterian): "I have heard a disputant of

this stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word

rendered in the N. T. baptize means more properly to sprinkle than to

plunge. One who argues in this manner never fails, with persons of

knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend; and though in respect

to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as arguments,

sometimes better, yet a candid mind will disdain to take the help of a

falsehood even in support of the truth." (Lect. on Pul. El. Lect, 10,

pp. 294, 295.)

28. _Philip Schaff_ (Un. Theo. Sem.): "The baptism of Christ in the

river Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the N. T., are

all in favor of immersion rather than sprinkling, as is freely admitted

by the best exegetes, Catholic and Protestant, English and German.

Nothing can be gained by an unnatural exegesis." (Teaching of Apostles,

pp. 55,56.)

29. _Paul_: "We are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as

Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so

we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4.)

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

31. _Mark_: "Jesus--was baptized in [Marg., Greek, _into_] the Jordan"

(Mark 1:9, A. R. V.). He could not have been baptized _into the water_

without being immersed.

_Churches Have Changed Immersion to Sprinkling_.

1. The first record of sprinkling for baptism is that of Novatian, A.

D. 250. It was thought he was dying and, as he could not be immersed,

they sprinkled water on him. Thus originated what was called _clinic_

or _death-bed_ baptism. Its introduction was vigorously opposed for

centuries and clinics were not admitted to sacred orders, many doubting

their baptism.

2. _Pope Stephen III_. In 754 the monks of Cressy asked Stephen III.:

"Is it lawful, in case of necessity, occasioned by sickness, to baptize

an infant by pouring water on its head from a cup or the hands?" The

Pope replied: "Such a baptism, performed in such a case of necessity,

shall be accounted valid." Basnage says: "This was accounted the first

law against immersion."

3. _The Council of Ravenna_, 1311, decreed: "Baptism is to be

administered by trine aspersion or immersion." This was the first

authority for sprinkling except in case of sickness.

4. _Cardinal Gibbons_ (R. Catholic): "Since the twelfth century the

practice of baptizing by affusion has prevailed in the Catholic Church,

as this manner is attended with less inconvenience than baptism by

immersion." (Faith of Our Fathers, p. 275.)

5. _Bishop of Bossuet_ (R. Catholic): "The case (communion under one

kind) was much the same as that of baptism by immersion, as clearly

grounded on Scripture as communion under both kinds could be, and

which, nevertheless, had been changed into infusion, with as much ease

and as little contradiction as communion under one kind was

established, so that the same reason stood for retaining one as the

other. It is a fact most certainly avowed in the Reformation, although

some will cavil at it, that baptism was instituted by immersing the

whole body in water. This fact, I say, is unanimously acknowledged by

all the divines of the Reformation: by Luther, by Melancthon, by

Calvin, by Casaubon, by Grotius, by all the rest." (Varia. Protest.,

vol. 2, p. 370.)

6. _Archbishop Kenrick_ (R. Catholic): "The change of discipline which

has taken place as to baptism should not surprise us, for, although the

church is but the dispenser of the sacraments which her Divine Spouse

instituted, she rightfully exercises a discretionary power as to the

manner of their adminstration. Immersion was well suited to the Eastern

nations, whose habits and climate prepared them for it, and was,

therefore, practiced in the commencement, whenever necessity did not

prevent it. Cases, which at first were exceptional, gradually

multiplied, so that, at length, the ordinary mode of baptism was by

affusion. The church wisely sanctioned that which, although less

solemn, is equally effectual. The power of binding and loosing, which

she received from Christ, warrants this exercise of governing wisdom.

It is not for the individuals to question a right which has been at all

times claimed and exercised by those to whom the dispensation of the

mysteries is divinely intrusted." (Kenrick on Bap., p. 174.)

7. _Haydock, Endorsed by Pope Pius IX_.: "The church, which cannot

change the least article of faith, is not so tied up in matters of

discipline and ceremony. Not only the Catholic Church, but also the

pretended reformed churches, have altered the primitive custom in

giving the sacrament of baptism and now allow of baptisms by sprinkling

and pouring water upon the person baptized." (Notes on Douay Bible,

Matt. 3:16.)

8. _Lutheran Catechism_, p. 208: "What is baptism?" Answer: "To dip

under water." "Do we still baptize in that way?" Answer: "No; because

of the rough climate, the subject now is only sprinkled."

9. _John Calvin_ (Presbyterian): "Wherefore the church did grant

liberty to herself, since the beginning, to change the rites somewhat,

excepting the substance. It is of no consequence at all whether the

person that is baptized is totally immersed, or whether he is merely

sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter of choice to

the churches in different regions."

10. _Westminster Assembly_ (Presbyterian), 1643: "In the Assembly of

Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether

immersion or sprinkling should be adopted; 25 voted for sprinkling, and

24 for immersion; and even that small majority was obtained at the

earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in

that assembly." (Edinburgh Ency., vol. 3, p. 236.)

11. _Dr. Wall_ (Episcopalian): "One would have thought that the cold

countries should have been the first that should have changed the

custom from dipping to affusion. But by history it appears that the

cold climates held the custom of dipping as long as any; for England,

which is one of the coldest, was one of the latest that admitted this

alteration of the ordinary way. . . . The offices or liturgies for

public baptism in the Church of England did all along, so far as I can

learn, enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling.

The Prayer Book, printed in 1549, adds: 'And if the child be weak, it

shall suffice to pour water upon it'" (Wall's Hist. Inft. Bap., vol. 3,

pp. 575,579.)

12. _Dean Stanley_ (Episcopalian): In speaking of immersion, he says:

"The cold climate of Russia has not been found an obstacle to its

continuance throughout that vast empire. Even in the Church of England

it is still observed in theory. The Rubric in the public baptism for

infants enjoins that, unless for special causes, they are to be dipped,

not sprinkled." (Institutes, pp. 18,19.) The Church of England has

changed to sprinkling, but its creed teaches immersion.

13. _Sir John Floyer_: "I have now given what testimony I could find in

our English authors, to prove the practice of immersion from the time

the Britons and Saxons were baptized, till King James' days, when the

people grew peevish with all ancient ceremonies, and through the love

of novelty and the niceness of parents, and the pretense of modesty,

they laid aside immersion." (History of Cold Bathing, p. 61.)

14. _Bishop A. C. Coxe, editor of Ante-Nicene Fathers_ (Episcopalian):

"The word (_baptizo_) means to dip. In the Church of England dipping is

even now the primary rule. But it is not the ordinary custom. It

survived far down into Queen Elizabeth's time, but seems to have died

out early in the seventeenth century. I ought to add that in France

(unreformed) the custom of dipping became obsolete long before it was

disused in England. But for this bad example, my own opinion is, that

dipping would still prevail among Anglicans. I wish that all Christians

would restore the primitive practice." (In a letter to J. T. Christian.)

Thus we have the testimony of all the scholars in all the churches, who

are recognized as Greek experts outside of their own party, that the

New Testament teaches immersion and that it has been changed to

sprinkling and pouring by human authority. We do not believe that this

change was made with a bad motive. It was evidently done in sincerity

and in the honest belief that it was the right thing to do. We must

accept the honest testimony of these scholarly experts that the New

Testament teaches immersion, but we certainly believe they were

mistaken in taking the liberty to change Christ's command. If we take

such liberties, all of the commandments of Christ will soon be set

aside and confusion will be worse confounded. Indeed, it is this very

liberty of substituting what men thought best for the things revealed

in the New Testament, that has caused our present sectarian divisions

by adding human names, creeds, customs, etc., to the primitive gospel.

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

"They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the

everlasting covenant" (Isa. 24:5).

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the

commandments of men. For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold

the tradition of men. Ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep

your own tradition. Making the word of God of none effect through your

tradition, which ye have delivered; and many such like things ye do"

(Mark 7:7-9, 13).

"Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man

disannulleth, or addeth thereto" (Gal. 3: 15).

"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat

of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is

as iniquity and idolatry" (I Sam. 15:22,23).

"He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer

shall be abomination" (Prov. 28:9).

"Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken

him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. And every one

that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be

likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; and

the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat

upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it" (Matt.

7:24, 26,27).

"If ye love me, keep my commandments. He that hath my commandments and

keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. If a man love me, he will keep

my words. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you" (John

14: 15,21,23; 15:14). "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things

which I say" (Luke 6:46).

"And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God,

being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers

rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of

him" (Luke 7:29,30.)

"And hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,

and the truth is not in him" (I John 2: 3,4).

But, after all, the very best way for ordinary people to learn the

meaning of baptism, is to go to the English Bible. Although human

authority and prejudice have hindered the translators from translating

the Greek word, and thus telling us what it means in English, the

contexts and sidelights on the subject make its meaning so plain that

all can readily see it if divested of prejudice and preconceived ideas.

By reading the introduction to the English Revised Bible, you will

learn that the translators of the Authorized Version were forbidden to

translate the word. Other translators have followed their example; so

that it is neither translated to _sprinkle, to pour_ nor _to immerse_

in our standard English Bibles. The Greek word _baptisma_ has simply

had the last letter dropped and been carried over into English bodily.

But the word has been translated in numerous editions in various

languages, and whenever it has been translated, it was always by the

word _immerse_ or an equivalent term. No scholar, in any language, has

ever had the temerity to translate it _to sprinkle_ or _to pour_. Even

our English translators translate it when it is not used as an

ecclesiastical term. And when they translate it, they say it means _to

dip_. In 2 Kings 5:14, we read of Naaman, "He went down and _dipped_

[_baptizato_] himself seven times in Jordan." We may not have a

sufficient knowledge of Greek to determine what Jesus meant when he

commanded us to be baptized. But the Apostles certainly understood him;

and if we can find out what they did when they baptized, and we do the

same thing, then we know we are right, and have done what Christ

commanded.

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

baptized.

We read: "And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and

all they of Jerusalem, and they were baptized of him _in the river

Jordan_, confessing their sins. . . . And it came to pass in those

days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of

John _in_ [Greek _into_, marg. of A. R. V.] _the Jordan_. And

straightway _coming up out of the water_, he saw the heavens opened,

and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:5,9,10). "John

was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, _because there was much water

there_" (John 3:23). "And they _both went down into the water_, both

Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when _they came up out

of the water_ . . . he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:38,39). "We

are _buried_ with him _by baptism_," "_planted_ in the likeness of his

death," "and _raised_ in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom.

6:4,5). "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and _our

bodies washed_ with pure water" (Heb. 10:22). "Except a man be _born of

the water_ and of the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"

(John 3:5). The italics are mine.

The following chart summarizes our study of baptism in the English

Bible:

BAPTISM IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE

THE BIBLE AND IMMERSION SPRINKLING AND POURING

REQUIRE: REQUIRE:

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

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

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

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

5. Putting into water. Mark 1:9 5. Putting water on

(Margin of A. R. V)

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

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

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

9. Form of resurrection. 9. No form of resurrection

Rom. 6:4

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

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

12. Coming up out of the water. 12. No getting out

Mark 1:10

We thus learn that in being baptized they _went to water_, to _much

water_, went _into the water_, were _put into the water_, were _buried

in the water, planted in the water, born out of the water, raised out

of the water_, had their _bodies washed_ and _came up out of the

water_. If we do these things, we are Scripturally baptized and have

been immersed.

The following passages are the only places where sprinkling and pouring

are found in the New Testament:

_Sprinkling and Pouring in the New Testament_.

1. Heb. 9:13.--Blood.

2. Heb. 9:19.--Blood.

3. Heb. 9:21.--Blood.

4. Heb. 10:22.--Hearts.

5. Heb. 11:28.--Blood.

6. Heb. 12:24.--Blood.

7. 1 Pet. 1:2.--Blood.

8. Matt. 26:7,12.--Ointment.

9. John 2:15.--Money.

10. Acts 10:45.--Spirit.

11. John 13:5.--Water.

12. Luke 10:34.--Oil and Wine.

13. Rev. 14:10.--Wrath.

You will notice that none of these Scriptures refer to baptism and that

none of the Scriptures that do refer to baptism hint at sprinkling or

pouring as the action. Sprinkling and pouring for baptism must come

from some other source. We have already learned whence they came.

Some people will argue against immersion for hours, and when they are

driven into their last trenches, and about to be caught, they try to

escape by saying, "Baptism doesn't amount to anything at any rate, it's

a mere form. The great thing is Holy Spirit baptism."

To begin with, Holy Spirit baptism is not baptism at all, strictly

speaking. It is only figurative baptism. It is not always called

baptism. It is called _an anointing_ (Luke 4: 18), _a drinking_ (1 Cor.

12: 13), _an enduing_ (Luke 24:49), a _filling_ (Acts 2:4), and a

_sealing_ (Eph. 1:13). No person can be literally sprinkled or poured

with the Holy Spirit, or immersed into Him, as the Holy Spirit is a

person. The figurative meaning of baptism is to overwhelm, and to be

baptized with the Holy Spirit is to be submerged or overwhelmed in His

power, or to come completely under His control. Holy Spirit baptism is

not a command to obey, but a promise to enjoy. It can only be

administered by Christ himself (John 1:33). Therefore, whenever in the

New Testament baptism is commanded for preachers to administer or

sinners to obey, it can never refer to Holy Spirit baptism, but must

always refer to water baptism.

In the light of New Testament teaching and practise, it is marvelous

that any one who claims to follow its guidance, can make light of

baptism. "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did Christ walk eighty miles

to be baptized of John, and insist that it was necessary for him to be

baptized "to fulfil all righteousness"? (Matt. 3: 13-17). "Baptism a

mere form?" Then, why, in giving his commission to all gospel workers,

did Christ say, "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations,

baptizing them"? (Matt. 28: 19). Those who neglect to baptize their

converts have certainly not wholly obeyed their Lord. "Baptism a mere

form?" Then, why did Jesus say, "Go ye into all the world and preach

the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized

shall be saved"? (Mark 16:15, 16). Not only is every preacher commanded

to baptize every convert, but every convert is also commanded to be

baptized; and baptism is made one of the conditions of salvation with

every proper gospel subject. "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why did Jesus

say to Nicodemus, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born

of water and of the Spirit, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God"?

(John 3:5). All church standards refer this to baptism. "Baptism a mere

form?" Then, why did Peter, on Pentecost, when he used "the keys of the

kingdom," revealed Christ's will and testament for sinners, and thus

proclaimed the conditions of salvation, or of forgiveness, to all whom

the Lord should call through the gospel, say to penitent seekers,

"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus

Christ unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift

of the Holy Spirit"? (Acts 2:38). And why is it said, "They then that

received his word were baptized"? (Acts 2:41). Will not the same follow

to-day if people will receive the Word of God without any subtractions?

"Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it said of the Samaritans that

"when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the

kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both

men and women"? (Acts 8: 12). Will not the same follow to-day when

people believe the whole gospel? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is it

said of the eunuch that when Philip "preached unto him Jesus," he said,

"Behold, here is water; what does hinder me to be baptized?"? And why

did he not go "on his way rejoicing" before he "came up out of the

water"? (Acts 8:35,39). If our converts do not ask for baptism, and we

send them away as finished products without going down into the water

with them, are we preaching and practising the same gospel as did the

primitive evangelists under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? "Baptism a

mere form?" Then, why did not even Christ himself speak peace to the

soul of Saul, but sent him to Damascus and directed Ananias to tell him

what he must do, who said to him, "And now why tarriest thou? arise,

and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the

Lord"? (Acts 9: 6, 7; 22: 16). Does not the Lord send his servants

to-day with the same message to those who put off their obedience to

him in baptism? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was there a special

miraculous demonstration to avoid objections to the baptism of the

household of Cornelius, the first Gentile converts; and why did Peter

command them to be baptized with water, after they had received the

baptism of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 10:44-48). Does not this show that

Holy Spirit baptism was not to displace water baptism? "Baptism a mere

form?" Then, why was Lydia baptized as soon as she gave "heed unto the

things which were spoken by Paul"? (Acts 16: 14, 15). If properly

instructed, will not all people be baptized as soon as they are willing

to give heed unto the word of the Lord? "Baptism a mere form?" Then,

why, when the Philippian jailor was told by Paul and Silas what he

"must do to be saved," was he baptized "immediately," "the same hour of

the night"? (Acts 16: 29-33). Will not the same gospel, if preached in

the same way, have the same effect to-day? "Baptism a mere form?" Then,

why is it said that "many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were

baptized"? (Acts 18:8). Will not those who hear and believe in

sincerity to-day also be baptized? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why is

it said by the Holy Spirit that Priscilla and Aquila expounded unto

Apollos "the way of God more accurately," after "he was mighty in the

scriptures" and "had been instructed in the way of the Lord," and

"taught accurately the things of Jesus, knowing only the baptism of

John"? (Acts 18:24-26). If the Lord was then concerned to have

preachers set right on water baptism, even when their gospel knowledge

was accurate in every other particular, does he not have a similar

concern now? and if our hearts are in perfect accord with his, will his

concern not be our concern? "Baptism a mere form?" Then, why was it

Paul's first concern, when he came to Ephesus, to set the brethren

right on water baptism, even though they were called "disciples," and

had already been baptized (immersed) once? (Acts 19: 1-7). This shows

that baptism is not a mere outward act, but is important because of its

relation to the Lord Jesus, an obedient heart, and to the Holy Spirit.

If the Lord, through the Apostle, directed these disciples to be

baptized a second time, when they found they were not Scripturally

baptized, are not these his directions for to-day also? and should not

his preachers show people the truth if they have not been Scripturally

baptized, and, if possible, induce them to obey the Scriptural baptism,

even when they thought they had been Scripturally baptized?

It is true that Paul said to the Corinthians, "I thank God that I

baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; _lest any man should say

that ye were baptized into my name._ And I baptized also the household

of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For

Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 1:

14-17). In the words I have placed in italics, we are told why he was

glad he baptized only a few of them. It was lest they should be his

partisans, as they were divided on human leaders. We certainly dare not

so interpret the words, "for Christ sent me not to baptize, but to

preach the gospel," as to contradict the commission of Christ and all

the numerous clear Scriptures we have just quoted. He evidently meant

that he himself did not do the baptizing, but had others do that part

of the work, while he gave his time and strength to the preaching of

the gospel. The same was true of Jesus himself, as we learn from John

4:1, 2: "When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that

Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus

himself baptized not, but his disciples)." He baptized them and he

didn't baptize them. That is, he commanded them to be baptized and had

his disciples perform the act. So evidently with Paul. If he meant that

his converts were not to be baptized, then he would certainly not have

baptized any of them.

That Paul was zealous in seeing that all his converts were baptized, is

apparent from the cases already quoted, especially the baptism of the

Ephesians. For when he discovered that their baptism was not

Scriptural, he, first of all, insisted that they be baptized again. It

is further apparent from his teaching in his Epistles. In 1 Cor. 12:13

we read, "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body ... and

were all made to drink of one Spirit." In Gal. 3:26, 27, we read, "For

ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of

you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." In Rom. 6:3, 4, we

read, "Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ

Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him

through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the

dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness

of life." In Col. 2: 12, we have similar language, "having been buried

with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith

in the working of God, who also raised him from the dead." In Heb.

10:22, it is said, "Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil

conscience: and having our body washed with pure water." After reading

these Scriptures, no one can doubt that Paul had all his converts

baptized, and believed in baptism just as strongly as Christ and Peter.

That Peter had the same opinion about baptism near the end of his life,

as at Pentecost, is evident from his words in I Pet. 3:21: "Which also

after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting

away the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience

toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

That to refuse to be baptized after knowing that Christ has commanded

it is to disobey him and to rebel against his authority, is clear from

the words of the Holy Spirit recorded in Luke 7: 29, 30: "And all the

people when they heard, and the publicans, justified God, being

baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers

rejected for themselves the counsel of God, being not baptized of him."

And yet, despite all these Scriptures, many pious saints are so blinded

by their prejudices and traditions, that instead of encouraging and

exhorting people to obey this command to be baptized, that is given to

test the soul's complete surrender to Christ, and is called the

"obedience of faith" or of the gospel, they encourage people to live in

disobedience to Christ by affirming that baptism is "a mere form" or

"non-essential." If subordinates in an army or earthly kingdom act thus

and use their influence to induce others to disobey the orders of those

over them, they are punished for treason. Any army that is thoroughly

united in the authority of its commander and cheerfully and promptly

obeys his orders, is usually successful; while the largest and best

army on earth would be doomed to defeat the moment its officers and men

would disobey orders and each do as he pleases, or as he thinks best.

The reason Christ's, army on earth to-day is weak and constantly

defeated and retreating is because his orders are disregarded and the

"think so's" and traditions of men are followed instead. Implicit

obedience to the few simple commands of Christ would at once unite all

his followers into one invincible army that would enable the world to

believe and know that he is the Christ of God (John 17:20, 23).

If anything is clear, it is that Christianity is a personal matter.

That each individual must meet and accept for himself the claims of

Christ. No one can be saved by proxy. No one can go to heaven because

of the faith, obedience or prayers of a parent, wife, husband, sister

or brother. This being true, as Christ has commanded every creature to

be baptized (Mark 15: 15, 16; Acts 2: 38, etc.), it is evident that

infant baptism is not valid. The parents cannot obey for the child,

however good their intentions. The child, when it reaches the age of

accountability, must face the commandments of Christ for itself, and

either deliberately obey or disobey and reject him. If infants remained

infants, they would do no harm in the church, even if they could do no

good. But they will grow into accountability and then the church is

full of unconverted people.

May we prayerfully do all in our power to hasten the day when all of

Christ's followers will forsake the traditions, in which men have

changed Christ's teaching on baptism, and will gloriously reunite in

his will on this command which is so clearly revealed in the New

Testament.