Christian Quarterly

This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized
by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the

information in books and make it universally accessible.
http://books.google.com
THE
Christian
Quarterly.
(new series.)
7#^
1898.
lldvTa. SoztpLaCere' to xaXbv xaTi^ere.1 Theus. v, 21.
EDITOR.
W. T. MOOR 3,
Dean of the Bible College of Missouri.
associate editors.
CHAS. LOUIS LOOS,
BURKE A. HINSDALE,
President of Kentucky University.
Professor of Pedagogics, Michigan University
HERBERT L. WILLETT,
JAMES H. GARRISON,
Lecturer in Biblical History in Chicago
Editor of the Christian Evangelist.
University.
JOHN W. McGARVEY,
H. W. EVEREST.
i'liesidest of the college of the bldle of
Dkan of the Bible College of Drake Uni
Kentucky.
versity.
J. W. MONSEK,
Late Librarian of the Missouri State University.
COLUMBIA, MISSOURI.
G- A. HOFFMANN, Publisher.
CINCINNATI, OHIO.
Standard Pub. Co.
LONDON, ENGLAND.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.
Christian Commonwealth Pub. Co.
Christian Pub. Co.
73 Ludgate Hill.
Entered at Columbia, Mo., postomce as second class matter.
Single Number, 6O Cts.

Per Annum, $2.00.
If not paid till end of the year, $2.50.
Press ofE. W. Sltfhens, Columbia, Mo.
VOLUME II.
Contents of No. 5.
New SeriesJanuary, 1S98.
PAGE.
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION; THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF
CHRISTENDOM,
1
W. T. Moore, Dean of the Bible College of Missouri.
II. DR. MARTINEAU AND HIS TIMES,
32
J. W. Monser, Late Librarian of the University of Missouri.
III. GOD'S PURPOSE IN THE AGES,
47
H. W. Everest, Dean of the Bible College of Drake University.
IV. A NEW EPOCH IN THE HISTORY OF THE DISCIPLES,
64
Prof. Edward Scribner Ames, Butler University.
V. THE LOST ARTS OF THE CHURCH,
...
85
Frederick Guy Strickland.
Exegetical Department.
.........
^6
Relying Upon the Name of Jesus ChristBaptism in the Holy SpiritWho are Children of God In
Holy Spirit and Fire.
LITERARY REVIEWS,
English and American.
ill
i. The Theology of an Evolutionista. Books and Their Makers During the Middle Ages3. The
Elements of Higher Criticism4. The Old Testament Under Fire5. Inequality and Progress
6. The American Government, National and State7. Selections from Matthew Arnold.
German and French.
.........
131
1. Le Roi Davida. A Group of French Critics3. La Fedor4. Hermann Sudermann, cine
Kritische Studie.
Hound Table.
.........
jjg
Light and ShadowThe Religious OutlookEmasculation of Ecclesiastical Terms.
I.
Contents of No. 6.
New SeriesApril, 1898.
I. A PLEA FOR A NEW REFORMATION,

W. T. Moore, Dean of the Bible College of Missouri.
II. JESUS AND THE EXISTING ORDER,
George D. Herron, Iowa College.
III. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST,
F. M. Green, Kent, Ohio.
IV. THE GREATEST PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH,
J. W. Lowber, Austin, Texas.
V. THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL,
C. J. Kemper, Kentucky University, Lexington, Kentucky.
Exegetical Department.
.........
The Third CommandmentThe Confusion of TonguesThe Two Accounts of Man's Creation.
LITERARY REVIEWS,
English and American .
.........
1. Seven Puzzling Bible Books2. The Christian Doctrine of Immortality3. Social Meanings of
Religious Experiences4. A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age5. With Kcct on
Earth.
German and French.
.........
1. Phillipp Melanchthon3. Das Buch Jesus.
Round Table.
On SlipperincssDivine FatherhoodThe Church Music Question The Curse of Stereoperfunctity
Who Writes the Articles?
145
193
214
228
239
250
256
273
282
Contents of No. 7.
New SeriesJuly, iSgS.
PAGE.
I. DENOMINATIONALISM,
289
Joseph Franklin, Bedford, Indiana.
II. THE APOSTOLIC AGE,
...
312
W. M. Forrest, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
III. PAUL'S LETTER TO THE ROMANS,
33S
Clinton Lockhart, Christian University, Canton, Missouri.
IV. BISHOP MERRILL ON "BURIED BY BAPTISM,"
352
J. B. Briney, Moberly, Missouri.
V. EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY,
366
A. M. Chamberlain, Alliance, Ohio.
VI. MACHIAVELLI,
376
I. J. Cahill, Dayton, Ohio.
VII. STUMBLING BLOCKS; A WORD STUDY,
382
Augustine S. Carman, Springfield, Ohio.
Excgetical Department.
......... 391
The Pharaoh ProblemWhat is the Meaning of EpcrootecmaWas Paul Sent to Baptize?
LITERARY REVIEWS,
English and American.
........
.
.
.
405
1. The Life of Philip Schaff2. Heredity and Christian Problems3. Life and Letters of Harriet
Beecher Stowe4. The Christian5. The Story of Jesus Christ6. Christ's Trumpet Call to
the Ministry, or the Preacher and the Preaching for the Present Crisis.
German and French.
.........
414
1. L'Epopee Byzantine a la fin du dixieme Siecle2. An Zarobezc3. Der Katholicismus als Princip
des Fortschritts.
/found Table.
426
The New National SpiritIs an Alliance with England Wise? What has Hecomc of ArbitrationWalls or WingsWhich ?The Influence of WarThe Death of Mr. GladstoneThe Bible
College of MissouriA New Incentive to Home Missions.
Contents of No. S.
New SeriesOcTOREit/iSgS.
I. THE TREND OF MODERN RELIGIOUS THOUGHT,

J. H. Garrison, St. Louis, Missouri.
II. RELIGIOUS HUMBUG,
H. W. Everest, Des Moines, Iowa.
III. THE SUPPLY OF PREACHERS,
J. W. McGarvey, Lexington, Kentucky.
IV. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER,
F. M. Green, LL. D., Kent, Ohio.
V. ISAAC ERRETT AND OUR LATER HISTORY,
Alfred Martin Haggard, Oskaloosa, Iowa.
VI. HUMAN VOLITION AND RESPONSIBILITY,
M. C. Tiers, New York.
VII. THE LAWS OF ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS APPLIED TO THE BIBLE,
D. A. Wickizer, Des Moines, Iowa.
Excgctical Department.
The Everlasting KingdomThe Perfect LifeThe Shortness of the Years.
LITERARY REVIEWS.
American and English,
..........
...
1. Nave's Topical Bible2. Life of Alexander Campbell - 3. The Emphasized New Testament
4. Organic Evolution Considered c. Horace Maun and the Common School Revival in the
United States6. The Veracity of the Hexateuch.
Foreign.
.............
1. Les Origines de la Compagnie dc Jesus2. Le Danger Moral dc l'Evolutionisme Ucligicux.
Found Table.
...............
Apologetic and ExplanatoryTwo Epoch-Making Events.
433
452
467
479
505
531
545
C$5
jgo
566
cy6
THE
Christian Quarterly
JANUARY, 1898.
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION; THE FUNDAMENTAL

ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM.
IMPORTANCE OF BAPTISM.
BAPTISM has always been a prominent factor in the ques
tion of Christian union. It has lost nothing of its im
portance in recent discussions. Nor is it likely to diminish in
importance in future discussions. Like Banquo's ghost it will
not down. Why should it? Is not the command to baptize
the nations clearly indicated in the great commission which
Christ gave to His Apostles? Did not these Apostles adminis
ter baptism to all their converts during all the days of the
early Church ? Do not the letters of the Apostles abundantly
show that baptism in some way was intimately connected with
allegiance to Christ and initiation into the Church? Indeed,
it might be asked, is not the whole history of Christianity from
its beginning down to the present time deeply tinged with the
baptismal coloring, no matter from what point of view the
question may be considered?
It is not strange, therefore, that the question of baptism
should still have an abiding interest for those who reverence
the teaching of the Scriptures and the unbroken history of the
Christian Church since its foundation. It is, however, of the
Vol. 21.
(i)
Baptismal Regeneration;
[January,
very first importance that baptism should be assigned its

proper place, and not perverted to uses for which there is no
authority either in reason or Revelation. It will be my pur
pose, therefore, in this paper, to seek to find just what the
correct position of baptism is; but while doing this, it will be
necessary, first of all, to consider the rise and progress of one
of the most fatal errors which has ever found its way into the
sphere of religious faith. I refer to the doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration. This brings us at once to consider the meaning
of the term Regeneration, as this is essential to any correct
understanding of the whole subject.
THE NEED OF CORRECT DEFINITION.
Correct definition is the sword which often cuts the Gordian knot of theology. Our controversies are not unfrequently
mere logomachies. We quarrel about words, and generally
for the reason that we attach different meanings to them.
Hence the first great need of our times, in order to unity with
respect to almost anything, is to agree upon the meaning of
the words which we use. This is especially true of theological
terms. In these days we hear much said against the distract
ing influence of theology. Doubtless there is some reason for
the growing tendency to regard scholastic speculations as of
little or no value in the real affairs of life. But, after all, it is
more than probable that the greatest evil of theology comes
from a failure of the schools to agree upon a terminology which
everyone may understand. At present theological terms are
used with so much difference in their meaning that it is next
to impossible to thread our way through the labyrinths of defi
nition to anything like a common understanding to which all
Christians may practically agree. And yet, in my judgment,
it is impossible to make much progress toward Christian union
until such an understanding is actually reached. And I am
still further convinced that this understanding can not be
reached until the whole question of definition has been care
fully reconsidered.
As an illustration of the confusion which has been pro
duced by the want of a uniform, clearly-defined terminology,
1898.]
The Fundamental Error of Christendom.
it is only necessary to call attention to the bitter controversies

which have been waged with respect to the doctrine of Regen
eration. It is not my purpose at present to even attempt to
consider the numerous phases of the discussions concerning
the meaning of this term. A volume might be written upon
this single word, and even then the subject would not be
exhausted. Indeed, it is not at all improbable that the true
Scriptural meaning of the word has not been clearly set forth
in any of the theological works which are usually accepted as
standards. Nevertheless, it will answer my present purpose if
I can make the reader clearly understand the difference be
tween what is popularly called the evangelical doctrine of
regeneration and what has been known in Church history as
Baptismal Regeneration.
The Lutheran symbols very generally included conversion
in the doctrine of regeneration, while the Westminster Confes
sion of Faith and the Larger Catechism emphasize the fact
that regeneration is wholly a divine act. Dr. Hodge is per
haps the ablest exponent of this special view of regeneration.
In his Systematic Theology he says: " Regeneration is an act
of God. It is not simply referred to Him as its Giver, and, in
that sense, its Author, as He is the Giver of faith and of re
pentance. It is not an act of which, by argument and persua
sion, or by moral power, He induces the sinner to perform.
But it is an act of which He is the Agent. It is God who
regenerates. The soul is regenerated. In this sense the soul
is passive in regeneration, which (subjectively considered) is a
change wrought in us, and not an act performed by us." But
Dr. Hodge goes still further than this. He says that "Regen
eration is not only an act of God, but also an act of His
almighty power. Raising Lazarus from the dead was an act
of omnipotence. Nothing intervened between the volition and
the effect. The act of quickening was the act of God. In that
matter Lazarus was passive. But in all the acts of restored
vitality he was active and free. According to the evangelical
system, it is in this sense that regeneration is the act of God's
almighty power." This is practically a re-statement of Augustinianism, or its modern representative, Calvinism; but it con
stitutes the warp and woof of what is to-day, for the most part,
[January,
the acknowledged teachings of evangelicals concerning regen

eration.
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.
As regards the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration there
is a wide diversity of views. Even Church of England writers
differ very greatly as to what is meant by the doctrine. It is
well known that the High Church, or Ritualistic wing of the
Establishment, holds practically the view of the Church of
Rome in its leading characteristics. Many, therefore, accept
the definition of regeneration as given by the Council of Trent.
And that Council declared that "Baptism takes away not only
guilt, but everything of the nature of sin, and communicates a
new life." Indeed, that Council declared Baptism to be " the
sacrament of faith, without which no one could be justified,"
or regenerated. Hence the doctrine of the Roman Catholic
Church is that regeneration includes (1) the removal of the
guilt of sin; (2) the cleansing away of inherent moral corrup
tion; (3) the infusion of new habits of grace; and (4) adop
tion, or recognition of the renewed as sons of God. Now when
we remember that the Council of Trent taught that this regen
eration is effected by baptism, it is easy to see to what danger
ous extremes the doctrine of baptism has been pressed; and
consequently how very earnest our protest should be against
that wing of the Established Church which so persistently
contends for what is practically nothing better than Roman
Catholicism.
Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, in his Church Dictionary, dis
tinguishes between conversion and regeneration; but, after
all, he teaches simply a modified form of the Roman Catholic
doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. Other Churchmen hold
that regeneration expresses an external change of relation,
and not an internal change of the state of the soul, in its rela
tion to God. Regeneration, in this outward sense, is declared
to be by baptism; while the inner change is wrought by the
Holy Spirit. There are also, as is well known, not a few
Churchmen who hold to what I have stated to be the evangel
ical view. Associated with these may be reckoned most of
1898.]
the Nonconformist bodies. It is true that some of these,

being Arminians in their theology, differ somewhat from Dr.
Hodge and others who are Calvinists. At the same time a
large majority of Dissenters utterly reject the doctrine of the
Church of Bome that baptism has the effect of "imprinting a
character upon the soul that is supernatural and spiritual ; "
and that, furthermore, it "carries along with it such a divine
virtue that by the very receiving of it the virtue is conveyed
to the souls of them to whom it is applied." In other words,
Nonconformists, for the most part, utterly reject the doctrine
of Baptismal Regeneration, as that doctrine is popularly known
in Church history.
But this protest is feeble compared with the widespread
influence of the error under consideration. A large majority
of Christendom unquestionably hold to some form of Baptis
mal Regeneration. We have already seen that it is a cardinal
doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. It is also equally
fundamental in the Greek Church; while the Established
Protestant Churches of Continental Europe may generally be
ranked in this respect with the Latins and the Greeks. And
when we add to these a majority of the Anglican Church, with
scattering Nonconformists to be found in all their commun
ions, it will at once be seen that not less than nineteen-twentieths of the whole of Christendom are to-day teaching and
practicing the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. This is
surely an appalling fact; and it is a fact, too which must be
earnestly reckoned with in any honest consideration of the ele
ments which enter into the religious progress of the world.
THE OBIGIN OF THE HERESY.
And yet it is not very difficult to 6ee how this heresy had
its origin. Whoever has read carefully the New Testament,
with the view of studying the relation between baptism and
the sinner, will scarcely have failed to notice how intimate
this relation is. In such passages as the following there can
be no mistake about the connection between baptism and the
remission of sins: "He that belie veth and is baptized shall be
saved," i. e., pardoned; "Repent and be baptized every one
(1
Baptismal Regeneration ;
[January,
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,

and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit;" "Arise and
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of
the Lord;" "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth
also now save us," etc., etc. We could extend the list of sim
ilar passages very much further, but we have quoted sufficient
to show how easily, in the first place, the Patristic writers,
and, in the second place, even the writers of modern times,
evolved the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. By losing
sight of the proper antecedents of baptism, viz., faith and
repentance, and by fixing attention mainly upon the ordinance
which marked the consummation of the sinner's return to
God, it was not a difficult thing to reach the conclusion that
baptism itself, ex opere operato, effected a change of heart, or
a change from the love of sin to the love of holiness ; or, in
other words, produced what is now regarded by evangelicals
as Regeneration. And I think it can scarcely be doubted that
there is ample reason for regarding what was evolved in this
great transformation as a most pernicious evil.
THE TESTIMONY OF HISTOKY.
It is well known that, at a very early period in the history
of Christianity, Baptism and Regeneration were used as equiv
alent terms. Baptism was also called indulgentia, or indul
gence, or absolution. By some writers it was called salus,
salvation, because it was alleged to be "the means not only of
obtaining remission of sins, but of bringing men by the grace
and blood of Christ to the glory of the kingdom of heaven."
And, finally, it was called a "sacrament," the "seal of the
Lord," "the royal mark of character," the "character of the
Lord." In all of which names and phrases there is a distinct
recognition of a Divine connection between baptism and the
remission of sins. It would be easy enough to give numerous
quotations from the most distinguished writers of all ages of
the Church in support of the statements I have made; but as
these statements are not likely to be disputed by any one
whose judgment is worth considering, I do not deem it neces
sary to burden this paper with such quotations. Suffice it
1898.]
The Fun dame tal Error af Christendon.
to say, that from Barnabas down to the Council of Nice, and

from Nice to Augsburg, nearly all the Christian writers agree
in describing a most intimate relationship between baptism
and remission of sins. Indeed, it is quite true, as Hagenbach
has said, that "from the earliest times great importance was
attached to the doctrine of Baptism, because of its supposed
relation to the forgiveness of sins." We have already seen
that this notion was founded upon certain Scripture texts, and
that by carrying the notion too far the doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration was evolved. And in view of the widespread
and baneful influence of that doctrine, I think I am quite
justified in calling it the Fundamental Error of Christendom.
And now, in order to understand some of the disastrous
consequences of Baptismal Regeneration, it may be well to
notice a few of the great evils which have grown out of it.
At present I can notice, specifically, only three of these;
though these, I think, will be quite sufficient, as nearly all the
evils of Christendom are in some way associated with Sacramentarianism, Sacerdotalism, and Indifferentism. These three
"isms," from a religious point of view, can be regarded as
constituting what may be, not inappropriately, called the Trin
ity of Evil. Hence Infant Baptism, Priestcraft and Indifference
to Divine Authority properly belong to that Hydra-headed mon
ster known in Church history as the Great Apostasy, and
which has so long committed such fearful ravages throughout
the religious world.
ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM.
Mr. Spurgeon once said that Baptismal Regeneration
rode in on the shoulders of Infant Baptism ; but it is evident,
from the facts of history, that this statement is not correct.
Indeed, it would be exactly true if Infant Baptism and Bap
tismal Regeneration were made to change places. It is simply
certain that Infant Baptism rode in on the shoulders of Bap
tismal Regeneration. We have already seen how soon, in the
history of the Christian religion, this doctrine was evolved.
And when it is stated that the early writers nearly always con
nected baptism with the remission of what is known in theol
[January,
ogy as original sin, as well as personal sins, it is not difficult

to see how Infant Baptism finally became a logical necessity.
The first Christian writer who distinctly advocated Infant Bap
tism was Irenteus, and he testifies of the profound Christian
idea out of which Infant Baptism arose. The idea is, that
"Christ came to redeem all by Himself all who, through
Him, are regenerated to God infants, little children, boys,
young men and old. Hence He passed through every age,
and for the infants He became an Infant, sanctifying the in
fants; among the children He became a little Child, sanctify
ing those who belong to this age, and at the same time pre
senting to them an example of piety, of well-doing, and of
obedience."
Commenting upon this statement of Irenaeus,
the gieat historian Augustus Neander says: "Infant Baptism,
then, appears here as the medium through which the principle
of sanctification, imparted by Christ to human nature from its
earliest development, became appropriated to children. From
this idea, founded on what is innermost in Christianity, be
coming prominent in the feelings of Christians, resulted the
practice of Infant Baptism."
But even this view did not make Infant Baptism abso
lutely necessary. It may have suggested its appropriateness,
but Infant Baptism never would have become so general a
practice had it not been that the family idea was immediately
associated with original sin ; and hence, in commenting upon
the final outcome of the matter, Neander uses the following
suggestive and emphatic language: "But when now, on the
one hand, the doctrine of the corruption and guilt cleaving to
human nature in consequence of the first transgression was
reduced to a more precise and systematic form, and, on the
other, from the want of duly distinguishing between what
is outward and what is inward in baptism (the Baptism by
water, and the Baptism by the Spirit), the error became more
firmly established, that without external baptism no one could be
delivered from that inherent guilt, could be saved from the ever
lasting punishment that threatened him, or raised to eternal life;
and when the notion of a magical influence, a charm connected
1898. ]
with the sacraments, continually gained ground, the theory was

finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of Infant Baptism."
Here, then, we have unmistakably indicated the real origin
of a practice which at one time became well-nigh universal,
and is yet retained in all the churches which still believe in
Baptismal Regeneration, and also in a few which hold to the
notion that was first propounded by Irenaeus. But it is sim
ply certain that Infant Baptism can not be justified on any
other ground than that of Baptismal Regeneration. This is
the ground on which the early Church placed it, and it is the
only ground on which it can find any real justification. If,
however, it is true, as Augustine has alleged, that "he who is
not baptised can not obtain salvation;" that "every one is
born in sin, and stands therefore in need of pardon;" and that
he "obtains this pardon by baptism," and that "it cleanses
children from original sin," then it is easy to see that Infant
Baptism is not only logical, but is a prime necessity, and ought
to be universally adopted by the whole of Christendom. It is
not strange, therefore, that some Protestant writers, even
since the Lutheran Reformation, have practically held the
same view as that maintained by the early Church and such
theologians as St. Augustine. It is rather remarkable, how
ever, that John Wesley, in his Doctrinal Tracts, grounds
Infant Baptism on the connection between the ordinance and
original sin. He says: "If infants are guilty of original sin,
then they are proper subjects of baptism, seeing, in the
ordinary way, they can not be saved unless this be washed
away by baptism." These tracts by Wesley were circulated by
the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States up to
the year 1860, when that Church refused any longer to pub
lish and endorse them as evangelical.
No doubt the family idea has had much to do with main
taining the practice of Infant Baptism, even with those who
do not associate it with the doctrine of Original Sin, or believe
that baptism is ever connected with remission of sins. It is
well known that the late Dean Stanley wrote an able essay
just before his death in which he grounded the doctrine of
Infant Baptism on this family idea. But the family idea
alone could never have evolved the unconditional necessity
10
[January,
of such a practice, nor made it so general, nor given it such

a prominent place in the history of the Church as it has
held. It was the idea that infants are exposed (as Wesley
affirms) to eternal damnation on account of original sin, and
that baptism is the ordinary means by which this sin is
washed away, to which must be ascribed the necessity of
Infant Baptism, and also its rapid growth as a practice after
it was first introduced. Parents could not endure the thought
that their children might be lost if their baptism should be
neglected; and consequently the love of parents for their chil
dren became practically the motive power in the spread of
Infant Baptism. Hence it will be seen that, whatever evils
have attended Infant Baptism (and these have certainly been
manifold), there can be no doubt about the fact that these
evils may all be directly or indirectly traced to the doctrine of
Baptismal Regeneration.
In confirmation of this view of the matter it may be well
to quote from a recent very able work entitled, "A History of
Anti-Pedobaptism," by Dr. Albert Henry Newman, Professor
of Church History in McMaster University, Toronto, Canada.
After stating the fact that "early in the second century, possi
bly during the last decade of the first, the idea came into
vogue that while instruction on Christian truth and morals,
repentance, faith, fasting, and prayer must precede baptism,
the remission of sins takes place only in connection with the
baptismal act," Dr. Newman goes on to say:
"It is highly probablo that the disposition to attach magical significance to bap
tism and to surround its administration with mystery and ceremonial came into the
Church through the channel of Gnosticism; although, as is well known, Gnostic
mysteries were themselves derived from those that had long prevailed in pagan
systems. We need only mention the elaborate initiatory rites of the Eleusinian,
Pythagorean, Orphic, and Delphian mysteries, of the old Egyptian priesthood, and
of the Mithras worship. The fact is, there was a great fund of current thought and
practice on this matter that was sure, sooner or later, to make its influence pro
foundly felt by Christianity.
*********
"Side by side with the idea of the efficacy of water baptism had grown up the
conviction that apart from baptism there is no salvation. The human race being
intrinsically corrupt, the guilt of race-sin attaches to unconscious infants no less
than to such as have reached moral consciousness. The only avenue of escape
was baptism. Exception was made in the case of believers who suffered martyrdom
1898.]
11
before they had had an opportunity to wash away their sins in baptism ; but these
were said to have had a baptism of blood.
*********
"When Christians had come to believe that water baptism possessed magical
efficacy, and that all mankind was so involved in sin that no salvation was possible
apart from baptism, it was inevitable that infant baptism should be introduced.
The widespread prevalence of infant lustrations among pagans made the introduc
tion of infant baptism easy and natural. At first it would be confined to infants in
danger of death ; but when the idea had taken firm hold on the Christian conscious
ness that it was a necessary means of securing cleansing from hereditary sin its
progress could not fail to be rapid.
"The universal prevalence of infant baptism was long prevented, however,
by another error, for whose elevation to the position of a dogma Tertullian was
chiefly responsible, but which no doubt had been more or less current since the
middle of the second century. This error was, in effect, that mortal sins committed
after baptism are irremissible. It was chiefly on this .ground that Tertullian so
earnestly insisted on the postponement of baptism until such a degree of maturity
and stability should have been reached as to warrant the expectation that the can
didate would be able to guard himself from the commission of mortal sins. He had
no doubt as to the efficacy of baptism to cleanse the unconscious infant of heredi
tary sin; but, on prudential grounds, he considered it important that this cleansing
rite should be reserved until such time as he could have reasonable assurance
that its efficacy would be permanent. From this time onward the choice between
infant baptism and adult baptism was determined largely by the views of indi
viduals as to whether the former or the latter would probably be the more advanta
geous. The baptized infant might on the one hand grow up and become involved
in sin and so lose the opportunity that adult baptism would confer of starting out
on his personal Christian life with a clean score ; on the other hand the unbaptized
infant might die by violence or so unexpectedly as to be out of reach of the saving
bath. The rigorous view of Tertullian as regards the unpardonableness of postbaptismal mortal sin gradually gave place to a more benignant view and from the
middle of the third century the Church made so ample provision for the restoration
of the lapsed, that infant baptism came to be generally regarded as the safer thing."
THE MODERN THEORY.
Of course I am not ignorant of the fact that some modern
writers, who repudiate the doctrine of Baptismal Regenera
tion, claim to deduce Infant Baptism from the teaching of the
New Testament. But in order to successfully do this, it is
clearly evident that infants must be included in the Great
Commission which our Divine Lord gave to His Apostles, and
in which they were commanded to disciple and baptize the
nations. Are they thus included? Surely the very terms of
the commission seem to necessarily exclude them, since it is
practically impossible for the commission to be applicable to
infants as regards hearing the Gospel, believing the Gospel,
12
[January,
repenting, receiving the remission of sins, or salvation, etc.

Indeed, the only thing in the commission that can be possi
bly claimed for infants is baptism ; and even this can not be
reasonably claimed if baptism is rightly regarded as the act of
the person who receives it. And yet, this is undoubtedly the
Scriptural view of baptism; and if this view is admitted,
infants are necessarily excluded from all participation in the
commission which Christ gave to His Apostles. But if it
should still be contended that they are included in the com
mission, then one of three things must follow: (1) Either the
Apostles did not understand the commission; (2) they did
not practice what they understood it to teach; or (3) a large
and important part of their practice is not recorded. The
first hypothesis impeaches their inspiration; the second
impeaches their honesty; while the third impeaches the char
acter of the bcrok which records their practice. Any view of
the case that may be taken is at once fatal to the doctrine
of Infant Baptism. And yet, one of these hypotheses must
be maintained, or else infants are logically excluded from the
commission, and consequently excluded from baptism; for
what is not authorized in the commission as regards baptism
ought not to be maintained as a practice of the Church.
And in view of the complete silence of the New Testament on
the question of Infant Baptism, it is certain that Martin
Luther was right when he said: "It can not be proved by the
sacred Scriptures that Infant Baptism was instituted by
Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles."
INFANTS DO NOT NEED BAPTISM.
But infants do not need baptism.
What personal sins
have they committed ? Even allowing that they fully share
in Adam's transgression, there is still no reason why they
should be baptized. The penalty of Adam's sin is death ; but
Christ has taken away the sting of death, and robbed the grave
of its victory. In other words, "Where sin abounded, grace
did much more abound" ; so that what infants lost in Adam
they gained in Christ; indeed, they gained much more in
Him than they lost by what has been called original sin. The
1898.]
13
notion, therefore, that infants must be baptized, in order to

"escape eternal damnation," is as untrue to Scripture as it is
absurd in the light of human reason, and ought at once to be
remanded to that theological museum where are deposited so
many curious speculations of the schoolmen. Nevertheless,
I fear that even now there are still not a few who unhesitat
ingly accept the dogma of the early Church upon which the
practice of Infant Baptism was founded; while there are at
least some others who practically accept the same view, though
they are not willing to admit it. Parental love has still a most
potent influence in keeping the practice of Infant Baptism
alive; for the anxiety which this love produces finds relief in
the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. Parents may not
always admit their belief in the doctrine, and in some cases
they may be half unconscious of any such belief; but every
one knows, who knows anything about the matter at all, that
Infant Baptism is still mainly practiced in order to satisfy
the fears of parents that their infants are not safe without it.
We may call this superstition, if we wish to do so; but no
matter what we call it, it is precisely this feeling which orig
inated, multiplied, and perpetuated the practice under consid
eration ; and it is precisely this feeling which underlies the
practice to-day, whether parents are willing to admit it or not,
or whether they are conscious of it or not.
But some may think that our growing intelligence on this
subject ought, by this time, to practically overcome a purely
theological superstition. But this view of the matter does not
take sufficiently into the account all the factors involved. I
have already pointed out how parental love, when controlled
by a false anthropology, and by an equally false soteriology,
became the source and strength of Infant Baptism.
And I
must now point out how the love of children for their parents
enters largely into the maintenance of that which the love of
parents for children practically originated. The respect which
children show for the baptism they have received from their
parents is really the answer of child love to parental love.
Thousands of children, when they are grown up, would at
once repudiate the baptism of their infancy, were it not that
they feel that such repudiation would necessarily imply a want
14
[January,
of love for their parents, and would show a sort of disrespect

to parental authority. There can be no doubt about the fact
that this feeling is widespread, and is also most potential as
regards the maintenance of the practice of Infant Baptism.
And it is a feeling, too, which any one must regard with con
siderable sympathy, as it enters so largely into all that is
sacred in home life. At any rate, it is a feeling which must
be constantly reckoned with by those who wish to overthrow
a practice which the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration has
made holy in the affections of both parents for their children
and children for their parents.
THE EX POST FACTO DIFFICULTY.
And this brings me to look at another difficulty which is
closely akin to the one we have just considered. I refer to
what may be called the Ex Post Facio Difficulty. There is
always a strong current against any change of established cus
toms, habits, or institutions. Infant Baptism is an established
practice; or, to use a legal phrase, it is already in possession,
and this is said to be nine points in law. Let me illustrate
what I mean. Suppose I wish to sell Mr. Jones a new range
for his kitchen. I may not have much difficulty in convincing
him of the superiority of the range I offer him over -the one
he now possesses. But he reasons somewhat as follows: "My
old range, though not so good as the new one, really answers
my purpose. It will do. I have used it for many years, and
it has done good, faithful service. It will continue to do this
service for many years to come ; so I will hold on to it rather
than throw it away and substitute for it a new range which
would require a considerable outlay of money."
This practi
cally settles my range enterprise. There would perhaps be
little difficulty in selling Mr. Jones my new range if his old
one was out of the way. The main difficulty is, in getting rid
of the old range; and consequently, before I can get my new
range into Mr. Jones' kitchen, it is not enough for me to con
vince him that mine is better than his, but I must show him
how he may advantageously dispose of the one he now has.
This illustration will help us to understand why so many peo
1898.]
15
pie hold on to Infant Baptism, even after they are convinced

that believers' baptism is much better.
They somehow or
other persuade themselves that the former will do; and espe
cially since it has been in service so long, and has connected
with it so many sacred associations. And, curiously enough,
this view of the matter is strongly emphasized the moment we
claim that baptism has no regenerative power. When it is
suggested that baptism is in no way connected with salvation,
immediately the question arises, why then should any one
make trouble about it, whether it is administered in infancy
or in old age? Consequently, those who have been baptized
in infancy do not care to change to what really promises no
special advantage. In other words, they do not care to ex
change even a worthless range for one that is equally worth
less. Nor is that all. An Ex Post Facto law is always dis
tasteful; and it is not therefore strange, that those who have
been baptized in infancy should often rebel against the de
mand made upon them to submit to believers' baptisma bap
tism which virtually requires them to undo what has already
been accomplished.
What, then, is a legitimate argument against Infant
Baptism, and how can the practice be overthrown? I answer,
unhesitatingly, by a return to Christ's supreme authority in
the matter, instead of listening to what men have decreed. I
do not for one moment question the powerful influence of
family ties, as respects the question under consideration; but
Christ has clearly taught, that unless we love Him more than
father or mother, houses or lands, we can not be His disciples.
Hence we must consult Him rather than parental love or child
love, even though His authority should break the most sacred
ties of the flesh. But as regards the case now before us, the
moment we accept Christ as our sole leader, that moment will
there be perfect harmony between His teaching and all the
rational demands of family life. The restoration of His su
preme authority will at once put baptism in its right place;
and when this is done the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration
will no longer have influence, and, as a consequence, Infant
Baptism will gradually fall into disuse. The evil practice has
come out of Baptismal Regeneration, and in order to effect a
16
[January,
cure we must remove the cause of the evil; and as this cause
has been found in a perverted view of baptism, in conjunction
with the doctrine of original sin, our present hope is in carry
ing our case over all the traditions of an apostate Church back
to Christ Himself, who divinely commissioned His apostles to
preach the gospel to every creature, and to baptize those who
believed it. And as proof that these apostles did baptize only
those who were believers, we need go no further than simply
examine carefully all the cases of baptism recorded in the New
Testament.
Such examination will soon reveal the fact
that Infant Baptism is wholly without a shred of Divine au
thority. Here, then, is the true remedy for the practice, and
the case resolves itself into the simple query, "Shall we obey
God rather than men?"
INFANT BAPTISM IN ITS EFFECTS.
Before dismissing the practice which we have had under
consideration, it may be well to notice some of the evil effects
which it has produced in the development of historic Chris
tianity. It is certainly most important that a clear distinction
should be drawn between the Christianity of the New Testa
ment and the Christianity of the Churches as this is seen in
Church history. And among the first departures from primi
tive practice may be reckoned Infant Baptism; and some of
the evil consequences of this practice may be enumerated as
follows:
(1) It practically substitutes law for faith, and makes the
Church a fleshly institution instead of a spiritual household, as
was clearly intended by its Divine Founder.
(2) It takes away from the individual the highest privi
lege which the gospel confers, viz., the privilege of choice.
This is one of the most fatal evils of Infant Baptism.
(3) It sets aside personal responsibility by assuming that
others may do an act for us which can only be performed by
ourselves. This makes religious life formal and perfunctory
instead of spiritual and real.
(4) It destroys the beautiful symbolism of the gospel,
and thereby practically annihilates what was intended to be a
1898.]
17
striking and perpetual proof of Christ's resurrection. By

substituting flesh for faith and sprinkling for immersion the
whole teaching of the sixth chapter of Romans becomes mean
ingless; and at the same time the significant monument which
Divine wisdom has erected to testify to the doctrine of the
resurrection has been completely demolished. But as this
doctrine is fundamental in Christianity, it becomes at once
evident that whatever is responsible for Infant Baptism must
be a fundamental error, since infant sprinkling has taken
away the great monumental proof of the resurrection. And
as Baptismal Regeneration is responsible for Infant Baptism,
it follows, with irresistible force, that the former is really
what I have characterized it, viz., the Fundamental Error of
Christendom.
(5) We have already seen that Infant Baptism is sup
ported by the notion that there is either a magical charm in
baptism itself, or else there is a magical charm in being born
of believing parents. Either the baptism itself, ex opere
operato, produces a moral change in the child, or else a moral
change is produced in the child by the faith of the parents.
In the first place, a power is ascribed to baptism which it does
not possess, while the pernicious doctrine of Baptismal Re
generation is inculcated and enforced ; in the latter case the
equally pernicious doctrine that faith is propagated by fleshly
descent is practically affirmed and inculcated; and yet this
doctrine literally destroys precisely what is characteristic in
Christianity, viz., spirituality, personality, and individuality.
(6) The practice of Infant Baptism brings into the
Churches a large number of unregenerated members, and
thereby makes Church life formal, cold, and often fruitless.
Do we ask for an explanation of what we see and hear as
respects the want of earnest consecration among the members
of the Churches? Much that will help in such an explanation
may be found in the fact that many Church members have
never been regenerated in the true scriptural sense of that
term. The Church has become a fleshly institution. Men
and women are in it simply because their fathers and mothers
were in it. In other words, they are members by virtue of
Vol. 22
18
[January,
their fleshly relationship to those from whom they are de

scended. This fact is fatal to spiritual development, and
practically destroys the very meaning of the Church.
(7) Infant Baptism displaces the baptism of believers,
and to that extent makes void a commandment of Christ by a
tradition of men. This evil can not be over-estimated. It
might be considered from many points of view, but I need not
detain the reader with more than one or two of the numerous
evils growing out of this substitution. In the first place, the
whole order of the gospel has been perverted by it. The New
Testament order is preaching, hearing, believing, and then
baptism ; but the substitution to which I have called attention
begins with baptism instead of ending with it. Infants are
supposed to be changed from children of wrath to children of
God by the priest sprinkling water upon them in the name of
the Holy Trinity; and yet when these children are grown up
evangelicals regard their conversion as necessary in order to
their salvation. Surely nothing could be more contradictory
than such notions. But this is not all. The worst remains yet
to be told. If Infant Baptism is allowed to take the place of
believers' baptism, what becomes of the authority of Christ?
Undoubtedly, Infant Baptism must be surrendered, or else
Christ's supreme authority in religious matters can no longer
be enforced. Our loyalty to Him ought to make our decision
both quick and unmistakable as regards this important matter.
Are we equal to such courageous action? It is simply a ques
tion of Christ or men, which? What answer are we ready to
give?
THE EVIL OF SACERDOTALISM.
And this inquiry at once suggests the second great evil which
I mentioned in the early part of this article as coming out
of the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, namely, the evil of
sacerdotalism. Priestcraft can not flourish where Christ reigns
supreme, and where Divine authority is paramount over the
commandments of men. But when Christ is dethroned, and
when human creeds or traditions of men are substituted for
New Testament teaching, it is easy to see how sacerdotalism
1898.]
19
may logically follow. That it has followed with terrible effect

no one will dispute who has any comprehensive and accurate
knowledge of Church history. And among the first supports
which priestly domination received was the doctrine of Baptis
mal Regeneration. This doctrine placed the dispensing of sal
vation wholly and absolutely into the hands of the priests ; for
almost contemporaneous with the origin of the Baptismal her
esy the doctrine of Apostolic Succession began to dawn. And
when that doctrine became fully established the power of the
priest was at once made supreme and permanent. The steps
by which he reached this power are logical enough when once
the premises used are admitted. These steps may be traced as
follows: First, the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, which
practically made salvation impossible without baptism; sec
ond the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, which made baptism
impossible without the administrator had received regular or
legitimate ordination ; and, third, the intense love of parents for
their children, which made Infant Baptism a necesssity, in
order to save from the fear that infants are exposed to eternal
damnation on account of original sin. Or, to put the argu
ment in another form : parental love demanded the salvation
of children, but this salvation could not be secured without
baptism ; and the baptism could not be had without the inter
cession of the priest, and the priest could not officiate unless
he was properly ordained. But when once inducted into his
priestly office, the priest practically held the keys of authority
over all families ; for the very matter of dispensing salvation
was wholly in his hands.
No wonder fathers and mothers
soon became practically bond slaves to a class of men who have
not unfrequently exercised their power in a way most disastrous
to everything that is noble in family life, or authorized in the
Church of God. No wonder a large portion of the world sym
pathizes with Burns' characterization of them when he asks,
"Say, what are priests, those seeming godly-wise men?
What are they, pray, but spiritual excise men?"
In order to find a remedy for all this we must again turn
to Christ. In the case of the evil of Infant Baptism we found
our help in Him ; and now we must look to Him as the Source
20
[January,
of our help in dealing with the evil of sacerdotalism. He is

our only Priest, for no one save the Lord Jesus Christ has the
liberty of direct access unto God; no other sacrifice than His
can possibly take away sin ; it is only through Him that God
is propitious to sinners; and, finally, it is only through Him
that God's grace is conveyed to the world. Hence it will be
seen that a proper respect for Christ's sacrifice, intercession,
and kingly power is the only effective remedy for the preten
sions of sacerdotalism, or the domination of those "spiritual
excise men" who have so long lorded it over the conscience of
the people.
SUMMARY OF EVILS.
The whole case against sacerdotalism may be summed up
as follows :
(1) It substitutes an earthly priesthood for a heavenly,
and makes the intercession of the "one Mediator between God
and man" depend upon the intervention of men.
(2) It makes necessary the doctrine of Apostolic Succes
sion, in order to make plausible the claim of special, priestly
authority.
(3) It destroys individual responsibility by committing
the affairs of the soul to the keeping of a class of men who are
supposed to have special charge of soul life.
(4) It fosters the worst kind of despotism, by delegating
to others the right to lord it over the individual conscience in
all matters relating to religion.
(5) It places the forgiveness of sins in the hands of men,
and thereby courts dishonesty, for filthy lucre's sake, in
dealing with souls. The whole iniquity of indulgences came
out of sacerdotalism.
(6) It places a strong tempation in the way of weak
men to clandestinely use the sanctions of religion for the satis
faction of lust, and opens up an easy road to all kinds of
licentiousness.
(7) It introduces class distinctions in the Church, and
practically abrogates the law of unity, which is intended to
everywhere dominate God's children. The distinction between
1898. ]
21
priest and laity finds no countenance in the Word of God. In

Christ Jesus all conventional distinctions are broken down, and
all are declared to be one in Him.
THE EVIL OF INDIFFERENCE TO AUTHORITY.
The third and last great evil, growing out of Baptismal
Regeneration, which it is proposed at present to consider, is
what I have called indifference to authority, or carelessness as
regards what our Divine Lord has certainly commanded, and
what His apostles just as certainly practiced. I have already
called attention to some of the passages of Scripture which
were no doubt helpful in evolving the doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration. But there is still another passage to which the
doctrine may be almost directly traced. I refer to John iii. 5 :
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not
enter into the kingdom of God." This passage has been
chiefly relied upon through all ages of the Church by those
who have regarded baptism as absolutely an essential condition
to salvation. Hence Baptismal Regeneration has found this
passage one of its strongest citadels of defence. But the
passage can not be made to do service for any such doctrine
unless it be illegitimately interpreted; and this is precisely
what has happened, not only as repects this passage, but also
as respects all other passages of the New Testament that indi
cate a connection between Baptism and Kemission of Sins, or
salvation.
THE MEANING OF JOHN Hi. 5.
In view of the illicit use which has been made of John
iii. 5, it may be well to examine briefly what our Lord really
meant by the language there used ; and if I take up a little
extra space in an exposition of this passage, I think I may claim
justification on the ground that the passage is somewhat funda
mental as regards the question under discussion. First of all,
it is important to get a correct rendering of the Greek. Every
scholar knows that a literal translation will give us born out of
water and out of spirit, instead of what we now have in both
the Authorized and Revised Versions. This change helps us
to arrive at the true meaning.
22
[January,
Now if we turn to Romans vi. 4, we can scarcely fail to

understand what is meant by being "born out of water and
out of spirit." Evidently what Paul means by being raised
into newness of life out of a watery grave is equivalent to
what our Lord means by being "born out of water and out
of spirit." To be "born out of water" alone would not
bring us to newness of life; but to be "born out of water and
out of spirit" is equivalent to burial with Christ by baptism
into death and a resurrection into newness of life. Hence I
heartily agree with Dean Alford, that "born out of water"
refers to baptism in water; while "out of spirit" indicates the
vital connection between the Holy Spirit and the creation
within us of the new life. I also agree with him when he adds:
"All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung
from doctrinal prejudices by which the views of expositors
have been warped."
Much light may be thrown upon this passage by remem
bering the particular standpoint of Nicodemus. He was un
doubtedly acquainted with the baptism of John, which was a
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. But John
had said, that while he baptized in water the One coming after
him, viz., the Christ, would baptize in the Holy Spirit. No
doubt the object of Jesus was to impress this testimony of John
upon Nicodemus. But He does not do this by excluding
baptism in water, but by adding baptism in the Holy Spirit.
In other words, He unites the two elements in the one baptism,
and thereby makes baptism into the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit the one baptism of which
Paul speaks when he is enumerating the seven unities in his
letter to the Ephesians. Consequently, one must be born, not
only out of water, but out of spirit also ; and this corresponds
with what our Lord said in His commission to the apostles, viz.,
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." And this
view of the matter completely rescues the passage from any
application to the dogma of Baptismal Regeneration, while at
the same time it emphasizes the importance of baptism in order
to burial and resurrection with Christ.
There is still a further difficulty in this passage which
needs to be cleared up. What is the meaning of the phrase
1898.]
23
"kindgdom of God?" If it means the everlasting or heavenly

kingdom, then it would logically follow that none but those
who are born out of water and out of spirit can ever enter
heaven. But surely this is not what our Lord meant, as
doubtless many will enter heaven who never even heard of
baptism of any kind whatever. I can not now give the proof
for my conclusion, but it would be easy to show from numer
ous parallel passages that the phrase "kingdom of God" refers
to the reign of God on earth, from the opening of the kingdom
on the day of Pentecost to the close of the Christian dispensa
tion. Hence, Peter on the day of Pentecost, when the king
dom was first opened, told the inquiring Pentecostians that
they must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins, and they should receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit ; thus literalizing the metaphorical language of
our Divine Lord, so that all could understand and comply
with the terms of salvation.
And if Peter's language at
Pentecost is equivalent to our Lord's language to Nicodemus,
then it is evident that the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration
finds no standing ground in the teaching of the Word of God.
This view of the matter at once clears up several difficulties.
Among these may be reckoned the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
Some have thought that this Baptism was special, and was
never repeated after the conversion of Cornelius and his house
hold. But 1 Cor. xii:13 stands right in the way of this con
clusion. The proper translation of this passage is as follows:
"For, in one Spirit also, were we all baptized into one body,
etc."
The Spirit in this case represents the element in
which the act of Baptism takes place, but it does not exclude
water as an element also. The Apostle is looking solely at
the Spiritual side and therefore speaks only of Baptism in the
Spirit. If the whole case were under consideration then it
would include both water and Spirit, and this would correspond
precisely with John iii:5, when the latter is entirely stripped of
its metaphorical import.
Hence, I conclude that there is a sense in which it is
proper to say that there is still a Baptism in the Holy Spirit,
though this is followed by no such manifestation as took place
at Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius. In short, the cne
21
LJanuary,
Baptism of which Paul speaks is a Baptism in two elements,

viz. : water and spirit. But the antecedent conditions neces
sary to a Scriptural Baptism must all be present before the act
of Baptism can be worth anything whatever. This fact makes
Baptismal Regeneration, in the evangelical sense of Regenera
tion, both absurd and impossible, and, therefore, a mere theo
logical figment without either reason or Scripture to support it.
Nevertheless, this doctrine has been evolved out of the
very passage to which I have called attention, and has been
the most popular doctrine of the Church concerning regenera
tion from Barnabas down to our present day.
A DANGEROUS REACTION.
And just here we meet the last evil to which I have called
attention. Many earnest men and women, who can not pos
sibly believe in the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, have
gone to another extreme in making baptism practically of no
importance whatever by reducing it to a mere bodily act.
That extremes beget extremes is the testimony of all history.
When a pendulum is lifted considerably above the point of
oscillation on one side, and is then let fall, it is sure to swing
to the opposite extreme on the other side. This is precisely
what has happened with respect to the matter of baptism.
Baptismal Regeneration expresses one extreme, while indiffer
ence to baptism expresses the other extreme. The advocates
of the first, making too much of baptism, have driven the
anti-ritualists into the extreme of making too little of baptism.
Hence it is now lamentably true that those who hold to the
doctrine of what is called evangelical regeneration regard bap
tism as in no sense connected with salvation.
But there can be no doubt about the fact, that this extreme
is not much better than the other extreme, from which this
one is evidently a rebound. But neither of these extremes can
be accepted as in harmony with what Scripture saith; for
while Baptismal Regeneration can not possibly be true (if
regeneration is limited to the work of the Holy Spirit in be
getting in us the new life), it is equally certain that indiffer
ence to baptism can not be in accordance with the will of God
1898. ]
25
when we come to consider the obligations involved in all that

belongs to the salvation of the sinner. Such passages as I
have already quoted, where baptism is mentioned, must mean
something; and in our judgment the true meaning can not be
determined by rushing from one extreme to another. In the
Scripture salvation is ascribed to several things. Among these
may be mentioned grace, faith, calling on the name of the
Lord, hope, the life of Christ, the washing of regeneration,
and baptism. Peter says, " Baptism doth also now save us;"
and while that statement stands unchallenged in the Word of
God, no one can truthfully say that baptism does not save us
in any sense. Surely it does not save us in the same sense as
grace saves us, or as faith saves us, or as any of the other
means to which salvation is ascribed save us; but that it does
save us in some sense is just as certain as that the Word of
God is true.
And now, regarding the two extremes to which attention
has been called, it is my deliberate judgment that our safety
lies between them. At the same time we can not fail to notice
that the evil of indifference to baptism has practically come
out of Baptismal Regeneration. Can safety be found in a
middle course? I feel confident that it can; and I shall now
close what I have to say on this whole subject by briefly indi
cating what the middle course is, which will meet all the con
ditions of the case.
THREE WAYS TO SOLVE THE QUESTION.
It is believed that a practical solution of this difficult
problem may be found in at least three directions. In the first
place, we may limit regeneration to the antecedent work of the
Holy Spirit through the Gospel, in producing faith and begeting in us the new life ; and then allow that baptism may take
the place of a covenant, or Sacramentum, in which the believer
takes upon himself the obligations of the Divine government,
while at the same time he receives the assurance of pardon by
relying upon the testimony, "He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved." In the second place, the term "regenera
tion" may be regarded as including everything belonging to
26
Baptismal Regeneration)
[January,
the new birth, or the return of the sinner to God; and in this
case baptism would be properly the consummating act of all
that is involved in the change, or the decisive act by which
the believing penitent definitely takes up his cross to follow
Christ. This view would seem to be in harmony with Peter's
teaching (1 Peter iii. 21) that baptism is the "answer (Greek,
decision) of a good conscience towards God." Hence it is the
act by which the penitent believer definitely and fully accepts
Christ and takes his position on the Lord's side. Or, in the
third place, we need not concern ourselves with any special
theory of either regeneration or baptism, but simply insist
upon all that the Lord has commanded, without formulat
ing anything whatever. This last is, in my judgment, the
safest course to pursue, and consequently this is the course I
would most earnestly recommend in order to Christian union.
Prom almost the very beginning of the Christian era down to
the present time speculations and theories with regard to bap
tism have been a perpetual source of discord and strife ; and
even now there really seems little hope of peace while we are
engaged in adding to or taking from the Word of God. In
my judgment, it is quite useless to think seriously of Christian
union until the baptismal question is solved ; and it seems to
me that no satisfactory solution will be reached unless we are
willing to take a practical view of the whole matter by simply
folllowing the plain teaching of the Scriptures.
But I am thankful there is a sure way to peace, and this is
by recognizing the supreme authority of our Lord Jesus Christ
in this matter as in all other things. He has evidently spoken
definitely upon the baptismal question. There can be no
doubt about the fact that He commanded it.
Indeed, He
Himself submitted to baptism in order that He might fulfill
all righteousness, or ratify every Divine institution. Ought
we not to be as loyal to Him as He was to His Father ? Surely
if we call Him Lord, Lord, we ought to do the things which
He says. And if, when He tells us to be baptized, we willingly
submit to the ordinance, it does not matter much whether we
understand its whole meaning or not. When the Israelites
were told to look to the brazen serpent and be healed, it is by
no means certain that any of them understood the philosophy
1898.]
27
of the Lord's appointment ; but all the same, both safety and
loyalty required implicit obedience to what had been divinely
commanded. No one supposes that Naaman understood the
secret of Divine healing when, in obedience to the command
ment of Elisha, he dipped seven times in the River Jordan;
and yet he could not have been healed had he not done what
the prophet told him to do. And is not this, after all, the
best way to treat the question of baptism? The Lord has
commanded it, and His apostles everywhere practiced it. Is
not this a sufficient reason why we should attend to it, as soon
as we heartily believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? Surely there
is no need for hair splitting on this question, any more than
other questions which have furnished such a battle-ground for
Christians of all ages. Loyalty is what our Divine King wants,
and this can only be given to Him by a hearty submission to
His will whenever and wherever that will is made known.
This, I believe, is the only sure solution of the Baptismal
question; and as this question lies at the very basis of all
feasible plans for permanent Christian union, I most earnestly
hope that all who love our Lord and Master, and would sur
render everything in order to honour Him, will from this day
forward determine, by the help of God, to be true to Christ's
commandments, even though this should involve submission
to the Divine ordinance of believers' baptism.
SUMMING UP THE CASE.
From the foregoing it will be seen that the extreme reac
tion from Baptismal Regeneration has produced many evils.
Indeed, what we have called Indifferentism has been a prolific
source of apostasy from the faith and practice of the Primitive
Church. A few of the evil consequences may be enumerated
as follows:
(1) Indifferentism has opened the door for nearly all
kinds of neglect.
(2) It discounts the Lord's Supper as well as Baptism.
The two ordinances must stand or fall together. Indifference
to one necessarily begets indifference to the other.
(3) It gives license to a false exegesis by taking liberties
with the Word of God. It leaves out what is clearly com
28
[January,
manded, and substitutes what is just as clearly not com

manded. It teaches that salvation is by faith only, and
suppresses the word "baptism" wherever it is necessary to do
so in order to protest against any association of baptism with
remission of sins.
(4) It confounds regeneration and forgiveness of sin?
and assumes that when salvation is spoken of in the Word ot
God it always necessarily refers to the work of grace on the
heart ; whereas the word salvation is used in several senses in
the New Testament.
(5) It makes the plea for Scriptural Baptism practically
useless; for if baptism has no important significance, and is in
no way connected with salvation, it certainly makes little or
no difference when or how it is administered. If it really
amounts to nothing it is evident that very few will be con
cerned whether it is administered in infancy or to believers, or
whether by sprinkling or immersion. But the moment bap
tism is restored to its rightful place, that moment will the
proper subject and action become exceedingly important.
(6) It destroys one of the most efficient practical helps
in evangelistic work. Whatever may be said of baptism on
other grounds, it can not be doubted that it is a most important
instrumentality in bringing the believer to definite decision.
In dealing with earnest inquirers we are sure to reach a point
where some decided act is necessary to fix the position of those
who have given their hearts to the Lord. Nothing can take
the place of baptism in meeting this emergency. In our judg
ment, modern evangelism has lost very much by the indiffer
ence to baptism which has come out of the extreme reaction
from Baptismal Regeneration.
(7) Finally, it cultivates disloyalty to Christ. If we can
be indifferent to His command with respect to baptism, we
may be equally indifferent to all His other commands. Who
shall elect which of our Lord's commands may be neglected
with impunity? And yet when we begin to talk about non
essentials among those things which He has unquestionably
authorized, we at once begin to talk about disloyalty to Him
who has all authority in Heaven and in earth. No doubt Bap
tismal Regeneration is a dangerous doctrine, but its opposite
1898.]
29
extreme, indifference to baptism, is equally dangerous. In our

judgment, the only safety is the middle ground which I have
advocated in this article.
DANGER OF BEING MISUNDERSTOOD.
However, I am not unmindful of the danger to which I
am exposing myself by choosing the middle ground between
two extremes. I know how difficult it is to satisfy extremists
unless we go the whole length of their position. Hence it is
quite probable that what I have said against Baptismal Regen
eration will receive the condemnation of those who make too
much of baptism ; and it is equally probable that what I have
said in favor of the Scriptural doctrine of a connection between
baptism and remission of sins will receive the condemnation of
those who make too little of baptism. Indeed, it is quite prob
able that these last will charge me with favoring the notion of
Baptismal Regeneration, notwithstanding thet fact that my
position necessarily tears up, root and branch, that pernicious
doctrine, and practically annihilates the only ground upon
which it can possibly rest. And it seems to me that this ought
to be clear to the vision of even those who are so blind that
they will not see. My position makes a change of mind, a
change of heart, and a change of life indispensable prerequi
sites of baptism; and consequently, if regeneration is limited
to the work of the Holy Spirit in begetting the new life within
us, then, on the grounds of my advocacy, Baptismal Regener
ation is simply impossible, for all I care to claim for baptism is
that it distinctly marks a change of state. In other words,
while faith marks a change of heart and repentance a change
of life, baptism just as distinctly and emphatically marks a
change of state ; thus clearly and forcibly indicating the fact
that the penitent believer has passed from death to life, from
the power of Satan to God, and has received remission of sins,
the gift of the Holy Spirit and the hope of eternal life. Con
sequently baptism may be regarded as a transitional act, by
which the proper subject is constitutionally, formally trans
lated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light,
or the kingdom of God's dear Son. This position has legiti
30
[January,
mate regard for both the antecedents and consequents of bap

tism, refusing alike to place too much or too little value upon
the ordinance.
Nevertheless, this position will probably not please those
who hold to either Baptismal Regeneration or indifference to
baptism. These extremists are sure to find fault with much
that I have said. But I have long since learned that it is not
an easy matter to please extreme partisans of any school, and
I have therefore made up my mind that I shall be satisfied if I
can please my Divine Lord, whose I am, and to- whom I must
be finally responsible for all I say and do. The great Ameri
can statesman, Henry Clay, after having been defeated at an
election for the Presidency of the United States, said to his
friends, who were condoling with him on account of his defeat,
"Gentlemen, I would rather be right than President." This
was a noble sentiment, and honored both his head and heart
more than the chief magistracy of the great Republic would
have done. The application to the case in hand is easy to
make. I am not unmindful of the fact, that the way to be
popular is to take one or the other of the extremes on the
question we have had under consideration. But in view of the
present divided state of Christendom ; in view of the enfeebled
energy of the Churches in reaching and converting the world ;
and in view of the dishonor which has been brought upon the
truth of God by the theories and speculations of men, I do not
hesitate to say there is neither room nor time for considering
what the people may think about the course I am to pursue.
At any rate I am prepared for the consequences. And, to sum
up all in a single sentence, I can truly say that "I would rather
be right than popular."
I believe that either of the two extremes, to which atten
tion has been called, must necessarily lead to evil conse
quences. One to the practical neglect of baptism altogether,
and the other to the acceptance of the doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration, and certainly to the practice of Infant Baptism.
But no matter how this may be, the truth must not be
perverted in order to serve personal ends. The case as I have
presented it is either substantially true or it is fundamentally
false. If the latter, then I have been honestly mistaken; if the
1898.]
31
former, then a large portion of Christendom is practicing

something for which there is no authority in the Word of God ;
and what is still worse, it is a pernicious error leading to con
sequences which are altogether fatal to the best development
of Christian life and character. Not that these may not be
evolved under its baneful influence; for undoubtedly some
splendid examples of the highest Christian character may be
found in all Churches where the evil exists; but what I claim
is that these are such in spite of the error to which I have called
attention, and not because of any good influence it has exerted
upon them. Any way, can not Infant Baptism be abandoned?
Has not the time come when Pedo-baptists themselves should
seriously consider the removal of this practice as an obstacle
in the way of Christian Union? Surely if these Churches
could move in the matter themselves their action would mark
a fitting close to the nineteenth century. It may be hoping
against hope, but I am frank to confess that I have a strong
feeling that many Pedo-baptist leaders are already indifferent
to the practice and would be glad to find some plausable way
by which it could be abandoned altogether. Will not Baptists,
or those who practice believers' baptism, be willing to meet
these honest Pedo-baptists in some expedient by which both
Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration may be com
pletely and forever surrendered. I am not without hope that an
irenicon could be found which would be acceptable to all par
ties on the vexed and vital questions which I have discussed in
this article. Would it not be a wise conclusion of the nineteenth
century if a representative convention could be called to meet
somewhere within the next year or two in order to consider the
whole matter of peace with respect to the baptismal contro
versy? If peace could be declared at this point Christian Un
ion would then be more than a probability within the near
future. Is it not worth while to try this experiment of the
convention? What say the religious press to this suggestion?
I shall be delighted if many leading journals will heartily sec
ond this proposal.
W. T. Moore.
32
Dr. Martineau and His Times.
[January,
DR. MARTINEAU AND HIS TIMES.

TAMES MARTINEAU was born "at Norwich, England, in
J 1805. He studied in the Unitarian College at York, and
early in life took part, with others, in discussing questions of
moment in the philosophical and theological field. It becomes
our business to treat of the position assigned him by his con
temporaries. That he has a master mind no one questions.
One may go further. He was one of five men who filled
necessary places in the course of events. Without Bismarck
Germany would have remained an ordinary nation. Without
Gladstone the English aristocracy would still be strident and
vainglorious. Without Wordsworth and Tennyson English
poetry would long since have been swamped in artificial com
monplace, and, possibly, in sensuality. Without Martineau a
cruel and imperious nescience would have usurped the reins
of moral empire.
These octogenarians controlled national
tides, constraining the insurrectionary waves to know their
bounds and to keep them.
In attempting the analysis of a vigorous leader several
constituent elements have to be dealt with. This is particu
larly true of Dr. Martineau. He is not limited to any special
realm of thought. He is equally great as a moralist, a psychol
ogist, a theologian, and a sermonizer. Although still living,
his work is now practically done, and therefore any reason
ably correct epitome of his labors can not be seriously affected
by the few days he may naturally be presumed to abide with
us. And this holds true of all those whose uprising is not
meteoric, whose life ripens patiently, and whose breadth of
thought widens with the years. So much must certainly
be said of the subject of this review. Further on we shall
possibly say a thing or two in modification of this, but there
will be no joy attending the utterance. The transition of
periods must then be allowed for, as well as the power which
the sweep of current thought exercises over the most domi
nant characters. What will be necessary to do this revered
man justice is to rid the mind of any unfair bias, and, in
1898.]
:J3
making the essential estimate of his views, to avoid exaggera

tions. Any adequate record must comprise so much. Might
we obtain such a mastery over our passions and prejudices as
this chaste and exuberant spirit possesses.
In the first half of the nineteenth century there were two
prominent dangers to the Church and to truth. One had
regard to philosophy, involving the very fact of the spirit; the
other was of an ecclesiastical nature, having to do with litur
gical and deadening formalism. Let us add that a speculative
Trinitarianism had eaten its way into the heart of the truth
respecting the G-odhood of the Father and Son. To these
three recognized trends of opinion Dr. Martineau especially
addressed himself. The business of this review will be to
take them up in the order indicated, and to endeavor to pre
sent the part taken by this eminent man.
Dr. Martineau was born twenty-seven years after Vol
taire's death ; ten years after the birth of August Comte, and
twenty-five years before the birth of Henri Taine. This places
him in the center of a materialistic atmosphere. Voltaire had
sneered down the Christian religion in the estimation of many,
treating the story of the Gospels as an execrable superstition
Comte had carried the exactitude of physical science up into
the phenomena of life and humanity, and developed what he
claimed as his own discoveryto wit: The law as to the three
successive phases of human evolution. This law is as follows:
That both in the individual and in the history of mankind,
thought, in dealing with its chosen problems passes of neces
sity through (1) a theological stage ; (2) a metaphysical stage;
before reaching (3) and finally, the positive stage. In the first
Comte claimed that the mind resorted to the idea of living
and personal agents as the motive power of nature; then, pro
ceeding to substitute abstract entities, such as force and sub
stance; lastly, content to relinquish everything except the
study and classification of phenomena in their relation of time
and place.
Taine, one of Hume's most promising disciples, made all
allowance for no cause in the old philosophical sense, and in
as far as that notion was exploded, every power, faculty, and
Vol. 23
34
[January,
substance fell with it. We delude ourselves, he says, so soon

as we look upon cause, force, and faculty, as creative essences.
They are mere abstract terms which we have drawn, not from
an Eternal which reveals itself by its action, but from one
group of phenomena viewed as preceding a second. The con
clusion is startling enough. "Thanks to this pure Nominalism,
or theory of names instead of substances, the whole of meta
physics and religion must be swept away, as a false, an obsolete
system of signs to which we have attributed a content they
never did hold within them. There is no human personality
and no divine ; neither an Ego in the consciousness, nor a God
in heaven, nor a life to come, nor an invisible world." "The
being in dispute," we are told, when asked what is meant by
a cause, "is simply nothing, and we shall find in it merely an
empty void. So it is that we make it a pure essence, neither
extended nor corporeal, and hence something spiritual."
Thus far the philosopher Taine.
Here, then, was the fruit of the workings of the sharp
and scornful analytic mind. There are no mysteries and no
reverence. Everywhere and always it is phenomena. But
why should one stop with Taine? A whole host of scientific
philosophers are on the field if we turn to the middle of the
present century, and each man of them is set for the defense
of the molecular faith. One finds himself in a job if he merely
attempts to enumerate them. It is a physical era and a new
movement is in vogue. The universe is to be considered as a
complex mechanism, or organism, which you like, but always
causeless and eternal. A catalogue of dynamics confronts one.
If we turn to John Tyndall, we are instantly closeted with an
infinite series of physical facts. If to Herbert Spencer, we
find ourselves up to the chin in metaphysical verbiage. If to
Frederick Harrison, we are greeted with the idea of collective
humanity which claims our most reverent service.
If to
Matthew Arnold, we are invited to fix our eye on the stream
of tendency as that continuous not-ourselves which makes for
righteousness. Meanwhile Thomas Huxley stands ready to
defend almost anything of the sort, so that it pits itself
squarely against the supernaturalism of the Scriptures.
1898.]
35
This, then, was the nature and contents of the arena

entered by Dr. Martineau fifty years ago. An unwavering
believer in a personal God, he denounced the bald negations
all about him, and contended for an extension of the sphere
of knowledge beyond that assigned by the materialist. With
him there is a First Cause and he will have nothing else as an
explanation of the existence of things. The denial of any
possible knowledge of God is about the same to him as a
denial of His being. To say that the First Cause is wholly
removed from our apprehension, says Martineau, is not sim
ply a disclaimer of faculty on our part ; it is a charge of inabil
ity against the First Cause, too. Nor is it satisfactory to dress
up a few score of plausible appearances with a whole universe
of phenomena as Darwin has attempted. The contrast
between the tenuity of the induction and the weight of the
conclusion is too abrupt. The question is, What is the high
est legitimate object of reason in man? "Is he precluded
from passing beyond the finite order of co-existence and suc
cessions which science scrutinizes and defines' Or is he capa
ble of apprehending the Infinite Cause behind, of which
religion speaks?" Here we come to the parting of the ways.
There are two answers to be given, both based on experience,
and only one can be correct. While Herbert Spencer rejects
as failures all attempts to cross the confines of phenomena,
both Dr. Martineau and Frederick Maurice, equally masters
in their spheres, believe that a knowledge of the Divine Real
ity is possible. The one represents the prevailing sentiment
of the agnostic; the other, that of those with whom "the eyes
of the heart" have not failed in their function.
Dr. Martineau thus neatly puts it: "That something may
be truly said about the cause of things has been rarely ques
tioned since the New Academy ceased to parade its doctrine
of universal nescience. Men have spoken in terms different
enough; but, far from saying "we can not tell," have variously
affirmed: (1) Nature has a Divine Author; (2) Nature has
no Divine Author; (3) Nature is Divine and its own Author;
and these several doctrines have been discussed upon common
principles and on objective grounds, in perfect assurance that,
some how or other, the controversy was rationally terminable
36
[January,
and truth attainable. If there was anything on which, in this

matter, Theist, Atheist, Pantheist demonstrably agreed, it
was surely thisthat the problem on which they all engaged
was amenable to thought, and might be solved. Else why
plunge into it, and pronounce upon it? Without the assump
tion that knowledge is possible the very attitude of quest is
impossible."
We pause a moment or two to note what to us is one of
the most valuable features of Dr. Martineau's work. We
refer to his psychological discussions. How rare is it to find a
theological disputant whose grasp of ontology, or of even the
processes of ratiocination, is equal to the occasion ! Such is
true, however, in the present instance. Once come to the con
sideration of the ground, limit, or method of true knowledge
and you find our author at home. No one in this age is more
competent to give a conclusion concerning mental possibilities
than he. Ranging throughout the domain of causation at will,
with the ease of a Hamilton or Kant, he readily sees that our
cognitive faculties have three possible objectsSelf, Nature,
God. Nor is he troubled with the dictum that the finite can
not grasp the infinite. With his good sense it is differently
put. "Like can only know like," and on this axiomatic state
ment he unites the son to the father. The soul may seem to
be cut off from God by disproportion of scale and yet be allied
to Him by congeniality of essence. With Dr. Martineau there
is knowledge in the world. This is right, since knowledge is
here, and to be taken into the account. It is not merely "like
produces like," which may*be conserved in the interest of the
materialist, who admits nothing in the whole realm of space
but atomsmoving, mindless atoms. Rather, a presiding mind,
in sympathy with which other minds exist, and act, and
co-operate, knowing one another, and serving one another.
But limit of space forbids further reflections on this feat
ure of his work. Let us now turn our attention to his eccle
siastical labors. A born Unitarian, he could little brook
sacerdotalism, whatever form it assumed. However impress
ively the vicar or curate might read the service, and the clerk
below pronounce "Amen" it, was still with him idle, being a
mere matter of rote. Nor would he have God's glorious day
1898.]
37
light obscured by the priest's candles. He considered the

pretensions of the ordination service as verging upon arro
gance, and to play vicegerent of God to sinful men as an act
of blasphemy. "Take the sacerdotalism away; say with Lu
ther, that every Christian, with only the inward ordination of
the Spirit is on a par with priest or bishop, and that the min
ister is but the delegated teacher, and all the millinery and
upholstery, and mystifications of the sanctuary, will sponta
neously wither, never to appear again." His conception of the
spiritual life of a man differed greatly from this. He would
have a religious enthusiasm, the outburst of the individual
heart, not the fixed and repeated passion of a class. Perma
nence was a good thing, but when it was productive of a per
functory worship it became harmful. Dr. Martineau's heart
wassetupon England's welfare, and even her established church,
in some respects, had a great charm for him. For years and years
he toiled incessantly, contributing what moral light he possessed
towards its renovation. His strokes were vigorous but had no
vicious intent. A personal friend and co-worker in important
fields with many of England's most famous bishops, the
counteraction he occasioned was neither slight nor small.
No one gave closer heed to the brilliant discussions he was
constantly throwing off from his pen than the cultured ecclesiast, and no one loved the honest advocate of this, to him,
obnoxious faith, more than he.
In the largest sense, Dr. Martineau was broad in his deal
ings with his fellow Christians. He saw that inseparable from
freedom of conscience was the unlimited right of error and
delusion. He was against intolerant zeal at all hazards. He
had no sympathy with those who would regulate worship by
law. In his essay on "The Battle of the Churches," speaking
of Catholicism, he says: "It may go astray on all the topics
of the Thirty Nine Articles, may blaspheme in its prayers to the
'Mother of God,' may be idolatrous in the mass and pagan in
the ritual, without justifying the slightest legislative check.
Were it heretical as Antichrist and false as the scarlet abom
ination, its career should run free of the Attorney-General."
Above all else he deprecated the inevitable tendencies of
the Romish system, which in that day were too prevalent for
38
[January,
the good of either the Church or of England. His keen per

ception readily observed that it generated a state of mind at
variance with the English standard of civil and religious lib
erty. In it he saw vast demand and no reciprocity. The
urgency was ominous. It was all but a life and death strug
gle between the Catholic and Anglican headships. Not that
either were dealing with heretics. Not that. The anger arose
from the fact that both were holding the same doctrine, prac
ticing largely the same ritual, and therefore puzzled to know
how two bishops could operate on the same spot without one
or the other seeming to be a pretender. The very nature of
their offices as bishops would be lost by a distribution of
the title. As respects the two bodies, therefore, so circum
stanced, there could be no choice, and so no partiality shown.
"Whether the sacraments were many or few; whether their
modus operandi be a little more subjective or a little more ob
jective ; whether the right to absolve be used with the healthy
or only with the sick ; so long as a ritual purification of human
nature is pronounced indispensable, and the patent right to
effect it is conceded by an ecclesiastical law to a certain body
of men, the whole mischief of the Papal machinery remains.
The disconnection from Rome simply renders the evil pro
vincial instead of universal; but the malady, by becoming
insular instead of continental, does not abate its danger."
The remedy proposed for all this by Dr. Martineau is at
least simple and direct. It is to leave Rome in undisputed
occupation of the sacerdotal field. This is the key to the diffi
culty. Many in the English Church will demur and go over
to Catholicism. But there will be compensation for this in the
voluntary re-enforcement from without. Let the clergy no
longer pretend to hold the dogmas which they teach by any
higher tenure than that of private judgment and conscience, in
interpreting the sources of Divine knowledge. This will be to
narrow the responsibility to the personal sphere. It is then
only asked that their conscience and their teaching shall have
free scope of activity. Thus offensive aggression ceases. The
clergy will be conscious of no title which others do not equally
possess. They will exchange the steady ignoring of their
neighbors for respectful, though firm dissent.
1898.]
3!)
This was proposed some fifty years ago. It was radical

but effective. The chief trouble was that the average Church
of England clergyman of that day would consider, like Othello,
his occupation gone. Yet, as a leaven, to deposit in the mass
of spiritless churchmen it was quickening. It promoted large
ness of thought. None the less coming down from the heavenlies it showed some regard for the people then on the earth.
Based upon the individual conscience of the clergyman, it had
regard to the conscience of the devotee. Nothing was to be
retained in the forms which could offend the convictions of any
considerable class of worshippers. There was to be no hurtful
grievance. To retain would be to repel. Its omission need
compromise no religious teacher if he were free to use his
judgment in the matter, and to seek a congregation in sympa
thy with his belief. This would secure a relaxation of the dog
matic bond. It would be a change from insincerity to sincerity.
Truth would no longer be trodden down in the streets, and
justice would poise her scales with pleasure. The secular
Englishman would be satisfied, and pure religion, in every
communion, would be divested of fear.
All this was proposed with the hope of checking dissent.
It was imagined that the state might strike a religious average
and adopt a theological system which would be satisfactory to
all its people. But in casting about could it ascertain what
personal element had possession of the mind of the nation f
Possibly, but it must be done in one of two ways. "Either
the strongest of the actual sects may be taken as an expression
of the general will to the exclusion of all the rest ; or they may
be all assumed as partial declarations of national faith, to
which, as a whole no one of them is competent to give com
plete expression."
It is needless to say that the latter was the true solution,
while the former, insist on it as one might, could be but an
abortion. Ecclesiastical affairs are not arranged! so easily.
The age was too impatient. The various crystallizations of
religious thought had proceeded too far. Each sect, as now,
was for itself, to push its way, and to merit recognition, if at
all, by its deeds of faith and labors of love. For every reli
gious people there is some eminent domain ; some corner to
40
Dr. Martineau and His Tinies.
[January,
occupy or field to win ; some work to do that can better be

done thus than otherwise. All the rest regulates itself. It is
a matter of demand and supply. The vacuum existing, some
thing rushes in to fill it. This law is as unchangeable as
nature and as eternal as God. True this tendency is frequently
productive of waste. But nothing else seems adequate. The
wants of a people are too complicated, and affinity too difficult
of attainment for any one religious body to have reasonable
hope to satisfy the expectation of a nation. To be free in
one's movement, though at the cost of separateness, is better
than to be in a union in which one is bound hand and foot.
And when a union of Church and state is contemplated, the
difficulty increases, and hence lessens the possibility.
We pass on to notice Dr. Martineau's relation to the
Trinitarianism of his day. If there is anything takes pre
cedence in the abhorrence of Unitarianism it is this. So fixed
and rooted is this aversion that it absolutely gives them their
ecclesiastical name. Unitarians believe in One God in One
Person. This places them in direct antagonism with Trini
tarians, who believe in One God in Three Persons. Their
battle, however, is more with the Nicene creed and its defend
ers than with those whose Scripturality leads them to a modi
fied conception of the Godhood. The insistence upon the
Nicene phraseology, in prayer and song, in pulpit and in litera
ture, has perhaps been the cause of more alienation than the
creed itself, for a creed may become inoperative and dead,
while that which is constantly on lip perpetuates itself as a
living force. Perhaps the terms "coeternal" and "very God
and very man" are the most objectionable. They seem to
conflict with successions of time, with history, and with a
sound and sensible idea of human and Divine nature.
But according to Dr. Martineau there is a worse objection
than this. It is the continual obscuration of the Father.
"The moment anything arises it is the Son upon whom, there
fore, all the finite facts and objects, which express and
exemplify for us the Divine nature and providence, crowd, to
form and fill up the attributes. Since "without Him has
nothing been made that was made," everything is drawn to
His name ; and the Father, contemplated in Himself, presents
1898.]
41
only a bare immensitya dark blank of infinite possibility

the occult potency of all perfection, but the realized stage of
none. He is like the vault that holds the stars, invisible in
itself and made sensible to us only by them ; the condition of
their being is the ground on which they appear; but indescrib
able except by reference to their presence and place ; the sublimest of objects when traced and peopled by their diagrams ;
but without them, and in itself alone, equivalent to a mere
blindness for our thought."
The writer of this review looks upon the above extract as
a concession to the wisdom of the Trinitarian. If one has not
misread the Scriptures the very purpose of the advent of Jesus
was to fix Jehovah forever in the human mind as the "Father
of our Spirits." No one doubts but that to the Jew Jehovah
was largely an abstraction. There was a better, because surer
and simpler, approach to the human heart than through such
phraseology as "The Eternal," "The All Powerful," etc., etc.
That way was through Jesus of Nazareth. He that had seen
Jesus had seen the Father, and this could not be said of any
one else, no, not even of Moses. The people of this world
require everything in the concrete, and a religion to become
universal, to win its way to every heart, to be a practical work
ing force with helpless sinners, must touch bottom somewhere,
and furnish good foothold. Anything else is a moral illusion,
catching the eye, but as empty of results as a day-dream. We
have recently learned upon good authority that even Dr.
Martineau admits this. Only a few years since, in the pres
ence of a scientific association, he conceded the supremacy of
Trinitarianism as a system of religion that reached the masses,
and was the instrument of their redemption. And well he
might. For whenever refined ethics can take the place of
the gospel, and whenever an adventurous carpenter, as devoid
of supernatural power as the wood he sawed, can fill the place
of this world's only Savior, then may Unitarianism hope for
success.
But we have a marvelous admission from Dr. Martineau 's
own pen, as to the value of the Son in setting forth the works
of the Father. Speaking of the persons of the Trinity he
asks:
4'_>
[January,
"Now, with which of these three does the One object of the Unitarian's worship
coincide? Both they and their opponents will at once reply, with the Father. I
venture to give a different answer, and to say, wlth the Son. True, we do not name
Him so; true, we call upon Him as "the Father." But if freeing yourself from the
snare of words, you will look at what the words denote, you will correct your first
impression. Examine (I would say to the Unitarian) what you mean when you
speak of God; what are the attributes, what the acts, that mark Him to your mind?
Creative thought, guiding Providence, redeeming grace. And under what head are
these found in the threefold scheme ? They are the distinctive characters of the
second, not of the first, personality. Everything that you can say to convey a just
conception of your Godthat he spreads the heavensthat he guided Israelthat he
dwelt in the Human Christthat he rules the unsuspecting world, and abides with
the conscious hearts of the Churchall, you will discover registered among the
characters of the Son. It is in Him, therefore, among the objects of your Churchneighbors' faith that your belief is placed; and if you are to be deemed wanting in
any part of the full conception, the charge against you ought to be that you omit the
first Person, and begin with the second. And in a great measure this charge is
true. The Father, in the sense which I have endeavored to explain is really absent
from the Unitarian creed. That abstract and metaphysical idea of a silent and
manifested God is foreign to our practical and positive genius. We are at home
with the realized and the concrete. We make no advances to the divine mind till
we are spoken to. We do really, therefore, cut off the top of the creed, and first
begin upon our own truth when we reach its middle term." (Essays, Vol. 2, 535-0.)
There is one more phase in Dr. Martineau 's theological
work to be treated and then we shall be done. We refer to the
dominant element found in his ' ' Seat of Authority in Religion. ' '
It is needless to tell those who have watched his lifework that
he views evidence almost wholly from the subjective side.
Indeed objective evidence in revelatory matters is to him little
else than "leather or prunello." Like other philosophers of his
school, reason is lord over man, and religious consciousness the
touchstone. It is his humor to give precedence to his intuitions.
He feels, rightly, that innate ideas are entitled to respect. But
embarrassment sets in when these are attempted to be harmon
ized with the written Word. Trained to regard the latter with
reverence, and yet disinclined to relinquish what to him has
become the same as axiomatic, some compromise must be
made. Dr. Martineau has decided to compromise the Scrip
tures. The ''Seat of Authority" he holds to be in the indi
vidual consciousness. Basing himself thus, he attempts to
eliminate everything of an apostolical character from the New
Testament writings. Even the gospels must commend them
selves by their internal character, chapter by chapter, and
verse by verse, before they can be received as authentic.
1898.]
43
Tradition, in this matter, stands for nothing. The testimony

of the early witnesses to their authenticity or genuineness cuts
no possible figure as against modern critical conclusions.
This involves labor. The slightest details are to be
weighed and compared, and the most delicate distinctions
drawn. Everything must be precise to a hair. Not only so.
It is an individual matter and, so, millions of determinations
are to be made. Pages upon pages are consumed in the book
under consideration, dealing with this view and that, with
theory after theory, as though, at last, this man can settle
things. Here an objection is filed, there a revision of thought
suggested. This author is too traditional; that one, too specu
lative. This theory lacks consistency; that one support, etc.,
etc. A good sample of what Dr. Martineau thinks necessary
to secure the verities is thus expressed: "Neither Church nor
Scripture can serve on these easy terms as our 'Rule of Faith
and Practice;' and yet both may provide adequate guidance
to the highest truth and goodness. To reach it, however,
without the use of the discriminative faculties, and be carried
blindfold into the eternal light is impossible. Other than
mixed materials, possibilities of true or false, of good or ill,
transient or everlasting, are nowhere offered to our acceptance.
We have not simply to take, but always to choose. And the
tests by which we distinguish the fictitious from the real, the
wrong from the right, the unlovely from the beautiful, the
profane from the sacred, are to be found within, and not
without, in the methods of just thought, the instincts of pure
conscience, and the aspirations of unclouded reason." ("Seat
of Authority," 297.)
Much of this no one can demur to. But we must remem
ber that he is talking of the authorized Scriptures and not of
mere human compositions. He seems to apply his rules to
each alike. With him, both are alike quite questionable.
And yet in the hesitancy one observes in accepting the views
of other authors, whether sacred or secular, the chief fault of
what we are bound to call Freethinking crops out. Here it is.
For each thinker a theory. Such is the perversive tendency
of the thing. It is easy, too, to see that the trend of idea in
the above quotation favors the rejection of everything not
44
LJanuary,
agreeable to what we know of, as at hand, and in actual service.

One would dislike very much to accuse Dr. Martineau of
denying the miraculous. But what does he mean by speaking
slightingly of the angels which appeared at the birth of Jesus,
or of the speech of Mary? Why does he speak of "public and
private miracles surrounding the person of the Savior" and
say that the record of them is strongly impressed with a
legendary character. (Essays, Vol. II. 437.)
And why is it said that the Messianic doctrine was in
vented, and accounts for the apostolical conclusion that Jesus
had risen from the dead? Why is the resurrection itself
softened down by the remark that the Galilean disciples on
their return from Calvary soon persuaded themselves of the
Savior's continuous life by rehearsing the story of the cross,
and by recalling the consecration of our Lord during his last
days. ("Seat of Authority," p. 365.)
A little plain but courteous speech is needed just here.
The fact is that the continual tendency of the teaching of
Unitarianism is toward the natural as opposed to the super
natural, and this has been felt for some time throughout
Protestantism. True they are devout Theists. They believe
in God. But they fail in the Master's precept, "Believe also
in Me." Shall we say it? Those who so fail are already on
dangerous ground.
Dr. Martineau and his people are
scholarly. They are in the foremost march of mind. They
have done much to modify the excesses of other Protestant
churches. Their tendency is ethical, and they have struck at
the root of grave superstitions. Have they ever busied them
selves in promoting the authority of God's revealed Word?
That they have a mission, and a worthy one, no true and in
formed person will question. But this writer looks upon the
Biblical verities as embracing every part of authenticated
Holy Writ alike, whether miracle or morals, nor can he think
any one divinely appointed to weaken the faith of such
believers.
As to Dr. Martineau himself, that sweet and usually
reverent spirit, that dispenser of "The Hours of Thought on
Sacred Things," we are simply amazed at some of his recent
utterances. Speaking of early Christianity, he says: "Of the
1898.]
Br. Martineau and His Times.
45
apostolic age, then, judged by its genuine memorials, the

book of Acts gives a distorted and highly ideal representation,
changing the characteristics of its principal personages, sup
pressing its most serious dissensions, and assimilating its in
compatible theologies." ("Seat of Authority," 284.) Treating
of the four gospels he remarks that instead of securing to us
as commonly supposed, the personal testimony of valuable
eye witnesses, they are really of unknown source, of mixed
material, and to no small extent of gradual growth. They are
essentially anonymous compilations without responsible author
ship." ("Seat of Authority," 331.) His conception of the
Messiahship is thus expressed. "That the Messianic theory of
the person of Jesus was made for him, and palmed upon him
by his followers, and was not his own, appears to be a reason
able inference from slight but speaking indications." ("Seat
of Authority," 331.) Again he mentions the parable of the
marriage feastthat of going away into a far countrythat of
the ten virginsthat of the talents and speaks of their unhistorical character. He admits that the Lord's words may be
in them, incorporated into the groundwork, "but ere they
reach us they have taken into their very texture the accretions
of a later generation for which he is not responsible." ("Seat
of Authority," 588.)
We close quotations by citing an instance of Dr. Martineau's fantastic interpretation of God's Word. He is endeav
oring to show that the disciples of our Lord, against His
strictest injunction, were determined to proclaim Him as the
Christ.
"If He knew HimBelf to be offered to the faith of His people, as their predicted
Prince of Kighteousness ; if He saw in their rejection of Him the ruin which drew
forth His tears ; if His own death was to be incurred by the rejected witness He had
to bear to his own Messiahship, how was it possible to tell no one He was the
Christ? Why, it was the very message of God with which they were all charged;
the touchstone of Jerusalem; the hinge of perdition or salvation; and to keep it
out of sight, not to press it passionately and always upon the nation at an hour so
critical, were simple betrayal of the divinest trust. The injunction to conceal the
claim is inconsistent with His having made or sanctioned it ; and the evangelist, we
may be sure, would never thus have provided for its secrecy had it not notoriously
been publicly unheard of at the time, and waited to be posthumously discovered.
It is not impossible, indeed, that we have here some remaining trace of a fatal dif
ference between the disciples and the Master; that, as soon as their faces were
turned toward Jerusalem, their excitement could restrain itself no more, and when
46
[January,
the beauty of Zion rose before their eye the sunshine on it seemed a prophecy of
joy, and they more than suspected Him to be the hope of Israel, and the long-sleep
ing hosannas burst from their hearts. It was in vain now that He had forbidden
that they should commit Him to it. Had He been able, in doing so, to tell them, in
some stereotyped formula, who He was, and to say outright that He was Elijah or
Jeremiah, they might perhaps have obeyed Him. But as they must have some
story to tell, they slipped through the too modest prohibition, and told their own
tale ; and, when out of hearing, whispered that He could be no other than the king
that was to come. When by this setting up a dangerous popular rumor at the Pass
over, they had actually brought their Master to the cross, they would long to dis
cover that the thought on which they had acted He had secretly cherished Himself,
they would search among the deep mysterious words that lingered in their memory
for the needful signs of the Messianic consciousness ; and to reconcile them with
the foreboding and the fact of death, they worked out from the old prophets the
theory of the suffering Messiah, and put it back into His history as if it were His
own. And so have come together, as three ingredients of one incident, the prohi
bition to say that He was Christ; the acknowledgment that He is so; and the
announcement of His death as if inseparable from the character. The combination
is historically impossible; but it is explained by the retrospective anxiety of tradi
tion to force upon Him a theory of His person of which first Himself and then His
religion has been the victim." ("Seat of Authority," 352-3.)
With this extract our paper draws to a close. It is not
difficult to explain the cause for this strange interpretation.
Dr. Martineau has a theory to support. What he deems a
consistent conception of Christianity has been teeming in his
mind for years and years. This is the outcome. This is what
he has evolved from his consciousness of Christian truth! In
one of his prefaces, written in 1843, he tells us that "although
the materials for its execution are for the most part prepared"
he withdraws his purpose to write upon New Testament mat
ters because of "a change in some of his views and the con
sciousness of immaturity in others." Believing the times now
ripe, he launches forth his book in 1890, and it is but sober
truth to say that every page of it gives evidence to the con
straint placed upon the Biblical records in order to secure con
formity to his preconception.
We have no doubt he believes this the right thing to do.
Possessed with the notion that the Apostles and early Chris
tians "foisted" upon the world a vast amount of unsubstan
tiated traditions as the essential matter in Christianity,
"enveloping" the simple words of Jesus with theological and
ecclesiastical constructions, there seemed to remain nothing
for him to do but strip off, what to him was the superincum
1898.]
God's Purpose in the Ages.
47
bent mass. This he set himself to do with the whole strength

of his intellect and heart. He has seized the pillars with a
vigorous grasp. We trust he may not shake the Temple of
Truth.
J. W. MONSEB.
GOD'S PURPOSE IN THE AGES.

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good
pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the
fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which
are in heaven, and which are on earth ; even himEphesians 1 : 9, 10.
THIS paper will be concerned with three questions : What
is God's purpose in the ages? Can we trace manifesta
tions of this purpose? and How is this purpose to be consum
mated?
I. At first sight, it seems absurd that one should think
to know the purpose of God in the on-going of the ages. Man
is finite, God is infinite. Man lives but a moment, God
inhabits eternity. Man opens his eyes on but a small part of
God's creation, while God's knowledge and purpose compre
hend all things and run on through all eternities. Can man
measure the thought of God? On a closer view, the difficul
ties are vastly increased and the solution of this problem by
man is seen to be absolutely impossible. The data on which
a correct conclusion might be founded are not accessible.
They are locked up in the infinite past and the infinite future.
They include, not only what has been done, but what is yet to be
done and what is as yet only in the thought of God. More
over, the data from which the purpose of God might be
inferred are not only inaccessible, but they are exceedingly
complex. The scheme is a wheel within a wheel, and there is
no end to the machinery, whether you go up to the revolving
suns or down to the whirling atomic vortices. If man can not
master the atom how can he analyze and interpret the uni
verse? Not only complex, but contradictory; progress and
retrogression, solar systems evolved from cosmical matter and
then slowly falling into the central vortex, systems of life ris
48
[January,
ing into being and others passing away, desert wastes and
fertile fields, pleasure and pain, righteousness and sin, life
and death. Who can analyze the facts? Who can reconcile
the contradictions? Who can discover the underlying laws?
Who can arrange all the facts under these laws, and see the
far away end toward which all the stars and all the ages are
moving? How can man who fails in the simplest case reach
this highest generalization of all? How can he discover what
was first and last in the mind of God and what has been His
purpose concerning man during all the ages?
Riding along the street, you look up and see through a
dust-covered window in the tenth story, the glinting of a
revolving wheel and this only ; would you venture to infer the
character of the building, the articulations of the machinery,
the nature of the product, and the ultimate purpose of the
builder? So, in the brief lightning-flash of life, you but dimly
see earth and sky, faces aglow with life and faces pale in
death ; you experience the fleeting thrills of thought and feel
ing, of victory and defeat, and from these can you rise to the
thought and purpose of God? Earth is a prison of Chillon.
We pace its stony floor, listen to the dashing waves, see
through the grated window the changeful sky, and clank the
chain by which we are bound. The prison itself testifies to
the power and wisdom of him who reared its massive walls;
daily food given by an unseen hand testifies that he has a pur
pose concerning us ; but the chain that binds us and the graves
opening at our feet leave us in terrible doubt. The storm
rages without, but our prison stands ; suns rise, but they are
quenched in the coming night; stars shine, but they look
coldly in upon our misery; thunders roll, but they are not the
voice of God and make no disclosure of His purpose. We are
but "children crying in the night; children crying for the
light; and with no language but a cry;" and infinitely
pathetic is our condition, if there is no Father in Heaven to
hear our cry and bring in the light.
But what man can not discover God may disclose to him.
Indeed, it is the province of revelation to make known what
man can not learn in any other way; to give man that truth
which is the key to the mysteries of nature and of providence.
1898.]
49
Hence an Apostle could write the words which I have read to

you: "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will
according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in
himself." We have Scriptures which were "given by inspira
tion of God." There were those who could truthfully say,
"eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the
heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them
that love him ; but God hath revealed them unto us by his
Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things
of God."
From these living oracles, then, we may learn what is
God's purpose during all the ages. The analysis of this
sublime oracle gives us the following facts: First, God has
a high and holy purpose in man's creation and in all the cen
turies of human history. This world is not a result of fate
nor a work of chance. It is not controlled by blind force nor
ruled by malign spirits; but a God of infinite power, wisdom,
and love, has a glorious purpose in it all. Second, this pur
pose is not an afterthought or an adjustment to unforseen
conditions; it was and is an eternal purpose. Third, this
purpose originated in the mind and heart of God. It is an
expression of himself, of the mystery of his will, of his good
pleasure, of his divine nature. Fourth, this purpose has its
manifestations, its limitations, and its consummation, in
Christ. It was purposed in Christ Jesus before the world
began. Fifth, this grand, divine purpose, running through
all the ages, is the unification of all things in Christ, of God and
man, of earth and heaven. Sixth, the period when this
summing up of all things in Christ shall be accomplished is
the dispensation of the fullness of the ages, is the Gospel dis
pensation, is the reign of Christ.
God's eternal purpose culminates in man, in man's moral
perfection. This purpose will be realized when man shall be
brought into harmony with God, when love shall hold univer
sal sway, when righteousness shall cover the earth as the
waters cover the surface of the great deep, when Christ shall
have put down all rule and all authority and power, and when
all men shall be united in him.
It is the purpose of God
that the kingdom of Christ shall triumph, that the hour must
Vol. 24.
50
[January,
come when every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue
confess to God. All else is but a means to this end. It is
toward this glorious consummation that all the ages have
been toiling; for it must be that the right shall be victorious,
that righteousness and truth shall be enthroned in earth and
Heaven! Than this purpose none could be grander, none
more consonant with reason, none more in harmony with our
ideas of God, none more full of promise for the human race,
and none more worthy of the struggling and rising ages.
II. Now, with the light of this revelation to guide our
way, can we trace manifestations of this purpose? Can we see
that nature and revelation are in perfect accord, and thus find
a scientific basis and verification of our conclusion ? In the
great circle, the center of which is God's purpose, and the
wide circumference, of which is the consummation of this pur
pose, let us endeavor to trace out three radii of progress, viz. :
Progress in nature, progress in human history, and progress
in the evolution of Christianity. What God has done must be
in harmony with his ultimate purpose. If we shall watch
the Divine Worker we may see the material under his hand
taking shape according to this purpose. If we shall see all
lines of progress leading on to the accomplishment of one
grand object, we must conclude that to accomplish this object
has been the one all-comprehending purpose of God..
1. How is it with progress in nature? Has not the devel
opment and perfection of man been the goal toward which this
progress has grandly moved during all the ages? From that
first glimmer of light which shot through the primeval nebula,
from the first appearance of life on through all material, biolog
ical and spiritual evolution, has not man been the objective
point and the crowning glory of the whole? Let us not be
afraid of the word "evolution," as though it were the abode
of an evil spirit. Let us cast out the demon ; for there is a
true evolution as well as a false one. Things do grow, there
are gradations of organic forms, and nature has proceeded
from the lower to the higher. But this evolution has not been
without the wisdom and the power of God. Something was
added to dead matter before it became a living plant; some
thing more was added to the plant before it became a sensitive
1898.]
51
and moving animal; and infinitely more was added to the

highest animal before it became a godlike man. There are
chasms in this evolution so deep and wide that divine power
alone can bridge them. Agassiz testifies that, from the appearance of the first paleozoic fishes, there was a constant approxi
mation to man. The cephalic extremity was emphasized more
and more. The vertebral axis continually approached the
perpendicular, and some "cranks," political and religious,
have gone so far as to lean the other way ; there has been con
tinual progress toward the higher intellectual and moral pow
ers of man.
It is not a mere human conceit that man is the resultant
of all lower forces and movements. It is not a mere conceit
that without man nature would be meaningless and abortive ;
a foundation without a superstructure, a pedestal without a
statue, a body without a soul, a vast complication of forms
and forces, of science and skill, and yet without a purpose.
Without man, the mineral world would have less meaning than
an Egyptian pyramid buried in the desert sands. Without
man, the organic world during all the ages gone would have
been climbing into the empty spaces only to fall back in cosmic
dust. Without man, the embodiment of science and art in
natural forms, the gleaming of divine thought from crystal
and leaf, from flower and star, would have been useless, since
it would have appealed to no corresponding intelligence, would
have thrilled no immortal soul; all in vain the manifestations
of beauty, the grandeur of the ocean, the sublimity of the
mountains, and the glory of the sky. It was not till man ap
peared that the meaning of the whole could be seen, and not
till then could all the sons of Grod have shouted for joy.
It is a sober and accepted demonstration of science that
man is king over all terrestrial life, and that all things on the
earth culminate and find their ultimate reason in him.
The
man of science finds many wonderful things ; the microscopic
world with its myriad forms ; the telescopic universe with its
innumerable suns and systems; he discovers mysterious and
tremendous forces ; he explains chemical and biological trans
formations; he describes many races of monsters that once
tempested the oceans and roamed over the continents; but,
52
[January,
after all, the man of science himself is the most wonderful

being in all the world. All other things are but his toys, his
material, his servants. He alone can understand their nature
and the laws under which they exist. He alone can think
about them and be thrilled with their perfections.
Those professions which are occupied with the develop
ment and training of human beings are of the highest rank.
Parents, teachers, and pastors, stand near to God. It would
be a great thing if one could be the engineer of a Brooklyn
bridge, the builder of modern battleship, the author and
finisher of an interoceanic canal, or the founder of an empire;
but it is a greater thing to develop the men who do these
things and who are capable doing unspeakably more ; men,
who are not means to an end, but the end itself; men, immor
tal and eternally progressive.
Evidently nature during all
ages has been working out God's eternal purpose.
2. God's purpose to perfect man intellectually and morally
is clearly seen in the trend of human history. Man is a rising,
and not a setting, sun. The movement may be slow, but it is
a movement and it is upward. There are times and countries
which seem to indicate the contrary. There are monsters of
crime and times of popular madness ; French revolutions and
Armenian massacres. One shore is sinking while another is
rising; but when you have balanced elevations and depressions,
you will find that every century, the whole continent of hu
manity is higher and higher.
The facts of historic progress are undeniable. There are
natural stages through which a nation passes; savage, bar
barous, half-civilized, civilized, and enlightened. What pro
gress in government, from despotism to free republics and
limited monarchies ! What progress in science ! Time would
fail me to tell the triumphs of a single science ; of chemistry,
or astronomy, or psychology. What progress in art! Every
article of food and clothing, every ornament, every tool, every
instrument for observation and research; work, travel, music,
literature, and lawall illustrate the same facts of material
and social advancement.
The panorama of human progress, passing before us with
the passing centuries, exhibits great contrasts, especially be
1898.]
53
tween the first and last scenes on the canvas. Here at the
beginning we see the earth but sparsely inhabited. Men are
fishing and hunting, living on the spontaneous productions
of the earth, naked, or clothed in the skins of animals, and
contending with wild beasts for the possession of the dens and
caves of the hills. But the last picture is the most wonderful,
though so familiar to us. The whole earth occupied; farms,
roads, and cities everywhere; trains gliding over the conti
nents and steamships crossing the oceans ; commerce supplying
every nation with the good things of every land; and millions
of people occupied in the promotion of science and the educa
tion of the young.
There are some, however, who question man's progress
in morals, and the fact that any one is so pessimistic as to
raise this question, does seem to favor their contention. But
ancient nations were sunk so deep in moral corruption that
they did not know it. Our trouble about the wrong and out
rage with which the world is filled is proof, not that we are
growing blacker, but that we are rising into the light where
the blackness of human nature can be seen. The daily press
exaggerates the evil by giving a disproportionate report of the
evil and the good. We do not know how wick ed the worldhas been. Did you ever read the Morning Chronicle published
in Sodom in the days of Noah? or a copy of the Roman World
of the reign of Nero? or the London Times, when in England
two hundred crimes were punishable with death? Read these
relics of the times when the earth was filled with violence, be
fore you pass pessimistic judgment on the men of the present.
Never before was woman so pure, man so righteous, nor the
reign of just law so perfect. Never before was there such
compassion for the suffering, such care for the helpless, and
such self-sacrifice for the undeserving and the criminal.
This historical progress has been under the guidance of
divine providence. Every nation has had its place in the
procession of the ages and its special work to perform. The
ancient peoplesHebrews, Chaldeans, Egyptianslaid the
foundations of nationalities. The Greeks had a mission in
behalf of art, oratory, and literature. Rome gave the world
lessons in law and lawlessness. The Germanic tribes stood
54
[January,
for individual liberty and social equality, while it seems to be

the work of the Anglo-Saxon race to bring the whole world
under the sway of Christian civilization.
That this progress is working out the divine purpose and
is confirmatory of our conception of this purpose, is evident
from the fact that this progress is the result of forces God
implanted in the soul of man. God gave man's intellect, his
wants, his desires, his conscience, his thirst for knowledge,
his inventive genius and his power to lay all nature under
contribution. Nor have these upward impulses spent their
force. They have been gathering momentum during all the
ages and are energizing now as never before. The progress
of the past and the velocity of our present advancement are
prophetic of long and rapid marches toward the goal. All
the centuries have been preparatory to the twentieth. We
have the science, the instruments, the leisure, the wealth, and
the men ; not a few men of genius only, as in former ages,
but whole nations of educated people. We can avail our
selves of all the lasting results of human toil. We hold in
our possession principles and forces with which we can tunnel
the everlasting hills and scale the vaulted skies. Man's pro
gress is not an arithmetical, but a geometrical series, and the
ratio of this series is constantly increasing. All men who feel
the throbbings of modern life are expecting great things in
the near future. The future of human history, as well as the
past, indicates God's purpose in the ages, and that we are
sweeping on to its speedy and glorious accomplishment.
3. It is easy to trace manifestations of this purpose in
the evolution of Christianity. He who does not see that
Christianty is an evolution, and an evolution under the guid
ing hand of God; who does not see that it had a beginning, a
progressive development and a consummation, can not under
stand the divine book nor the religion taught therein. The
Bible is not homogeneous from cover to cover, as some sup
pose. Like the crust of the earth, it is composed of many
strata of truth, historic, moral, and religious, deposited dur
ing many ages. The lowest stratum is the old Silurian of
Genesis, holding the earliest appearance of life in the Edenic
promise, and in the types of sacrifice and tabernacle. It has
1898.]
53
its Carboniferous, or Reptilian, age, with its rank growth of

human institutions and its monsters of crime; with its many
fossils of extinct species over which fossil theologians are
wont to prophesy as did Ezekiel in the valley of dry bones.
In the higher strata are still clearer indications of coming
eras in which the facts and principles of the true religion
would be fully manifested. Then we have the eocene, the
miocene, and the pliocene of the New Testament ; the epochs
of John the Baptist, of Christ, and of the apostles. We
have the gospel in promise, in type, in prophecy, and in fact.
We hear a voice crying in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way
of the Lord." We listen to him who spake as never man
spake. We shudder in the darkness which shrouds the cruci
fixion from the sight of the angels. We stand on Mount
Olivet and hear the risen Christ giving the great commission
to his apostles, "Go ye into all the world and preach the
gospel to every creature." We see the ascending Savior and
we gaze up into heaven till a cloud receives him out of our
sight.
And yet this religion was not then fully developed. Jesus
only began to do and to teach ; his apostles were to complete
the work. Jesus left his blood on Mount Calvary, and his
apostles in Jerusalem. He commanded them to wait till they
were endued with power from on high. On Pentecost this
power came. The descent of the Holy Spirit, like a telegram
from the throne of God, announced the coronation of Christ
and filled the apostles with divine knowledge and power.
They at once began to carry out their commission, nor was
this commission fulfilled and Christianity fully revealed and
confirmed till the last apostle had finished his course.
While Christianity is the product of a divine evolution,
do not understand me as assuming that this evolution is still
in progress. There are men who seem to think that Chris
tianity is still in process of formation; who arrogate to them
selves the authority of prophets and apostles, and who think
to modernize it by adding somewhat and by substracting a
good deal. But Christianity is a completed system. Now for
eighteen hundred years the heavens have kept silence, a
silence not again to be broken till the trump of God shall
[January,
sound and the dead shall rise. It is a revelation given once

for all. It has in it nothing local or special ; it is adapted to
all ages and conditions; it needs no modification. Besides,
there is no authority on earth to change it in the least respect ;
no authority to change times and laws. All popes, whether
Roman Catholic or Protestant, are usurpers and anti-Christs.
Above the heads of those who dare to corrupt or attempt to
improve what God has done may be heard the mutterings of
the apostolic anathema, 11 Though we, or an augel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached
unto you, let him be accursed." And the Bible, which gives us
this perfect system, is practically, to each one of us, an infal
lible book. If you know there are errors in it, however they
have arisen, whether by translator, editor, copyist, amanuensis,
or blundering apostle, such errors are no part of the divine
word; and if you do not know these errors, you are not to
assume that they exist. To the Bible as the only source of
Christianity we all must come. He who is wise or foolish
above or below what is written in these living oracles is a
fanatic, a fool, or a knave. But while Christianity is perfect,
we are exceedingly imperfect, and wherever any one of us
stands there is large room for progress. As the scientist could
not think to improve or abolish the laws of nature, but only
to ascertain these laws and conform to them ; so it would be
absurd for the theologian to think to make progress except in
his knowledge and practice of the divine law.
We conclude, therefore, that progress in nature, in history,
and in revelation, is a sublime manifestation of God's purpose
concerning man.
III. Our third and last question has to do with the con
summation of God's purpose. " Watchman, what of the
night?" Are there signs that the morning cometh?
Who is not troubled by the long delay t Who does not
cry out in the anguish of his soul, "How long, 0 Lord, how
long!" As the tragedy of sin goes on with its myriad forms
of crime ; with its contending armies and murdered millions ;
with plague, famine, and oppressors; with blasphemy, de
bauchery, and death, who does not pray that the curtain may
fall, and soon rise again on the millennial age? And yet, in
1898.]
57
the arithmetic of Heaven, a thousand years are as one day and

one day as a thousand years. Why was the Creator so long
in evolving the world and the various ranks of organic life!
Why was science so long in coming? Why does God employ
human agencies? Why did he not make all things stand
forth in perfection at once? Why did he not make heaven
only, leaving out of his plan hell, the devil, and a wicked
world? When you have answered these questions, you will
know why God's purpose has been delayed so long.
It may be said that it is not mere delay of which we com
plain. The map is black with heathenism. Thrice fifteen
hundred millions go down to the grave every century, and not
one third of them ever heard of Christ. The answer to this
objection is not complete, but it may silence our murmurings.
God is just and no wrong will eternal justice ever do to a single
immortal soul. Our Father in Heaven pitieth his children.
We can trust the God who "so loved the world." Ignorance
and consequent folly stir not his wrath, but his compassion
and mercy. Still further, numbers are not a standard of value.
Noah and his family were worth more, in God's plan, than all
the world beside. Even if few, comparatively, are saved,
redemption will not be a failure. But nowhere do the Scrip
tures teach that only a few will be saved. The vision of the
apostle John, was that of "a great multitude which no man
could number, out of every nation, and of all tribes and peoples
and tongues." Besides, we are not to measure movements of
the future by those of the past. There is a law of acceleration.
A body falling to the sun from a great distance moves very
slowly for ages, but very rapidly at the last. Whole nations
may be converted in a day. The millennial age may be very
long compared with the period of preparation; and so at last,
the lost may be to the saved as a drop to all the oceans ; as a
leaf to all the forests.
1. The present condition of the world is more favorable
to this consummation than many suppose. Christendom com
prises one third of the human race and possesses more than
three-fourths of the power, wealth, and glory of the nations.
The missionary army is very large; forty thousand in the
foreign field; and at home, many millions, for every Christian
58
[January,
is a missionary of Jesus Christ. The controlling governments

of the world are under the sway of Christian peoples.
But churches, colleges, and Christian people are not all
we have a right to claim. All science, all art, all inventions,
and the earth itself, improved in so many wayscities, farms,
roads, canals, and minesall these are ours, all are God's.
The whole world of mankind is gradually approaching the
kingdom of heaven, in morals, in social customs, in business
honesty, in just laws, in hate of wrong, in benevolence, in
Christian brotherhood. When we feel these silent forces
working in all departments of modern life, and when we see
the whole world turning toward the Sun of Righteousness, we
may expect that it will soon be shining on all the nations in
noontide splendor and power.
Indeed it is a question whether the millennium has not
already dawned upon us. This age is heaven compared with
the hell of Nero's time, heaven compared with five hundred
years ago. The world glided into the reign of Christ, but did
not know it. And some men are so much inclined to look on
the dark side that they will not know they are in heaven when
they get there.
2. The providence of God may work mightily in bringing
about the unification of all things in Christ. His purposes can
not be thwarted, for to him all things are possible.
"God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform ;
He plants his footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm."
Queen Esther could not see how her people were to be
saved from universal massacre, and yet it was done. We could
not see how slavery was to be abolished, but God was marching
on, and after the clouds of battle had rolled away, the sun of
liberty and union shone out with unwonted splendor. So it
may be in this case. Some remarkable advance of science, a
more thorough exploration of ancient lands, the conversion of
the Hebrew race, or a conflict of nations which shall desolate
the lands and crimson the seas, may furnish the opportune
hour when God will intervene.
3. The progress of man in science, invention and social
order will tend powerfully to bring in this auspicious period.
1898.]
59
Knowledge, art and social institutions are God's means for

the accomplishment of his purposes as well as the Gospel of
Christ. Already we are lifting the curse of labor and getting
back to the Garden of Eden and the tree of life. Thistles are
mowed down with a self-binder, while briars and thorns are
rooted out with steam plows. Natural forces carry the heavy
burdens and do the world's work. Science is constantly verify
ing Bible truth. Every precept of the Scriptures is found to
be in harmony with mental and moral law. The gospel, as
God's power to enlighten and save men, is exactly adapted to
the intellect, the heart, and the life of man, and the world is
seeing this more and more. Commerce is bringing all nations
into a brotherhood of industry and mutual dependence. Cor
porations and individuals dealing with one another from
opposite sides of the ocean can not afford to be dishonest, and
the time will come when all men will see that dishonesty and
immorality do not pay. Christianity as it spreads throughout
the earth will carry with it so many blessings of art and social
order, of health and life, that few will reject it. May we not
hope that in the no distant future men will cease to slaughter
one another in war; that arbitration will settle difficulties and
not the carnage of battle ? Have we not sense enough even
now to see that this would be the better way ? Will not the
time soon come when all the treasure now expended on stand
ing armies, navies, and destructive wars, will be spent on the
arts of peace and in the work of saving men from barbarism
and self-destruction? Then what rapid strides the nations will
make toward that better era. Then men will see that Chris
tianity is the only religion worthy of a civilized man, and the
only hope of our race.
4. Even the enemies of Christianity are doing much to
hasten its hour of triumph. Every attack brings out its
defenders, and strengthens the weaker places in its walls.
Every fifty years there comes a craze of infidelity, but the
reaction is sure to follow. When the trainman puts his torch
under the car and smites the wheels with his hammer, there is
no danger that he will burn the train or demolish the wheels.
It is well to find out whether any bolts are missing or any
wheels broken. These so-called enemies are friends in dis
GO
[January,
guise, pointing out the disarranged machinery and the unsafe

wheels that would wreck the train. We put out the unsafe
men and the unsound articles of the creed, and still the train
glides smoothly on nor falls behind its schedule time.
So long as Christianity meets the great wants of the soul,
so long it will not only endure, but go on from conquering
unto conquest.
Whatever may be said about the days of
creation, about Jonah and the whale, about the interpretation
of prophecy, the possibility of miracles, the doctrine of predes
tination, or about differences of ritual and government, still,
so long as the Bible tells about our Father in Heaven; so long
as it gives peace to the troubled conscience and consolation to
the breaking heart ; so long as it gives a hope that is like an
anchor to the soul sure and steadfast, and that reaches beyond
the veil, it can never be in danger, it can never perish. The
storm that sweeps over, convulsing the upper air, uprooting
forests, and demolishing cities, does not disturb the humbler
grasses nor diminish the supply of food for man and beast ;
so the storms of scepticism which now and then seem so black
and dangerous, the "higher criticism," so destructive to some
traditions and some men, do not affect the great masses of the
people. Still the world loves Jesus and the Church grows ;
still the children are taught to lisp his name ; still the weary
and heavy-laden hear him saying, "Come unto me and I will
give you rest;" still men turn their death-dimmed eyes toward
his cross; still the mourner reads, "Let not your heart be
troubled; you believe in God, believe also in me;" and still
those who have crossed the river send back the shout of tri
umph, "Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through
our Lord Jesus Christ."
6. The Church of Christ is the chief instrumentality for
the consummation of God's eternal purpose. It is the pillar
which God has lifted up for the support of the truth ; it is
God's army under the leadership of Prince Immanuel, march
ing on to certain victory.
The Church of to-day is living under a pressure of moral
responsibility such as was never felt before. It is standing in
the clear light of Christian civilization ; it knows the condition
of the heathen world ; it is under the most solemn vows of
1898.]
61
allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ; it has the wealth, the

men, and the opportunity. In the day of judgment we can
not plead ignorance, nor poverty, nor inability. Oh, my soul
what will be thy plea in that solemn day! Will it not be more
tolerable for Sodom and Chorazin than for us? Will it not be
more tolerable for the heathen than for those who refuse to send
them the gospel? For what do we wait? That God may give
another gospel and a higher manifestation of his love? That
Christ may again come down from heaven and again arise
from the dead? That the Holy Spirit may yield to our plead
ing and become more gracious? Nay, verily, the fault is with
the church and not with the heavenly powers. But what does
the church need? Does it not need this, the Christianization
of Christendom, the conversion and consecration of those who
are to be God's agents in the conversion of the world. This
Christianization of Christendom implies and requires the fol
lowing things:
First, the putting away of some great systems of evil.
We must disband our standing armies and cease to learn the
art of war. We must send to heathen lands more Bibles and
less rum, more medicine and less opium, fewer drunken and
lecherous sailors and more men of God. We must so reform
that a Mohammedan could not point to the squalor and misery
of our great cities, to the evils of intemperance, to brothels
and gambling hells, to oppressive commercial combines and
to corrupt legislation and thank God that he is not a Christian.
Second, it needs the evangelization of the unsaved millions
of Christendom. How can we go to to heathen nations when
two thirds of our own people are against us? The home mis
sionary work is an important part of the foreign work ; it is
the source of supplies and the best assurance of success.
Blessed is the evangelist who every year converts hundreds
and thousands!
Blessed is the church that glories not so
much in its great scholars as in its great preachers! Blessed is
the church that crowds this evangelism in every suburb, in
every school district and in every family. Do not say "we want
quality, not quantity." We do want quantity; we want num
bers, large numbers. We want all the people, all the world
(12
[January,
for Christ. We do not pick for broadcloth and brain ; every

one rescued is a soul saved from death.
Third, the prayer of Christ must be answered, that his
disciples may be one that the world may believe that God has
sent him. There must be unity of testimony, unity of feeling,
unity of prayer, and unity of effort. But we must be united
in God's own way, not hewing out for ourselves broken cis
terns that will not hold water. "Other foundation can no
man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ." We must
have union on the seven divine essentials; one Lord, one faith,
one baptism, one body, one spirit, one hope of our calling,
and one God and Father of all. But Christian union implies
difference and toleration in matters which do not affect the
essential faith and practice. You can not so pack cannon balls
in a box that they will touch at all points; nor can you so
pack men in a church that they will agree in everything. All
have access to the same Bible, and each interprets this Bible
according to his ability, or rather, inability, and perfect agree
ment would be a miracle. The tacit agreement among Protes
tant denominations to let one another alone is a most unright
eous and cowardly state of things. As in science, so at least,
in religion, every man is under moral obligation to give and
to receive ; to speak the truth in love and to hear the truth in
the same spirit. Storm is better than stagnation ; discussion
is better than dishonest acquiescence. It is only by letting
our light shine that the darkness is dispelled and that we can
come to a unity in our knowledge of the Son of God.
In the fourth place, we must cease wasting the revenues
of the kingdom. We must not try to maintain a dozen
churches in a village, where two are all that are needed. We
must not segregate the church till no part has vitality enough
to keep above ground. Instead of competition, we must have
a great religious trust; but not to raise prices. We must not
waste our energies on unimportant issues. Hades and the
Uevil on the one hand, and a post mortem gospel on the other,
will take care of themselves. The higher criticism will get so
high as to disappear with the German fog. Discord over
Church music is not promotive of harmony, and the decisions
of the last day will not be determined by "tweedledum and
1898.]
63
tweedledee." We must not sit on the shore counting straws

while thousands are going down in the deep sea.
It is a fifth requirement that the church shall preach the
gospel as never before. We make progress in the industrial
world by using the power of God in naturewind, gravitation,
heat, and electricity. It is so in religion, and the gospel is the
power of God unto salvation. The age of miracles is past. "Faith
comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." The
modern church folds its hands and prays that the Holy Spirit
may come and convert the millions. The church is still in
that upper room in Jerusalem praying for a promise which
was fulfilled nearly two thousand years ago ; but Christ says,
"Go, preach the gospel to every creature."
Sixth, and finally, modern Christendom needs a reconsecration to the service of Christ. It needs to be able to say
with Paul, "The love of Christ constrains me; for we thus
judge that if one died for all, then were all dead, and that he
died for all, that we who live should not live unto ourselves,
but unto him who died for us and rose again." If all the
church truly prayed "Thy kingdom come," millions of money
would follow this prayer; thousands of missionaries would fol
low this money ; and the speedy conversion of the world would
follow this consecration of the wealth and power of the church.
By these means and by others of which we can not con
ceive, God will bring about the consummation of his eternal
purpose to unify, to sum up, all things in Christ, both which
are in earth and which are in heaven, even in him. But the
time may be very long. Uncounted ages were occupied in the
development of the material world, and it would not be strange
if many ages more should precede this glorious consummation.
As the angel said to Daniel, so the Savior would say to each
one of us; "But go thou thy way till the end be; for thou
shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days."
But what lies beyond this consummation? What lies
beyond? Heaven beyond heaven, life beyond life, glory be
yond glory, and progress beyond progress in the infinite
universe of God, world without end.
H. W. Everest.
64
A New Epoch in the History of the Disciples.
[January,
A NEW EPOCH IN THE HISTORY OF THE

DISCIPLES.
ALL religious denominations are experiencing widespreading upheavals in doctrine and practice.
The creeds
have long been subject to "mental reservations," and have
often been openly rejected. In many cases the trial of here
tics has only given currency to their heresies. Instead of
diminishing, the reaction from established ecclesiastical auth
ority increases. A large proportion of the real leaders in the
older denominations do not to-day accept, unconditionally, the
traditional standards.
This movement is far from being
merely negative and transient. It is rather the rational and
consistent expression of tendencies which reach back of the
present century. They began outside the Church, in the
spheres of natural science, philosophical speculation and his
torical criticism. Gradually transforming those departments
of thought, it was inevitable that finally their method and
spirit should also be applied to religion. It is the purpose of
this paper to show that this process of modern thought has
much significance for the Disciples of Christ, and promises
among them also to work an epoch-making transformation.
This new day in the history of the disciples can be appre
ciated best from the historical standpoint.
This brings to
view two fairly well defined periods, each with special prob
lems, prominent leaders and definite institutional and practi
cal results. These two periods correspond roughly to the first
and second halves of this century.
The problem of the first period was not a new one in relig
ious thought. It can be traced back through nearly three cen
turies, and has been everywhere present in post-reformation
times. It had received many earnest efforts at solution. It was
forced into prominence on the practical side by the numerous and
bitter divisions in the Church. So evident was the unchristian
spirit which they displayed, and the weakness and contempt
into which they brought religion, that almost every decade of
those centuries has left the record of some great preacher,
teacher or ruler who pleaded in behalf of toleration, peace and
1898.]
A New Epoch in (he History of the Disciples.
65
union. Among those in the seventeenth century were Hugo

Grotius, Bosuet, Leibnitz, Baxter, Chillingworth and Locke.
Practically, then, the religious problem which the beginning
of this century inherited from the past was, How is it possi
ble to unite the various sects and churches into an effective
unity? Doctrinally, the same problem was, How is it possible
to maintain the individualism of Protestantism together with
the essential universality or solidarity of Catholicism? In the
Reformation, the right of private judgment had asserted itself
against mere traditionalism and external authority.
This
principle found various expressions in different countries and
in different periods of the reaction against Rome. Sometimes
it clothed itself in the authority of a rigid theology, as in
Lutheranism. Everywhere the creed sought to wear the cloak
of Scripture authority. But gradually the great principle at
the heart of Protestantism reacted against its own first crude
expressions, until in such men as Baxter, Chillingworth and
Locke, the individual championed his own right, not only to
remonstrate with the Church of Rome, but also with the dog
matism and pretended authority of the reformed Churches.
How thoroughly this individualism characterized the spirit of
the age may be seen in the political tendency from monarchy
to democracy, in the triumph of romantic over classical ideals
in literature, in the supplanting of metaphysical by psycholog
ical inquiry, and in the apotheosis of individualism in ethical
theories. The serious and deep-rooted problem of religion
was, therefore, that of giving free scope to the rights of the
individual, while at the same time preserving a sufficient uni
formity and efficiency to the Church. And it does not seem
too much to say that every Protestant denomination wrought
seriously, accordingly to its light, for the solution of this
great question. Whether consciously or not, this is the task
which the Disciples received from the past. They are the last
great body raised up to achieve it. They have consciously
recognized it as their mission, and a marvelous growth is indic
ative of their success. In any case, it can never be said that
the conditions which called them forth lacked the significance
of being deep-laid in history and of being full of promise.
Vol. 25.
66
[January,
The leader in the first epoch in the history of the Disci

ples was Alexander Campbell. It is significant that his early
life was spent in Scotland. Here the tendencies mentioned
found their most extreme illustration. Petty religious dissentions emphasized the need of union, while the popular study
of the Scriptures and the love of freedom led the way to its
realization. Educated in the atmosphere of eighteenth century
thought, he embodied its characteristic features in his life
work more than any other religious leader of his day. His
theological views were the most consistent counterpart of the
reflective thought of his time. This suggests a key by which
to trace the formulation of his religious teaching. To illustrate:
His desire was to secure the proper basis of union. The Pro
testant spirit prescribed the Scriptures as the general condi
tion of such union. But as yet Protestantism had tended
more and more to disintegration. Its sects had either de
manded too much of their members or had not required the
right things. Now it was the view of the time that the mate
rial world is composed of certain primary qualities, which con
stitute its inmost essence. They are essential to its very being.
But beyond these, there are secondary and even tertiary qual
ities which give variety to the life of nature, but are only inci
dental to it. An analagous interpretation had been applied to
the Scriptures. Mr. Campbell made a thorough application
of it. He inquired, first of all, What are the essentialsthe
primary qualities of the Christian religion? These, and these
alone, shall be made the basis of church fellowship and of
Christian union. All other features of religious lifeits varied
beliefs, opinions, hopes, fears and practicesare secondary
and tertiary qualities and shall be left to individual interpre
tation. It is not necessary here to follow the particulars of
Mr. Campbell's formulation of these essentials. But it is per
tinent to notice that it was not an easy nor a quick task for
him to satisfy himself as to what things were essential accord
ing to the Scriptures. Some things, such as the divinity of
Jesus, were clearly required. Other things, such as the kind
of apparel to be worn, were certainly for individual decision.
But some things evidently lay so much upon the border land
that it was a long time before he reached what may be called
1898.]
67
his settled views concerning them. And in some matters he

was troubled to his dying hour. This fluid, plastic state of
Mr. Campbell's thought needs to be recalled and re-exam
ined, especially when any of his followers attempt to make
his discoveries or contentions binding upon later days. Not
to speak of the widely different positions which he held at
different times concerning the work of the Holy Spirit, conver
sion, and organized missionary work, it will be sufficient to
refer to his views of the ordinances.
Mr. Campbell was baptized in 1812. Previous to that
time, with his father, he had made baptism a matter of for
bearance. In 1810 he said in a sermon: "As I am sure it is
unscriptural to make this matter a term of communion, I let
it slip. I wish to think and let think on these matters." In
1812 he became convinced that baptism meant immersion and
he was immersed. But it was not thought of as a test of fel
lowship for many years afterward. It was not until 1820 that
baptism was held to be "connected with the promise of the
remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit," and then,
as his biographer significantly remarks, "he seems to have
viewed it only in the light of an argument." This was in the
debate with Mr. Walker. In 1823, in another debate, the
design of the ordinance was still more emphasized, but, as
before, only with a view to overthrowing infant baptism.
Four years more passed before the practice of the ordinance
was given its final prominence, and this was done first, not by
Mr. Campbell, but by Walter Scott; though Mr. Campbell
from that time advocated the doctrine of baptism for the
remission of sins. There are two facts to be noted here: first,
it was a slow process by which he elaborated his view of bap
tism. It covered a period of fifteen years. It is thus seen
that he felt his way gradually and at times hesitatingly, though
it can not be said that he changed his general position when it
was once formulated. Second, his views were developed in
the stress of public discussion. This tended to give them a
partisan coloring. In regard to the Lord's supper, a different
kind of change took place. In his later years he inclined to
adopt the practice of close communion rather than the freer
custom which prevailed at first. It is thus seen that the ordi
68
[January,
nances were viewed from different standpoints, baptism being

numbered with the essentials and the communion left as a
matter of individual liberty, and, in so far, a nonessential.
The difference in these two principles was the cause of the
later uncertainty, the alternative obviously being either to
make both ordinances matters of individual opinion or to
make them both matters of church authority. The tendency
was toward the latter position. After these early years of form
ulation, of gradual statement, there followed, as usual, the
process of crystallization and advocacy.
In a movement
whose spirit was so practical and so intensely evangelistic, it
was natural that questions of doctrine and exegesis should
soon become fixed and secondary. Not until recent years has
there been a disposition to re-examine in a devout and schol
arly spirit the great problems which the genius of Alexander
Campbell first formulated and the practical tact of Walter
Scott first preached in their accepted order.
The results
achieved in this first period consist mainly of the abundant
controversial and periodical literature published, in the large
number of adherents gained and churches organized, and the
deep foundations laid for the builders of later years.
The second epoch in this history may be identified loosely
with the latter half of the century. Its problem was the same
as that of the first period but with a very different emphasis.
On the practical side it may be stated thus : Are the questions
of organization, church worship, and methods of evangeliza
tion so prescribed in the New Testament as to be made tests
of fellowship? Doctrinally, the problem was thisthe ever
recurring problem of the second stage of Protestant move
mentsis the Bible an absolute objective standard, so that it
is applicable in its letter to all the religious demands of life?
Or is the Bible to be interpreted, in the light of its own spirit,
by reason and so applied to the changing needs of social and
theoretic interests? In a word, are the essentials so evident
that there should never be any question as to where authority
ends and liberty begins? The conservative party held that
the Book was an absolutely fixed, complete, literal authority,
not only with reference to entering the church but also as to
its worship and its practical missionary efforts. So complete
1898. ]
A New Epoc h in the History of the Disciples.
69
was this authority that even its silence upon any subject ex
cluded that subject from any kind of consideration, and denied
the right to act upon it in the light of reason. The so-called
progressive party held to the right to decide, by the spirit of
the Book and by enlightened reason,, upon non-essentials.
The conservatives took the motto of Thomas Campbell to
mean, where the Scriptures speak (literally) we speak; and
where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent, (and every one
else must be silent). The progressives took the motto to mean,
where the Scriptures speak, we are silent, that is, we reverently
accept their authority; but where the Scriptures are silent, we
speak, that is, we may advocate and do those things which in
our best judgment accord with the spirit of the Book and are
an evident advantage to the extension of the Church. Both
parties agreed concerning the entrance into the Church, but
they differed radically as to what to do afterwards. The dog
matism of the conservatives was literal and negative. No
instrumental music, no organized missionary work, no paid
ministry, no societies, no other Christians, no innovations,
these were their standing negatives.
In the positive and aggressive party of this period, which
has proved itself the real life of the Disciples of Christ, Isaac
Errett was the most prominent leader. The principle which
guided him was that Christians are at liberty to act according
to their own conscience when no express teaching of Scripture
is contravened, and when they believe themselves loyal to its
spirit and intent. He was opposed by Elder Benjamin Frank
lin.
Their controversy was a contention over the seat of
authority in religion. Mr. Errett held that the true authority
is the Bible as interpreted by the enlightened Christian rea
son. Mr. Franklin held to the authority of the Bible without
interpretation. The discussion was not simply between these
two men. It involved the very life of the movement for which
Mr. Campbell and many others had wrought so long and faith
fully. Mr. Franklin was long in the field with the strongest
paper among the Disciples, and was intrenched in his position
when Mr. Errett took up the task of founding the Christian
Standard, to plead for a larger view. The influence of custom,
numbers, the press and the pulpit were largely on the side of
conservatism.
The discussion centered successively upon
70
[January,
three different questions, namely, the communion in 1862,

missionary societies in 1867, and instrumental music in 1870.
The issue was the same in all, and therefore it will be sufficient
to state the positions taken in the communion controversy.
The point at issue here was whether it was consistent with the
accepted view of baptism to admit the pious unimmersed to
the Lord's table. Mr. Errett argued from the spirit of Scrip
ture. After paying a tribute of praise to the "pious unim
mersed" for their services in the cause of civil and religious
liberty, he says: "We ask not whether these lofty heroes of
the Church militant to whom we owe our heritage of spiritual
freedom may commune with us,but rather whether we are
at all worthy to commune with them ! We feel honored in
being permitted to call them brethren.
Our reformation
movement is the legitimate offspring of theirs.
Neither in
Pennsylvania * * * nor in Kentucky * * did this movement
spring from Baptist but from Pedo-baptist influences. It is
the legitimate result of Pedo-baptist learning, piety and devo
tion. Of these people of God, we affirm that they loved the
Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. They loved and magnified
His Word. They possessed His spiritmanifesting it in very
precious fruits of righteousness and holiness. The spirit of
obedience dwelt not less in them than in us. They erred in
respect to the letter of baptism, even as it may yet be found
that we have erred in regard to the letter of other require
ments. * * * To ignore their faith and obedience and to
deal with them as heathen men and publicans will be indeed
to, 'weaken the hands,' of the pleaders for reformation, and
expose ourselves, by a judgment of extreme narrowness and
harshness, to the pity, if not to the scorn, of good men every
where." In support of this view he appeals to Scripture, to
the practice of the Disciples and to the conclusions of Mr.
Campbell. The opposition relied upon the usual argument in
favor of close communion, that the apostles and primitive
Christians communed with none but those who had been
immersed, that this precedent was binding upon us, that Mr.
Errett's eloquent sentimentalism ignored the Scriptural doc
trine of baptism ; was inconsistent with the Disciples' teaching
upon that subject, and was a surrender of their stronghold.
1898.]
71
This latter view may be more logical, but the former is more
spiritual, and in that sense, more Scriptural. The outcome of
this controversy is another illustration of the fact that the
inner movements of history, whether in religion or the state,
seldom follow the lines of formal logic, but obey rather the
deeper laws of spirit. This great religious movement was not
destined to be contracted into a dogmatism of literalism, legal
ism and logic, but was to receive in its hour of need a new
birth of spiritual power. As a keen observer said: "This
period marked a crisis in the religious fortunes of the Dis
ciples." In the end the progressive tendency was everywhere
dominant. It wrought itself into many definite institutions
and organizations. All of the colleges among the Disciples
have been founded since 1850, except Bethany.
Without
exception they have shared more or less completely the larger
spirit from their beginning.
During this time, and particu
larly since 1875 missionary work has been rapidly developed.
All the specialization, so to speak, into foreign, home, church
extension, negro education and evangelization, and educa
tional boards, has occurred since then. The Christian Stand
ard and the Christian Evangelist sprang from the progressive
spirit of those days, as did also many tracts and a few books.
On the other hand, the negative party has constantly con
tracted and shrivelled, until to-day it has no influential journal,
no college, and only a feeble, failing constituency. They are
indeed a remnant, sojourning in an overwhelming wilderness,
and destined at last to experience that great change which
shall usher them into the final convention of every tribe and
tongue, with its angelic choir and unnumbered instruments
of music.
The third and new epoch in the history of the Disciples
of Christ has been long in preparation. It strikes its roots
into the first period, but as yet no notable event has heralded
its coming. The first epoch was formally opened by the Decla
ration and Address of Thomas Campbell in 1809 ; the second
came into power with the founding of the Christian Standard
in 1866, which was also the year of Alexander Campbell's
death. The new day is still young but to those who have eyes
to see there is an unmistakable sunrise glow. Consider the
72
[January,
following signs of promise, (a) There is a new interest in

education. It is being recognized that there is apathetic need
in the colleges for larger endowments, better teachers, more
adequate equipment.
Besides this significant fact, a new
principle has entered into educational work,the principle of
affiliation. When the Christian Woman's Board of Missions
opened the Bible Chairs at the University of Michigan, they
struck out a new path.
Similar methods are now operating
in five other state universities. A different and even more
significant application of this principle of affiliation was made
in the organization of the Disciple's Divinity House at the
University of Chicago.
This affiliation differs from the
former in being closer, since the House is a part of the Uni
versity. It also has the advantage of being connected with a
University which is Christian and unsectarian, and which
offers theological instruction, (b) The Disciples have accepted
enthusiastically the Christian Endeavor movement and are
being permeated by its fresh, spiritual life. The Disciples
find much in common with this great movement. Both em
phasize a practical allegiance to our Lord ; both discard all
but the simplest tests of fellowship; both promote Christian
union; both are thoroughly American in their origin, spirit,
and strongholds ; both represent immense vital energy ready
to be directed by wise leadership, (c) There is a rising inter
est in the development of city churches. So much a rural
people, the Disciples have constantly sent large numbers to
the cities, but too often have failed to see them organized into
efficient churches. It is significant that this deficiency is
being remedied in many places. The city has much to give
in return. Its fullness of life, its culture, its large plans for
co-operation, its impatience of petty things and its intense
activity have many lessons for a people open to receive them,
(d) There is an evident yearning throughout the Church for
a more enlightened and practical spiritual life. This tendency
was distinctly fostered by the leader in the second period. In
the last burst of editorial life with which Isaac Errett lighted
up his great journal, there was, as his biographer says, "An
increased earnestness and a deep and tenderer solicitude for
the spiritual welfare of his brethren, and for the development
1898.]
73
of greater power and efficiency in the churches. Sweet and

gracious are these last words of the great and good editor.
Beyond doubt they contributed largely to that deeper conse
cration and more ardent and self-sacrificing zeal which have
since in so many churches and individuals, become charac
teristic and signal." (e) It is notable in this connection that
there is a kindling interest in the history of the Disciples. In
the midst of their practical work, they are looking back along
their way in order better to understand themselves and their
place in history. Thus is being brought to consciousness the
fundamental principles of their plea and their relation to the
larger world of religious thought. This is itself a sign of re
construction, for every rational development in the realm of
spirit has its beginnings in just such reflective analysis of the
past. These are not imaginary sighs of promise. All of
themeducational interests, the Endeavor movement, city
evangelization, the spiritual awakening, and historical study
have been widely reflected in the papers, in conventions, in
pulpits, and have become fixed in organized societies and insti
tutions. They have in fact taken such permanent form already,
as to represent the foundation and guarantee of a new devel
opment.
What is the problem of this new epoch? It is not to be
defined wholly from the standpoint of inner tendencies, but
for its full statement, the larger world of contemporaneous
thought and life must be considered. Such a movement can
not be insensible to its environment. The problem is this:
Hoto may the Disciples of Christ re-enforce their plea and prac
tice by the results of modern thought? Or, in other words,
how may the present religious tendencies best be employed to
further the historical purpose of securing Christian union upon
the essential principles of the Christian religion ? It is a long
step toward the solution of any problem to obtain a clear state
ment of it and a favorable attitude toward it. It is probable
that both these ends may best be attained through a critical,
historical study of the sources and development of the prob
lem. The study of the history of the Disciples is not therefore
a mere entertainment in an interesting and successful past; it
is not simply an opportunity to eulogize the fathers, but it is
74
[January,
a practical undertaking by which it is hoped to gain direction

for the present situation. Now the second epoch in the his
tory under review, had for its task, substantially, the further
elucidation and application of the principles of the first period.
No essentially new points of view were introduced. The nature
of God and his relation to the world were only incidentally
considered, for the very good reason that there was little if any
difference about them. But these are now the crucial ques
tions of religious thought. Upon them turns every notable
controversy and heresy trial of recent years. It is not strange
therefore that the discussion of such fundamental and vital
issues should be carried on with tragic earnestness. The nat
ural order then in the development of this paper will involve
first, a general statement of the problem of modern thought,
and second, suggestions concerning its application to the plea
and practice of the Disciples.
The religious life of any age may best be understood by
grasping its idea of God. All the characteristics of modern
religious thought may be traced directly to the fresh insight
into the nature and attributes of Deity, which belong pre
eminently to this age. The distinction between the idea of
God represented by the best thought of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries has become a commonplace in current
theological literature. The God of the last century was extramundane and transcendent. He had created the world and
withdrawn from it ages ago. Professor Allen, in his "Conti
nuity of Christian Thought" says concerning that period:
"Deity continued to human vision as a sovereign will enthroned
at an immeasurable distance from man. God and man were
regarded as alien to each other, in their inmost being; the
characteristic of fallen humanity was not only incapacity for
the Divine, but even an active hatred and enmity for God.
The incarnation resolved itself into a scheme or plan of salva
tion by which schism in the Divine nature between justice and
love might be overcome and God be free to pardon man and
to receive the chosen few into His favor. The nature of the
scheme was revealed in the Bible. Man had no inward power
in the reason to appreciate its fitness ; the glory of revelation
lay in its confounding the mind and humiliating it in abject
1898.]
submission to that which had been arbitrarily revealed. Rev

elation was a matter of the past; God had once spoken finally
and for all in the Bookthe oracle that had been miraculously
communicated and preserved. The Bible took, as it were, the
place of the living Christ ; its very letter was deified ; in it alone
was thought to lie the power of imparting life and salvation.
The Kingdom of God that was to be, was viewed as rising in
another world than this. * * * The motives to obedience
were found in external sanctionsendless bliss which awaited
the saved, the endless woe which awaited the lost. Salvation
was not construed ethically but physically, as an escape from
the horrors of the divine condemnation." This external and
mechanical view has been overcome in the present century.
The new idea of God which governs all the details of theology
and religion, even on their most practical sides, is immanent, inner,and gracious. Working its way gradually away from the ob
jectivity and empiricism of Locke, through the more subjective
Kantian or Hegelian systems, it has come to a permanent and
fruitful supremacy. The same conviction of the vital relation
of God with human life came into prominence on the side of
feeling and personal experience through the mysticism of the
Methodists in England and the Moravians in Germany.
Schleiermacher, the representative theologian of this century,
born of Moravian parentage and schooled in the intellectual
atmosphere of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, combined the dif
ferent phases of the new movement and thus became the great
exponent of the new view of God and religion. "The theology
of Schleiermacher," says Professor Allen, "is affected through
out by the conviction that God indwells in the world. His
belief in a divine presence in the world and in man was deep
and vivid. Against the cold idea of deism he asserted a living
spiritual presence, a God who is with us and in us, who is al
lied to humanity by an organic relationship. The result of
this conviction of the immanence of God implied the restora
tion to a supreme place in his theology of the spiritual or
essential Christ, who is above the conditions of time and
space Christ was the incarnation of the divine consciousness
as it exists in its fullness in God. * * * When Schleier
macher discerned, as by revelation, in the humble existence of
76
[January,
the Prophet of Nazareth, the unveiled glory of the infinite

God, the thought of ages was reversed." And now, toward
the close of the century, natural science is bringing confirma
tion to this idea of God, which twenty-five years ago it seemed
to oppose by bald materialism. Science is no longer trying to
maintain as the inner condition of nature a multitude of irre
ducible units, called atoms. It has long been felt by her most
thoughtful representatives that such an assumption was not
only completely beyond the sphere of laboratory proof and
theoretical demonstration, but that it also raised far more dif
ficulties than it solved. From the indestructible atom of mat
ter, modern science has moved through the conception of Sir
William Thompson's vortex of motion, to a willingness to
admit at least the possibility of spiritual forces being the basic
life of the material world. Here many of the objections to the
doctrine of natural evolution are removed by science itself.
For the whole force of the opposition to evolution in its first
formulation, lay in its supposed atheistical assumptions. But
now if nature is at its heart spiritual, it is no longer his shame
but his glory that man should be nature's child, for he thereby
becomes a twofold child of Goddivine not only in his spirit
but the offspring of the Divine in his very physical body. Now
just as science tends to confirm the theological doctrine of the
immanence of a living, acting God in nature, in the same way
modern historical criticism has confirmed the presence of the
vital, unfolding life of God in the Holy Scriptures. But the
process of criticism was different. Whereas science seemed to
make too much of nature, criticism seemed to make too little
of the Bible. It is being recognized however that the fault
really lay with a theology which had made altogether too lit
tle of nature and altogether too much of the mere Book. The
work of criticism has been misjudged because it seemed to as
sume the paradoxical task of demonstrating the perfection of
the Scriptures through their limitations. In other words,
criticism has sought the naturalness of the Bible. Alexander
Campbell took the same position when he contended that the
Bible is to be read and interpreted as any other book, that is,
by taking into consideration the time, place, author, purpose,
etc., of the various parts. In the natural and historical view,
1898.]
A Nov Epoch in the History of the Disciples.
77
revelation would always carry the marks of the limitations of

the period in which it was given. That is, if humanity is itself
the medium through which its revelation is to come, the mes
sage will bear the accent of the human voice which utters it.
In no other way could it be intelligible to human ears. Rev
elation is accordingly progressive in the lives of the men,
whose history constitutes the Bible. A progressive revelation
means also a difference in the value of different Scriptures, and
the attempt to stamp the Book with an external, literal perfec
tion has always been, in time, its own best refutation. The
perfection lies then not only in its miraculous character, but
also in its naturalnessnot so much in its conformity to some
static and external standard of completeness, but rather in its
free-flowing expression of the most heroic and tragic struggles
of humanity to realize to the utmost its own divine nature. So
many lines of investigationphilosophy, science, historical,
and textual criticism, literature, et ceterahave converged their
luminous rays upon the great truth of the Divine presence in
every phase of human life, that it is impossible and unnecessary
here to summarize their results farther. It is sufficient to
emphasize the fact that they all illustrate and confirm the fact
that this is the great pivotal point upon which the revolutions
in every protestant church are turning, and it is this upon which
the Disciples must turn themselves if they would have their
faces toward the dawn of the new century. This adjustment
can be made by the Disciples easier than by almost any other
religious people, both because they have never burdened them
selves with a creed in terms of the old theology, and because
so much in their view of Christianity harmonizes with the new
view. It is not difficult therefore to see how modern thought
fortifies and re-enforces the historical position of the Disciples.
This position may be comprehended in a statement of the doc
trines of conversion, union, and personal liberty.
Instead of diminishing the emphasis to be placed upon
the subject of conversion, modern thought gives it a deeper
meaning. To make a man feel that he is by nature a child of
God, will be to show him some reason for the divine compas
sion exemplified in the Gospel. It will give him a more pro
found sense of sin as that which defrauds him of his birth
78
[January,
right and dwarfs all his divine powers. He will be attracted

by our Lord's entreaty, "Follow me," for he will see in Jesus
the ideal fullfilment of his own spiritual nature. With the
moral and ethical confession of Christ, he will have taken the
first great step in the new life, that is, in a rational and vital
pardon or salvation. And, further, it will mean for him at
once the beginning of all the Christian virtues, not only of
faith, repentance and so forth, but also of personal purity,
self-sacrifice and love. The expression of this ethical and
essential union with God, through Jesus, has ever been found in
the Christian ordinances. Baptism signifies the beginning of
this relation, the Lord's Supper its continuance. What pro
found significance, therefore, may attach to these ordinances
with respect to the higher and inner life! Baptism is a pub
lic confession of the Christian faith. It is also a means of
grace to the subject in so far as it deepens his realization of
his death to sin and his resurrection to a new life. Immer
sion is so true a symbol of these realities that if it had not
been commanded, it might fittingly have been invented. The
value of these ordinances has an enduring justification in the
psychological constitution of man.
"Owing to the wonderful
connection between our mind and our motor mechanism, the
muscular exercise reacts upon consciousness and quickens the
germs of the religious life. No doubt Pascal carried the mat
ter to an extreme when he counselled men to take holy water
and observe ceremonies, as if the rest would come of itself.
But the general principle is sound." On account of its fre
quent recurrence and its prophetic suggestive ness, the com
munion service may be expected to receive a larger place in a
more spiritual religion, not because such a religion depends
upon symbols, but because it best knows the value of such
aids. It may seem strange that a religion of cult and a relig
ion of spirit should both give such prominence to ceremonies,
but the difference is world wide. In the one, religion depends
upon symbols. In the other, the symbols depend upon relig
ion.
The cause of Christian union will be given a new impetus
in this new epoch. In a remarkable address, delivered at the
last October Convocation of the University of Chicago, Dr. A.
1898.]
79
H. Bradford, in discussing the doctrine of the immanence of

God, with reference to the unity of the world, said: "The
changes which an appreciation of the immanence of God must
work all run parallel with the growing unity of the world.
* * * The significance of this doctrine for us is this: In the
very time when the unity of the world is beginning to show
itself as inevitable and glorious, there rises into a predominant
place in human thinking, a teaching which, carried to its log
ical conclusions, will make that unity not only formal but real.
* * * This doctrine of the Divine immanence can not stop
short of the affirmation that there is something of God in
every human being. *
*
*
It teaches that man as man,
every man, everywhere, in all time, is, ever has been, and
always will be, a child of God." This conception of the value
of human life gives a new and holier significance to missions.
It bases their importance, not so much upon historic com
mands, as upon the pitiful need of the Father's children for
spiritual food, clothing and soul-cure. But if this doctrine
has significance for Christian missions, it has more for Chris
tian union. If all men are brethren, then Christian men are
brethren, indeed. The latter are twice-born sons of God.
They profess allegiance to the same Lord ; manifest the fruit
of his spirit and honestly seek to do his will. There is added
to the common bond of nature, the uncommon bond of Chris
tian character and love. Emphasis upon this indwelling pres
ence of the Spirit of God in all believers adds a new factor to
the plea for union which the Disciples have been accustomed
to make. The Disciples have advocated union because it is
commanded, and because divisions evidently weakeu the
Church and hinder the evangelization of the world. The
impulse toward union, which is a growing characteristic of
modern religious thought, proceeds from the deepening con
viction of the essential oneness of all believers in Christ. It
is as if men of all denominations should say, Let us now
openly and avowedly enjoy together the blessings of the same
oneness of life, which heretofore each has shared with his par
ticular Church only. When the growing sentiment of a prac
tical, rather than a speculative acceptance of Jesus, becomes
consciously the standard of religious bodies, then sects and
80
[January,
divisions will be seen in their true light as absurd and sinful.

The plea for union, therefore, may be given a fresh and incal
culable development by cultivating this sense of the present,
actual, spiritual unity, which prevails wherever the Spirit of
God abides. This mighty unifying power may well be ex
pected to operate on a larger scale than that of the occasional
attraction of individuals. There are many evidences that the
great ideal of Christian union will be advanced, in the near
future by mass movements. What else is meant by the fre
quent conferences between the official representatives of whole
denominations, by the unifying tendencies of social condi
tions, intercommunication by the press, and the rapid progress
of Christian culture and sympathy?
Finally, the disciples have not advocated union to the
exclusion or suppression of individual liberty. On the con
trary, no religious body affords greater latitude in the inter
pretation of the Christian religion. From their earliest his
tory, this freedom of thought and opinion has been guarded
with jealous care. Here again the spirit of modern thought
tends to the same end, and is helpful in suggestion. Now the
problem of individual rights is ultimately determined by the
conception of the seat of authority in religion. Out of the
intense discussion of this all important question, practical
unanimity of opinion is emerging, among the real leaders of
thought. The confusion which still remains, however, may
justify a more detailed treatment of this point. To the ques
tion, What is the true seat of authority in religion? many dif
ferent answers have been given. One says Christ is the
authority ; another, the Church ; another, the Bible ; another,
the reason. Professor Briggs has said that the Bible, the
Church and the reason are together the sources of authority.
So far as the Disciples are concerned, they have recognized all
of these, though not in the same way nor in an equal degree.
They have accepted them in regard to different matters the
Bible in the essentials of faith or the conditions of pardon
the Apostolic Church in its exampleand the reason in mat
ters of opinion. Many at the present time, attempt to turn
from all of these and to make Christ the sole authority. In
answer to all this it may be said that it is not in the spirit of
1898.]
81
modern thought to admit dual or manifold sources of author

ity, at least not in such a way as to allow any real opposition
between them. As thought is forced to seek a unitary concep
tion of natue, in the same way it is impelled to find a unitary
authority in religion. To select any of those just mentioned,
to the exclusion of any or all of the others, would be to violate
this fundamental demand. But if it is possible to find one
which shall in some sense combine or include all the others,
then there is assurance of solid ground. The Bible, as the
supreme and exclusive standard, fails to recognize the histori
cal fact that the Church, not the Book, was first. The Book
is the product of the Church. Evidently, it would also ex
clude any authority of the Church in later times, and it could
give no significant place to reason. As will appear farther on,
however, this is not at all to say that the Bible has no value
for the religious life. The Church, as the single and supreme
legislator, has the primary difficulty of being unable to formu
late its authority. No councilnot even the so-called ecumen
ical councilshave been completely representative. And
whatever the voice of the majority, there has always been a
respectable minority worthy of consideration. Yet the history
of the Church may still have vast significance for Christian
faith. In what sense can Christ be the ultimate authority?
If the historic Christ is meant, we are dependent upon the
Book to learn His will, and the Book must be interpreted, that
is, it must be subjected to the canons of thought. If an in
dwelling Christ is meant, how does He make known His will,
unless it be through the activities of the mind and heart? Of
what use then are the Book and the Church? It remains to be
seen whether reason, in the broadest sense, if made the ulti
mate authority, can resolve these difficulties. (By the term,
reason, in this connection, is not meant the intellect, as dis
tinct from feeling and will. It is used in the much larger cur
rent sense to signify the whole psychical or spiritual nature of
man. An equivalent expression would be "the free spirit of
man.") The question is then whether the reason is authori
tative in such a way as not to exclude but to include the other
proposed standards. It is important to note that the reason
Vol. 26.
82
[January,
differs from the other standards mentioned in that it is inner

and subjective, and is the medium through which the others
reach and influence the will of man. It is that from which no
doubt of Descartes can free us. It is that beyond which no
science or magic can lead us. It is the fundamental, bedrock
of human nature. Nothing is more self evident than that one
can not jump out of one's self in order to gain a vantage point
from which to direct one's- self objectively. The process by
which man governs himself and is governed is at last inner,
and takes place in the deepest recesses of his being. What
ever is to assist him must first be brought into this secret
presence. Is not the first and greatest commandment directed
to this rational nature? Does not this illustrate the profound
and enduring truth and power of the exhortations to "keep,"
"purify," "cleanse" the heart? Now it is this free spirit of
man, disciplined and directed by the Scriptures, by the
Church and by the historic and living Christ, which modern
thought emphasizes as the supreme and all inclusive author
ity. Every other statement of the seat of authority implies,
either consciously or unconsciously, the preeminence of rea
son. For instance, it is everywhere implied that reason must
ultimately determine how far the Bible can be a guide, that is,
how far the book itself is reasonable. Even the strictest
theory of Scripture, that of verbal inspiration, involves the
secondary place of the Book, in the way suggested. If this be
not true, why is this theory always accompanied by elaborate
treatises on evidences, in order to prove by various means that
the Scriptures are really genuine and authentic? If revelation
were independent of reason or absolutely superior to it, why
should it be necessary to seek constantly for proofs to con
vince the reason? The apprehension which often arises at the
mention of reason as the supreme authority, usually is due to
a failure to realize the way in which reason proceeds. To be
true to itself, which is its most fundamental law, it must be
guided by the highest rational principles which history and
experience have placed at its command. For example, it
would certainly be admitted by all that reason is the supreme
authority in philosophical speculation. Yet philosophers con
stantly return to the systems of the past to gain direction for
1898.]
83
their present thought. Or because one claims mathematics to

be a rational science, he would not therefore say that the indi
vidual might better construct the science de novo than to be
guided by the results already attained. In the same way, one
who should set aside all the religious history and moral
achievements recorded in the Bible, just because he believed
reason to be the ultimate authority in religion, would thereby
show how little he understood the meaning of the authority of
reason. In other words, reason never could command any
thing in religion except in the light of the teaching of Scrip
ture, wherever the Scriptures are known; just as reason
could not today assert anything in astronomy entirely inde
pendent of the Copernican discovery of the solar system.
Since formulating this line of thought, I have found a striking
confirmation of it in President Schurman's "Agnosticism and
Religion" (Scribner's 1896.) He says: "If it is not impos
sible to think of an external authority for the religion of cult
and the religion of creed, it is a contradiction in terms to sup
pose that there can be, ultimately at least, any authority for
spiritual religion outside the soul which experiences it. Au
tonomy, not heteronomy, is the way of the spirit. But since
we rise to spiritual life through successive stages of develop
ment, the agencies which stimulate and incite us to self-reali
zation may, in a derivative sense, be designated the authori
ties for our religious culture. This religious experience is par
alleled by the moral. * * * The virtuous man knows that
while he is a fellow-worker with all the moral forces, human
and Divine, in the universe, duty would become mere legal or
mechanical obligation could anyone impose it upon the free
spirit but itself. Yet if the good man is also a philosopher,
he must recognize that that free spirit could never have come
to itself, that the individual could never have developed into a
personality, but for his training in and through society and
under law, to both of which he has, nevertheless, in course of
time, come to feel his own moral essence to be superior. Just
as law and society are authorities in morality, so the Bible
and the Church are authorities in religion. Through these
disciplines we make our wayat least some doto the higher
altitudes of free and self-supporting moral and religious life.
84
[January,
The function of the Bible and the Church is, in this regard,
educative. The noblest souls will feel most deeply their value,
as they would be the last to belittle the function of law and
society in the moralization of mankind. * * * No descrip
tion could well exaggerate the value of the Bible as an agency
for the development of spiritual religion in the soul. This
religion emerges when the human and Divine spirit meet and
embrace. Now the Bible is a record on a large scale, of man's
reaching out after God and of God's communication of Him
self to man. It reveals God as inflexible righteousness and as
infinite love. What a glass it is through which to see the
ever-living God! But how useless when you put your eyes
out."
It is this assertion of the place of the enlightened religious
consciousness which constantly reappears in more and more
definiteness in the progressive forms of Protestant reforma
tions. The more consistent and freer application of this prin
ciple has been the secret of the expansive life of the Disciples
of Christ in the past, and may well be viewed as the hope of
the future. The obscuring of the legitimate sphere and au
thority of reason was the strength of the conservatives in the
second period, while its elucidation and defense by the pro
gressive party is the explanation of the vitality and adaptation
which have made it successful. The period just dawning, if
it is to see this body of people in the front ranks of Christian
ity, will be characterized by the same principle. The world
longs for a spiritual and rational religion which shall have a
living faith and a sincere zeal on behalf of the life of God in
the life of man. This, many signs indicate, can only be at
tained by applying in a thorough-going fashion on every side,
the fundamental conception of present day thought, namely,
the indwelling presence of God in the mind, heart and will of
man.
Edward Scribner Ames.
1898.]
The Lost Arts of the Church.
85
THE LOST ARTS OF THE CHURCH.

HUMAN knowledge and achievement fall naturally into the
two great divisions of science and art. Science consists
of principles ; art of the application of those principles. The
one is the handmaid of the other. Each helps in the advance
ment of the other. Perfect art, founded on perfect science, is
the acme of human attainment. Science is the seed; art is
the flower. The seed is more easily preserved than the flower.
Therefore, in the rise and fall of nations, it is the art that is
lost more than the science. The seed preserved for thousands
of years with the Egyptian mummies will grow into plant and
flower. So the science of the past is constantly yielding us
the flower of the practical arts which characterize our age.
But the great orator and agitator, Wendell Phillips, in his
renowned lecture, "The Lost Arts," reminds us that many of
our discoveries in the arts are only re-discoveries and not orig
inal, at the same time pointing out that there are some arts
that are dead with the generation that they served.
We will speak of arts that are dead, only because they are
not applied, and lost simply because they are not used. Re
ligion is no exception to the general truths we have stated,
because it is the crowning glory of rational achievement.
Grounded in reason and intelligence, it mounts higher and
still higher on the wings of faith. Religion, on the human
side, is both a science and an art ; the science of right think
ing and being, the art of right doing. The science is our duty
to God; the art that same duty applied in our service to our
fellow men. This is the way in which Christ states the mat
ter: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
with all thy soul, with all thy strength, and with all thy mind;
and thy neighbour as thyself." The science is religious doc
trine and worship ; the art is religious life and service. The
science concerns the individual; the art concerns society.
The science of religion, like the seed, would be more easily
8G
[J anuary,
preserved or more readily restored, while the art, which is the

flower, comes later and as the culmination.
The religious struggles of the past have been in the field
of doctrine and worship. It is the science that men have been
perfecting. Each great reformer wrought out his contribu
tion to the science of the Christian church. First came Luther
calling the world to faith, then Calvin insisting upon the
Divine sovereignty, the Wesleys with their crusade for spirit
ual fervor, and lastly the Campbells demanding the unity of
the church. All of these reformers were striking for great
essentials, but they were the essentials of the science of their
faith, that part of it which refers to the individual in his rela
tion to his God. One might think that the great reform
movement for the unity of the Church, would be an exception
to this general assertion, but it seems more fitting to rank the
founders of this plea with the other great reformers men
tioned, because the unity for which they strove, related mainly
to the doctrine and worship of the church. They announced
principles which might have taken them farther into the art of
Christianity, but they lived in the individualistic age. It was
left for later generations to solve the problems of society.
In taking up this great task, no principle will be of
greater assistance than the familiar axiom, Where the Scrip
tures speak we speak, where the Scriptures are silent we are
silent. This takes us back to the beginnings of things.
We can be assured that this grand rule, faithfully
applied by fearless men, evolved in principle the simple and
primitive Church of the Nazarene, so far as that Church is con
cerned with the individual's relation to his God, and regard
ing matters of worship. In short, it is reasonable for us to
believe that the science of the pure, simple, primitive Church
was restored through these reformers. But science is not
secure without its handmaid, art, and the next great question
is, To what extent was the art of Christianity not restored?
This question brings us to a consideration of our subject
proper.
It is difficult for our minds to grasp art in the abstract.
We know art through the arts. Our search will be simplified,
if we try to discover whether the arts of the primitive church
1898.]
.-7
have been restored. These easily group themselves into the

miraculous and natural.
At first thought, one would suppose that by the very
nature of the case, a miraculous art could neither be preserved
or restored, unless we have all the miraculous spiritual phe
nomena enjoyed by the early Church. But in contra-distinction to this superficial thought, let us at once announce this
principle: In so far as we are able, we must acquire those
powers which the Apostles enjoyed by miracleknowledge,
tongues and healingfor opportunity to acquire is God's pres
ent way of giving. In this sense, which would seem to be the
essential sense, these arts have always been partially recog
nized by the Church.
Wisdom has to a more or less degree always been con
secrated to the work of the Church, and the service of the
church, as witness the many Christian schools of learning; as
long as the Church has been awake or missionary, languages
have been acquired that messengers of the cross might go to
the ends of the earth and preach the gospel to every creature ;
and Romanism through its hospitals, and the Protestantism
through its medical missions, have recognized and to an extent
consecrated the healing art.
What a divinely appointed service to humanity is the
healing art: one of the gifts that can be lavishly bestowed
without fear of pauperizing the recipient. Men may go
hungry that you may feed them, but they will not become
sick and suffer in order that you may cure them. We are cer
tain in this service to reach the unfortunate. How sparingly
is this agency used by the Church, when according to the
record, Christ's public ministry consisted more of healing than
it did of preaching!
Our conclusion, then, would be that the arts which were
first given miraculously have been partially recognized, ac
quired and consecrated.
In the non-miraculous arts it is difficult and even unnec
essary to attempt anything like a classification, but we will
observe two of their arts in simple life. First, the art of
transplanting the gospel. This scattering of the little Jerusa
lem Church was first of all by pressure from the outside. It
83
[January,
arose through persecution, begun in the martyrdom of

Stephen. But the result was so striking, the condition was
accepted so gracefully, and the transplanting was so rigidly
maintained that this can be most truly called a voluntary
method of the primitive Church. This leaving of the city of
their fathers and of the faith of their childhood, and perma
nently settling in the more despised parts of their own coun
try and amid the wickedness of heathendom, was the art of
true neighborliness. We dare not claim that this art exists in
the Church of to-day. There may be a slight recognition of it
in the foreign work, but the missionary is almost always
looked upon as an exotic. The test of Christianity comes
not so much in the lands where it is not the faith of the peo
ple, as in those which are called Christian nations. And what
of Christian America? Does her Church practice the art of
neighborliness? Let the contrast of the boulevard and the
alley make reply.
Christ looked at his Apostles and said, "Ye are the salt of
the earth." The salt to exercise its preservative function must
be scattered, and so at last the Apostles were scattered, and
by their neighborly fellowship and zeal, spread the good news
of the kingdom. Christ did not yield to the stylishness of his
time, else he would have dwelt in Jerusalem. He preferred to
cast in his daily lot with the despised and humble fisherman
of Capemeum, although the aristocratic society of the capitol
city would some day point the finger of scorn and sneer,
"Read and see that no prophet ariseth out of Galilee."
To-day the Church has become so exclusive in its neigh
borliness, or rather so devoid of this art, that the good people
are constantly betaking themselves to the best streets and the
best neighborhoods, and even the Church building itself must
keep up its march with the extension of the avenues. The
good man and good wife are not saying, Where can our lives
be of most service to our neighborhood, or, Where can the
sweetness of our home life bring the most happiness to other
homes, but rather, "How close can we ge.t to the best people,
the finest buildings, and the most beautiful streets." And yet
this unchristian selfishness often brings its recompense. Many
times the children raised in this intensely exclusive atmos
1898.]
89.
phere, come out of a peevish and fretful childhood into lives

of the frivolity, self-indulgence and vice of the pampered rich.
The avenue needs a social settlement as much as the alley.
Selfishness is more deadly than poverty. So narrow have
men become in their living that certain nationalities and
classes are denied residence on some of our streets. Yet the
Church of God looks on in silence, nay even encourages this
selfishness by teaching men how to arise from the slum to the
avenue, instead of sending her members from the avenues to
capture the slum itself by their residence, and save it by their
pure and righteous lives.
The art of neighborliness, practiced with such simplicity
by the early Church, is, for the present, lost.
The next art of their simple life is expressed in this brief
passage (Acts 2:44, 45): "And all that believed were to
gether, and had all things common ; and they sold their pos
sessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any
man had need." This truly is the art of mutualism.
The glaring contrast between this simple picture of the
first Church and the Church of to-day is so apparent that the
passage is seldom read in our Churches without apology and
explanation. The common excuse that they feared persecu
tion is not only a failure to excuse, but the assertion is with
out foundation. The persecution arose sometime afterward.
Here is a type of more subtle attack on the simple import
of the passage in the words of the Church historian, Doctor
George P. Fisher: "According to the picture given us by
Luke, it was at the beginning like a family. Yet the surrender
of goods into the common treasury was purely voluntary. It
was neither universal on the part of the members, nor was it
a permanent custom." That this custom was practiced vol
untarily, does not seem to disprove its value among the prac
tical Christian duties, or tell us why it is not practiced to-day.
The entire Christian system is voluntary. And it may be that
even in this apostolic time the family life or mutualism did
not always find expression in a surrender of goods to the
common treasury, but the mutualism itself was as permanent
as the primitive Church itself.
90
[January,
It is in this art of arts, so far as every day life is con

cerned, that the Church has so signally failed to speak where
the Bible speaks. It is here that the reformers have left us
our greatest task. In short, they have worked out the theol
ogy of the Church, but we, entering into their labors, must
work out the sociology of the Church. The Church has not
only failed to practice mutualism itself, but it has cast its
influence in the world on the side of competition rather than
on the side of interdependence. And this is more the fault
of present generations of Christ's followers than of our relig
ious forefathers. They submitted to conditions which were
then only in embryo. The time of their development had not
come. Their true nature could not well be detected. Bat
now they can be known by their bitter fruits.
On these social questions, which are now the burning
questions of the day, the great reformers seem to have taken a
position which was noncommittal. Mr. Campbell says in the
Christian Baptist: "A social system of co-operation may be
grafted on any system of religion, true or false." Thus they
place the Church in a neutral position regarding social co-op
eration, and while they protested by lives of denial and hard
struggle against the lapsing of the Church from the primitive
standard in doctrine and worship, the lapsing of the same
Church with regard to the social conditions which are the
pressing and present-day problems, did not engage their atten
tion. They submitted to the commercialism which then in its
seed time had not even the appearance of evil, save to a few
with prophetic vision. But now the seed time is past and the
harvest is here.
We must speak or the very stones will cry
out. The social system to which the Church has submitted,
and to the perpetuation of which it has largely contributed, is
wrong, radically wrong, wrong root and branch. Neither do
you hear the voice of one crying alone in the wilderness. We
are speaking only where the Bible speaks, we are resting on
an approved Bible precedent.
"They were together and had
all things common." We are not teaching revolution; we are
preaching restoration.
But in order that we may see how unjust our social con
ditions are, let us hold them up before us. The picture most
1898.]
91
difficult for us to see is the one constantly before our eyes, but
let us set ourselves courageously to the task. First take a brief
pen picture of a community of homes in the great wealth cen
ter and metropolis of these middle states: "Little idea can be
given of the filthy and rotten tenements, the dingy courts and
tumble-down sheds, the foul stables and dilapidated out
houses, the broken sewer pipes, the piles of garbage fairly alive
with diseased odors, and of the numbers of children filling
every nook, working and playing in every room, eating and
sleeping in every window sill, pouring in and out of every
door, and seemingly literally to pave every scrap of 'yard.'"
Such are the quarters that we are providing for our poor.
Our criminals are better cared for. On the other hand, millions
of dollars are put into the building of a single palatial home.
Men by the thousands are tramping our roads unable to find
employment for their energy and skill. Mothers and daugh
ters are driven to lives of shame and hell by force of sheer
starvation. The rich are growing richer and the poor are
growing poorer, while the middle class, which has been the
mainstay of our society, is fast disappearing. Already ten per
cent, of the people own ninety per cent, of the wealth.
Let me now read from the record of the Christ life: "And
Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues,
and preaching the gospel of the kingdom. * * And
there followed him great multitudes from Galilee and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond Jordan. And
seeing the multitudes he went up into the mountain; and
when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him, and he
opened his mouth and taught them saying." * * * Then
follow the familiar beatitudes and all the simple and wonder
ful truths of the "sermon on the mount." This is the gospel
of the kingdom. It is a gospel of pure love and a kingdom
of perfect brotherhood. What has been done with this gospel
during the years when the flagrantly unjust social and eco
nomic conditions have been developing? In its own phrase,
it has been hid under a bushel. Its science has been acknowl
edged, but its art has been lost.
To-day is the day of visitation to the Church. How can
we pray, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, as in heaven,
92
[January,
so on earth," and not protest against the industrial robbery

and murder of these days? Can I tell men to love even their
enemies, and then without protest allow them by an unjust
business standard to take advantage of one another's ignor
ance and trample each other to the dust in the commercial
field? Dare I teach, "Take heed that ye do not your right
eousness before men, to be seen of them," and then truckle
and fawn before the rich and praise them to the world in
order that they will build Churches, schools and hospitals,
giving back to society a mere pittance of what they have un
justly taken? Would I dare to preach, "Lay not up for your
selves treasures upon the earth," and then slyly tell men that
if they will work for the sole purpose of amassing riches, it is
all right if they divide with the clergy? How can I say with
my Master, "Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat
or what ye shall drink," while I fatten on the blood-red gold,
robbed from the toiling masses by an employer who uses to
his own advantage our unjust industrial system, and calls
every one an anarchist and disturber of the peace who would
change the existing condition?
The pampering of a favored few by means of privileges
that belong naturally to society, the co-operative production
of goods and their private distribution, the awful inequality
of opportunity shown to rising generations of the different
classesin short, the terrible injustice of our social conditions
is foreign to the gospel of the kingdom, and the only way for
the Church to save herself from glaring inconsistency is for her
first to restore the primitive art of mutualism as it is found in
the early Church, and second to preach the entire gospel of
the kingdom to the world. If we would have symmetrical,
true religion, we must restore the art to the science. If we
would restore the art of Christianity we must put into life
these practical arts, neighborliness and mutualism.
The results of such a restoration are glorious to contem
plate. Let us cheer our hearts with a vision of some of them.
First, the unity of the Church. A theological unity has,
no doubt, been found. And it is my humble faith that this
great achievement has already been attained. But for some
reason men have not been able to see or realize that unity.
1898.]
93
The Church is divided almost as seriously as ever, the prayer

of Christ is unfulfilled, and his heart must grieve over the
quarrels of his children. But in practical Christian sociology
there is a unity easily seen and accomplished. There may for
a time exist those divisions that will mark the different schools
of thought in doctrine and worship, the science, but all can
unite in the result, the life, the art. There are different
schools of painting, but the finished picture is the same in
each case that the school approaches perfectionit holds the
mirror up to nature. So in Christianity there may be many
theologies, but there can be but one sociology.
Second, the saving of society. The social wrongs are so
apparent that we live to-day, as it were, on the verge of a
fiery volcano. There may be an eruption at any moment.
There have been times already when all that prevented the
oppressed from striking a bloody blow at the oppressors was
the restraining counsel of the best of our labor leaders, whom
our public press delights to malign. The only remedy I
know that will prevent our society from plunging into the
chaos of a French revolution is the mutualism taught by
Christ and practiced by his first, and, we believe, divinely
directed disciples. If it be said that Christianity has been tried
many years, and if found impotent so long, it will not be suf
ficiently powerful to save us in a crisis, this would be our
reply: Christianity has not been tried. In its final analysis it
is socialistic and not individualistic. It has never been applied
to society in any place or at any time, except in the very small
circle of its first adherents.
There are many doctors prescribing for sick and suffering
society. Reforms in currency, tariff and taxation are sug
gested; the iniative and referendum, the restriction of the
courts and proportional representation. All of these things
and others may have their place, but each is too restricted in
its scope and application to work a cure. One thing is need
ful : it is the brotherly love of the Great Physician expressed
in Christian mutualism and neighborliness.
Third, the reign of peace, justice and love, which is the
kingdom of God. Let us know the signs of the times, that
the kingdom of God is coming. There is every indication
94
[January,
that the days of commercialism are numbered. But who is

working out the purpose of Godt The cause of Christ is suf
fering, yea is almost betrayed, at the hands of his professed
friends. If only the thousands of his nominal followers would
practice the art of the gospel, as well as preach its science,
how soon the kingdom would come! But the fire of truth is
burning very low on the altar of His Church. The agitation
for mutualism and neighborliness has departed from a Church
long apostate, to be taken up, in the providence of God, by
labor reformers, whom the respectable of earth assay, in a
polite way, to despise. But Christ was not only despised but
crucified by the respectable. When that happy time comes
that the faith in and worship of Christ, still lingering in the
Church (the science) are wedded to the brotherhood and just
ice (the art) for which the unselfish of our agitators are giv
ing their lives, then, for the first time, will Christianity be on
trial in the world. Then will the blessings of the kingdom,
love, joy, peace, cover the earth as the waters cover the great
deep. Then would men rejoice in the beatitudes of Christ.
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth," will
then be realized for the kingdom would be here.
Let me bring to your minds one of the scenes near the
close of the life of the Son of Man: "Now before the feast of
the passover, Jesus knowing that his hour was come that he
should depart out of this world, he loved them unto the end.
* * * Knowing that the Father had given all things into
His hands, and that He came forth from God, and goeth unto
God, riseth from supper, and layeth aside his garments; and
he took a towel and girded himself. Then he poureth water
into the bason and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to
wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
* * *
So when He had washed their feet and taken His garments
and sat down again, He said unto them, Know ye what I
have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord; and ye say
well, for so I am. If I, then, the Lord and Master, have
washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have
done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, a servant is not
greater than his Lord, neither one that is sent greater than
1898.]
95
He that sent him. If ye know these things, blessed are ye if

ye do them."
If this is the Master whom we follow, why should we
want the high places at the feast? Why should we desire to
be waited upon by men lower in station? Why should we
demand that we live by the sweat of other men's brows?
With the thought of such a Lord and Master, one who
had made himself the most menial servant, even washing
their feet, it is not a wonder that the first little band of fol
lowers "were together and had all things common." But, O
thou Church of to-day, let this simple picture of the real
spirit of Jesus torture thyour consciences until, like Saul
on the road to Damascus, we cry out, "Lord, what wilt thou
have me to do!" Then, and not till then, will the Church of
Jesus Christ go forward in the work of the restoration of that
first Church of pure faith; and to hasten on this noble
achievement, let us nail to the masthead as our banner this
watch word above the driftwood of this uncertain time:
We
must acquire and apply in spirit and life those arts of service and
power, practiced by Christ and His apostles.
Frederick Guy Strickland.
96
Relying Upon the Name of Jesus Christ.
[January,
EXEGETICAL DEPARTMENT.
RELYING UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.

Acts ii :38.
Translation: "And Peter said to them: Repent and be baptized, each one
of you, upon the name of Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of your sins,
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
There are at least two extreme views with respect to this passage,
and these both have a bad influence on the practical results of evange
listic labor." One view makes too much of baptism, teaching in effect
the doctrine of "Baptismal Regeneration," while the other makes too
little of baptism, and consequently this fine saying of Peter is very
seldom if ever used in the ministry of those who hold this view. Indeed,
it is believed that not many preachers, of the evangelical sort, ever
quote this passage in these closing days of the nineteenth century.
Now why is this? Has the passage ceased to possess any binding
force as an authoritative declaration of the Holy Spirit? Is it no longer
to be consulted when seeking to know the Divine way of dealing with
earnest inquirers? I ask these questions because I have a notion that
the passage has special importance in determining the way of salvation.
Not that it settles everything. Not that it even settles anything with
out the concurrent evidence of other Scripture. But if the most obvious
interpretation of this text, not only does not contradict other parts of
the Word of God, but is really supported by the whole tenor of Divine
teaching, then wc should certainly be slow to neglect it in our preach
ing, and especially in instructing earnest inquirers. It seems to me its
importance is emphasized in the light of the facts in which it stands.
It is the first deliverance of the Holy Spirit's teaching after the fullfilment of the promise which our Lord made to His disciples. The
disciples were commanded to "tarry at Jerusalem until they were endued
with power from on high." At Pentecost they received that power,
and Peter, the very person who had been specially chosen to open the
new kingdom, is the speaker. He preaches a most remarkable sermon,
concluding with a splendid climax: "Therefore let all the house of
Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye
1898.]
Relyiny Upon the Name of Jesus Christ.
97
have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Never was there a finer sum
mary of the gospel facts than this. Jesus, the historical name, is here ;
Christ crucified is here ; Christ the annointed one is here ; and the Lord,
the One having all authority in heaven and earth, is here. What more
was needed so far as faith was concerned? The people had clearly set
before them the Lord Jesus Christ, embracing everything that was nec
essary to be addressed to their faith. No wonder they cried out: "Men
and brethren what must we do?" Peter's answer was: "Repent and
be baptized, every one of you, upon the name of Jesus Christ, for the
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
(Acts 2:38.)
Now, it may be well to notice the order in which the Apostle
places the various items in this text.
The inquirers were told to
"repent and be baptized." They were deeply moved by Peter's
sermonso much so, that they were pricked to the heart and cried out.
Surely here was real conviction. Consequently the Apostle does not
tell them they must believethey, doubtless, already had sufficient
faith to obey Peter's command ; and so he just told them what to do,
and then exhorted them to do it. And the promise was that, following
their obedience, they were to receive remissions of sins and the gift of the
Holy Spirit. Now, can there be any reasonable doubt that this is the
order in which the items stand related ? Of course much depends upon
the force of the preposition eis which in the Authorized Version is
translated "for." And we think it will help us to determine the exact
meaning of eis here, if we consider the whole phrase, eis aphesin
hamartioon, "for the remission of sins." The phrase only occurs in
three other places, viz., Matt. 26:28; Mark. r:4; Luke 3:3. Hence
four occurrences exhaust the New Testament use of eis aphesin
hamartioon, rendered in the Authorized Version uniformly "for the
remission of sins," and in the Revised Version "unto the remission of
sins." Now if we can certainly determine the force of eis in the phrase
as found in Matthew, Mark and Luke, we think there is no doubt that
it should have the same force in Acts 2:38. In Matt. 26:28, it can
not have a retrospective significance, since it is impossible to suppose
that Jesus shed His blood because the sins of the world were pardoned.
And it is just as evident that John did not preach the baptism of repentence because the sins of the people were pardoned, but in order to
remission (Mark 1 :4; Luke 3:3). Now as the force of eis is unmis
takably prospective in all the other occurrences of the phrase, it must
have the same force in the passage under consideration, unless there
are good and valid reasons why the uniformity of meaning should be
broken. No such reasons, I feel sure, can be given. On the contrary,
Vol. 27.
98
[January,
there is strong corroborative evidence that the Pentecostians did not

have their sins pardoned when Peter told them "to repent and be bap
tized." It is altogether improbable that he would have told them to
repent because their sins were pardoned. Nor is it possible to suppose
that their inquiry is the language of sins forgiven. They had been
charged, only a few moments before, with crucifying the innocent
Jesus. Surely they were not such characters as could expect the remis
sion of sins without sincere repentance. But baptism is placed between
the repentance and the remission of sins which was promised, and con
sequently, it can not be said that they were to be baptized because of
remission of sins any more than it can be said that they were to repent
because their sins were /emitted. Hence we conclude that every rule
of fair exegesis compels us to recognize the fact that Peter told these
Pentecostians to repent and be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ
in order to the remission of sins.
But it may be asked, how can this interpretation be made to har
monize with many passages which do not mention repentance and bap
tism as in any way connected with remission of sins? Let us just here
state a canon of criticism which is most important in this discusssion.
When the Scriptures promise a blessing, that blessing may depend
upon more, but can never depend upon less than the conditions expressed
in any given case. For instance, when salvation is promised to any
one who calls upon the name of the Lord (Rom. 10:13), 's evident
that nothing short of this calling will meet the case ; but no one would
seriously contend that calling upon the name of the Lord entirely ex
hausts all that is required in order to salvation. Precisely so is it as
regards faith. Whenever the Scriptures state this as the condition of
salvation, and mention nothing else, it should be remembered that salva
tion can not be predicated without this faith, but it does not follow that no
other conditions are understood, because they are not specifically stated
in the particular case referred to. Surely the command to believe does
not exclude repentance, calling on the name of the Lord, confession of
Christ, etc. And if it does not exclude these, why is it essential to
suppose that it necessarily excludes baptism ? I demur to that method
of reasoning which leaves the word of God in hopeless confusion. But
we are told that remission of sins is promised to faith as the only con
dition, and Acts 10:43 's quoted in proof. Now it is not stated here
that faith is the only condition. Undoubtedly remission can not depend
on less than this, but it may depend on more. It is not even said that
whosoever believeth in Him shall have remission of sins, without adding
"THROUGH HIS NAME." This important phrase is often over
looked, as if it were not in the text. The believer receives remission of
1898.]
99
sins THROUGH HIS NAME. Let us put this statement by the side of
Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you upon the
NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," etc., and we readily
see how the believing penitent receives remission of sins through His
NAME. Evidently baptism brings him to that NAME whereby
we are said to be saved. (Acts 4:12.) It is furthermore evident that
there is no antagonism between these two passages. Acts 2:38 is
in perfect harmony with Acts 10:43. One is really the explanation of
the other, because a fuller statement of practically the same thing.
Hence we should not allow some foolishly extreme sacramental notions
of baptism to crowd this Divine ordinance out of its proper place.
What is generally understood by Baptismal Regeneration is a danger
ous heresy, and should be earnestly repudiated by all Christians, but
repentance and baptism upon the name of Jesus Christ are in order to
the remission of sins. At least that is what the Apostle Peter taught
at Pentecost, and we have already seen that he taught practically
the same thing at the house of Cornelius. Not only did he tell
these Gentiles that "through His name, whosoever believeth in Him
shall receive remission of sins," but he concludes by "commanding
them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Surely nothing
could be clearer than the teaching of Peter on this subject. Is his teach
ing authoritative now? If not, why? But if it is, what becomes of
many modern methods of evangelizing?
There remains but one other point to be noticed, and that is neces
sary to meet the first extreme to which attention has been called. What
is the force of epi too anomati iasou Christou ? This I have translated :
"Upon the name of Jesus Christ." Now what does this mean? Does
it not signify clearly that whatever efficacy there may be in baptism is
derived wholly from the name of Jesus Christ ? The baptism which
Peter demanded was grounded upon the all-prevailing NAMEthe
only name by which anyone can be saved. Hence all who were bap
tized at Pentecost would understand that their whole reliance for remis
sion of sins rested upon the name of Jesus Christ. They did not trust
in the water, nor even in the act of baptism; but they were baptized,
relying upon the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ; and the
value of baptism was chiefly owing to the fact that it placed these peni
tent believers in contact with the name in which all redeeming power is
concentrated. Upon this name they based their trust, as it alone
possessed the potent charm to put away sins.
This view of the matter does not in the slightest degree change the
chronological order. It still leaves baptism a condition precedent to
remission of sins ; but it does change the emphasis from the baptism to
100
Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
[January,
the name from which baptism receives all its real significance. This I
think is a gain to the cause of truth ; and if I am justified in this conclu
sion, it seems to me a legitimate accentuation of the right word or
phrase is the only thing that is necessary to redeem this passage from
the extremes to which it has been subjected, and restore it to its rightful
authority in directing inquiring souls in the way of salvation.
BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Matt. 3:11.
Translation: "I, indeed, am baptising you in water, in order to repentance;
but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy
to carry; He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire."
On the very surface of this passage there are at least three things
apparent:
(1) Christ, during his reign, would introduce a new element in
connection with baptism. It is not said that the new element would
dispense with the old. On the contrary it seems to be implied that the
Baptism in the Holy Spirit is to be in some way added to that of water.
The former is to be supplemental to the latter. Nor is it necessary to
reckon with two distinct baptisms. The leading word is the same in
both cases ; only the noun of the adjunct changes. And the fact that
"baptise" is used before both elements suggests the probability that the
baptism was to be regarded as one while the two elementswater and
spiritwould be associated in the "one baptism."
(2) The baptism in water was administered by John, that in the
Spirit, by Christ. That is, the spiritual element could not be of human
originit must come from above. This fact strongly suggests a parallel
between the passage under consideration and John 3 : 3-5. The birth
from above may be equivalent to the baptism in the Holy Spirit. I do
not say that this is certainly so; but I do say that there are good reasons
for believing that if all metaphor was stripped from the language the two
passages would be seen to mean practically the same thing. But how
ever this may be, the important point to which special attention is
directed still remains, viz: the baptism in the Holy Spirit is Christ's
work and not that of man ; and consequently, if the two elements are to
be regarded as belonging to the "one baptism," then undoubtedly the
Divine element is "from above," and is supplied by Christ himself ; so
that while the human agent baptizes in water, Christ at the same bap
tizes in the Holy Spirit.
1898.]
101
(3) A third important matter is suggested by the language of the

text. There is no such thing as "water baptism," or "spirit baptism."
Nor are the phrases "baptism of water," or "baptism of the Holy
Spirit" to be found anywhere in the Bible; and this is not only the
language of Ashdod, but it is wholly misleading. "Baptism of the
Holy Spirit" conveys an entirely different meaning from that conveyed
by "baptism in the Holy Spirit." The former can not be found in the
word of God ; nor can the idea it conveys be found there. The Biblical
langauge is always "baptize in or with water," and "baptize in or
with the Holy Spirit." Now anyone ought to see that these phrases
express a very different idea from those to which I object. In the
objectionable phrases, the leading terms are "water" and "Spirit."
The "baptism of water" indicates that the baptism is really some
thing that belongs to the water or proceeds from the water, and
consequently teaches not only an unscriptural notion, but also expresses
a wholly unphilosophical idea. The same is true of the phrase bap
tism of the Holy Spirit. It represents the baptism as coming
from the Spirit instead of from Christ. But this is not the teaching of
the New Testament. The truth is, the leading idea is always the bap
tism, and not the spirit which is only the element in which the baptism
takes place.
It is easy to see how a misconception, such as I have indicated would
have a vicious influence on the thoughts of the religious world. By
using such phrases as "water baptism" and "baptism of water" the
people would soon come to attach little or no importance to baptism in
water, for the reason that water baptism and baptism of water puts
the emphasis in the wrong place, and consequently begets the notion
that baptism in water may be dispensed with entirely, or attended to in
any kind of fashion, if only the "baptism of the Holy Ghost" can be
secured. This latter phrase magnifies the importance of the baptism in
the spirit, because it wholly misrepresents the facts of the case. But it
is not the element that is the leading thought in the Scriptural language ;
it is the action and that action is called baptism, whether the element is
water, or spirit, or both. Hence I conclude that the popular phrase
ology on this subject is entirely unscriptural and misleading. There is
really no such thing as "water baptism," or "spirit baptism," nor is
there anything in the word of God that even corresponds to "baptism
of water" or "baptism of the Holy Spirit." Such language only
shows the confusion of Christendom, and serves to illustrate how easy
it is for even the most conscientious people to drift away from a
pure speech.
Having now cleared the ground, is it possible to determine with
definite certainty the exact meaning of the passage under considera
102
[January,
tion? Let us see. Of course there are those who find only two instan
ces of baptism in the Holy Spiritat Pentecost and at the house of Cor
nelius? No doubt these were special cases, but I doubt the conclusion
that these are the only instances where the baptism in the Holy Spirit
took place. In i Cor. 12:13 the Apostle seems to declare that the Cor
inthians had all been baptized in one spirit into one body. This bap
tism may not have been accompanied by such signs as were present at
Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius ; but this would prove little
or nothing as to the point in controversy. The gift of the Holy Spirit
did not always carry with it the same manifestation of the Spirit.
From Acts 19:2-6, it is evident that baptism in water was closely
associated with the Holy Spirit, and may we not reasonably conclude
that the elementspiritwas added to baptism after John's baptism
had wrought its mission ? Hence when Peter told the Pentecostians to
"repent and be baptized, every one of them in thename of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of sins, and they should receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit, he was simply asking them to be baptized into the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and this formula
made it impossible for anyone to be baptized and not hear of the Holy
Spirit. No wonder Paul asked the disciples he found at Ephesus, "in
to what, then, were you baptized?" He could not understand how
they could have received Christian baptism and not hear of the Holy
Spirit, since the name of the Holy Spirit was used in the Baptismal
formula. And Paul's reference to what John the Baptist said strongly
suggests the baptism in the spirit as one side at least of this case at
Ephesus.
I conclude, therefore, that it is not necessary to limit the baptism
in the Holy Spirit to two or three occasions, or even to the Apostolic
age. It seems to me to be more in harmony with the whole scope of
the Scripture teaching on the subject, to regard baptism in the Holy
Spirit as a part of every baptism, either immediately associated with
the baptism in water, or else closely following it. Nor is this baptism
to be repeated any more than baptism in water is to be repeated.
Indeed, if the two elements are to be regarded as belonging to the "one
baptism" of which Paul speaks in Ephesians, then all the modern
notion of praying for a "rebaptism of the Holy Ghost" is entirely un
authorized by anything to be found in the word of God.
[A somewhat different view from the foregoing, is given in another place by
two of our associate editors. The reader can examine and decide which he pre
fersEd. C. Q.]
1898.]
Who Are Children of God f
103
WHO ARE CHILDREN OF GOD?

John i : 11-12.
Translation: "He came unto His own country, and His own people did not
receive Him home. As many, however, as did receive Him, to them gave He the
right to become children of God, even to those that were believing on His name."
The point to be considered is the meaning of the word "become."
The Greek is genesthai, 2 Aor. Inf., and is from ginomai. The cor
responding Latin is Fieri, the German Werden and the French d'etre
faits. Now there are few words of more general use than ginomai.
It has several meanings, but all of these in some way relate to the pri
mary meaning, which is, to come into existence, be created, exist by
creation ; but it never, so far as I can find, has a signification that will
justify the notion that it represents entering into the conscious enjoy
ment of something that was already ours. Nevertheless this latter
view is very generally entertained by those who believe that all men are
now the children of God, whether they are Christians or not.
Undoubtedly the text under consideration is crucial with respect to
the question of divine Sonship ; and this question may be stated briefly
as follows: Are men sons of God without adoption, or have they for
feited their divine relationship by reason of sin, and must they now be
born again before they can become children of God? The text before
us seems to imply that faith gives the right to become children of God,
but even it in itself does not constitute them children. Surely we do
not become that which we are already ; or to put it in other words, we
do not enter into a state if we are in it. The notion, then, that we are
children of God before regeneration and adoption seems to be not only
contrary to Scripture but also contrary to human reason. But we are
told that we are children of God by creation, and though like the prodi
gal we have wandered from our Father's house, we are still his children
and he is still our Father. Now, as a matter of fact it would be diffi
cult to prove that the relation of Father and child between God and
man was ever recognized under the old dispensations. It is true that
Paul at Athens speaks of man as the "offspring" of God, but in this he
uses the language of poetry, and it really proves nothing more than that
man is the creation of God. This is admitted without question ; but if
this fact proves that men are children of God, by a parity of reasoning
it would be easy to show that animals are His children, since He created
hem also. Of course this reasoning does not imply that there is no
104
Who Are Children of God f
[January,
difference between animals and men. The point is simply as to rela

tionship.
That man is the creature of God no one will dispute, but that he
ever was His child, in the true meaning of the word, may well be ques
tioned. At the same time I do not care to dispute the contention of
those who hold to his original sonship. What I claim is that in his
present lost condition he is without God and without hope in the world,
an alien and a stranger, outside of the covenant and wholly unworthy to
be called a child. In short he must become a child through the grace
of God before it is possible for him to claim divine sonship. All this
seems to be clearly set forth in the text under consideration. Hence
those who contend for the Divine Fatherhood of the race do not prop
erly distinguish between what is understood by natural birth, or birth
into the kingdom of nature, and spiritual birth, or birth into the kingdom
of grace. In one we are God's offspring, but have lost our inheritance,
lost our birthright ; and consequently a new birth is necessary, and in
this we are constituted children of God by adoption. Having forfeited
our birthright we are no longer children until we become such by the
means which God has provided in the gospel scheme.
In order to arrive at the whole truth in this matter we must not con
fine ourselves simply to the family idea. That is only one phase of the
question. The fact of our new state is set forth under various figures.
The lost world is represented in the Scriptures as under the dominion
of Satan, as belonging to his kingdom, and Christians are regarded as
having been translated from this kingdom into the kingdom of God's
dear Son. In every instance where the change is referred to the idea of
transition is always prominent. It is from one kingdom to another,
from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, from death to
]ife, from a state of alienation to a state of reconciliation, from the old
man to the new man, from condemnation to justification, etc., etc.
Hence the relationship of father and child is only one way of expressing
what follows in the new creation in Christ Jesus. But this relationship
is dependent upon faith which gives the right to become children. The
whole change is fully set forth in Gal. iii: 26-29. In this Scripture it
is clearly implied that we become children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus, and that this faith is manifested by actually putting on Christ in
baptism. The idea of transition is evidently clearly shown in this pass
age, and this is precisely what is shown in the text which we have
under consideration. In this text faith gives the right to take the im
portant step which will constitute the believer a child of God. He does
not become a child by the simple exercise of faith, but this faith gives
him the right or privilege to enter into definite, covenant relationship
1898.]
In Holy Spirit and Fire.
105
by an act of obedience, which is the transition act between alienation

and reconciliation. Hence if any man be in Christ he is new creation,
and as many as have been baptized into Christ have put away the old
and have entered upon the new.
Such at least is the conclusion to which I am forced after a candid
consideration of what seems to be the general trend of the Scriptures.
I am not unmindful of what will be said by some in reply to the points
I have made. No doubt, among other things I will be told that Christ
taught His disciples to pray "Our Father, who art in heaven." But
this was said to His disciples and it is by no means certain that any one
else has a right to appropriate what the language implies. Still, there
may be a sense in which it is proper to recognize all men as God's errng children, but this view certainly is not very clearly set forth in the
Scriptures. Nevertheless, even if such a view can be fairly established,
it is still true that only those whe believe and obey the Gospel are recon
ciled, adopted, saved; and consequently there is certainly no need to
maintain a position which, to say the least, is of doubtful interpretation,
and is certainly misleading to many as respects its special bearing upon
the salvation of the race. The case of the prodigal son can not be
legitimately used to establish the contention implied in the universal
Fatherhood of God, as it is usually set forth by those who teach that
notion.
IN HOLY SPIRIT AND FIRE.

Matt. 3:11.
The meaning of John the Baptist when he said, "I indeed baptize
you in water, but He who cometh after me shall baptize you in Holy
Spirit and fire," has been a matter of discussion ever since the time of
Origen, who wrote in the first half of the third century. Leaving out
f view the question about baptism in water, which is entirely modern ;
for anciently there was no dispute about it; the discussion has turned
upon the latter clause of the sentence, and upon the question, is the
baptism that of one class of persons in both Holy Spirit and fire, or the
baptism of two sets of persons, one in Holy Spirit and the other in fire?
I leave off the article before Holy Spirit, both because the word is
anarthrous in the original, and because the Holy Spirit is here con
templated as an element in which a baptism takes places as well as a
106
[January,
person. This is the reason indeed for the omission of the article in the
Greek.
The answer to this question given by the most of modern inter
preters, is fairly represented by Alford, who says :
"This was literally fulfilled at the day of Pentecost, but Origen
and others refer the words to the baptism of the righteous by the Holy
Spirit, and of the wicked by fire. I have no doubt that this is a mis
take in the present case, though apparently (to the superficial reader)
borne out by verse 12. * * * To separate off 'with the Holy Spirit'
as belonging to one set of persons, and 'fire' as belonging to another,
when both are united in 'you,' is in the last degree harsh, besides intro
ducing confusion into the whole." [I omit a sentence not bearing
directly on the question.]
The substance of this answer is contained in the first statement.
"This was literally fulfilled at the day of Pentecost." In so saying
Alford departs from his usual carefulness. The word "literally" is
here entirely out of place ; for though it is correct to say that on Pente
cost the twelve were baptized in the Holy Spirit, it is not true that they
were "literally" baptized; for certainly the word baptized is used
figuratively in that instance. Neither will it do to say that they were
literally baptized in fire, seeing that there was no literal fire present on
the occasion. Even if the tongues "like as of fire" which sat upon
each of them had been literal fire, it could not have been said that they
were baptized in fire. But there was no fire, and consequently there
was no literal baptism in it. The occasion furnished no fulfillment of
John's words, either literal or figurative as respects fire.
Alfred Plummer, in his recent Critical Commentary on Luke, dis.
cusses the question more elaborately. He agrees with Alford in part,
but he thinks it improbable that the reference of John is to the fiery
tongues of Pentecost. He says :
"Various explanations are suggested. (1) That the fiery tongues
at Pentecost are meant, is improbable. Were any of those who received
the Spirit at Pentecost among the Baptist's hearers on this occasion?
Moreover, in Acts 1 15 'and fire' is not added. (2) That it dis
tinguishes two baptisms, the penitent with the Spirit, and the impeni
tent with penal fire, is very improbable. The same persons '.you'
are to be baptized with the Spirit and with fire. In verse 17 the good
and bad are separated, but not here. This sentence must not be made
parallel to what follows, for the winnowing shovel is not baptism. (3)
More probably the fire refers to the illuminating, kindling, and purify
ing power of the grace given by the Messiah's baptism [here he quotes
Bengel to the same effect]. (4) Or the fiery trials which await the
1898.]
107
Disciple who accepts Christ's baptism may be meant: Comp. 12:50;

Mk. 10:38, 39. The passage is one of many, the exact meaning of
which must remain doubtful ; but the purifying of the believer rather
than the punishment of the unbeliever seems to be intended."
For the four conclusions here set forth, two negative and two
positive, the author claims nothing more than probability; and this
incertitude is accounted for by the admission at the close that the exact
meaning of the passage must remain doubtful. It certainly must if no
nearer approach to it than this can be made. But we should not too
easily give up the struggle to determine the meaning of an important
saying like this. Perhaps there is something to be seen in the direction
of a solution that has hitherto escaped notice.
I think it will clear up some of the confusion if we carefully test the
probability of the two "probable" conclusions between which this au
thor's mind seems to vacillate. As to the one which he marks (3), if the
word fire refers to the" illuminating, kindling, and purifying power of the
grace given by the Messiah's baptism," it seems to me that John may
as well have omitted the word altogether ; for all the grace given by the
Messiah's baptism is involved in being baptized in the Holy Spirit ; and
the addition of the word fire with that reference would be a redundancy.
The grace imparted by John's baptism was remission of sins; but John
could not have expressed this idea by saying, I baptize you in water and
remission of sins. Just as little could he have said that the Coming One
would baptize in the Holy Spirit and the grace which that baptism
would bring with it. Moreover, grace and fire are two objects of
thought too widely separated for one to be used metaphorically for the
other. Indeed, neither the grace imparted by the Holy Spirit, nor the
Holy Spirit himself is ever symbolized in the Scriptures by fire, unless
my memory is at fault. When God is called "a consuming fire," the
reference is by no means to his grace. I think, then, that this probable
conclusion of Dr. Plummer is altogether improbable.
That which he marks (4), that the fiery trials which awaited the
disciples of Jesus are meant, is much more plausible ; for these were
certainly predicted by Christ, and fire is used symbolically in the Scrip
tures, sometimes for purification and sometimes for punishment; and it
is far more probable that John is here predicting the purification of the
Messiah's disciples by the fires of persecution through which they were
to pass, than the purifying effects of being baptized in the Holy Spirit,
or the circumstance of tongues like flanhe appearing above them on
Pentecost. These tongues, by the way, were symbols, not of the Holy
Spirit, nor of purification, nor of punishment; but of the languages of
men in which the apostles were speaking at that hour, and in which they
were to preach the gospel to all the nations.
108
[January,
But is the real reference in John's use of the word fire to fiery
trials? If so, it would be an instance of much farther foresight into
the future of the Disciples of Christ than John manifests anywhere else.
The foreknowledge of even the Messiah's personal career granted to
Him was very meagre ; and I believe that He nowhere else exhibits any
prescience at all with respect to the experiences of His Disciples. This
may not disprove the interpretation, but it should at least throw doubt
upon it. Still graver doubt of it must arise when we consider our
Lord's own use and application of John's prediction. In His last inter
view with the twelve, when they only were present, He quotes John's
prediction almost verbatim, and applies it to what they were soon to
experience on Pentecost, but He leaves out the word fire. He says:
"John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit
not many days hence." (Acts 1:5.) He would naturally have quoted
the whole of John's prediction if the whole of it was about to be ful
filled. We conclude, then, that the Apostles were about to be baptized
in Holy Spirit, but not in fire. This refutes once more the position of
Alford, that the reference was to the fiery tongues of Pentecost, and it
looks very much as if the baptism in fire was not to be experienced by
the Apostles at all. It would be hazardous, however, to press this
inference unless we can find additional evidence for it. Let us then
turn to the context of the original remark and see if it furnishes any
additional light.
While it is a primary and universally recognized rule of interpreta
tion, that in case of all ambiguous expressions the context should be
allowed to control, if it will, there is no rule more commonly neglected
by interpreters. In the present instance the context has a very clear
and direct bearing on the meaning of the ambiguous word fireambig
uous, that is, in its symbolic or its metaphorical use ; and ambiguous in
this instance because of the doubt whether it is used metaphorically or
literally. To show this let us quote the context as it appears in Mat
thew :
"And even now is the axe laid at the root of the trees: every tree,
therefore, that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into
the fire. I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance : but He that
cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear : He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire : whose fan is in
His hand, and He shall thoroughly cleanse His threshing-floor; and He
will gather His wheat into the garner, but the chaff He will burn up
with unquenchable fire."
Now, here the speaker divides men into two distinct classes, repre
senting them first as good trees and bad, of which the bad are to be
1898.]
109
hewn down and burned ; and last, as wheat and chaff, of which the
chaff is to be burned with fire. In both instances the word fire is used
literally, and the material represented by it stands as the symbol of
punishment. But the same word is used in the same train of thought
between these two, and in the same sentence with the last; and it must
then have the same meaning unless there is a paranomasia, or play
upon the word, of which there is no evidence, and which is not claimed
by any of the interpreters. The word fire, then, in this intermediate
instance, must be understood, as in the two extremes, in its literal
sense, and as a symbol of punishment. In other words, as the men
represented by the good trees in the first parable, and those represented
by the wheat in the last, are those baptized in the Holy Spirit, so those
who are to be burned because they are fruitless trees in the first, and
because they are chaff in the last, are to be baptized in fire according
to the second.
This interpretation is so obviously correct that it would be at once
and universally accepted, I am sure, but for the objection urged both
by Alford and Plummer, and by all of the interpreters who have thus
far rejected it; that is, the objection based on the use of the pronoun
"you""He shall baptize you in Holy Spirit and fire"implying, it is
argued, that the same persons were to be baptized in both elements.
If it can be made to appear that this objection is without force, it seems
to me that the whole controversy should terminate at once. I believe
that this can be done. Let us see.
In what way does John use the pronoun you in this connection ?
The speech which Matthew is here quoting was addrested to certain
"Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism." (Verse 7.) He
demands of them, "Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to
come?" He commands them to "bring forth fruit worthy of repent
ance," and not to say that Abraham is their father. He warns them
by the parable of the axe and the trees; and then he adds, "I indeed
baptize you in water." Whom did he here mean by you? Did he
mean the Pharisees and Sadducees whom he was addressing? No; for
they were standing in opposition to him, and he was denouncing them
as "offspring of vipers." He did not baptize them. But if by "you"
he did not mean the persons immediately addressed, whom did he
mean ? The only answer is that he meant those persons whom he did
baptize; and that he used the term you in a general way for these. We
have an example of a similar use of this pronoun by our Lord. When
he said, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither
shall they say lo, here, or there; for lo, the kingdom of God is within
you" (Luke 17:20, 21), He was addressing certain Pharisees who
110
[January,
asked Him, "when the kingdom of God cometh." Did He mean that
the kingdom of God was within those unbelievers? Or did He use the
pronoun you indefinitely for those men who were going to submit to the
reign of God in their souls? It was the same as to say that the king
dom of God was to be within men, as distinguished from the external
kingdoms of the world. So in the case of John. I baptize you in
water, meant the same as if he had said, those whom I baptize I bap
tize in water. But if this is the force of "you" in this clause of the
sentence, it must be the same in the next clause where, using the iden
tical term, he says: "He shall baptize you in Holy Spirit and fire."
Take "you" here as referring to the parties immediately addressed,
and it would make John say that the Coming One was to baptize these
viperish Pharisees and Sadducees in Holy Spirit and fire! But take it
as it is certainly used in the first clause, and it means that Jesus would
baptize such as He would baptize at all, in Holy Spirit and fire; that is,
as the connected symbols show, those like the good trees and the wheat
in Holy Spirit, and those like the bad trees and the chaff, in fire.
This interpretation is further justified if we look farther than John
was permitted to see, and find what baptism Jesus did actually admin
ister. He baptized the Apostles on the great Pentecost in the Holy
Spirit; and He did the same for Cornelius and his friends in Caesarea.
These are the only two instances of the baptism in the Holy Spirit per
sonally administered by Christ, and they constitute the fulfillment of
the first part of John's prediction. Let it be remembered, however,
that though these were the only persons baptized in the Spirit by Jesus,
the blessings flowing out from these two acts, were extended to all the
Jews and to all the Gentiles. Of these blessings we need not speak in
detail for they are well known. As to a baptism in fire administered
by Jesus we know nothing, for we are told nothing except that depart
ure into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, which He
Himself declared that He will enforce upon the wicked when he comes
in judgment. Then the chaff and the unfruitful trees will be burned
with fire unquenchable.
J. W. McGarvey.
1898.]
The Theology of an Evolutionist.
LITERARY
Ill
REVIEWS.
ENGLISH AND AMERICAN.

i.
The Theology of an Evolutionist. By Lyman Abbott. (Boston

and New York: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.)
This volume is practically a new edition of Prof. Drummond's

"Ascent of Man," though the language and style are different. The
argument is somewhat changed in places, but the aim is precisely the
same as the Scotch Professor had in view. There is this difference in
the matter, however, and it is a marked difference ; Dr. Abbott faces
squarely the Bible difficulties which stand in the way of his theory of
evolution, and tries hard to remove them. His success will not be re
garded as a remarkable achievement by those who have a clear under
standing of all that is involved in this discussion. The Scotch Professor
ignored these difficulties entirely.
Dr. Abbott declares himself a theistic evolutionist. He says: "I
acknowledge myself a radical evolutionistit is hardly necessary to say
a theistic evolutionist. I reverently and heartily accept the axiom of
theology that a personal God is the foundation of all right; but I also
believe that God has but one way of doing things ; that his way may be
described in one word as the way of growth, or developement, or evo
lution, terms which are substantially synonymous ; that He resides in
the world of nature and in the world of men ; that there are no laws of
nature which are not the laws of God's own being; that there are no
forces of nature ; that there is only one divine, infinite force, always
proceeding from, always subject to, the will of God ; that there are not
occasional or exceptional theophanies, but that all nature and all life is
one great theophany ; that there are not occasional interventions in the
order of life which bear witness to the presence of God, but that life is
itself a perpetual witness to His presence ; that He transcends all phe
nomena, and yet is the creative, controlling, directing force in all phe
nomena."
We are thankful that Dr. Abbott is not an Atheist. His case shows
that it is possible for some men at least to be radical evolutionists with
out being either Agnostics or Atheists. Dr. Abbott is neither. He is
112
[January,
an earnest believer in God, and also in our Lord Jesus Christ. He ac

cepts the Christian religion most heartily in all of its essential character
istics. But is not his an exceptional case? He tells us that all biologists
are evolutionists ; but is it not a fact that for the most part they are also
Atheists? So far as our observation extends we do not know a single bi
ologist, who is a radical evolutionist, who is not at the same time an
Atheist, at any rate an Agnostic. It is possible for a man to be a
radical evolutionist and still hold to Theism and even the religion of
Christ. There are no doubt men of this kind, but we do not think
their number is very large. It is also possible for some men
to be habitual drinkers of ardent spirits during the whole period
of a life time and not become drunkards ; but most men will
agree that these are exceptional cases and do not illustrate the
general rule. Doubtless the radical doctrine of evolution may not be
specially dangerous to a few well trained minds who have already got a
strong hold on the divine side of things and who are exceptionally strong
in their moral manhood ; but we very seriously doubt the propriety of
feeding the majority of men on evolution diet if we are to expect them
to be devout believers in God and the Christian religion. Dr. Abbott
thinks that even Mr. Huxley did not believe in the power of matter to
create itself. What then does Mr. Huxley mean when he says that
matter has in it "the promise and potency of all life?" If this does not
suggest the notion that matter can create itself, it certainly does sug
gest the notion that matter can create life, which is a far more difficult
thing to do. It is freely admitted that some of Mr. Huxley's statements
seem to indicate that he believed in a Great First Cause ; but his views
in this respect are somewhat contradictory, and consequently it is diffi
cult to affirm with certainty just what he did believe.
But whatever may have been Mr. Huxley's faith there can be no
doubt about Dr. Abbott's. The Doctor is neither obscure nor timid.
He tells us in the plainest and the most vigorous language where he
stands. His honesty is transparent, and his earnestness, in the advo
cacy of his views, is worthy of the highest praise. He unquestionably
believes that he has got hold of the key which unlocks many mysteries,
and when the door to these is thrown open, some who now doubt will
accept the Theistic view of the universe and of religion. We do not
sympathize with Dr. Abbott's optimism, but we greatly admire his evi
dent sincerity and his intense enthusiasm. Any way, we are convinced
that his view will either do much good or much harm. We are in
clined to believe that in some cases it will do good. There are certain
classes who may be won by its profound reverence for God and relig, ion ; but we can not help believing that a much larger class will be
1898.]
The Uieology of an Evolutionist.
113
influenced in precisely the opposite direction. That the fundamental

thesis of the book is entirely wrong we do not for a moment doubt; but
this wrong is so completely covered up by plausible reasoning that many
will fail to see the subtle poison which lurks in its logic and diffuses
itself throughout his whole system of the physical and the moral
universe.
Let us now notice briefly the system which Dr. Abbott advocates.
First of all it may be well to state that he bases his whole system on the
saying of John Fiske that evolution is "God's way of doing things."
It is not whether God creates, but how He creates. Hence evolution is
only history, a history of steps by which the world has come to what
it is. The story of evolution is, therefore, simply the narrative of God's
way of doing things. However, Dr. Abbott quotes Le Conte's defini
tion approvingly, namely that "evolution is continuous progressive
change, according to certain laws, and by means of resident forces."
Now the danger of this definition is in jjs tail. What does Le Conte
mean by "resident forces?" Evidently this phrase is intended by the
author to exclude the notion of Theism. In short, it means, if it means
anything, what Prof. Huxley has saidnamely, that matter has in it
the "promise and potency of all life." It is true that Dr. Abbott labors
hard to redeem Le Conte's phrase from such a use, but we do not think
his labors are successful. Indeed, the Doctor so frequently finds himself
in bad company that we almost pity him in his struggle to relieve him
self from the consequences of his own logic when that is based upon
the premises furnished him by evolutionists ; and our pity is increased
when he tells us that he is not a specialist, and, 'consequently, has his
facts at second hand, being indebted to others for all he knows on thesubject. Just here we are almost tempted to suggest that such men
ought not to be so cock-sure as to the theories they advocate.
But what is the Doctor's main contention? He thinks that both
creation and the development of the embryo prove the doctrine of
evolution. He gives us an illustration of the Nebular theory of the uni
verse, and he thinks that this proves conclusively that God's way of
doing things is by evolution or development. Now we are not dis
posed to find fault with the Nebular hypothesis in any respect whatever,
but Dr. Abbott's mistake is precisely the mistake of all evolutionists.
We believe in development just as much as Dr. Abbott does, and we
believe, furthermore, that the six days of the first chapter of Genesis
were days of development and orderly arrangement of the universe, as
is practically declared in the chapter itself. But our evolution begins
with the first day, and this is after everything was created. The first
verse tells us of the creation ; the second of the chaos which followed ;
Vol. 28
114
[January,
and then, beginning with the third verse, we have a particular account
of certain periods, marking successive steps in the evolution of the or
derly preparation of the earth for the reception of man. Now this kind
of evolution completely harmonizes with the Bible account, and this
kind we heartily accept. But Dr. Abbott makes the mistake of con
founding creation and evolution, two things that, in our judgment, differ
as widely as the poles.
Dr. Abbott's views of embryology are equally erroneous. He
states the facts of embryology clearly enough, but we are bound to say
his conclusion is entirely a petitio principiihe certainly begs the
whole question by taking for granted the very thing to be proved. He
quotes from the late Mr. Romanes, giving the results of his experiments
in studying the progress of the child embryo through various stages of
the fish, salamander, tortoise, bird, hog, calf and rabbit. Mr. Romanes
shows how man, in three successive stages of development, runs parallel
with these animals, and thinks that there is very little difference between
the eight animals, at the earliest of the three stages represented, and
the human embryo, all having fish-like tails, gill-slits, etc. The next
stage shows a further differentiation, and still there is great similarity ;
but in the third stage the distinctive characters are well marked.
Now, all this ought to be reasonably expected by those who take
the trouble to remember that man is closely allied with the animal
kingdom. Of course we can not go into the matter of technical
science in a brief and popular article, such as we are at present writing;
but we can indicate a few points which will show how Dr. Abbott's
arguments are plausible while they are at the same time wholly falla
cious. Like nearly all evolutionists he confounds similarity and iden
tity. There are undoubtedly many points of similarity between man
' and other animals, but we do not think that this fact necessarily implies
that man has either ascended or descended through a fishy tribe to his
present position. Reasoning a priori, it is easy to reach the conclusion
that the Divine Creator would stamp upon the whole animal kingdom
distinct points of similarity, but this similarity must never be confounded
with identity. Nevertheless, Dr. Abbott would have us believe that
man was once an aquatic animal simply because he finds a similarity
between the ears of man, or "gill-slits," and the gill-slits of the fish.
Evolutionists make the same mistake when they draw their illus
trations from the vegetable kingdom. Possibly the law of growth is
the same, whether it is operating in the mineral, vegetable or animal
kingdom. But the question in the first place is not one of growth. We
can not discuss the whole question of evolution, as evolutionists do,
without considering the matter of origins. Evolutionists tell us that
1898.]
115
they have nothing to do with origins, and yet they immediately

rush to the other side of birth into the region of embryos, and then
stoutly affirm that embryology clearly teaches that man has come up
through the animal creation to the position which he now occupies.
Now, the fact that the human embryo, in its earlier stages, is not dis
tinguishable from some of the lower animals proves practically nothing
at all. A similar fact is everywhere found in the vegetable kingdom.
Two seeds may not be capable of differentiation by even the most careful
microscopic investigation ; and yet these seeds, when planted, will pro
duce very different fruit. What is it that makes the difference ? Doubt
less the process of germination is very similar, if not identical, in both
cases ; nevertheless, one may develop into fruit suitable for food, while
the other may produce a deadly poison.
Is not this fact exactly in harmony with what the first chapter of
Genesis teaches? Everything was to "produce after its kind;" and
this is a far better and more truthful statement of the law of evolution
than any of the statements on which Dr. Abbott relies. When once
we have the seed, or the life principle, the law of development is no
doubt practically the same in all departments of the universe ; but this
is a very different thing from the assumption that you may plant a mus
tard seed and from this obtain another kind of seed altogether. Just
here we touch the weak point in the theory of evolution. No one dis
putes the possible development of a particular plant or animal. Every
creation is capable of improvement. The earth itself was greatly im
proved through the six successive days of its growth. Man may also
improve. If this is not so, what is the meaning of all our colleges, uni
versities and other educational institutions? But all this has nothing
whatever to do with the creation of man or his functional powers.
Really the fatal fact in the way of evolutionists is the failure to find a
single case where the divine law of production has been violated in the
normal developments of nature. It is still true, as when the Apostle
Paul said it was, that "whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also
reap."
From these considerations we are led to the conclusion that evolu
tion, instead of being the law of creation, as Dr. Abbott thinks it is, it
is only the law of propagation, after creation has taken place. We
will try to make our meaning clear. The statement with reference to
propagation, which we have quoted from Genesis, certainly suggests
the fact that all created things have been placed under law, and this is
precisely what we find true in the realms of both mind and matter.
Under the operations of this law, which we may call the law of natural
selection, or by any other name we choose, there are produced all the
116
[January,
phenomena ascribed by Dr. Abbott to the development of man. It is

not with these phenomena, following creation, that we find fault. Per
haps we should not differ with Dr. Abbott as regards these things at all.
Our main objection to his contention is that he needlessly contradicts
the Bible, and yet gives us no satisfactory explanation of the drama of
creation. We believe there is no actual conflict between the Bible
account of creation and the facts which science has fully established.
It may be that further investigation will compel a modification of our
present view of the meaning of Genesis, but we feel confident that no
such reasoning as that resorted to by Dr. Abbott will change our views
with respect to the great facts which he regards as allegories or fables.
We have already intimated that Dr. Abbott's book is a sort of
revised edition of Prof. Drummond's "Ascent of Man." It may be
well, therefore, to notice a particular point which Professsor Drummond
emphasizes, as it will illustrate one of the blunders of evolutionists.
The Professor devotes a whole chapter to the evolution of lan
guage, in which he attempts to show that human speech is simply the
result of suggestions in the sounds of nature ; and we are practically
told that for a long period man wandered about without any definite
articulate language, communicating with his fellows through signs and
gesticulations.
Here we are again face to face with the account of
Genesis. In that account we are distinctly told that Adam talked with
the Lord God in the garden, and also with Eve ; and that, furthermore,
he gave names to the animal creation beneath him. Now if Adam
belonged to primeval man, then it is evident that the story of Genesis is
not even respectable poetry, for poetry ought to have a basis of prob
ability in the structure of its plot. But Prof. Drummond virtually gives
up his whole contention when he begins to state the fact upon which it
is based. He says: "The child who says moo for cow, or bow-wow,
for dog, tick-tick for watch, or puff-puff for train, is an authority on
the origin of human speech." Now we respectfully suggest that the
child does not say any of these things until it is taught to say them by
some one else. Indeed, we are ready to stake the whole issue on the
single fact that a child would never create a word such as Prof. Drum
mond has indicated. We think it is highly probable that articulate
speech, even in its most rudimentary forms, is not ab intra at all, but ab
extra. The Professor thinks that man was developed with a capacity
for speech, and then learned to speak through the force of his environ
ment. In our opinion the latter part of this statement is incorrect. We
think that the Creator endowed him with the organs of speeeh, and then
taught him to use these organs by speaking to him a distinct language
which man learned through the organ of hearing. No doubt the first
1898.]
Ill
vocabulary of words was very limited and simple, just as a vocabulary

which a parent uses with his child is limited and simple. As a matter
of fact Prof. Max Miiller has reduced the whole Sanscrit language,
which is one of the oldest languages, to one hundred and twenty-one
"original concepts," and it is certainly not unreasonable to suppose
that the oldest language of the earth, whatever that language may have
been, was confined to just such words and phrases as met the needs of
men at that time. But when once a language has been invented, like
everything else, it is capable of expansion and development. The evo
lution begins after the language is created, not before. The born mute
does not speak, though he has the organs of speech fully developed.
Why is this ? Evidently for the reason that he can not be taught to
speak through the ear, and there is no other way to teach a spoken lan
guage. He may be taught to write, read, and communicate with his
fellowmen by a language as intelligible to him as a spoken language
would be, but he can not be taught to speak in such a way as to create a
language worthy of the name, because a spoken language can only be
communicated by articulate sounds.
Dr. Abbott does not give this matter as much attention as Prof.
Drummond does ; and it may be that the Doctor is conscious that at
this point his theory is very weak. But, however this may be, the fact
we have just referred to is practically fatal to Doctor Abbott's conten
tion. He virtually makes an objective revelation entirely unnecessary.
Nevertheless an objective revelation, or a revelation, ab extra, is pre
cisely what the Great Creator has constantly used in arresting the down
ward tendency of man since his transgression in the garden of Eden.
Indeed, it was an objective revelation which was made the test of man's
loyalty while in the garden of Eden. The law of prohibition was the
law of God revealed in words. The attack on this by the serpent was
also from without. This attack was made through the medium of
articulate words, and was an appeal from without to certain feelings
within ; and if this had not been the case, the attack would, no doubt,
have been unsuccessful.
But it is after the expulsion from Eden that we most frequently
come in contact with the influence of an objective revelation in the edu
cation and salvation of man. The Apostle Paul puts the whole philoso
phy of the rescue in the right form when, in Romans, he says: "Faith
comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." Man did not
lose the faculties with which he had been created when he fell from
his first estate ; but his higher faculties became obviously more distinctly
subservient to the lower. When he was first created the spiritual man
predominated ; and this spiritual domination could not have been broken
118
[January,
in any other way, so far as we can see, than by an attack from without
through articulate speech; and now that the animal man predominates,
the attack for recovery or rescue can be made successful only by an
approach from without, or through an objective revelation in words,
such as the law was, and as the Gospel is.
Before closing what we have to say at present concerningDr. Abbott's
book, we can not refrain from calling attention to the high claims which
such writers as Dr. Abbott usually make. They generally tell us that
science is the only road to certainty, and this remark is intended to
discount either walking by faith, or else to intimate that walking by
faith must be supplemented by the knowledge which science gives.
Nevertheless it is a fact which can not be disputed that nearly all the
theories of scientists concerning evolution have been refuted by scientists
themselves. Of course, well established facts will stand, no matter
what may be said against them ; and if scientists would confine them
selves strictly to facts no one would have a right to complain. But
when they wish to pull down the faith of centuries by purely speculative
theories, they ought not to think it strange, if ordinary people can not
follow them. Just now it is the fashion for evolutionists to differ with
one another. Indeed, this habit is becoming so common that it is
possible to find where every position held by evolutionists has been
antagonized by evolutionists.
Recently a very able work, entitled "Materials for the Study of
Variation," by W. Bateson, F. R. S., has been published, in which
Dr. Abbott's contention finds little or no support. Mr. Bateson has
given a masterly treatment of a most interesting subject. Variation is
one of the most familiar facts of nature, and yet its causes have never
been satisfactorily explained by any evolutionist. We know that two
leaves of the same tree or plant are not precisely alike ; that two peas
are not alike ; but why this is so we can not tell. Mr. Darwin took
variation for granted, and yet it is certain that this is precisely what
needs explanation before evolution can be understood. Mr. Bateson at
least does not believe that it has been explained. He says "Inquiry
into the causes of variation is as yet, in my judgment, premature."
Now this is the deliberate opinion of a distinguished scientist who
writes a most scholarly treatise of five hundred and ninety-eight pages
on a question which lies at the very basis of the doctrine of evolution.
Surely it is time for those who, like Dr. Abbott, are not specialists to
call a halt, when such a man as Mr. Bateson attempts to show that the
methods of solving the problem of how "living things become what
they are and what are the laws which govern their form," hitherto
adopted, have been very far from successful. Sometimes, when we are
1898.]
119
discussing scientific theories in the light of the Bible, we are told that
only specialists are competent to deal with the scientific side of the
question. Probably this is true. At any rate we do not care to dispute
it. But what are we to think when the very ablest of specialists are at
war among themselves? The fact is, evolution, when it does not
attempt to account for origins, is nothing more than a law of growth,
and is only another word for what has been familiar to the world for
ages. No doubt many new facts with respect to this law have been
brought to light in recent years, but nothing has ever yet even dawned
upon our vision from all that science has discovered which accounts for
the origin of the world or anything that is in it. The first sentence in
the Bible furnishes the only key that unlocks the mystery of creation.
After creation has been settled, you may call the rest of it evolution or
anything else you please.
But there are evolutionists and evolutionists. Some, like Dr. Ab
bott, accept Theism and deny that evolution has anything to do with
origins. They claim that evolution is simply "God's way of doing
things." In other words, that it has to do with methods and not origins.
This is all very well, so far as statements go ; but these same gentlemen
soon tell us that man ascended or decended (which ever way they chose
to put it) from the animal kingdom. Dr. Abbott iterates and reiterates,
in effect, the statement that his views have nothing whatever to do with
the origin of man or with the origin of anything else. Nevertheless he
does not go further than the thirty-seventh page of his book until he
says: "I accept, then, the conclusion of the embryologist : we are ani
mals, we ascended from lower animals. Whether we like the fact or
not, it is a fact." The assurance of this statement is quite as refresh
ing as anything else about it. It is not a modest opinion of a scientist
who is in possession of some facts which suggest the probability of an
origin, such as Dr. Abbott claims ; but it is a dogmatic assertion, with
out qualification, with respect to a matter which even Mr. Darwin
treated with the greatest caution. The latter built his conclusions upon
at least a dozen ifs and probabilities. But Dr. Abbott will have none
of these. He throws down the gauntlet in quite another style. He tells
us his conclusion is afact, whether we like it or not.
Well, it is not a question about a like or dislike; it is a question as
to whether there is sufficient proof that man has ascended from the lower
animals or not. We very respectfully suggest that embryology does not
settle this question.
It does settle the question that during the
earlier stages all embryos of the animal kingdom develop in somewhat
the same manner and have a striking resemblance, and it settles also
another matter that there is a point in this development where every
120
[January,
thing takes the course of its kind, and that no evolutionist has ever been
able to divert the embryo to a different kind. Whenever Dr. Abbott or
any other evolutionist can plant wheat and it will come up barley, or
plant barley and it will come up wheat, then it will be time enough to
suggest that probably the embryonic state of the germ proves conclu
sively that this crossing must necessarily take place. We challenge the
whole school of evolutionists to show any practical difference between
the development of the germ of a grain of barley and that of a grain of
wheat; and yet uniformily nature takes care that each produces after its
kind.
Of course, Dr. Abbott may say that even his contention that man has
ascended through the animal kingdom is only God's way of doing things,
and that, after all, his view of the matter has nothing to do with origins.
But if this be true where are we to look for origins ? Furthermore how
does this help to account for the existence of things?
Suppose we concede the fact that man originated with the fishy
tribes. Where, then, did the fish come from ? Undoubtedly there is
nothing whatever gained for either common sense, philosophy or religin the contention of these evolutionists. In short, it would seem that
all that is new in their system is not true, while all that is true is not
new. We fear that their teaching will make many skeptics, but will
not help anyone in the development of a robust faith. It appears to us
that the Bible account of the origin of things, and their development
also, is much more in harmony with human reason than are the vague
guesses and the uncertain hypotheses of evolutionists. At any rate, it is
our conviction that the creation of all things, as the Bible describes it,
is much more dignified and much more in harmony with the revealed at
tributes of God than the theory of creation and development as sug
gested by such commentators on the course of things as Dr. Abbott and
other evolutionists. At least, we must hold to this view until something
more certain is presented than a series of guesses which have for their
foundation nothing but assumptions, or at best, nothing but points of
similarity which must never be mistaken for identity. We utterly fail
to see how it helps anything in either heaven or earth to begin with even
the molecule in the creation of man, according to the views of Dr. Ab
bott. There must be a miricle at some point in the evolution, no mat
ter where we start, for if God did not make man according to the plain
est meaning of the record in Genesis, then he must have made that from
which man ascended. We can not account for even the most distant
beginning without a miracle, and consequently we prefer the more dig
nified and rational veiw, presented in the Bible, to any other that has yet
been suggested. The Bible view, as we understand it, does not settle
1898.] Books and Their Makers During the Middle Ages.
121
with definite certainty just how long a period of time was occupied in
creating man. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the brief account in
Genesis comprehends all the particulars as to method, etc. Neverthe
less, as there is not even a hint which suggests such a theory as that
proposed by radical evolutionists, and as there are some things that
make this theory highly improbable, it seems to us it is wiser to hold
on to what appears to be the more rational view, at least until we have
more light on the whole question.
2. Books and Their Makers During the Middle Ages. A study of the
conditions of the production and distribution of literature from the
fall of the Roman Empire to the close of the seventeenth century.
By Geo. Haven Putnam, A. M. Vol. II, 1 500-1 709. (New
York, G. P. Putnam's Sons.)
The first volume of this work was noticed in the January number
of last year's Quarterly. The present volume brings the history of
book making down to the beginning of the eighteenth century. It is
evident that the author has bestowed much labor upon his work. The
painstaking and extensive research are alike highly commendable. We
know of no other work of its kind which can at all compare with this in
comprehensiveness and thoroughness. Indeed, it is practically exhaus
tive of the theme which it has under consideration.
The second volume has a special interest and value. It deals with
the rise and influence of the great publishing houses which so sensibly
affected the literature and civilization of the two hundred years which
are embraced in the period considered. Perhaps few persons have ever
realized how much influence these publishing houses really exerted.
Nevertheless it is certain that the Estiennes, Casaubons, Caxtons,
The Cobergers, Frobens, Plantins, The Elzevirs, etc., were the real
makers of civilization during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
The governments of that period were largely reactionary in their ten
dency, but literature was progressive; and literature was largely the
creature of these great publishing houses. At that time publishers had
much more power in determining what should reach the public than
they have now. In fact they were the kings of literature. They held
within their hands the supreme control of the printer's art. No author
could find his way to the reading public except through these publish
ing houses, and the latter were careful to hold their power by creating
the impression that an author's work was not worthy of him unless it
was printed in a style commensurate with the value of the contents of
122 Books and Their Makers During the Middle Ages. [January,
the volume. The result was that only volumes of exceptional value
were printed, and it required capital and business management to place
such volumes upon the market, so as to find a ready sale. This fact
gave these great publishers practically a monoply of literature and
made them the centers of educational influence.
There were some exceptions to this rule. When the Lutheran
reformation got fairly under way, certain religious tracts were printed
in German and scattered broadcast throughout the land. These tracts
were frequently circulated clandestinely, and evidently exerted great
influence among the people in spreading the doctrines of the reforma
tion. It is difficult for us at this period to understand just how this
could have been. Probably the education of the common people had
reached a higher standard and was more general than we have been
accustomed to think was the case at that time. Any way, there can be
no doubt about the fact that these tracts, or Flugschriften, as they were
called, became a powerful factor in disseminating the religious princi
ples advocated by the reformers.
With this single exception the publishing business was confined
almost exclusively to the great names which we have mentioned. This
fact suggests some important reflections. In our estimates of influence
we often overlook the main factor. The success of an army does not
depend even mainly upon the generals in the field, though these usually
get credit for nearly all that is done. However it often happens that
the princely merchants at home, who furnish the sinews of war, are
entitled to more credit for victories gained than either the generals or
the soldiers who really fight the battles. Equipment is practically more
than half the battle. Still it is our habit to always give credit to those
who are immediately engaged in the enterprise under consideration.
In discussing the factors of civilization we usually deal mainly with
governments and rulers. These, no doubt, should have an important
place. But it frequently happens that there are powers hehind the
throne which are much more influential than the throne itself. Book
makers of the middle ages undoubtedly held the reins of power largely
in their own hands. The art of printing was much more potent in
shaping the affairs of nations than even the sword ; and as this art was
chiefly confined to the great publishing houses of the period, these
houses, as has already been intimated, became dominating centers from
which flowed the tide of the rising civilization of modern Europe.
Mr. Putnam has done a work for which he ought to receive the
hearty thanks, not only of literary men, but of all who are interested in
human progress. His last volume may not be quite so interesting in
some respects as the one which preceeded it. It is certainly not so faci
1898.] Books and Their Makers During the Middle Ages.
123
nating in its romantic features, but all the same it has a distinctive
importance which the other volume has not. In the second volume we
reach a period where we can more easily comprehend the moulding
influences which operated in developing our modern life. We are
brought within a closer range of those converging elements which con
tributed so mightily toward the making of the present map of Europe
and of America. Perhaps printers' ink may be regarded as the chief
instrument in producing the civilization of the nineteenth century. In
any case, it is certain that the great publishing houses referred to in the
volume before us may be regarded as practically mile posts on the road
marking the steps of progress down to the beginning of the eighteenth
century. Mr. Putnam's volume helps us to understand how much we
are indebted, not only to the art of printing, but also to the men who
used this art so wisely and well, for much of what we enjoy in the pres
ent age. His is a book which may not only be read with profit but
may be kept for constant reference in the every day work of a literary
life.
In closing this notice, it may be well to call attention to the fact
that our modern publishers are not all together unlike the great middle
age publishers. The latter were not specially careful about the partic
ular theology or politics advocated by an author. Their main thought
was, will the book sell? The money factor was always the chief thing
to be considered. At present the case is not very different. Recently
one of the most influential houses of London dismissed the editor of
one of their leading magazines simply because he was regarded as un
sound on a particular theological question. Imagine our surprise when
shortly afterwards this same editor was employed as a writer on this
same magazine, while his work was highly commended by the very firm
that had dismissed him. As an editor he was unpopular with a class
of readers which the publishers could not afford to offend, but as a
writer he was valuable to them, so they employed him in a subordinate
position. This same firm publishes a number of books sharply antag
onizing the position of the very readers who objected to the editor to
whom reference has been made. Of course all this inconsistency is
wholly brought about by pecuniary considerations. Undoubtedly it is
still true that money is a root of all evil.
124
j.
The Element of Higher Criticism.
[January,
The Element of Higher Criticism. By Andrew C. Zenos,

Professor of Biblical Theology in McCormick Theological Semi
nary, Chicago, 111. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co.)
It goes without saying that we can not properly discuss a question

which we do not understand. Doubtless not a few have attempted to
settle the whole question of the higher criticism without knowing ex
actly what higher criticism means. Such persons ought to read the
volume before us. It has been well received by the public, and has
been published long enough to have its conclusions fairly tested. The
result, we believe, is a hearty commendation of the book. It is a fair,
and, for the most part, intelligent representation of just what the higher
criticism is and what it proposes to do. The author shows no partiality
to either side in the controversy. He contents himself with giving the
facts of the case, and leaves the reader free to form his own conclu
sions as to whether the higher criticism may be trusted or not.
Without going into details it is sufficient to say that the author
regards the higher criticism as a method rather than anything else. It
is simply a way to look at the Bible. In short, it is the eye of the
man seeing the Bible in the light of all the facts which science, arche
ology, literary research, etc., have thrown upon its pages, with the
additional thought constantly influencing our vision that the Bible must
be studied just as we study any other book.
Now, this conclusion may or may not be correct, according as we
emphasize certain parts of the statement just made. Let us see how
this matter will work out. Is the Bible just like any other book? If it
is, then certainly it ought to be studied just like any other book. But
if it is not, there may be reasons why it should be regarded from a very
different standpoint as compared with other books. Just here we touch
the crucial point in the whole controversy, and, consequently, we ask
the reader's careful attention to the facts of the case.
In our opinion the Bible is not just like any other book. Indeed,
there is no other book which makes any such claims as the Bible. The
one feature about the Bible that distinguishes it from all other books is
precisely that feature which is not regarded by the higher critics.
The Bible claims that its contents are mainly from God. It claims to
record the actual words of the divine Father and of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Now if this view be correct then undoubtedly the Bible can
not be considered in its origin, or in what it contains, without assum
ing the supernatural element which is everywhere present in it. But
the moment the supernatural element is conceded that very moment
does much of the contention of the higher critics fall to the ground.
1898.]
The Element of Higher Criticism .
125
Let us take the most common point which has occupied attention in
recent discussionviz. , the literary form of the Bible. On the hypothesis
that the supernatural element in the Bible has had a controlling influ
ence, does it not at once become apparent that the literary form can not
be allowed to override that which produced the literary form ? Here is
the crux of the whole matter. If the Bible has had a supernatural
origin at all, then its literary form must be regarded from this point of
view and not from the point of view of books which do not claim to
have a supernatural origin. To sum up the whole case in a sentence,
it seems to us that we must first get rid of everything supernatural in
the Bible before we can possibly apply to it the same literary criticism
that we do to other books.
As a matter of fact that is exactly what the higher critics aim to do.
They first assume that the Bible has had an origin just like other books,
and that there is nothing supernatural in or about it. They then try to
account for what appears to be supernatural by either ruling it out alto
gether, or else by subjecting it to ordinary scientific methods. Can this
be legitimately done? No doubt it is perfectly proper to inquire into
the fact as to the claim which the Bible makes for itself ; and if this
claim can be shown to be illegitimate, then it may be well to regard the
Bible from the same standpoint which may be used in looking at any
other book. But our contention is that we must get rid of the super
natural before this course can be pursued, and when the supernatural
is thus disposed of, the real value of the Bible to Christians is practi
cally destroyed.
Of course, there are higher critics and higher critics. Extremists
there are in all schools. These must be watched, no matter what there
position may be. The extreme higher critics do not hesitate to dispose
of the supernatural in the Bible the moment they begin their investiga
tions, and it is precisely this fact in their method which makes their
investigations really worthless. But the moment the supernatural is
admitted, that moment does all real difficulty cease as regards either
the literary form of the Bible or any of its statements. It is ridiculous
to say that this or that could not have been the case, if we first admit
that God is the author of what we are considering. It is perfectly true
that we have a right to reckon as a factor in our calculation what we
know to be the usual method of divine working. But may not the
usual method be exactly that which is revealed in the points which may
be under discussion ? How shall we determine that this or that partic
ular fact, brought to view in the Bible, is not in harmony with divine
methods? What do we know about divine methods except as we learn
them in nature and revelation ? But if we reject certain parts of revela
126
The Old Testament Under Fire.
[January,
tion, how do we know that the other parts may be trusted? In short,
are we capable of measuring the periphery of the circle of divine pro
cedure ? This question touches the vital point in the critical contro
versy. If we may "presume God to scan," then, possibly, the method
of the higher criticism is right. It is certainly partly right in any case.
Undoubtedly there is much in the Bible which must be studied just as
we study any other book; but all the same, it is still true that we can
not ignore the supernatural without reducing the Bible to a plane which
practically destroys its authoritative character and leaves it a puzzling
enigma, both to the purely literary critic and to the devout Christian.
A better way is to try to explain both the origin and character of the
Bible from the point of view of the supernatural rather to try to explain
the supernatural from the point of view of the ordinary rules of literary
criticism. When the supernatural is once admitted everything about
the Bible is easily accounted for; but when the supernatural is excluded
then the task of the literary critic is practically superhuman. Just here
we feel confident is the pivot upon which the whole question revolves,
and it is just here that we must begin all our investigations with respect
to the origin, genuineness and authority of the Bible.
4.
The Old Testament Under Fire. By A. J. F. Behrends, D.D.,

S. T. D. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co.)
The spirit of this volume is intensely aggressive. The author is

not satisfied with a defense of the conservative view with respect to
Biblical criticism ; he carries the war into Africa by making a vigorous
attack upon the higher critics. In justice to the author it should be stated
that his book is not intended to be critical in the technical sense at all.
His aim is evidently to treat, in a popular manner, some of the leading
points involved. His style is trenchant, vigorous to a high degree, often
picturesque, and not infrequently giving us some specimens of compo
sition worthy of imitation. However, it must be said, in all frankness,
that the character of the discussion is not calculated to help the conserv
ative side of the question. It lacks research, is sometimes one-sided,
and occasionally falls below the line of the high level upon which such
a discussion should proceed.
Nevertheless, the volume has a certain value, and will doubtless
be read with special interest by many who have not the scholarship to
follow some of the more learned discussions of the same subject. Dr.
Behrends' main contention is that the critical problems with respect to
the Old Testament are really insoluble. Of course this settles the ques
tion. If he is right the controversy had as well close. Really the last
1898.]
Inequality and Progress.
127
word has been spoken, and there is consequently no use for any fur
ther discussion. But is this position correct? It may be that at pres
ent, at least, many of the facts which are necessary to a clear under
standing of everything involved are not obtainable ; but it does not
follow because this is so that we can not determine the real origin and
character of the Old Testament, The Doctor's method is entirely too
easy. It cuts the Gordian knot at one stroke. It is freely admitted
that this summary method places the higher critics in a sorry plight.
They are left dangling in the air where they become the subjects of
either laughter or pity, just as the mood may be of him who beholds
them.
We do not sympathize with this short cut to the end of the contro
versy. We believe that enough facts can be obtained to settle definitely
nearly all the points involved. Our objection to the higher critics does
not lie against their reasoning so much as against their premises. In
our judgment they start wrong. They begin at the wrong end of the
line. They apply the scientific method, which, after all, is the only
method that will bring satisfactory results ; but they start at the end
rather than at the beginning. They rigidly rule out the supernatural
and try to account for everything according to the usual laws governing
literary composition. The same fallacy is apparent in the reasoning of
some naturalists. They assume that nature is without God. Their rea
soning begins just where it should end. Their whole reasoning is in the
wrong direction. The first verse of the first chapter of Genesis is the
only explanation of the physical which has ever been given which satis
fies all the conditions of the problem of creation; while "the Lord said
unto Moses," or said unto some one else, is the only point of view from
which we can possibly study the book of revelation with any reasonable
assurance that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. We must start
with God in both nature and grace if we hope to find any reasonable
solution of either the physical universe or the Bible ; and when once
God is postulated in our reasoning difficulties vanish which were before
mountain high. The whole question is, after all, simply a question of
the supernatural, and God is the real solution of everything involved in
the controversy.
5.
Inequality and Progress. By George Harris. (Boston and New

York: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. The Riverside Press, Cam
bridge.)
It is really restful to read a book of this kind. It is a change from

the stereotyped order of things. It has the effect of a discord in music ;
it relieves the monotony of continued harmony. We have heard so
128
Inequality and Progress.
[January,
much about the necessity of equality as one of the factors in modern

social progress that it seems almost like a revelation to catch a note
which is exactly opposite to that which the ear has become accustomed.
Our author anticipates our surprise as regards this matter, and hence he
introduces his volume with some remarks which are intended to prepare
us for what follows. These remarks are so suggestive and the style of
the writer is so distinctly revealed in them that it may be well to quote
a few paragraphs of what he says :
"Equality is a charmed word. It fascinates reformers. Prophets that watch
for signs and portents as they that watch for the morning are almost unanimous
in predictions ot a widening social equality. When the word can no longer be
used indiscriminately, it is still retained as defining an indispensable principle of
progress. This and that necessary qualification may be granted; it may be smit
ten on either cheek with staggering blows, but it is sure to come up sanguine and
smiling. It has a charmed life. If it is pushed out of the door it comes back
through the window. Almost every social theory gets it in somewhere as a fun
damental condition of human welfare. A century ago there were many who
advocated universal equality by which they meant that all men should be equal
in all respects. To-day there are many who advocate equalizing, not in all, but
in certain respects, as the ideal state towards which society should move. They
regard inequality as the chief obstacle to welfare and advancement. Against
inequality the heaviest guns of reform are pointed. Progress is thought to con
sist chiefly in a nearer approach to political, economic, social, and intellectual
equality. Even when the difficulty of realizing it is recognized, the conviction
remains strong that it is desirable, and that effort should constantly be directed
toward gaining the little or the much that is attainablethe more the betteras
though there could be no question in a sane mind that inequality is in itself a
source of evil. There is undoubtedly some truthpossibly a half truthin an
idea so persistent. But discrimination is needed in the use of a term which is
capable of widely different applications, and which means much or little accord
ing to the context. I believe that a service may be rendered by going back of
various theories to certain fundamental facts of human nature and human devel
opment, and thus learn what may and what may not be taken for granted. Before
social and political theories are constructed, primal truths concerning the consti
tution, inheritance, and differentiation of men should be recognized. It is often
said that the historic sense should be cultivated bj the leaders and reformers of
society; that they should first understand the development of the nations through
the centuries of history. It might also be said that the ethnologic and anthropologetic sense should be cultivated. As knowledge of history, going back for a
perspective, gives broader views which moderate expectation of sudden changes,
so knowledge of the laws of human selection and inheritance, which lie beneath
the movements of history, correct theories through adjustment of facts."
Following this we have discussed such questions as "Existing and
Expected Equality," "Equality by Broad Comparisons," "Economic
Equality a Chimera," "Progress Produces Variety," "Variety Pro
duces Progress," The Progression of Ideas," "Christianity and Inequal
ity," etc. In this last chapter the following paragraph will give the
author's real position.
1898.]
The American Government, National and State.
129
"Nowhere in the New Testament is there the faintest intimation that the
kingdom on earth or in heaven is to be composed of persons who were made
equal or have become equal. In fact there is to be release from the apparent and
artificial sameness by which men had been classified in nations and classes, and
individuality is to have its perfect and ample development through knowledge,
faith, hope, and love. Class, caste, sex, and nationality are not the distinctive
marks; but the individual stands out, his own unique self, making the most and
the best of himself, after the pattern of Christ, and through the reciprocities of
unity in variety. The higher unity transcends the lower unity. 'There can be
neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male
and female; for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus.' And yet, the higher sympa
thetic unity does not destroy the lower unities of nationality, sex, class, and kin
dred tastes. The seer on Patmos had a vision of the perfected, harmonious
society standing before a great throne and with one voice, as the voice of many
waters, ascribing salvation to God. He observed that they were out of every
nation, and of all tribes and peoples and tongues. Characteristic marks of
nationality and speech remained. He does not say that they once belonged to
different nations and tribes, but had become indistinguishable. He notices the
difference and reported them. The universal kingdom was seen to be a unity in
variety."
6.
The American Government, National and State. By B. A. Hins

dale, A. M., Ph. D. Chicago. New York: Werner School
Book Co.
It is rather remarkable that, up to date, by far the best book on the
American Government that has been written is by an Englishman.
But Mr. Bryce's great work is too comprehensive and too expensive
for general use. It also has some serious defects. While in the main
it is very ably written, it nevertheless fails at some points to satisfy
American readers.
Prof. Hinsdale's work is not pretentious. It is intended to take the
place of a manual, and viewed from this standpoint it is well nigh per
fect. We are glad to have this new and revised edition because it sup
plies some obvious defects of the first editon. In our judgment it is
now nearly all that could be desired in a book of its kind.
The volume supplies a felt need. It is surprising how few Ameri
cans really understand the machinery of their government. They
know something of its general structure, but little or nothing at all of
details.
This certainly ought not to be the case in a country where universal
suffrage prevails. Men who vote ought at least to know something
about the structure of the government under which they live ; yet it is
doubtful whether one citizen in fifty has any very clear conception of
the American government. Indeed, it is probable that many of our
most noisy politicians have not read the constitution of the United States
Vol. 29
130
Selections from Matthew Arnold.
[January,
during their whole lifetime. Nor is this all. These same politicians
assume to tell the American people exactly what they ought to believe
and do.
Prof. Hinsdale has left every American citizen without excuse if he
now fails to know something at least of his government.
The Professor's book is so admirably classified, and every detail so
clearly wrought out, that even an ordinary reader can comprehend
almost everything without much difficulty.
It is a book for everybody. The statesman can use it as a conven
ient reference manual, while the ordinary citizen will find in it a fund
of information which should make it a welcome visitor in every house
hold. It ought to have a place in every family, and it ought also to be
a text book in every school and college throughout the land.
7.
Selections From Matthew Arnold. By Lewis E. Gates. (Henry

Holt & Co., New York.)
This is the second compend prepared by the Harvard professor, and

is even of greater value than the selections from Newman. The introduc
tion, some 77 pages in length, is a sample of criticism at its very best.
Were there no chapters of Arnold following, one would still get an ac
curate conception of the Englishman's work. We have a full treatment
of Arnold's manner, his criticism of life, his theory of culture, his ethical
bias, his literary criticism, style, and relation to his times.
Besides
this, a copious bibliography is appended, thus enabling the reader to
trace Arnold's literary growth in the work offered.
As to the selections, when one considers how voluminous this au
thor was, they are quite satisfactory. "The Function of Criticism" is
an extract of 40 pages dealing with the general principles employed by
the English critic. Following this are selections "On Translating
Homer," on "Philology and Literature," on "The Grand Style," on
"Style in Literature," on "Nature in English Poetry," on "Poetry and
Science," on "Philistinism," on "Sweetness and Light," on "Culture
and Anarchy," on "Compulsory Education." But we can not attempt
to enumerate them. In all there are some 300 pages of Arnold's text,
followed by 50 pages of discriminating notes. The book, as a whole,
will be a success as a handbook.
J. W. Monser.
1898.]
Le Roi David.
131
GERMAN AND FRENCH.

i.
Le Roi David; par Marcel Dieulafoy, Membre de l'Institut.

King David ; by Marcel Dieulafoy, Member of the Institute.
Paris, Hachette, 1897 ; 8 vo. pp. 358.
The biblical history of the Hebrews is marked by many periods of

decadence, sometimes of long continued deepest humiliation, the pun
ishment inflicted upon them by Jehovah for their sins. These dark vi
cissitudes characterize the annals of the chosen race from their enslave
ment in Egypt to their utter dispersion by the Romans consequent upon
the destruction of Jerusalem and the final overthrow of their national ex
istence. So there are also eras of great elevation, when the star of
Israel rose high in the heavens shedding long lines of radiant glory across
its national history. These bright epochs circle around the advent and
life of the great leaders sent to this wonderful people, the favorites of
the Most High, for their deliverance and their exaltation among the na
tions of the earth by the "Lord God" whom they worshiped and served.
To these glorious periods and to these mighty "men of God," deliver
ers, leaders, prophets, and kings, the Hebrew race in all their extra
ordinary experiences as a people, in biblical times and to this day, look
back with national pride and hope. They are the luminous points in
their history. These eras and these illustrious names are celebrated
by the prophets and in the songs of Israel, and to them the teachers of
the Hebrew people of every succeeding age have directed their people
for their instruction and consolation ; holding them forth as bright exam
ples of what Jehovah has done for them, and of the power that lives in
the character of "the seed of Abraham. The Jews believe, and with
right, that God made his covenant with their great ancestor, because he
knew that the Abrahamic race would be endowed with the qualities nec
essary to execute the wonderful purposes which he would accomplish in
and through them throughout the ages.
Moses as their great deliverer and law-giver, Samuel as prophet,
David peerless as king, stand forth as the luminous, loftiest mountainpeaks in the annals of the Hebrew people. Other great names as proph
ets and kings adorn and glorify the history of the elect nation in their
Sacred Scriptures, but these stand unrivalled, supreme. The Jews of
old and in these later ages have well studied their ancient history in these
regards ; they have rightly appreciated in the just proportion of their
greatness and their merits, the names which make their annals illustri
132
Le Boi David.
[January,
ous ; they correctly understand the character and meaning of the great
epochs and events of their history which in the divine purpose called
these men forth, and the work which they in Jehovah's designs accom
plished. The last greatest event in their history, the advent of the Mes
siah, they did not understand.
The greatest king of the Hebrews was David, as Moses was their
greatest deliverer, leader, law-giver and prophet. No subsequent name
in Israel's annals has around it the glory and the far-reaching renown
that make illustrious the name of King David, the son of Jesse, the an
notated of God! the Davidian era stands unrivaled in Jewish history;
the reign of Solomon with "all its glory" was already a period of moral
decay compared with the heroic, robust reign of David, as the char
acter of the son in its essential elements was also much inferior of that
of the father. The effects of the deteriorating influences of oriental roy
alty already manifested themselves in the golden Solomonic era; David
gave to Israel Solomon, Solomon the degenerate Rehoboam.
It is interesting to know how M. Dieulafoy came to write his book
on King David. He is a member of the Institute, one of the "forty im
mortals," an explorer by profession, whose discoveries in Susiana and
Persia have rendered him famous. He has found the palace of Darius
and of Xerxes. He has given to the Louvre the magnificient frescoes
which present to us in life the Immortals of the court of the Achemenides. Through the book of Esther as a door he entered into the study
of biblical history. * * * An accomplished Hebraist might suggest
to M. Dieulafoy that this book may be but a religous novel ; the learned
traveler would reply with animation and conviction, 'This is impossi
ble! since I have found again, seen and measured the very hall of the
palace in which the new queen was presented to the Great King.' "
M. Dieulafoy's long, laborious, and richly rewarded sojourn in the
East has awakened in him an intense interest and passion for all that be
longs to the great history of the great Orient, above all the names that
are most renowned in thathistory. "His long and close contact," as M.
Sabatier says, "with the people of the East, the intimate knowledge
which he gained of their manners, penetrating into the depth of their
inner conciousness, their life and their sentiments, endowed him as it
were with a mastery of what we might call the psychology of the Ori
ental and of the ancient Semite, which is so very different from that of
the modern European."
It is this that stimulated M. Dieulafoy powerfully to the task of ex
pounding to us the greatest of the Hebrew Kings. But another motive
urged him to this. Men like Renan in his History of the people of
* Auguste Sabatier Revue Chretienne, May, 1897.
1898.]
Le Roi David.
133
Israel had violently misconceived and misrepresented, as he believed,

the character and life of David, as this gifted Frenchman had approach
ed and treated with hostile purpose the great characters of Bible his
tory. M. Dieulafoy determined to rescue King David from the pro
fane, violent hands of these caricaturists of the illustrious Semitic names.
The rare qualifications of the author of the book before us for the
task he has undertaken, make this exposition of the character and the
chief events in the life of David especially attractive to us. The great
King of Israel is here studied and revealed to us entirely, as he ought to
be, from the side of oriental character and life. It is a matter of the ut
most importance foi us to know, that if we should study and judge such
orientals from the western and modern standpoints of judgment we must
necessarily come to erroneous conclusions ; David can only be under
stood as an oriental, amid the surroundings of oriental life and manners.
An event of the highest moment in Hebrew history is the change
from the rule of the judges to a monarchy. The motives that led to this
change is treated with the customary brevity in the Old Testament. M.
Dieulafoy has developed this crisis in ancient Hebrew history in an ad
mirable and very satisfactory manner. Without a good understanding of
the motives of this change in the early government of Israel we can not
well comprehend the history of its early kings. M. Dieulafoy says : "Long
before the anointing of Saul as king and the temporary triumph of Ben
jamin, Joseph, and after him Levi, had hoped to reign over the tribes.
Joseph invoked in his behalf the primogeniture which very ancient tra
dition accorded to him. f Levi, master of the tabernacle, the ordained
guardian of the ark, the privileged interpreter of the ephod, calculated
on the submission of the hearts of the people to his spiritual authority
and dreamed of a theocracy. Alone among the sons of Jacob who had
become mighty, Judah had never exercised governmental control. The
first in peril when Israel was menaced, but living apart, disdainful of his
brethern, he had sought no honors, but seemed willing to wait until his
hour should come.
Besides, the attempts to found a monarchy had failed ; either the peo
ple, fearful of the tyranny, dreaded to intrust their destinies to a family as
a caste, or the sons of the judges had designedly striven to dispose them
against a hereditary power. Moses, Joshua, Deborah, Gideon, Abimelech, Jephtha, Eli, Samuel, all of them generals, priests or prophets
had passed away without instituting a durable royalty, or a respected
government. To ephemeral triumphs had succeeded long servitudes.
Their neighbors were so many enemies and masters. And yet the He
brews, obedient to the divine word, increased and multiplied. Along
t i Chronicles 5: 1-2.
134
Le Roi David.
[January,
the uncertain frontiers of the land of Canaan, open to the stranger, spread
the overflow of the inundating excess of the people of Jehovah. Israel
was conscious of its strength in the number of its children, but also of its
inferiority in the presence of its much weaker adversaries.
Then it learned to compare its fatal liberty with the powerful servi
tude of its conquerors. It reckoned up the tributes it was forced to pay
and the blood which the hereditary hate of authority had caused it to
shed. It regretted the harvests of its sons slain without profit in its per
petual combats ; and wept over its daughters which supplied the slavemarkets of the uncircumcised. To the very ark of the covenant, this
pledge of the protection of heaven which had fallen into the hands of
the enemy after the disaster of Aphek, its adversaries had stripped it of
everything. Now the Philistines, the Jebusites, Aramaeans, the Amalekites had military posts in the very heart of the country, while the
Hebrews, disarmed, were ever becoming weaker without any prospect
of an end to their decline.
Was the federation with its burdens, Israel reasoned, anything bet
ter than dispersion or anarchy ? Would not a permanent central power
offer guaranties of happiness not found in patriarchal regime, even if it
were improved by the rule of the judges? So the people, a constant
prey to suffering, consumed by inquietudes, became confounded, be
gan to distrust their God, and sought for the secret of strength and vic
tory. Like Aram, Philistia, or Phenicia, like Assyria and Egypt, Is
rael wanted to live a glorious life ; it longed for tranquil prosperity, the
free disposition of its children, of its flocks and harvests, abundance in
the household, security in the tribe. It began to think of a soverign
who might allay intestine discords, who would go out before it and
fight its wars, But then there would also be unrolled before it the som
bre picture of tyranny ; there would come back to its memory its sad ex
periences of a monarchy and of a hereditary power. Then, too, the
fear came upon it of alienating its true King, its only master, Jehovah,
the God of the patriarchs, the inspirer of Moses, and of exciting his
jealousy in raising up a rival to him on the earth. Furthermore, it was
necessary to choose among the tribes the one who would supply the
monarch, and it was not allowed to any one of these to lift itself high
enough to exercise dominion over the others. Royalty had become a
necessity ; Israel struggled long against the fatality which a severe ne
cessity had imposed upon them."
This exposition of the mind of Israel at this time which
finally led to the establishment of the monarchy, we think, is just
and is sustained by the historical situation and the demand addressed
1898.]
Le Roi David.
135
to Samuel by the elders of Israel. The great sinister event in

David's history, which changed his latest years into a sombre tragedy,
was the introduction of Bathsheba into his career. This notable fact,
which is the one deep, dark shadow in his life, because of the brevity of
the biblical story of Bathsheba and the few although very significent ref
erences to her after she became the king's wife, leaves the general,
usually superficial reader but little instructed about the character of this
ambitious woman and her influence on the king's latest years. It is one
of the special merits of M. Dieulafoy's book that it has given a very
large space to the exposition of this momentous and fatal event in David's
history, which can not be understood in its latest years without a correct
conception of the part that Bathsheba played in it, and a knowledge of
her character. M. Dieulafoy does not, of course, attempt to justify but
strives only to explain David's conduct; sixty-five pages of the book are
devoted to this task; he studies the bare facts of the biblical story in the
light of oriental history and manners. We select a few pages of this
most interesting chapter illustrative of the manner in which the author
treats the story of this remarkable event in David's history.
"The tragedy which was accomplished under the walls of RabbathAmmon has been the object of controversies so ancient and so intense
that the discussion has run into great extremes. The historians have
been unjust in regard to David. Some have overwhelmed him with
guilt in order to exalt the merits of his penitence, while others have
darkened his memory in order to bring reproach upon the Christ in the
most illustrious ancestor which the Bible attributes to him. As to the
impartial critics of the facts, as to the analysis of the sentiments which
they revealedthese have been regarded as of secondary importance.
Of what nature was the fault which David committed in relation to
the country and the time in which he reigned ? What part did David
have in the preparation and the conduct of the events which preceded
the death of Uriah ? Was he the instigator or the accomplice of the
crime ? Could he not have been but an instrument in the hands of his
mistress? These are the moral and historical points that must be cleared
up in order to render an equitable judgment.
Furthermore, to reach
such a judgment we must resist the fascination which the grand figure of
the monach exercises over us ; we must also take into account the favor
ite, strive to understand the principal episodes of her life and there seek
the elements of instruction.
Bathsheba was the daughter of a Benjaminite named Eliam. The
acts of her life, the success of her schemes denote a woman violent,
ambitious, passionate, but also one of the most strongly marked temper
136
Le Boi David.
[January,
aments of this epoch, that is very rich in energetic characters ; a superior

nature that is not embarrassed by any scruple, a lofty spirit not controlled
by any restraint, an actress by nature, an accomplished tragedienne.
Besides, daring, as are many women because their moral nature pre
sents and retains sharp points which the rude friction with his fellows
have blunted with the man, Bathsheba was one of those predestined
women whose husbands or lovers accept the distaff to spin at their feet,
if they have not indeed placed in their hands arms to execute their mis
tresses vengences or favor their desires.
She was married young to one of the thirty captains of the Gibborim (mighty men of valor), a Hittite converted doubtless to the Jehovist
religion. Uriah appears to us as a valiant soldier, disciplined, hardened
to fatigue, more devoted to his occupation than sensible to the joys of
the domestic heart, a sort of man identified with his sword, having the
tenderness of a bar of iron, whose spirit was all a weapon of war. His
household occupied in the palace one of those small apartments placed
at the disposition of the king's elite officers, and where the young woman
could perceive David when in the eventide, after his siesta, he walked
upon the terraces. The subaltern position of her husband in rela
tion to the princes and the great dignitaries of the crown, a natural
taste for display and splendor and for power, constantly excited by the
suroundings in which she lived, and by the impossibility of satisfying
it, allowed her no rest. Queen by her beauty, queen by her intelli
gence, she dreamed of really becoming it by the favor of the lord whose
image haunted her thoughts. But she had to hasten the execution of
her designs and to profit by the absence of Uriah at the siege of Rabbath-Ammon. In spite of her schemes to attract the eyes of the mon
arch, David, who was now approaching the decline of life, and satiated
by the harem, did not heed her artful efforts. Determined in her pur
pose, firm in her hope, she waited until the monarch would ascend to
the terrace." On this fateful evening she resolved to hazard all, to
win or to lose, and to expose to the king all the wealth and power of
her charms. She cast the die and won. She secured a charmed,
fatal dominion over the monarch. Henceforth her history is one of
ambitious intrigue and control. She gained her ends in ruling the
king and in placing her son on the throne.
This is Dieulafoy's conception of Bathsheba in her relation to
David. It is the oft-repeated story of woman of towering aspirations,
women of transcendent charms who have ruled kings with almost
resistless power, and who allowed nothing, not even such crimes as the
one that stains the history of David and Bathsheba, to arrest them in
the course of their ambitious designs. David was swept along by this
1898.]
A Group of French Critics.
137
superior woman in the path of great sin. The 32nd and 51st Psalms
reveal the awful agony of conscious guilt in David's soul, and the
genuineness and intensity of his repentance.
M. Dieulafoy's book marks an era in the literature on the life of
King David; it has excited much and favorable attention in France.
Charles Louis Loos.
2.
A Group of French Critics. By Mary Fisher. (A. C. McClurg & Co., Chicago.)
This book is written, so the author tells us, to do justice to a side of
French character and French literature that appears to be unrecognized
by the general world outside of France. Even Mr. George Saintsbury
is at fault. Edmond Scherer says of him: "He knows all our blustering
writersthose who acquire notoriety by affectations, by coteries, some
times by scandal. He is familiar with the opinion of second-rate jour
nals and adopts them with confidence. But on the contrary, wherever
there is any originality, any native manner of writing that is pleasing to
cultivated minds it escapes him." This is a serious charge for one critic
to make of another. But perhaps it is true. At any rate Mary Fisher,
our author, seeks to make amends by dealing with Edmond Scherer,
Ernest Bersot, Saint-Marc Girardin, Ximenes Doudan and Gustave
Planche. One of the best features of this book is the large space given
to the French critics themselves. The author keeps herself in the back
ground as much as possible. She appears only to help us, with the
hand of a guide pointing out the salient thought, or emphasizing a fine
conclusion. We give a sample taken from the essay on Bersot, which
winds up by the by with Bersot himself.
"Bersot's enthusiasm was not of the fervid, transitory kind whose
flame is fed by illusion, and dies out when the illusion is dissipated.
His enthusiasm was a mild steady heat founded on good sense and judg
ment. He had no dream of human perfectability to be realized by uni
versal education. He knew that the clay given him to work with was
of various degrees of fineness and coarseness, and that he could not
make porcelain vases out of all of it. Moreover, he knew that the finer
clay is of extreme rarety, and that it is not always possible to distinguish
it at first sight. For this reason he felt that public instruction ought to
address itself to all but more particularly ought Ho occupy itself with or
dinary minds that form the immense majority ; ought to take by the hand
people of common capacity and teach them to walk, and lead them as
far as possible. Those who have wings will fly. The influence of in
struction on superior minds is commonly exaggerated. The fact is that
they always find their road, even if they do not form themselves quite
unaided.'"
J. W. Monser.
138
La Fedor.
[January,
j.
La Fedor. By Alphonse Daudet, Flammarion, Paris, 1897, price

$1.00. Illustrated.
Every new work by the greatest of living French writers is eagerly
looked for, so much so that of the above volume an edition of 20,000
copies proves insufficient. In the case of Daudet the consumption of
an edition goes on equally at home and abroad, while, in the case of
some, like Zola, the foreign consumption is the more important,
at least for certain books. The more scurrilous a novelist, the greater
sale for his books abroad, and while many of us suppose that in France
the infamous works, say of Zola, are read by all, as a matter of fact
few Frenchmen seem to know these works.
The present volume of Daudet is made up of eight stories
and sketches, several of which have appeared before.
It must
be said that the volume is inferior to the author's best work, although
clearly the work of a master. The best selection is the first, the one
which gives its name to the volume. It is, to be sure, somewhat lack
ing in dramatic power when compared with other stories by Daudet, yet
the character portrayal is carefully and accurately done, and the style
shows all of the richness and warmth of coloring which have made the
fame of this bright-eyed son of Provence.
Raymond Weeks.
4. 'Hermann Sudermann, eine Kritische Studie, von Waldemar Kawerau: Hermann Sudermann, a critical study. By Waldemar
Kawerau, pub. by Niemann, Magdeburg and Leipzig, price $1.20.
In general, very few critical works will be noticed in these col
umns, yet the present book is of such eminent value that it will be no
ticed here. Sudermann is undoubtedly the foremost literary figure in
Germany to-day, and his rise has been like that of D'Annunzio in Italy,
so sudden, that many of us will welcome as a God-send this admirable
little volume. The fact that Sudermann is a Jew, and that when he
appears in public on the streets of Berlin, he shows a decided prefer
ence for those of his own blood, has made his recognition tardy, and
caused few respectable criticisms of his work to appear. We have
before us, written also by a Jew, a sympathetic, yet, as it seems to us,
just appreciation of the new writer. Here will be found alluded to in
a German style, which it is a pleasure to read, the early reverses of
Sudermann, his sudden success in Die Ehre, the squabbles of the crit
ics, their inability to force him to come out in favor of any of the socalled "schools" of literary art. Sudermann's various works are carefully
considered, making this book invaluable as an introduction to the poet.
Raymond Weeks.
1898.]
Light and Shadow.
139
ROUND TABLE.
Light and Shadow.Stepping out of the Christmas week into the shadow
of the dying year our emotions are of a mixed character. Without being sombre
we may be serious. It is well to look at things as they are. As we write the last
hours of 1897 are moving by us in solemn procession, and as we look down the
long line of those which have already gone into the past, we can not help feeling
that even time itself is associated with us in such a way that its measured periods
become our friends, and to say farewell to them, affects us somewhat as if they
had personal relations to us. Each moment has the impress of our lives fixed
upon it. Each hour carries with it some record of what we are doing, each
month measures off a part of our life's struggle, and each year contains the
history of a thousand alternate sorrows and joys, fears and hopes, failures
and triumphs. It is not strange, therefore, that the year which is just closing
should have a very special interest for us. Nor is it discreditable that we
should prefer to be serious now until we have touched the border of 1898. Dur
ing the Christman season we have heartily joined in the Advent hymns and in the
cheerful pleasures of the home circle; our voices have rung out the happy melo
dies of praise as we have echoed and re-echoed the heavenly chorus, "Glory to
God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men," and our whole
natures have thrilled with delightful sensations as we have clasped each others
hands in our family reunions and in the greeting of our neighbors and friends.
But now we pass from these rapturous pleasures into the shadows, as of a
funeral scene, where serious reflection takes the place of the joyous forgetful ness
which characterized our conduct a few days since. We are looking now across
the waste of the year that has gone, and we realize the full import of the poet's
language that "its mark is on its brow, its shadow in each heart." But after all the
sorrows of life are just as useful to us as the joys. The house of mourning is
even better than the house of feasting. We need to be chastened. Indeed, our
lives are like pendulums, swinging between our hopes and fears, our joys and
sorrows, our light and darkness. So, then, we are thankful for the present sea
son, as we were for the Christmas that has just passed. One brought us lessons
from the bright side of life, the other now brings us lessons from the dark side.
There is undoubtedly much truth in the saying that "blessings heighten as
they take their flight." Looking backward for a moment to the Christmas week
we find ourselves meditating upon what Christ has actually done for the world.
Perhaps it would help us to more properly estimate his influence if we would try
to look at the world without him.
Nor is this a very difficult thing to do, since we have plenty of evidence of
what the world was before His advent and what it is to-day among the nations
where the Gospel has not been preached. We have but to look to the nations
where Christianity is recognized, if only in form, in order to find a much higher
civilization than obtains where it is entirely rejected. This of itself is a strong
proof of the truth of the religion of Christ. Indeed, if His religion is a false
hood then it is evident that a falsehood is capable of doing more good for the
world than a truth, for everywhere Christ is honored we find the highest develop
ment of civilization, while everywhere He is unknown or rejected, there civiliza
tion droops and withers.
We have intimated that blessings heighten as they take their flight. We may
try the three great Christian graces, as well as Christ himself, by this rule. We
have become so accustomed to faith, hope and love that we can not fully realize
140
The Religious Outlook.
[January,
what the world would be if these did not "abide," or if their opposites were sub
stituted for them. Let us look at this matter for a moment. Let us change, the
last verse of the thirteenth chapter of first Corinthians so that it will read as fol
lows: "Now abideth unbelief, despondency, hatred; these three, but the greatest
of these is hatred." How would the worid look if men were guided by such a
triad as this substitution gives us? Surely life would not be worth living if only
unbelief, despondency and hatred should be left to us. There are those who take
delight in parading the failures of the Churches; but after all what would the
world be without these Churches, and especially what would it be without the
light of Him who is the light of the world? Faith, hope and love make the trin
ity of graces which adorn the Christian character, and this character is the only
thing that makes the present world even a respectable abiding place. If infidelity
prevailed so that society should be seriously affected by it, then undoubtedly de
spondency and hatred would follow, while the most potent influence in human
society would be hatred. The alienation of men from God means alienation from
one another; union with God means brotherhood ; and this is the only practical solu
tion of all social problems. The way to the millenium is really by the cross. In
its shadow we come to the brightest period of the world's history, just as in the
shadow of the old year we come to the hopes and joys of the new.
The Religious Outlook.The new year brings us to the very borders of
a new century. Of course we are now thinking of the received chronology.
Strictly speaking, one year of the new century is already passed. Nevertheless,
we must still reckon with the old style, for a change now would seriously upset
all our histories. But we ought to learn the lesson which this mistake of four
years teaches. It is not difficult to see how an error sticks to us when it has once
become generally accepted.
We do not care to discuss the political outlook. There is not much in this
view that is hopeful, except so far as the triumphs of New Testament Christianity
will affect politics favorably. It is our conviction that Christ is the remedy
for all our evils; consequently when His religion becomes the dominant factor in
political affairs, as it should be, then, and not until then, will the whole atmosphere
of the political world change for the better.
Let us, then, sketch briefly what is likely to be the religion of the future.
Undoubtedly religious matters can not remain as they are. Just now the whole
Christian world is in a transition state. The old foundations are shaking, while
in many instances the new have not yet taken their places. The old creeds are
changing, or else have been given up entirely; and now it remains to be seen what
the future has in store for the restless days through which we are passing.
Without claiming any special prophetic vision we think it possible to forecast
some of the prominent characteristics that are likely to belong to the religion of
the future. Of course it is assumed that there will be a religion of the future.
Religion of some kind is undoubtedly essential to man in his present state; con
sequently a society without religion is not probable, no matter how vehement the
protest may be against any particular form of it.
The infidel's objections to Christianity are never reasonable. He should
learn to discriminate. Christianity is one thing, and a false representation of it
is quite another. If the Christianity of the Churches differs from that of the New
Testament, then this difference should be fully recognized before objections are
in order; and when this difference is recognized, it will be found that the infidels
occupation will be practically gone, so far as true Christianity is concerned; for
1898.]
The Religious Outlook.
141
what reasonable objection can be made against the latter? Has it not proved
itself to be the only religion which meets the wants of the race? Consequently,
if we must have some kind of religion, why not take that which commends itself
as the best the world has ever seen? Of course we now refer to unadulterated
Christianityto that which is represented in the New Testament. It is readily
granted that historical Christianity, as it has been exhibited in the Churches, is
not always a lovely thing to behold. In this kind the human element has long
dominated, and consequently its development bears the marks of human weak,
ness. Nor is it surprising that this should be so. We are sometimes unreason
able with respect to what we think the outcome of the past eighteen hundred years
of the Churches' history should be. It might be well for us to remember that we
make our estimates without taking into account sufficiently the human factor in
this long period of evolution. It is really surprising, when we come to seriously
think of it, that so much progress is manifested. The problem of the Gospel's
success can not be solved without reckoning with the human factor, and it is cer
tainly to the credit of the Gospel that it can make out of fallen, sinful men and
women such instruments for good as is so frequently the case. Nevertheless,
this human element has long dominated in the development of Christianity, and
this has in many respects completely changed the Christianity of the Apostolic age.
As proof of this, we need mention only a few facts. The Apostles taught
that "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,"
and in order that every one might believe, the Gospel was preached to both Jew
and Gentile, for as faith comes by hearing no one could believe without hearing
the Gospel. But now the preaching occupies a secondary place in the conversion
of sinners, if indeed, it has any essential place at all in the ministry of many who
deal with the unconverted. The direct agency of the Holy Spirit has been practi
cally substituted for the gospel, and prayer has taken the place of preaching; while
a mere subjective faith, which mainly feels its -way to peace, has almost entirely
set aside the faith of the primitive disciples, which faith always laid hold of the
promises by going forward to obedience, "the same day" or "the same hour of
the night."
Nor is this all. The whole government of the Church has been changed; and
in many respects the worship is practically another thing altogether. Indeed it
would be an interesting statement of the case if some one would formulate a
document in which should be clearly set forth, in just what respects the churches
of the present day differ from the primitive churches and in just what respects
the religious teaching of the present day differs from that of the New Testament.
But however this may be, it can not be denied that the Christianity of the present
day is not just what Christ and His apostles taught, nor can it be affirmed that
the present religious state of things fairly represents the logical outcome of
the unadulterated religion of Christ. It only represents the outcome of a per
verted Christianity, not Christianity in its purity and simplicity.
But what about the future? Will the present state of things continue, or
will there be a change for the better? That there will be a change we do not
for a moment doubt, and that it will be for the better, is, we think, a reasonable
hope. It is certainly worth something to know that good men are becoming
more and more dissatisfied with the present state of things. They are no longer
blind to the fact that there is something radically wrong in our present religious
development, and as a consequence, they are seeking for a remedy. They know
that things must get worse if they do not get better. To remain where we arc
is simply impossible; and in order to get better some very decided change must
142
Emasculation of Ecclesiastical Terms.
[January,
take place. Not a few, who are less practical than pious, are waiting for the
second coming of Christ as the only solution of our religious apostasy. They
think that when He comes all this anti-Christ will be destroyed, but not until
then. Others seem to be entirely discouraged, and offer no suggestions as to
how the evils are to be overcome. Now we are fully prepared to admit the evils
complained of, but we are by no means discouraged. Things sometimes have to
get worse before they get better. At present many are trying a very dangerour experiment. Drifting away from the old creed-bound theologies of the
past, they are rushing headlong to the opposite extreme, namely, latitudinarionism. While escaping from Babylon they are passing by Jerusalem; giving
up the human, they surrender also the divine. Human creeds may well be
dispensed with, but we must not forget that "the word of God lives and abides
forever." These experimentors may yet find out their folly. They now talk
flippantly of any fixed belief in religion, and, as for ordanances, these are only
recognized, if recognized at all, as necessary evils in view of the present preju
dices of the people. They seem to think that after a while every thing that is ob
jective in religion can be abandoned, and then the spiritual man can have free
exercise in the umtrameled church of the New Theology. Now, we are not expect
ing good from this quarter, except so far as these extremists may serve to illus
trate the folly of practically giving up the Word of God for expedients which are
as impractable as they are lawless and revolutionary.
But is there any hope of reformation ? We think there is. Already there are
signs of reaction. In Germany the rationalistic movement has reached its
height, and there is in many places, notably in the colleges and universities, a
strong tendency setting in towards a true evangelicalism. In England the case
is very similar. The higher criticism has not made much headway in that coun
try, and Rationalism never did have a strong foothold on English soil. Secular
ism, which has always been the worst form of English infidelity, has done its
worst. Since the death of Mr. Bradlaugh it has been on the wane, and now has
only a name to live by, while it is practically dead. In America the New Theol
ogy has found considerable favor, but there can now be no doubt about its waning
influence. Indeed, along the whole line there is just now an inquiry for "the old
paths;" and this fact suggests the probability of a brighter future for the religion
of Jesus Christ. Progress has never been in straight lines. The law of action
and reaction is as true in religion as nature. We go forward by a zig-zag course;
we swing from one extreme to another. We are just now returning from an ex
cursion in quest of "airy nothings." We may rebound so far as to reach some of
the unreasonable things that we have long since abandoned. But our conviction
is that we shall never settle down again in the place of the old creeds. Most prob
ably in our rebound from creedal Christianity we will stop with the Word of God.
At least this is the most prominent indication which marks the beginning of the
year 1898.
Emasculation of Ecclesiastical Terms.A living language is constantly
undergoing change. New words and new meanings for old words are coming in,
while old words and old meanings are going out. Our ideas are growing with
our increasing science, but the old words by which these ideas are designated are
still retained ; or the change may be in the opposite direction, our ideas undergoing
limitations and substractions, while the word, having now become too broad, is
not discarded. On this account it is well that the Holy Scriptures are given us in
1898.]
Emasculation of Ecclesiastical Terms.
143
dead languages, languages that change not, so that we need to ask only how
words are used on the sacred page, and not how theologians have employed them.
Ecclesiastial terms are not exempt from this fact of change. Many of them as
set down in modern creeds, or used in popular pulpits, are emasculated of all Bible
meaning, have lost all virility, and have become sources of deception. The wine
of truth has repeatedly been drawn from these bottles and its place supplied with
water, till scarcely any trace of the wine can be detected, but still the bottles
wear the old label and are kept in a cool place as though their contents were as
precious as ever. Most armies have a corps of sappers and miners, who do not
carry rifles and make bold assaults, but who are armed with pickaxes and shovels,
and whose business is to keep out of sight and to undermine walls till they tum
ble down or the charge of dynamite blows them up. There are plenty of wine
guzzlers who are constantly diluting the sacred wine; there is an army of sappers
and miners constantly seeking to undermine the walls of Zion.
As examples of terms and phrases which have suffered such emasculation till
they are exceedingly weak and unbiblical, may be given the following: The
Devil, Son of God, Inspiration, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Atonement, and
Word of God.
"The Devil," in the Scriptures, is as real and personal as Jesus or the Holy
Spirit by whom Jesus was led into the wilderness to be tempted. The interpreta
tions which will reduce the Devil to a supersition will reduce the others to the
same non-existence. Who the Devil is, except that he is the Devil ? Whence
he came? And why God delays his destruction? Are questions which indicate
our ignorance, but the answers to which do not imply a denial of his reality. As
used by many, this word does not mean the Devil at all, but an evil principle, a
synonym for sin, a name for the aggregate of malign influences. It is supposed
that the modern world has outgrown the Devil, and many an "advanced" preacher
would therefore class the writer with the fossil theologians of the Middle Ages.
The title, Son of God, has suffered the same degredation. When these words
are used in many churches, the speaker and the audience think only of the man,
Jesus, though the holy words are mouthed. If only a man, than a deceiver and
an impostor. Did Gabriel give this definition to the Virgin Mary? Did the
Father announce from Heaven that Jesus was his son in this sense, a fact so evi
dent to all observers? Did the confession of Jesus that He was the Son of God
in this sense, constitute blasphemy in the estimation of the Jewish Sanhedrim?
When it is said that all men are divine, this word divine is emasculated in a
similar way. Is every thing that God has made divine? Is the image of the
same substance as the object? Pshaw! Do you claim to be divine?
Inspiration is another noticeable example. It is said that Shakespeare was
inspired, Milton was inspired, and that we are all inspired sometimes. It is
claimed by some that whatever was ever in the Church is still in it, and hence
that inspiration is not now withheld. Inspiration seems to be thought of as a
kind of fluid pressing on all sides and entering into any soul that is ready for it.
It is common to speak of degrees of inspiration; one is inspired a little, another
more, and another fully. Now if we are inspired just as the apostles were, then
their inspiration was not worth anything, for ours is not? If Christians are to
be inspired now just as the apostles were, then there are no Christians now, for
none are so inspired. If a man claims to be inspired, ask him to prove it by
working a miracle, for such proof an apostle could give. Bible inspiration had
no gradation, but was perfect for the purpose in view. The divine control was
not feeble and abortive. A kind of inspiration which left things in doubt, would be
144
Emasculation oj Ecclesiastical Terms.
[January,
worse than none, because it would so mingle truth and error as to deceive and
destroy. Why deal in rhetorical exaggeration f Why not admit the truth that
your religious opponent is not inspired, nor even yourselft Those who claim
inspiration in these days are a pack of impostors, from Joseph Smith down to
the Roman Pontiff.
Baptism in the Holy Spirit may deserve a passing notice. Some pray for
this baptism, and some even for the baptism in fire, not knowing what they say.
Some of our own sctibes are sliding back into the mysticism from which we profess
to have been saved, and are inclined to teach that baptism in the Holy Spirit is
our privilege now. They are inclined to give up the destinction between the gift
of the Spirit as a source of fruit-bearing and this baptism. In so using this
phrase, baptism in the Holy Spirit, it is very much lowered in meaning. This
baptism was not an indwelling but an overwhelming, as the apostles were over
whelmed on the day of Pentecost. In the two instances given it was not a part
of conversion; but in one, the source of apostolic wisdom and power; and in
the other, a proof that God had called the Gentiles. When Paul wrote the
Ephesian letter there was but one baptism, and there is but one now. What is
the one and only baptism? It must be the baptism which Christ commanded the
apostles to go into all the world and administer. This was a baptism in water of
which man is the administrator; man can not baptize his fellow man in the Holy
Spirit; for Christ is the administrator, in this case.
The word atonement as heard in some Churches has no reference to the sacrifi
cial death of Christ. The idea is ridiculed that He died for man in any deeper
sense than that of a martyr. It was not to make known God's righteousness in
forgiving sin, nor that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes
in Christ; but only to soften man's heart and reconcile him to God. Thus the
sublimest fact that ever took place in our world, and the profoundest philosophy
of the human soul, as seen in the death of Christ, are minimized till they come
within the limits of a common event, the death of a supposed malefactor.
Or as a last instance, take the phrase The Word of God. How wonderfully
these words are degraded by those who see in the Old Testament only the tradi
tions of ancient times, traditions parallel with Egyptian and Assyrian inscrip
tions; only the folk-lore of the Hebrew people; only crazy-quilt literature as
some Jewish scribe patched it together; only pseudo laws which lying priests
invented and pasted into Jewish history of a thousand years before; only a history
full of impossible miracles and monsters of crime; only prophets who were
merely the castigators of national sins and who had no real visions of a coming
Messiah? How much lower will the meaning of these words fall when the same
methods are applied to the New Testament, as they surely will be! If this is the
"higher criticism," where shall we find the lower criticism and when shall we
touch bottomt
Will not these people who insist on emasculating these and other Bible terms,
find themselves at length with a new system burdened down with an antiquated
and absurd terminologyt Would it not be wiser to get some new names to suit
the new theologyf Would it not be more honest not to fight under false colorst
Would it not be more honorable to make no pretenses of orthodoxy, but to say
plainly "We do not believe there is a Devil, nor that Jesus was the Son of God,
nor that the Bible-writers were inspired, nor that there ever was a baptism in the
Holy Spirit; nor an atonement, nor that the Bible is the word of God any more
than is the Alcoran, or the sacred books of the Hindoost"
H. W. E.
THE
Christian
Quarterly.
APRIL, 1898.
A PLEA FOR A NEW REFORMATION.

THE LAW OF DEVELOPMENT.
CHANGE is a law of life. It is also a very important law.
Indeed, it is fundamental in all progress. But this law
operates mainly, if not exclusively, with respect to the outside
of things. It is probably true that everywhere the statement
of the Apostle holds as regards the outer and inner man.
While the former perishes, or is constantly undergoing change,
the essential element of the latter remains, though it is re
newed day by day. We say that principles are eternal, but
methods are ever changing. Anyway we can not doubt that
many forms and ceremonies lose their significance, or else
entirely drop out of the movements in which they originated.
This is so much the case that it is doubtful whether anything
else marks so distinctly the steps of progress as these outward
changes in the path of human history. It is true in all other
departments of life, as well as in the special reference
of the Apostle, that life comes out of death. "That which
thou sowest is not quickened except it die" may have a very
general application. Nevertheless, in the elements which make
up the forces of life, like the grain of wheat, it is only the
outside that dies. The germ continues, and is renewed day
by day. It is this germ that is the essential thing, though at
Vol. 21
(145)
146
A Plea For a New Reformation.
[April,
one time the form in which it was inclosed may have been as
necessary as the grain of wheat which perishes while the germ
comes up into new life.
The Apostle Paul puts this same thought in another form.
He says that when he was a child he spake as a child, felt as
a child, thought as a child, understood as a child, but when
he became a man he put away childish things. This required
no legislation. He simply outgrew the things of childhood,
and, consequently, they dropped out of his life without any
friction whatever. We know that that is perfectly true in our
own experience. We needed no special legislation to compel
us to abandon our childish toys. As soon as we passed out of
the days of youth we put away the things that belonged to that
period, and took on the outward forms of manhood. Never
theless, the essential elements remained the same. Through
out every period of development, that which was the germ-life
in the beginning always retained its kind, and was renewed
day by day.
Now, if we study religious movements in the light of the
law to which attention has been called we can scarcely fail to
reach important conclusions. First of all, we ought to learn
that outward forms have a certain value which can not be
wisely ignored, but that these forms undergo frequent changes
or entirely drop out of the movements which brought them
into existence; and we learn, furthermore, that any effort to
retain these forms, when they have run their course, will be
practically as useless as to attempt the preservation of the
grain of wheat after the germ has developed into a new growth.
It is just at this point where many great movements,
which promised much at the beginning, have completely
broken down. The failure to distinguish between the essential
and the nonessential, the permanent and transient, the inner
and outer has been the prolific source of nearly all weakness
which has characterized the great political, religious and social
movements of the past. It is, therefore, of prime importance
that the Disciples of Christ should study carefully their own
religious movement in the light of the law to which reference
has been made. A point has evidently been reached where
1898.]
147
the old methods are no longer effective; and it may be well, on

this account, to consider honestly and carefully whether these
methods are really essential, so far as the future is concerned.
No doubt they answered their purpose in their day, but we
may well pause and ask whether they are now even useful in
carrying on our great work. Indeed, the question may be
carried still further. May it not be that the retention of these
methods is a positive disadvantage to all worthy progress!
Let us notice at least three important points where a new
reformation is needed.
THE FIEST GREAT NEED.
(I) First of all we need a new terminology. The very
language we use to express our religious convictions often
undergoes a radical change of meaning in the course of a very
short time. This is no doubt a necessity in the very nature of
things. Our religious life, like all other things, is subject to
at least two forcesnamely, heredity and environment. It is
well known that these two forces are often in conflict, and it
not unfrequently happens that the latter greatly modifies the
former, if it does not entirely destroy it. This conflict shows
itself very decidedly in the use of language. The terminology
of the New Testament is simple enough when this is studied
in the environment of New Testament times. But it was not
long after the beginning of the Church until the language of
Chistianity became essentially changed by absorbing the new
influences with which it came in contact. Dr. Hatch, of Oxford
University, has shown conclusively that the contact of Christi
anity with Greek Philosophy practically changed the whole
terminology of the Church; and this influence of the Greek is
still felt in all the Creeds of Christendom. But this is not all.
The translation of the Scriptures into any living language
must necessarily result in essential changes as regards termi
nology. Every living language is constantly changing. Old
words lose their signification, or else are changed into new
meanings. This is undoubtedly the case with respect to
theological terms. In the beginning of the Disciple move
ment, it was proposed to ignore these terms, simply because
148
[April,
they expressed a wrong meaning as regards New Testament

teaching. This proposal was no doubt made in good faith,
but it was impossible as a practical measure on the very face
of it. These theological terms were the common currency of
Christendom at the time the Disciple movement was started,
and many of them were found in the old version of the New
Testament ; and it would have been next to impossible to avoid
the influence of these terms upon any terminology that might
have been agreed to by the early reformers ; and the unreason
ableness of the suggestion is still more clearly seen when we
remember that the very terms which the Disciple leaders pro
posed as substitutes for the theological language of the day,
were themselves practically obsolete, in so far as their original
meaning was concerned. The simple words of the New Testa
ment, as found in the Authorized Version of the Scriptures,
had received new meaning from the environment in which the
religious language of the times had been developed.
Let me illustrate what I mean. The early fathers of the
Current Reformation insisted upon being called Christians.
But who does not know that the word "Christian" has a very
different meaning from what it once had? In the days of the
Apostles it had a special, definite and unmistakable significa
tion. Now it is applied to nearly everything which in any
way relates to the Christ. We call our states and kingdoms
"Christian." We speak of our "Christian civilization." We
even use this term to designate our papers and colleges. In
short, it has become a term which no longer appropriately
declares what was originally intended by it. It is therefore
useless to talk about continuing this New Testament term with
the hope that it will definitely express to the public generally
its original signification.
The same may be said of the term Church. It is well
known that this term in the first place described "the house
of the Lord," or the place where the saints met. It after
wards came to be used in the sense of the body or the people
who met for worship in the house. The term now has a
much wider signification than either of these uses. It has an
ecclesiastical meaning, and it is in this sense that ninty-nine
1898.]
149
in every hundred who use it understand it. In short, it is

no longer used in popular speech in the sense of the ecclesia of
the New Testament, but has an appropriated, ecclesiastical
meaning which utterly confuses the New Testament idea.
The terms "faith," "repentance," "confession," regener
ation," "conversion," "baptism," and indeed nearly the
whole catalogue of theological and ecclesiastical terms have no
longer the meaning in popular currency that they once had.
Take for example the word "conversion." Could anything
have been more radically changed than the meaning of this
term? As the misuse of this word forcibly illustrates the
point I am making it may be well to carefully examine what
is involved in the change which this word has undergone.
FALSE VIEWS OF CONVERSION.
That something called conversion is taught in the Bible, no
one who reads aright can for a moment question ; but that the
public understanding of it is correct I think may be fairly
doubted. There is, perhaps, no difference of opinion, at least
among those who are regarded as Evangelical, as to the need
of conversion. I believe that all are in harmony at that point.
But when we come to consider what is really meant by conver
sion, then there is at once a wide divergence between the
popular understanding and that view which a critical knowl
edge of the subject must necessarily yield. This difference
may be clearly indicated by asking a few questions: Does
the man convert himself, or is it something done for him? Is
conversion an act of the creature or of the Creator? Or, in
other words, is it a human or Divine act? The popular view
is that it is wholly a Divine act ; that the human is entirely
passive, simply receiving what is done through Divine agency.
Hence, we are constantly hearing such expressions as the fol
lowing: "When I was converted," "He went to the meeting,
and was converted," etc., etc.; all referring to something
which the subject had done for him rather than something he
did himself. And this view is at least partially justified by the
Authorized Version. In that Version, tntmpi^ai (epistrepho) is
rendered six times by the phrase "Be ye converted," which
150
[April,
conveys a passive signification, as if the persons referred to

are finally made to yield to some foreign influence which they
were at the time resisting. But the idea of passivity is not in
the original at all. The original occurs thirty-nine times in the
New Testament, in eighteen of which it expresses a mere
physical act of turning or returning; nineteen times it is used
to change from evil to good, and twice from good to evil. In
none of these cases does it ever express passivity of the subject.
The corresponding Hebrew word (Shawb) is of very frequent
use in the Old Testament, and almost invariably carries with
it the force of activity upon the part of the subject. In Isaiah
6:10, the Authorized Version gives a correct rendering as
regards the very word under consideration. The passage
reads: "Lest they see with their eyes, and understand with
their heart, and convert," etc. It will be seen here that the
word convert is in the active voice, and refers to something that
the people were themselves to do, and not to something that
was to be done in them or for them. But where this same
passage is found in the New Testament, as in Matthew 13:15,
Mark 4:12, John 12:40, the Authorized Version uniformly
gives us a rendering which regards the subjects as entirely
passive, and therefore acted upon rather than acting them
selves. The Revised Version has done good service in giving
a much better translation of the original ; but why ixiarptyu,
(epistrcpho) should be rendered "turn again" in Matthew and
Mark, and only "turn" in John, is certainly beyond the ken
of any Greek scholar outside of the Revision Committee.
Still, we must do that committee justice by heartily commend
ing their discrimination in reference to the voice of the verb in
these places as well as in Acts 3 : 19. In this last passage the
revisers have given us what is virtually a new revelation. As
it stands in the Authorized Version it is really an entire per
version of the original, and has doubtless been largely instru
mental in creating in the public mind the erroneous view to
which I am calling attention. It is probable that those who
made the Authorized Version were influenced in this matter
by the Latin Vulgate, as it uses the passive voice where every
other version known to me uses the active. It is well known
1898.]
A Plea For a New Eeformation.
151
that King James' translators followed very closely the Latin

Vulgate, and as regards epistrepho they followed the Vulgate
slavishly. Hence it will be seen that we are indebted to a
Roman Catholic Bible for one of the most blighting errors with
which modern Christendom is cursed.
THE CORRECT VIEW OF CONVERSION.
What, then, is the correct idea of conversion as taught in
the Word of God? In answering this question it may be well
to approach the final conclusion by successive steps. Let it
be observed, then, first of all, that the original word every
where represents an act, and in the next place that this act is
performed by the subject, and finally that the subject by this act
turns from his wanderings to serve the living God. Strictly
speaking, therefore, conversion denotes what the sinner does
himself, and not what is done in him or for him. It is his own
act, and not the act of another. True, the whole process may
comprehend several acts instead of one, as the term simply
indicates the fact of turning rather than the steps by which
this turning is accomplished. But whether many acts or one,
whatever is done, so far as any act is concerned, must be
regarded as done by the sinner himself. Hence the idea of
passivity on his part is wholly unscriptural, and is dangerously
misleading the people. I feel conscious that in thus speaking
I am doing a service for the cause of truth. The popular
mind is saturated with the notion that the sinner has nothing
to docan, indeed, do nothingas he is wholly passive, and
must, therefore, wait for some irresistibilis gratia to act for
him.
Thus human responsibility is practically destroyed,
while the work of saving souls is turned from its legitimate
course to try expedients which are as unscriptural and danger
ous as the popular view of conversion is erroneous and mis
leading.
Let no one misunderstand what I have said. I am simply
contending for a sound speech, for I believe that this is neces
sary in order to create in the public mind clear conceptions of
duty. I have been looking at the matter of salvation mainly
from the human point of view. But there are two sides to the
152
A Pica For a New Reformation.
[April,
question from the beginning to the end, as indeed there are

two sides to everything, and it has been because men have not
recognized this fact that they have gone from one extreme to
the other on this subject. Some have ruled out the human
entirely, and consequently have set up a theory which is alike
dishonoring to God and man. Of course there is a Divine side
as regards even conversion. There must be the motive to turn,
or else the sinner is sure to continue in his downward course.
The presentation of this motive is the work of the Holy Spirit
through the Gospel or Word of God. This must be antecedent
to any act of the sinner Godward. There must be a change of
heart, or genuine repentance, before the sinner will turn. The
Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone
that believeth, must first of all be preached to him. This
Gospel the sinner must hear, and then if he believes, he should
at once repent and turn, or, as it is expressed sometimes,
repent and be baptized, for by thus putting his faith into an
overt act, he is enabled to bury the old man and rise to walk
a new life.
Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that the original
word, which is translated conversion, never in a single instance
refers to either God, or Christ, or the Holy Spirit, as its agent.
In five instances of the nineteen where it relates to a change
from evil to good, a human agent is employed, as John the
Baptist, Paul, or some member of the Church; and in the
other fourteen occurrences the agent is the person who is the
subject of the change. This is a most important fact, and
clearly shows that, while it is proper to say that men turn
their fellow men, it can not be said that the subjects of this
turning are themselves passive.
Hence, strictly speaking,
sinners are not said to be turned to the Lord, but to turn to
Him. And it will be seen, furthermore, that while this view
highly honors God for wisely devising a Gospel to meet the
sinner's case, at the same time it greatly deepens human re
sponsibility, and makes it simply impossible for anyone to
reject the Gospel without making his condemnation just.
Hence I conclude, that while we must press upon our fellow
men the Gospel in order to turn them from evil to serve God,
1898.]
153
the turning itself must be the act of the men themselves in

order that it may comprehend the Scriptural idea of conver
sion. There must be Divine power exerted in order to influence
the sinner to turn, and that power is exerted through the
Gospel, but this antecedent work must not be confounded with
that decisive step which the penitent believer must take him
self if he would fulfill the requirements of what the original
word means, as well as what the Apostolic practice was as re
gards the matter of conversion.
SALVATION ASCRIBED TO SEVERAL THINGS.
As a matter of fact there are a number of instrumentali
ties employed in the salvation of the sinner, and the Bible
clearly recognizes these instrumentalities. We are not said to
be saved by any one thing alone, but by a number of things
in cooperation. The Scriptures clearly teach that God saves
us, and that we are begotten of God; also, that the grace of
God saves us, etc. But would it be legitimate to conclude
from these statements of Scripture that nothing else has to do
with our salvation? Surely we would -not wish to exclude the
work of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit because the
Scriptures ascribe salvation, first of all, to the love of the
Divine Father. How, then, are we to understand the matter!
I think there is no difficulty in the case whatever. Evidently,
when the Scriptures ascribe salvation to any particular person
or thing, they do not necessarily exclude other persons or
things which may be mentioned in the same connection or in
other parts of the Word of God.
The Scriptural method is very natural and very simple.
It depends upon the point of view from which the Divine writer
is contemplating the subject as to the agency or instrumental
ity he may name. If he is aiming to emphasize the originat
ing or moving cause of our salvation, he will unquestionably
call attention to the love of God and the grace of God. But
if he wishes to direct special attention to the procuring cause
of our salvation, he will dwell upon the great sacrifice for sin
and uncleanness which Christ made upon the Cross, and he
will rightfully call attention to the fact that it is through His
154
[April,
blood we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins. But

if the point of view occupied by the Divine writer is the work
of the Holy Spirit, then we are told that no one can say that
Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit. Now there is no contra
diction in this method. Everything depends upon the stand
point from which the subject is considered. But we may make
contradiction by refusing to move the standpoint, and thus
attempt to confine salvation to one thing, when in fact the
Divine Spirit has ascribed it to many.
Turning now to the human side, we find the Scriptures
still adopt the same method as when considering the Divine
side. Men are told to do certain things, and as they do each
one of these they are said to be saved. And certainly, each
one of these, considered from the human side, does save, but
not all in the same sense, nor in the sense in which we are
saved by Divine power or agency. But these human acts save
us, nevertheless, in some sense, or else the Bible would not say
so. As an illustration, let us look for a moment at faith.
Now the Scriptures clearly say that faith saves us. But in one
sense faith does not save us at all, for in that sense Christ alone
can save us. But is there really any such thing as Scriptural
faith without Christ? There must be the object of faith before
faith can be exercised, and as Christ is the object of our faith,
we can not believe Scripturally without resting our faith on
Him. So, then, really there is no such thing as considering
faith apart from Christ. Just so of calling on the name of the
Lord. How can we call on Him in whom we have not
believed, and how can we believe in Him of whom we have
not heard? Nevertheless it is plainly stated that "Whosoever
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But if
we are saved by faith alone, then surely calling on the name
of the Lord can have nothing to do with our salvation. But
we have already seen that faith alone is really no faith at all.
or, as James says, is a dead faith. The same is true of calling
upon the name of the Lord. We are not saved by simply call
ing, but by calling on the name of the Lord.
The Scriptures clearly state that baptism saves us. (1
Peter 3:21.) But in what sense does baptism save us? Cer
1898.]
155
tainly not in the same sense in which we are to understand

that God saves us, or Christ saves us, or the Holy Spirit saves
us, or faith saves us, or calling on the name of the Lord saves
us; but nevertheless baptism does save us in some sense, for
the Word of God plainly says so. In what sense, then, does
it save us? Evidently only as it in some way relates to Christ,
for baptism, like faith, is nothing when taken away from its
legitimate association. But baptism, like faith and calling, is
joined to Christ, and derives all its significance from Him.
Without Him it is nothing, with Him it has its proper place.
I believe that place is the completion of our union with Christ,
not the beginning of the union, nor even the middle, but the
end. And even in this regard it can amount to nothing what
ever if it is considered simply as a human act without any
Divine association. It must be "towards God by the resur
rection of Christ." Scriptural baptism, therefore, can not be
a mere physical or mechanical act, but it has a deeply impres
sive spiritual significance, which at once attaches to it very
great importance. The phrases "baptized into Christ," "bap
tized into His death," clearly indicate the significance which
we are now claiming for baptism. Baptism is not efficacious
of itself in our salvation, nor is faith, nor repentance, nor call
ing on the name of the Lord, but all of these are things which
we must do in order that we may lay hold of the salvation
which has been provided for us through Jesus Christ our Lord.
It will be seen that this method of reasoning brings all the
Scriptures into harmony. There is no longer even an appar
ent contradiction between those passages on the one hand
which assert the sovereignty of God, and those on the other
which assert the free agency of man. If we will carefully con
sider the point of view from which the subject is contemplated,
we shall have no difficulty whatever in understanding that
when we are said to be saved by faith, calling on the name of
the Lord, baptism, hope, or indeed any other instrumentality,
considered from the human side, the one thing which is spe
cially emphasized must not be regarded as excluding any of the
others mentioned, but as only stating one of the things by
which we are saved, because this one thing has some special
156
[April,
purpose which is not provided for in any of the others, or even

in all of therri together. But when the one thing is added to
all the rest of the human acts, the sum must be even then
regarded as simply part of a circle which can only be com
pleted by a union with everything which belongs to the Divine
side in the plan of salvation.*
Now the important fact to be emphasized with regard to
the popular use of the term conversion is, that tts wrong
meaning has come down to us probably through an inherit
ance, as has already been intimated, from the Latin or Roman
Catholic Bible. This of itself is a suspicious circumstance,
and at once suggests caution in accepting the popular notion
of conversion. The other important fact is that, notwithstand
ing the New Version corrects this mistake of the old, the popu
lar use of the term continues to carry with it the meaning of
the Old Version. This shows how difficult it is to take a word
back again to its original source, and put into it the exact
meaning which it had at the beginning.
The meaning of Baptism has been obscured in somewhat
the same way. I do not now refer to either the action
or subject.
These have doubtless shared the common fate
of the old terms and phrases. But I am at present look
ing at the place baptism properly occupies in the Christian
system. Some, who wish to escape from the old confusion of
saying that "Baptism is for the remission of sins," are
making confusion worse confounded, by declaring that bap
tism is a "public. confession of the Christian faith." This
statement does not state the whole truth, even if it is part of
the truth.
As a matter of fact, baptism, in Apostolic
times, was often administered in private, and therefore could
have no public significance whatever. It was always "towards
God," as the Apostle Peter puts it, and was certainly not in
tended to look specifically manward at all. In the New Testa
ment it is constantly regarded as an act of allegiance to Christ,
and is, indeed, practically the sacramentum, or oath, by which
the believer actually accepts Christ as his Sovereign Lord, and
solemnly declares a complete surrender to him. It is there
fore an ordinance which occupies a very unique position,
Vide Conversion of tlic World," by the Author.
1898.]
157
bringing, as it does, God and man together in a very real

sense, and is the act by which the penitent believer enters into
covenant relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
But even the terms of the New Testament do not now con
vey this meaning to the popular mind. The consequence is
that a most important ordinance has fallen into discredit by
making too much of it on one side, and too little of it on an
other side. Nevertheless when properly understood it fills a
place in the Christian system which nothing else can fill, and is
as reasonable as it is appropriate, whether we look at it from the
philosophical or practical point of view. Hence the old notion
that the ordinance rests on the arbitrary authority of God has
no real foundation in either reason or revelation. Baptism is
not right just because it is commanded; but it is commanded
because it is right, and because it is exactly suitable for the
place to which it has been divinely assigned. But the ordi
nance has been, in every way, so perverted, there is now
little hope that we can use the words and phrases of even
Scripture language in reference to it without conveying a
wrong meaning, and much less can we use the language of
the schools. The same is equally true of many other words
and phrases. As already stated, these have ceased to speak
to the popular mind in the language of the people, and con
sequently they do not any longer carry with them their origi
nal import.
THE WAY OUT OF THE DIFFICULTY.
What then must be done? I answer with the utmost
frankness. I do not believe that the old terms, which have
been perverted from their Scriptural meaning, should be re
tained any longer in our religious vocabulary. To do so is to
continually convey to the public mind an erroneous impres
sion. The public understand our use of a term in its cur
rent signification, even though we may mean by it just what
the Holy Spirit meant in the original Greek. Hence, instead
of returning to the New Testament phraseology, as was con
tended for by the fathers of our religious movement, I now
think it will be better, and certainly much more in harmony
158
[April,
with the law of development, if we translate the original Scrip

tures by modern terms which will convey to the public mind
the exact meaning of the originals, without confusing the Holy
Spirit's words with the words of theology. No doubt the
notion that we should "call Bible things by Bible names"
was well enough before Bible names ceased to express the idea
of Bible things. But we have already seen that many of the
Bible terms are now the chief difficulty in the way of under
standing what the Bible means. Is it not time we should
consider the grain of wheat which has been planted as dead,
and reckon only with the germ which may be nurtured into
a new life? We may surely drop the old term while we retain
the germ-meaning.
Undoubtedly this faithful dealing with terminology is
an important matter; and in pleading for a new reformation
this is the first step which I regard as necessary in order to
adapt our movement to the living age. I do not want a differ
ent meaning from that which the original New Testament
terms legitimately convey, for I do not think that we can im
prove the New Testament teaching. But what I plead for is
a new terminology with which to express New Testament
ideas. The old terminology has ceased to be attractive to the
people, and is certainly misleading at many vital points. I
have no faith that this terminology can be animated with new
life. We can not use the new cloth of our current speech with
which to patch the old garment of the language of a hun
dred years ago ; neither can we put the new wine of the present
day terminology into the old bottles of speech used for King
James' translation of the Scriptures.
Nevertheless, this is
precisely what we have been trying to do. We have vainly
imagined that we were calling the world to a great service,
when we demanded that Bible things should be called by Bible
names. But as a matter of fact our demand has been unrea
sonable, and consequently we have either been misunderstood,
or else our call has been practically ignored by nearly the
whole of Christendom. Surely this is not the solution of the
problem. We do not make progress by any such a method.
A much more successful way is to bury the old, and
1898.]
159
from the germ-life which comes up out of the dead, to cul

tivate new terms which will convey to the world some definite
idea of what we really mean.
It may be said that this proposal is not practicable. No
doubt it will encounter much opposition. But such has always
been the case when an attempt is made to change the established
order of things. Anyway, we can not go back to the correct
meaning of these terms, even if they ever had any such mean
ing. This is not the way that things move. We can not re
produce the past, and we ought not to do so if we could. We
dare not encumber the living present with the dead carcass of
yesterday. We need to understand that each day has its
specific place in the great scheme of human development.
What was exactly suitable to yesterday's work may be en
tirely useless for to-day. Perhaps the old terms, which are
now environed with distinct theological meaning, may have
been well enough one hundred years ago; but they are clearly
out of date now, and can no longer avail in bringing thetruths
of the New Testament clearly before the minds of the people.
We must therefore construct a new terminology, one which
will express in popular language the religious ideas which we
wish the world to receive; and when this is done, we will have
taken a long step toward the new reformation for which I am
now pleading.
A NEW SPIRIT OP CONSECRATION.
(II) The reformation I propose involves a new spirit of
consecration. I do not find fault with the old. It was per
haps just what was needed in the earlier days of our religious
movement. But no one can misunderstand the spirit of the
earlier times if he will read carefully the history of the facts
of the case. No doubt the spirit of consecration in those
days was worthy of all praise; but it was a consecration
toward an end which has largely been attained, and is there
fore no longer an important factor in our movement. The
old consecration was largely in the interest of what our
fathers called "the truth." They certainly knew how to con
tend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints ;
160
[April,
or at least for the faith as they understood it. We certainly

have no reason to find fault with them for this. Had it not
been for their contention we could not occupy the ground
we do to-day. They were the pioneers. They cleared the
fields for the sowing and reaping of the latter days. But now
that the fields are cleared, we need not go on chopping where
there is no timber and grubbing where there is no under
growth.
The old days were days of controversy. Every inch of
ground had to be fought over; and no one honors the old
heroes who did the fighting more than I do. But after all, it
is only truth to say that their consecration did not show itself
much in liberal giving of the means which they possessed.
They seemed to think that, when the truth as they understood
it had been successfully defended, their work was practically
done. They did not seem to understand the value of either
cooperative work in propagating their plea, or the importance
of tilling the land carefully which they had rescued from the
forest. Perhaps their consecration was quite as devoted as
any for which I am now contending. All the same, what I
now propose is new. It is new in that it works from a differ
ent standpoint toward a different end. It does not seek to
reproduce the old spirit of controversy , but rather to take
the germ which came out of that spirit and create a new spirit
of consecration toward the end of divine living. It is no longer
doubtful that Christians are not now judged by their theology
so much as by their character. The day for hair splitting is
past. However important the old days may have been, they
can not be reproduced at the present time. Nor do I suppose
that many are seeking to reproduce them. They belong to
the youthful period of our movement; and now that the move
ment has become a man there is little disposition to retain
in it childish things. But there is no more responsible period
in the development of manhood than that particular time
when we first assume responsibility. Having put away child
ish things, are we prepared to adopt the spirit and employ
ment of a true manhood? Many stumble and fall at this cru
cial test.
1898.]
A Plea Far a New Reformation.
161
Will the Disciples of Christ be able to pass this crisis

safely? They have for some time been emerging into man
hood. They have been dropping some of their childish toys.
They have undoubtedly ceased to regard their movement as
mainly a contention for certain views of truth. They have
come to realize that true Christianity is a life and not a mere
statement of doctrine, or even a contention for the faith as a
mere objective thing. But have they ever realized in its
fullness the spirit which characterized the primitive disciples,
which compelled them to fling themselves into the thick of
the world's fight, regardless of personal consequences, simply
because the Christian soul can not be satisfied to remain idle,
or to own anything of earthly goods while there are other
souls to save? The Apostolic Churches were not perfect in
many respects. They carried into both their theology and
practice many things that were foreign to the teachings of
Christ; but from the day of the "enduement" of the Apostles
with the Paraclete, they, at least, became flaming heralds,
bearing the message of salvation to a lost world, without ever
counting the cost in regard to any of their temporal affairs.
They were cowards up to the day of Pentecost, but the new
spirit they received on that day changed them from timid,
half-hearted, shrinking, doubting, even trembling weaklings,
to the most courageous, faithful and devoted heroesmen
who were willing and ready to sacrifice everything for Christ
and his cause.
Now this is the old spirit which we want in a somewhat new
manifestation. There is perhaps no need of the extraordinary
which accompanied the ministry of the Apostles; but un
doubtedly we need a spirit of consecration quite equal to that
by which they were characterized. I fear that the life of our
Churches is too much like that of the Apostles before the en
duement at Pentecost. They were discussing plans, wondering,
waiting for something to turn up, trusting in a sort of good for
tune which had always followed them up to the death of Christ,
and half believing in his half-understood words that in some
way or other they would yet be united with him in a reign where
they would occupy the important places of earthly honor. They
Vol. 22
162
[April,
had little conception of the meaning of the call which they had
received. But when the Holy Spirit came upon them in full
ness of power, they were suddenly translated from indistinct
ness to clearness of vision, from selfishness to complete sur
render, from cowardice to moral heroism. We need a refor
mation which will start with the same enduement of the Holy
Spirit, and then we shall have the same spirit of abandonment
and surrender of all we possess that characterized the earlier
Christians.
However, there is need for a warning at this point. It is
altogether possible to make too much of the money power in
carrying forward our work. We must not go from one
extreme to another.
No doubt money has a very decided influence in controll
ing the affairs of the world, but it is possible we have given to
it a fictitious value, especially in estimating its value for good.
It is not proposed at present to discuss the economic question
which is clearly involved, but to consider what seems to me to
be a dangerous concession to the money power. I do not wish
to be misunderstood. I do not question that money has its
right place, even in carrying on the work of the Lord ; but we
are very liable to fix our attention upon the wrong thing when
we are estimating the real forces which enter into the progress
of the world.
In order that my meaning may be made clear it will be
necessary to give an example or two illustrating the tendency
of the times. Let us suppose that some great enterprise
is to be undertaken. What is usually the first consideration
in the matter? Is it not almost universally the money ques
tion? Can a sufficient amount of money be raised to inaugu
rate the movement? If this can not be done, or at least
brought practically in sight, then it is at once decided to
abandon the enterprise, at least, until some favorable oppor
tunity offers itself.
Let me be a little more particular. Someone proposes to
start a college or university. The first thing to be considered,
according to the popular notion, is to secure an endowment
fund. Now, doubtless, this fund can not be safely overlooked.
1898.]
163
It is certainly an important factor in the permanent success of

any educational enterprise. But my contention is that this
is not the first thing nor the most important thing to be con
sidered. What a college or university needs most of all is
men, competent, earnest, devoted men; and if the right kind
of men are forthcoming there will not be much difficulty
finally about the endowment.
But the most liberal endowment will amount to practi
cally nothing if the right men are not secured. Some may
say that if a liberal endowment is once obtained there will be
no difficulty in securing the services of the right kind of men.
That does not necessarily follow. Indeed, so far as my obser
vation goes, it does not practically follow at all. I know
some colleges and universities which are most generously
endowed, and yet they have not in them a man of interna
tional, or even national, reputation.
MEN, NOT MONEY.
The reason for this is not far to seek. Money can not
make men; neither can it buy them. The moment anyone is
willing to sell himself for a certain price, that moment does
he cease to be a man in the true sense of the term. There is
a great deal of truth in what General Garfield once said with
respect to what constitutes a university. He said, "a student
on one end of a log and John Hopkins on the other would
make a university." We think too much of the brick and
mortar, laboratories, etc. Surely it is not well to undervalue
these things. Proper equipment has its right place, and when
the right men are secured this equipment can not be too care
fully supplied. At the same time it is quite possible to begin
at the wrong end of the line, and especially to place too much
emphasis on the wrong thing. In fact, it is becoming evident
to those who think, that our great reliance upon machinery is
having a strong tendency to hinder the development of the
best manhood. If anyone doubts this statement, let him
carefully study the men of the present day, and especially the
younger men, and let him compare them with the men of a
generation ago. The first thing that will be strikingly mani
164
[April,
fested, in such an inquiry, is the large number of machine or

wooden men who are filling the places of importance and trust
at the close of the present century. These men have been
practically manufactured; and consequently they are not
capable of imparting to others anything higher than their own
low level. The stream can not rise higher up than the foun
tain. A man who has been ground out of one of these mills,
where money has the controlling influence, can not possibly
be a great educator in either the university, state or Church.
It is not, after all, so much what a man learns at college as
what he feels, thinks, and plans. The process of filling up
with mathematics, the languages, or even the sciences, is of
little use in making real manhood, unless there is some great
man behind all this to impress himself upon the rising char
acter of the student.
This brings me to notice the fact that true education is
the development of all the powers within the man rather than
the reception of what comes to him ab extra. Of course he
must be furnished with certain material in order that the
inward faculties may be nurtured and made to grow. But
any overplus of this material, or any use of it out of propor
tion, will prove a positive disadvantage rather than a benefit.
This fact illustrates the particular point I now have under
consideration. Money can not take the place of native intelli
gence, pluck, energy, perseverance, tact,or whatever else is
necessary to work toward the highest manhood. Nor can
money of itself, or even as a principal factor, bring success to
our great missionary or educational enterprises. The crying
need of the age is for men and women. We must have these,
if the work of saving the world is to be carried on commensurately with its importance.
The question is not, then, can we raise a hundred, or even
two hundred thousand dollars per annum for some missionary
society, but the real question is, can the right kind of men and
women be secured to undertake the work. When these are
once in the field they will make their own way to success,
whether the money is forthcoming or not; but, doubtless, in
most cases the money would be found, for these are the very
1898.]
A Plea For a New Rejormation.
165
men and women who will be able to find it without much

difficulty. At any rate, if it can not be found with such men
and women in the field, then it certainly will not be found
without them. So it is evident that, whichever view we
adopt, the right kind of men is absolutely essential in order to
any worthy success in the salvation of the world.
In view of this fact, it is a great pity that Christian people
can not fix their minds on the right things. We need money,
doubtless. In all I have said I do not undervalue it in its
right place; but most of all we need brave, courageous,
earnest men and women for the mighty conflicts of the future.
These men and women must be consecrated, fully given up to
the work in which they are engaged. Mere hirelings will not
do. Those who are seeking for easy places will not do. The
young men who are coming out of our colleges and universi
ties, who are asking for the first places, even before they have
had a single day of real experience in the work to which they
aspire, will not do. We want men who are not educated for
salaries, but for labor. We want men who are asking for
opportunities for service rather than for a comfortable living.
We have plenty of time-servers, plenty of worshipers of Mam
mon; but we want men who accept the teaching of Christ
which says that we can not serve God and Mammon. In
short, we want men and women who are willing to cut loose
from ease, comfort, home, friends, country, and even give up
life itself, if need be, for the glorious privilege of working for
the cause of Christ. We want men who, like Abraham of old,
will leave everything and go into a land they know not of,
simply because the voice of God calls them to duty. The
work to be accomplished is altogether too difficult to be under
taken by any who are chiefly influenced by money considera
tions. In such a work principle must be at the top or else
success is sure to be at the bottom. Many have already sold
their birthright for a mess of pottage. Not a few have bar
tered with the money changers in our religious enterprises and
invariably they have received their reward. The halting,
hesitating, half-hearted Christianity of the present day is
largely the result of an unwise coalition with the money power.
166
[April,
A man becomes the head manager of a great monoply. Every

thing he touches turns to money. He crushes out all opposi
tion, and continues to heap up his millions of gold. His sins
rise to heaven as an abomination in the sight of God. But
all this is easily made respectable by a few strokes of policy.
He subscribes a large sum of money for the establishment of
some educational, religious or social enterprise. That at once
makes him even with men and gives him a "write up" in the
daily newspapers. But such acts do not blind the eyes of
God. He does not receive an unclean gift to compensate for
unrighteousness.
What is needed, and what I am pleading for, is a new
reformation with respect to this very matter of the right use of
money, and also with respect to the right way of making
money. We must be divorced from the worship of Mammon.
We may use Mammon, but we must serve God; and we must
in all cases subordinate the former to the interests of the lat
ter. Our search, therefore, should be after true men and
women and not after gold. Our Klondike should be in the
great centers of population, where human life is thickest, rather
than in the ice fields of the frozen north. We must go where
men and women grow, and seek to inspire them with the great
work of saving souls, and then souls will be saved and the
world will be won for Christ.
This, then, is the consecration I mean. It is new when
compared with the modern article which wears that name.
Nevertheless, it is the same spirit which animated the early
Christians, and which achieved such triumphs for the cross,
during the first century of the Christian Church. What I
claim is that the spirit of our modern Christianity, when taken
as a whole, is far from being right. It emphasizes the wrong
thing. It has the wrong perspective. It is too conventional, too
formal ; it lacks enthusiasm ; it fails to manifest that unselfish
abandonment as regards worldly interest which is the very
center and life of both Christ's teaching and example. I do
not wonder that such a man as the late Gen. Gordon refused
to be identified with any of the Churches. He was deeply
impressed with the life of Christ, and tried to manifest that
1898.]
167
life in his own conduct; but he had little or no respect for the
selfish, proud, worldly-minded spirit which he found every
where in the Churches. No wonder that such noble souls
should turn away from the spectacle of our modern methods
of money getting for religious purposes, and our modern selfstyled heroism wherever a man is willing to be crucified by a
big salary and an overplus of comfortable environment.
I am drawing no fancy picture, but I am dealing with the
Christian world as a whole. However, it is doubtless true that
the Disciples of Christ are not entirely free from the general
spirit which characterizes our modern Christianity. Perhaps
they are not so fully given up to the tendency of the times as
some of the other religious bodies. But there can be no ques
tion about the fact that the leaven, to which I have called
attention, is already at work in some of their Churches. And
it is almost too much to believe that their ministers are wholly
free from the corrupting secularism which has been sweeping
over the land. Anyway we need to emphasize the importance
of the new spirit of consecration which I am insisting upon as
essential to the great work of saving the world.
As a religious people the Disciples began their movement
among the poorer classes. They must now be careful or they
will sell themselves for the very wealth which, in the begin
ning, had no influence at all upon their success. While saying
this I am truly thankful to be able to recognize the fact that
some of the best men I know are men who have been most
successful in acquiring wealth, and are now equally successful
in distributing this wealth for good. When wealth has been
acquired by legitimate means, and is wisely used, it ought to
become and generally will become a power for good. But all
the same it can not be denied that Christ's teaching every
where warns against the seductive influence of riches ; and it
furthermore distinctly emphasizes the very fact which I am
now seeking to proclaim on the house top with all the accen
tuation I can give it, viz. , that the cause of Christ never did
and never will depend upon the question of money, though
such acquisition may be used to great advantage if it is used
wisely and well. In any case it is true that the main thing in
168
A Flea For a New Reformation.
[April,
the Christ-life is the Christ Spirit. The Beatitudes may be

generalized as follows: (a) Life consists, not so much in out
ward conditions, as in an inward disposition, (b) The only
way to reach right outward conditions is by a right inward
disposition, (c) From the foregoing it follows that we can
not have society what it ought to be until souls are right with
Grod. Hence I conclude that a right spirit, a consecrated
spirit, a spirit of sympathy with all that is Christ-like; a spirit
that is penetrated and interpenetrated by a Divine passion for
souls is one of the prime needs of the present hour; and when
we shall have that spirit in all our Churches and in all Chris
tians, we need not have much fear about ultimately bringing
the world to Christ.
EVANGELISTIC AND CHURCH METHODS.
(Ill) This brings me to consider the third and last
necessity in the plea I am making for a new reformation. We
must change our evangelistic and ecclesiastic methods. The
old ways are no longer attractive. They fail to catch the mul
titude. They have lost their charm if they ever had any.
Doubtless some of these methods answered well enough in the
years that are gone, but the times change and we change with
them. If principles are eternal, we must not forget that
methods are always changing and ought to change. Indeed,
progress is never in a straight line. We gain the mountain
top by zigzag courses. We go forward over the difficulties in
our pathway in precisely the same manner. A method which
may work very well to-day will perhaps be utterly useless to
morrow.
We must not, however, make a mistake as regards what
is new and what is old. Paradoxical as it may seem, the old
est things are sometimes the newest. This is specially true
with respect to the Apostolic faith and practice. Our modern
methods have so long obscured the Apostolic Gospel and
Church that these latter seem to the average religious man so
novel that he can hardly believe they are Divinely authorized.
Nevertheless, we must look to these as the starting point in all
our efforts to save the world. I do not say that they should
1898.],
169
be reproduced in every particular. Possibly some of the

Apostolic methods need modification in order to make them
applicable, or even useful, in the present state of society. All
the same, the germ-life is there. Even as respects the most
radical things of Apostolic days, there is always a suggestion
in the method which is wiser than any modern device. Still,
I do not insist upon a reproduction of anything that is not
practicable, and therefore do not ask to go back to the old
methods any further than is necessary to reproduce their lifeprinciple. However, as already remarked, most of these old
methods, if now reproduced just as they were practiced by the
Apostles, would have all the effect of novelty, for the reason
that they have been neglected so long. Anyway, it is worth
while to occupy some space in contrasting the old with the
new. Hence I invite the reader's attention to at least three
points which I wish included in my plea for a new reformation.
A PLEA FOR APOSTOLIC TEACHING.
(1) We must reconstruct our evangelistic methods so as
to make them more nearly harmonize with the teaching and
practice of the Apostles. A false theory of salvation is not the
only difficulty in the way of saving the world. There are false
methods which are equally paralyzing.
A few of these I wish to notice briefly. Perhaps there is
nothing that has more thoroughly hindered the progress of the
Gospel than the perversion of the command in the Great Com
mission. Our Divine Lord says to His disciples, "Go ye into
all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature ; ' ' but
our modern method of evangelization has largely turned this
whole commission round, so that it now practically says to the
sinner, "come into our Churches and be saved, and if you will
not do this you shall be damned." Now this expresses a fatal
error in our modern methods of dealing with the unconverted ;
and what is most remarkable about the matter is, we wonder
why these sinners do not come into our places of worship to
receive the blessings which we have in store for them.
But I think it altogether probable that we are expecting
entirely too much of the world in respect to the matter under
170
[April,
consideration. Why should we suppose that ungodly people,

or people who make no profession of religion, will attend the
public worship at our Churches or chapels? Why do we imag
ine that they have any interest at all in the matter? You
may say they ought to have interest, and it is very sad if
they have not. This is readily granted, but it does not change
the fact of the case. That they have little or no interest
can scarcely be doubted, and that we should expect them to
have any is one of the singular things connected with this sub
ject.
The fact is, the whole method of the Gospel clearly sug
gests that these indifferent persons are not expected to come
into our places of worship (and especially when the present
pew system is practically an intimation to them to stay away ) ;
but it is unquestionably the Divine plan that we should go out
to them, carrying with us the Gospel, which is "the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth." In other
words, it is the duty of those who have received Christ to go to
those who have not received Him, and not to wait for these aliens
to come where they feel no special interest, and where they can
feel none until this interest is created in them by the message
of God's love, which Christians, under the most sacred obli
gations, are bound to carry into all the world and preach to
every creature.
Of course this does not apply to those who are already
Christians. These ought not to forsake the assembling of them
selves together, and certainly will not do so, if they have any
just conception of the position which they occupy. But I am
inclined to the opinion that even these would be stimulated in
their love for the assembly of the saints if they were to engage
more than they now do in active, aggressive work for Christ
among the masses, who are "without God and without hope
in the world."
I greatly fear that our chief difficulty is that professing
Christians have not apprehended their true mission. As soon
as they are able (and often before this) they build a house of
worship for themselves. This house is frequently constructed
with the least possible adaptation to the purposes for which
such a house should be used. Then, as if to make it impossi
1898. ]
171
ble for anyone to attend services there, who may not be among
the most favored in regard to means, the seats are placed
upon a money basis, and sentinels frequently stationed at the
doors to guard these seats against the sacrilegious intrusion of
barbarians.
I do not think that this is the view taken of the matter by
the Church people themselves. I believe that in most cases
they have adopted this plan because they suppose it a wise ex
pedient. But I have presented precisely the view the outside
world takes ; and while this view prevails to the extent which it
now does, it is worse than useless to suppose that the masses will
attend the Churches or chapels. They will go occasionally to
the hall services, but will not continue to go there very long
unless the services are real and the preaching true to the teach
ing of the Word of God.
But the main difficulty is in overcoming the indifference
of the masses to the Christian religion of any form. The world
is at enmity with God, lies under the Evil One, and we need
not hope that those under the dominion of Satan will come into
the Churches or chapels and surrender themselves before the
love of sin is conquered, or any disposition is created in them
to honor and serve the great Master. This is work that should
be done outside of Churches and chapels, and until it is done the
proportion of nonattendance at public worship is not likely to
be materially lessened.
Someone, in writing a book on cookery, said, the way to
cook a hare is, "First, secure the hare." This was uninten
tionally a wise suggestion, as the subsequent details would be
quite out of place without the hare. So I say of the sinner,
first secure him, break down his love of sin, win him to Christ,
enroll him in the army of the Lord, and then it is time enough
to discuss the Church or chapel service that will be suitable
to him, and in which he will be interested. But I am decid
edly of the opinion that the best plan for cooking a hare
is quite unnecessary until we first have the hare to cook.
Now, if the matter to which I have called attention is
really fundamental, as regards the question of attendance at
our places of public worship, is it not highly important that the
172
[April,
whole subject should be carefully looked at from this point of

view? Doubtless there are many reforms needed in our Church
and chapel life in order to retain the interest of those who have
been "turned from darkness to light, from the power of Satan
to God;" but this turning itself is the first thing nec
essary, and without it everything else is useless, so far as the
masses are concerned. And the only way I can see for this
turning to be accomplished is to carry the Gospel to the peo
ple, instead of hoping to bring the people to the Gospe .
Hence the Churches should go out with the Gospel, and then
they can bring the people back with them into their places of
worship. This, I believe, is the Divine plan, and should it
be generally adopted, it would not be long before all our
houses of worship would be of much more use than they now
are.
At this point it is necessary to guard against a danger. I
do not mean that incompetent preachers should be turned
loose on the streets of our towns and cities in order to bring
the people to Christ. Nor do I believe that this would be the
case if the indoor services were conducted as they should be.
Every Church would then become a training school for mis
sionaries, and the result would be that thousands would enter
a field of great usefulness that are now doing practically noth
ing in the work of saving souls. But in any case I do not
advocate the indiscriminate use of men, simply because they
have the zeal and courage to engage in outdoor services.
There may be a zeal which is not according to knowledge.
No doubt miscellaneous, out-door preaching has been much
abused. I would guard carefully against this. I would have
the whole Church, as far as possible (preacher included),
engage in these evangelistic services ; and if the services should
be conducted wisely, then there can be no doubt about the
fact that much good would follow. Surely such a course would
impress the world with the reality of Christian profession,
and would certainly inaugurate a new era in mission work.
THE TRUE GOSPEL NOT PREACHED.
Another obstacle in the way of converting the world is
the failure to preach the Gospel just as it was preached by the
1898.]
173
Apostles of Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly, this is a grave charge,

and it requires definite specification in order to justify the
bringing it forward. But this specification can be given with
out the least difficulty whatever. Indeed, I could heartily
wish that the task was not so easy as it is, for then the evil
consequences would likely not be so great as they now are. It
is simply certain that the Gospel is not generally preached as
it was by the divinely-inspired Apostles. Nothing is more
absolutely certain than this to the man who has compared
modern preaching with the preaching recorded in the New
Testament.
It is not assumed that the identity is lost at every point.
As regards some things, there is very little, if any, difference ;
but as regards others, there is the width of the poles between
the preaching of the primitive Church and of the modern
Church. Looking carefully through the book of Acts, wherein
is recorded the preaching and practice of the Apostles, we are
at once struck with the simplicity and effectiveness of Apostolic
evangelizing. In the first place they relied exclusively upon
the preaching of the Gospel as the means by which to produce
conviction in the sinner. They recognized that the Holy
Spirit's work in conversion was through the truth presented,
and they therefore brought that truth to bear upon the con
science so as to awaken the sinner, and bring him into sym
pathy with their great message. They in no case resorted to
modern expedients for this purpose. Understanding the Gos
pel to be the power of God unto salvation to everyone that
believeth, and having received a Divine commission to go into
all the world and preach this Gospel to every creature, we find
them in every place and at all times faithfully proclaiming the
good news to all who would hear them. We do not hear of any
special meetings, either for prayer or anything else, in order
to make the Gospel message effective. I do not say that such
meetings are wrong now, but I do not hesitate to say that they
are often misleading. I think it can not be disputed that the
means resorted to by modern evangelists are often calculated
to turn the mind away from the Gospel itself to something
else, and consequently the Gospel message is practically nulli
174
[April,
fied by expedients which are wholly human in their origin,

and serve to weaken rather than strengthen the message which
is delivered. But in the primitive days of the Church there
were just three things constantly kept before the people: first,
that men are sinners ; secondly, that Jesus is the Savior of
sinners, and thirdly, just how this Savior saves the sinners.
The first and second points wero distinctly made and forcibly
urged upon the attention of the people, and we are told that
when the people heard they cried out, and asked what they
must do. And then the third point was pressed upon their
attention with all the clearness and fervor which the Apostles
could command. As already intimated there were no inquiry
meetings, no prayer meetingssuch as we have in these days
in fact nothing whatever to turn the attention from the
preached Gospel, or to suggest to the unconverted that there
was any good reason why they should not at once believe on
Christ and obey him, instead of waiting for the effect of other
influences, such as are provided by modern preachers.
The Apostles simply told the story of the cross, the story
of Jesus and his love, and the matter was then left with the
hearers addressed whether they would accept or reject the
message delivered. Would it not inspire a new confidence in
the power of the Gospel which we preach, if we were to act in
precisely the same manner? As the matter now stands, it is
no wonder that the people hesitate. When they see that this
Gospel has to be supplemented by so many devices unknown
to the primitive Church, it certainly is not surprising that they
should lose faith in Christianity and become either indifferent
to its claims entirely, or else active opponents of its progress.
What is needed, then, first of all, is a return to the Apostolic
plan of working. Let us throw aside our human expedients,
our uninspired methods, and let us go back to the old Jerusa
lem Gospel, and preach it with all the fervor that we can
command, and then if our success is not commensurate with
our expectations the fault at least will not be ours, and we can
with a clear conscience say that we are free from the blood of
all men.
Our modern inquiry rooms lack definiteness, and as a rule
1898.]
175
the teaching lacks faithfulness. Not only are the answers

given to inquirers often vague and unsatisfactory, but they
are really not such as are furnished in the Scriptures. This is
not the Apostolic style. When the Apostles preached the
Gospel and the people inquired what they must do, the answer
was definite, in language which could not be mistaken. The
inquirers were told precisely what the conditions of pardon
and adoption were, so that when these conditions were heartily
accepted there could be no reasonable doubt as to the position
anyone occupied.
Everyone could tell whether he had
believed, and repented, and been baptized, and when he was
conscious that he had heartily done all these, he had then a
right to claim with certainty the promise of remission of sins,
the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the hope of eternal life. But
our modern teaching comes short of this. The inquirer is told
to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and then the remaining
portion of the narrative, where this text is found, is studiously
suppressed, and the inquiring sinner is left with the under
standing that a sort of sentimental belief in Jesus Christ is all
that is needed, whereas to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ is
not only to accept him as the only Savior, but to obey him
as the Divine Lord. The importance of this obedience is
explained by the fact that the jailer took the Apostles, the
same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and was bap
tized, "he and all his straightway."
Now everyone, who has carefully examined the converts
who are made at modern revivals, must be conscious that these
converts, as a rule, lack that assurance of acceptance with God
which is so essential to the earnestness, as well as the peace of
those who profess to be Christians. The practical dropping
out of baptism from the evangelistic system has weakened the
whole plan at a very vital point. The sinner must have some
thing objectively defined into which he can bring his faith,
and from which he can reckon with certainty as to his accept
ance with God. Without saying anything more for the ordi
nance of baptism, it is certainly safe to say that with the prim
itive evangelists it occupied a definite position as regards the
matter under consideration. Hence, whenever persons were
176
[April,
sufficiently awakened to realize their true character as sinners,

and when they were willing to accept Jesus the Christ as their
only Saviour, they were then required to acknowledge him as
their Lord by obeying the command to be baptized ; and this
invariably followed their confession of the Christ with the
mouth, just as soon as the baptism could be administered.
When the Pentecostians cried out, asking what they must do,
Peter told them to repent and be baptized, every one of them,
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and they
should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And what he told
the Pentecostians was substantially repeated in every case of
conversion from that time until the close of the Apostolic
ministry.
BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM.
As Pentecost furnishes us with the first Gospel sermon
that was ever preached in the fulness of the Gospel, it may be
well to look at the whole matter under consideration from this
"beginning at Jerusalem."
In all our reckonings a well-defined starting-point is allimportant. There must be no uncertainty as to this. What
ever obscurity there may be in reference to other things, we
must have a clear conception of the particular point at which
we begin our calculations. Anything like uncertainty here is
sure to beget uncertainty at the end.
In view of this, I do not wonder that our risen Lord gave
very specific instructions to his Apostles concerning the time
when and the place ivhere they were to enter upon their great
mission of preaching the Gospel. They were distinctly told
that they must "tarry at Jerusalem" until they were "endued
with power from on high." Jerusalem was then the place
where the Gospel in its fulness should first be preached, while
the time was to be determined by the "enduing power from
on high." They were to wait at Jerusalem until they received
the "promise of the Father." And all this was in harmony
with prophecy, as well as the antecedent facts in the history
of the case.
Turning now to the second chapter of Acts, we reach the
1898.]
177
fulfillment of the conditions necessary to the preaching of the

Gospel under the commission which the Apostles had received.
In vain do we look for this fulfillment anywhere else. Here
we find the place is Jerusalem, the time is when they have
received the promise of the Father, the "enduing of the Holy
Spirit." And as if to make the occasion still more emphatic
as regards the starting-point in the history of Apostolic
preaching, Peter is the person who proclaims the joyful mes
sage and announces the conditions of pardon to the inquiring
Pentecostians. His Divine Master had promised as much to
him by conferring upon him the privilege of the keys of the
kingdom (see Matt. 16:19).
Let us now take our reckoning from this starting point.
And if we will carefully note everything connected with this
"beginning at Jerusalem," we shall be greatly helped to a
right understanding of the Gospel of Christ, as well as our own
relations to that Gospel. But if we are indifferent to the won
derfully suggestive history of Pentecost, it is impossible for us
to have any clear conception either as to what the Gospel is,
or what our duties are in reference to it.
It may help us to appreciate the importance of this Pente
costal occasion, if, in the order of time, we approach it some
what gradually. Stepping back from Pentecost to the scene
of the crucifixion, what are now the facts in the matter of
human redemption, so far as they have transpired? Simply
these. Christ had come, had spoken, as no one ever before
spake, had fulfilled his personal ministry on earthduring
which he made known the great principles of his coming
reignand had offered himself a sacrifice for the sins of the
world.
Now, whatever was said or done in reference to salvation
prior to the death of Christ upon the cross, must be interpreted
in the light of an incomplete history of the case. Were con
ditions of pardon announced? These must be, necessarily
limited, to some extent at least, to the period antedating the
death of Christ for our sins according to the Scriptures, and
can not, therefore, be used now as a full statement of the con
ditions upon which salvation depends with those who live on
Vol. 23
178
[April,
this side of the time when Christ was crucified. Hence, all
Scripture spoken before the blood of the new covenant was
actually shed was more or less prospective in its bearing ; and
when such Scripture had special reference to the pardon of
sins, or salvation, it must be understood as only a partial state
ment of what we, who live in a new dispensation, have received
in fullness. This must necessarily be so, since the greatest
facts in the history of salvationthe death, burial, and resur
rection of Christhad not at that time transpired.
Let us now step a little further in the direction of the dis
pensation under which we live. Let us stop just this side of
the resurrection. From this point, looking back, we observe
a great change has taken place. The veil of the temple has
been rent ; the middle wall of partition has been broken down
between Jews and Gentiles ; a propitiation has been made for
the sins of the world ; the sting of death has been taken away ;
the grave robbed of its victory; all power in heaven and in
earth has been given to the triumphant Conqueror; and now
he tells his chosen Apostles to "go into all the world and
preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be
damned." Or, as recorded by Matthew, they were to go and
"Disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Standing in the light of this great commission, we dare
not rest upon those statements of Scripture which belong
essentially to the time of Christ's personal ministry upon earth,
and which do not take into account his death, burial, and
resurrection. The great commission, however, is the full state
ment of the Gospel as we have it on this side of the resurrection
of the Divine Redeemer.
But even at that time they were not permitted to enter
upon the work for which they had been commissioned. As
already stated, they were to "tarry at Jerusalem" until they
were qualified for their work by the Divine Paraclete. As
they had received a great commission, they must now make no
mistake in carrying it out. They must be "filled with the
Holy Spirit," so that what they do will be binding for all time.
1898.]
179
Surely we ought to be profoundly thankful for all this care!

How wisely every step is taken ! How secure everything is
made! How definite are all the instructions given!
How
specific as to time, place, person, and circumstance!
At last the day of Pentecost has "fully come." The time
has arrived. The place is Jerusalem. Peter is the person.
The conditions are all fulfilled. And now the Holy Spirit
descends, Peter is filled with it, and is at once ready to enter
upon his ministry. He does not disappoint his Divine Master.
Jesus has been constituted "both Lord arid Christ," and Peter
does not hesitate to proclaim this fact as the crowning part of
his wonderful sermon; and when the people heard this (that
is, that this same Jesus, whom they, with wicked hands, had
crucified, was now raised up, and was constituted both Lord
and Christ), they cried out, "Men and brethren, what must we
do?" The answer was, "Repent and be baptized, every one
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Who will say that the Gospel which Peter preached on the
day of Pentecost has not been the Gospel of the New Institu
tion ever since that time? And who will say that the answer
which he gave to inquirers then is not suitable to the same
class now? If we take our reckonings prior to the day of
Pentecost, or subsequently from Rome, or Augsburg, or
Geneva, or Westminster, we may be sure that a different Gos
pel and different conditions will answer our purpose. But if
we begin with Jerusalem, at the time of Pentecost, and receive
the joyful message as delivered by the divinely-commissioned
Peter, then it is simply certain that we are following the
specific directions of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven ;
and that when we answer inquiries as the Apostle did, we are
pursuing the only course which will give infallible certainty to
those who are seeking the way of life everlasting.
APOSTOLIC TEACHING, CLEAR AND DEFINITE.
It will be seen that in this, as well as in all other Apostolic
examples, there was something so straightforward, definite,
and intelligible as to act, time, and placesomething so satis
180
[April,
factory to the people who were addressedthat the same day,

or the same hour of the night, many of those who heard, be
lieved, obeyed, and rejoiced in the salvation offered through
Christ. There was no delay in order to satisfy certain imagin
ary conditionsno waiting for power to be added to the Gospel
to make it effective. The Gospel itself was the power, and
whoever rejected it, rejected the only means by which he could
be saved. This view made the issue definite and clear, and
drew a distinct line between those who were in Christ and
those who were out of him, those who were his disciples and
those who were not, those who were children of God and those
who were children of wrath. In view of this clearness of
doctrine and practice it is not surprising that the Apostle Paul
could write to the Colossians, pointing back to the time when
they had been buried with Christ, and had been raised with
him to walk a new life ; and it is not surprising that the force
of the aorist tense in the Greek always gives us a starting
point somewhere in the past history of every disciple, from
which he is enabled to reckon with certainty precisely when
and how he entered upon the divine life.
This aorist tense is so important a factor in reference to
the matter under consideration that I think it worth while to
quote a few references where it is used with respect to some
past experience of Christians. I quote from the Revised
Version. Romans 6:2, "died;" 4, "were buried;" 6, "was
crucified;" 8, "died;" 17, "became obedient;" 1 Cor. 6:11,
"were washed;" "were sanctified;" "were justified;" 2 Cor.
1:21, 22, "anointed," "sealed," "gave;" Gal. 3:27, "were
baptized," "did put on; "Eph. 2:1, 5, 6, "did he quicken,"
"quickened," "raised;" Col. 2:6, "received;" 11, "were
circumcised;" 12, "were raised;" 13, "did he quicken;" 20,
"died;" 3:1, "were raised;" 3, "ye died;" 2 Tim. 1:9,
"saved us."
Now it will be seen that all these references point out dis
tinctly certain facts in the past history of the persons addressed
with which these persons must have been familiar, so that the
Apostle could appeal to these facts as proof of the claims which
Christ had upon their faithfulness. It ought to be possible to
1898.]
181
make the same appeal to-day in the base of everyone who pro
fesses to be a follower of Christ. But we fear it is true that
many of our modern Christians have no distinct consciousness
of any such experiences in their past history as those referred
to by the Apostle Paul. This ought not to be the case.
There is another difficulty in the way of Gospel progress.
Even when the Gospel is faithfully preached in all its facts,
commands, and promises, there is often no such result follow
ing as we have a right to expect, in view of the success which
attended its proclamation in Apostolic days. Why is this?
Undoubtedly, one reason is because our modern preaching is
really not preaching, but teaching. We may not do too much
for the head, but we certainly do too little for the heart.
Effective preaching is mainly an appeal to the heart. It is
telling the story of infinite love in which there is a strong
appeal to the affections. Of course the "eyes of the under
standing" must be enlightened, but after all these eyes belong
to the heart, and if the heart is not reached, vain will be all
our efforts to move the people to action. Mark Antony, speak
ing over the dead body of Julius Ctesar, moved the people to
action when he had touched their hearts. The success of the
Wesleyan movement was as much owing to Charles Wesley's
songs as to John Wesley's sermons.
We, in these days,
undervalue the true source of power; but the preaching of the
Apostles was successful because they recognized what we do
not. We spend our time in discussing theological questions
which lie entirely outside the area of human need, and hence
the partial failure of the modern pulpit, which ought to be the
center of the most potent influences to be found anywhere in
the moral world. The preaching of the Apostles was simple,
straightforward, direct, and to the heart. The modern pulpit
is abstruse, often lacking frankness, full of circumlocution, and
mainly to the head; and herein we find a reason why our suc
cess in evangelizing the world is not commensurate with the
amount of means and energy expended. But this preaching
to the heart must not be confounded with illicit appeals to the
emotional nature, which receive attention in another part of
this paper.
182
[April,
This brings me to notice what is a very common fault in

our evangelistic methods. I refer to the practice of preaching
to the multitude, rather than to the individual. I do not wish
to be misunderstood. I surely do not mean that we should
dispense with preaching to large congregations, if they can be
secured. The Apostles had much of their success in address
ing great multitudes, and it is probable there will always be
men who can succeed in this kind of work, and where such is
the case much good can be accomplished in this way. But in
the Apostolic days every member of the Church was a preacher
to the individual, and consequently when the disciples were
scattered abroad by persecution, "they went everywhere
preaching the Word," and doubtless much of this preaching
was to single individuals.
Philip preached both to the multitude and to the indi
vidual. He preached to the people of Samaria and also to the
Ethiopian eunuch. In both cases he was successful; and
there are still persons who can succeed in both of these ways ;
but a large majority of Christians will do best by confining
their labors to one person at a time. But this is the work
which very few care to do, and the result is that very little of
this kind of work is attempted. We trust to our popular
evangelists, and the men who can "draw," while individual
effort is practically ignored by nine tenths of those who ought
to be personally laboring for the salvation of the world.
The great commission instructs us to go intc all the world,
but it does not say that we are to preach the Gospel to all the
world. We must carry the Gospel into all the world, but
when we come to the preaching of it, it is at once individual
ized, addressed not to the multitude as a whole, but to "every
creature;" or in other words, the message is personally ap
plied to each individual, as if he were the only person in all
the world. Our Divine Lord gave special prominence to the
value of the individual man. He taught that there is joy in
heaven with the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
Earth's joy does not rise very high until the converts are
numbered by the hundred, but one sinner returning to God
sends all heaven into rapture. It is this personality and indi
1898.]
183
viduality about the Divine method of saving souls which give

that method its distinct originality, and distinguishes it from
what is human. We go out after the multitudes, but the
Divine plan is to save the one man. We find our enthusiasm
in the hundreds and thousands, but the angels of God are
thrilled with infinite delight when a single individual is made
to realize his lost condition and to seek for pardon in the
Blood of the Lamb.
The great need of the present hour, as regards this matter,
is undoubtedly an earnest and hearty acceptance of the New
Testament doctrine of individual responsibility. This should
manifest itself in two directions. Each individual Christian
should become a missionary to each individual sinner. Where
anyone is capable of addressing effectively large audiences,
let him not fail to do so, whether these audiences are gathered
in churches, chapels, halls, in the streets, market-places, or
anywhere else out of doors. But let not this excuse those
who may labor from house to house and from individual to
individual. Let each Christian be instrumental in saving his
neighbor, without waiting for someone else to do it. And
whenever this method shall be honestly accepted and thor
oughly worked, the problem of saving the world will be
stripped of at least half of its difficulty. I do not undervalue
associated work. All our societies are perhaps necessary;
certainly we can not do without our Churches. But these
ought to emphasize individual effort, rather than minimize it.
And yet I am not without fear that the more we organize co
operative work, the more individual labor is practically dis
continued. This ought not to be the case. But I am speaking
of what actually is, and I believe that no one who understands
the present condition of things will attempt to deny my con
clusion. At any rate, the fact I have stated is a crying evil
and stands greatly in the way of evangelistic success. Chris
tians must seek to counteract this tendency; they must fully
accept the responsibility of individual work ; each man must
attempt to save some other man. In this way every Christian
will become an important factor in preaching the Gospel, and
the consequence will be the dawning of a new life and a new
hope in all our efforts to evangelize the world.*
Vide "Conversion of the World," by the author.
184
A Pica For a New Reformation.
[April,
So far, under this division of my subject, I have con

sidered mainly the practice of the Christian world generally
without specific reference to any particular denomination.
Doubtless the Disciples of Christ will say that they can
heartily endorse my contention with respect to evangelis
tic methods. But I am inclined to think that the Disciples
are far from being entirely exempt from blame as regards the
indictments I have made against modern Christendom. It is
perhaps quite true that, in the earlier days of the Disciples,
their evangelistic methods were not altogether objectionable.
Even now Disciples are not liable to all the charges I have made.
In some respects they work upon lines which are distinctly
Scriptural ; and in most respects they are able to prove by an
appeal to the facts of their success that their methods are at
least not obsolete. Nevertheless, it can not be denied that
they are rapidly tending toward stereotyped formalities and
doubtful expedients. It is furthermore perfectly true that
some of these formalities and expedients are practically inter
woven with every page of Disciple history. I can at present
refer to only a few of the most pronounced evils which their
false methods have produced.
HYPNOTIC CONVERSION.
The first and perhaps the most common evil which needs
to be considered is what I may not inappropriately call hypnotic
conversion. In the early days of the Current Reformation it
was the proud contention of the Disciples that they appealed
mainly to the reason rather than the emotional nature, in
seeking to bring sinners to Christ. But how has the mighty
fallen ! We have come to times when the preaching of the
regular pastor is not supposed to be sufficient to turn men to
God; consequently an evangelist, with hypnotic powers, must
be sent for to influence the hardened sinners who could not be
reached through the regular ministrations of the Word. When
this evangelist makes his appearance it is curious to study his
methods. The whole effort is pitched upon the plane of the
emotions; and sad to tell, the exortations sometimes fall to
the low level of the auctioneer pleading for another bid on the
1898.]
185
article he is proposing to sell. As the success of these evange

lists is measured mainly by the additions they are able to secure,
it is not altogether strange that by hook or crook a respectable
number must be added to the role of Church members. This
is necessary to give the evangelist a favorable introduction to
the next Church in need of his help.
Now let no one misunderstand me. I not only do not
object to additions to the Church, but I heartily believe that
by securing these a Church is built up more readily and
effectually than in any other way. What I object to is the
manner in which these additions are made. Did anyone ever
stop to think about the solemn farce to which I am calling
attention? Then did anyone ever estimate the actual results
of such a protracted meeting upon the religious growth of the
community where it is held? Additions are made, not by the
Gospel's rational appeal to the needs of the whole manspirit,
soul and bodybut by the art of manipulation, or the trick of
playing on the feelings, or what is worse still, by a skillful use of
hypnotic power. We ought to end all this unworthy manipu
lation of illicit forces in the great work of saving souls. The
Gospel is still the power of God unto salvation to everyone that
believeth ; and when this is faithfully proclaimed the work of
the evangelist is finished, so far as bringing the people to
Christ is concerned.
I need scarcely explain that I do not include all evangel
ists in the category I have indicated.
I am quite sure that
many will be glad that I have spoken out so freely. These do
not approve the unscriptural methods to which I have referred.
There are evangelists and evangelists. For the better class I
have nothing but praise, but for those who practice the arts
of manipulation, I have nothing but contempt. If there is
ever a time when a man needs to be honest and careful in the
highest sense, it is when he is dealing with immortal souls.
Nothing can excuse the hypnotic evangelist. He plays with
the will through the influence of a human power which prac
tically ignores the Gospel, except so far as the Gospel is used
in order to give a solemn sanction to what he says. He uses
heavenly wisdom with which to make successful his earthly
186
[April,
tricks. Surely the time has come when this trafficker in human
credulity should be remanded to a back seat in the work of
converting the world.
Again, it is more than doubtful whether the old method
among the Disciples of asking sinners to come forward to the
front bench, in order to make the confession, is any longer the
wisest that could be adopted. It is probable that some regard
this method as divinely inspired, in view of the fact that it has
been so long and so generally adopted. But everyone ought
to know that there is neither precept nor example for it in the
New Testament.
It always did seem to me to smack of artificiality, and I
am more and more satisfied that it has come to be largely a
perfunctory performance. Disciples have railed against the
"mourners' bench," but they have substituted for this what
they call the "front bench," only they manage differently,
when they have got their sinner there.
Why not change all this? Why not ask for expressions
from the congregations while the preacher is declaring his
message? Or, if no one interrupts him while he is speaking,
why not, at the conclusion of the discourse, ask the people to
rise in their seats, or to indicate in any other way they wish
their willingness to accept Christ and follow him. Our
present methods are too stereotyped. The age demands some
thing altogether more flexible.
Nor is it necessary to sing a song while decisions are being
made. As a matter of fact the song is quite an addition to
Apostolic practice ; but it is doubtless an element in the atmos
phere that will usually help hypnotic influence. Let no one
think that this characterization is irreverent. I solemnly pro
test against such construction of my words. I have the most
profound regard for every legitimate effort to persuade men to
turn away from sin and accept Christ as their Saviour; but I
believe that this can not be properly done through many of
the methods that are used by even Disciple preachers, to say
nothing of the remarkable expedients resorted to by the pop
ular evangelists of other religious bodies. Surely a new
reformation is needed with respect to the whole work of
evangelizing the world.
1898.]
187
A NEW CHUKCH LIFE NEEDED.

(2) In the second place there is a great need for refor
mation in our Church life. I do not just now refer to the
need of a higher spirituality. That has been implied in all
that has been said in the foregoing considerations. I am
rather looking for the means by which this spirituality may
be obtained; and, consequently, my present investigations
will be confined chiefly to methods. Nor is it necessary to
discuss exhaustively, or even at all, the different forms of
Church government. It is true that these are expedients, and
for this very reason, no doubt, in the New Testament there
are no hard and fast lines laid down in respect to them. It is
quite possible to make almost any form of Church government
work successfully. Men have always been governed by any
of these forms when they have been faithfully and righteously
enforced.
When properly understood the teaching of the
New Testament clearly implies all three of the main divisions
of Church government, and all three should exist in one
Church. Hence every church ought to be, as regards its
government, episcopal, presbyterian and congregational.
There is, therefore, really no need for difficulty about
Church government. Even where only one form is adhered
to, the Church may prosper, if this form is wisely administered.
However, it is certainly well to observe as nearly as possible
the clearly defined New Testament distinctions ; and conse
quently I would prefer a government in which the episcopal,
presbyterian and congregational features are wisely combined.
Nevertheless, as I am just now desirous of calling attention
to other things, I will not discuss the governmental question
any further at present.
First of all it may be well to call attention to the public
worship or services of most of our Churches. Has not the
average Church service become practically a stereotyped, for
mal affair ; and has it not on this very account ceased to be
effective in imparting spiritual vigor to those who are in
attendance?
It is bad enough to depend upon these services
for the propagation of the Gospel. It has already been indi
cated that these indoor exercises are not in harmony with the
188
[April,
spirit of the Gospel, when evangelizing the world is the matter

to be considered. There is, however, a reason for such meet
ings, when the service is intended specially for the benefit of
Christians. However, as our public Church meetings are
usually made up of Christians and non-Christians, it must be
evident that the services must be estimated with respect to
both of these classes.
Take the average service and compare it with the twelfth
chapter of first Corinthians.
Can anyone detect the slightest
similarity? There need be no hesitation in making allowance
for special gifts which belonged to the Apostolic age.
Doubtless special gifts must be considered at the present
time, although they may not be miraculously bestowed.
Indeed, it is precisely these special gifts that should have
freedom for exercise. Let no one think that I am pleading
for what is called "mutual teaching."
That phrase has
ceased to be potential. Like many of the old forms it has
lost its original meaning. It has been greatly abused. In
attempting to reproduce Apostolic practice, as regards edifica
tion at the regular meetings of the Church, not a few have
failed to take into consideration the difference between a grain
of wheat and the germ to which I have already called atten
tion.
In any edification plan the germ of Apostolic methods
should be preserved, but not the hull. The outside may die,
if only the inside is preserved and developed.
Is it not possible, then, to reform our Church services, so
as to make them illustrate the germ of the Apostolic practice,
without fastening upon them unworkable conditions? This is
the reformation for which I plead. Let us look at the matter
from a practical point of view. In the first place no preacher
ought to deliver more than one sermon on each Lord's day.
Any more than this he can not do and do well. But he can
prepare a helpful Bible study. This is what is needed, in
order to spiritual growth, much more than ordinary preaching.
The Churches are now virtually preached to death. Each
service has its stereotyped formula, and the prescribed order
must be literally carried out or else the average Church-goer
at once concludes that there is something wrong with the
1898.]
189
machinery. He certainly uses the right word. It is machin

ery, and not much else. Indeed, this machinery is so exacting
that the slightest variation in the order prescribed would
almost shock the ordinary Church-goer. Is not such a servileness in itself a degradation, to say nothing of the influence it
has upon that liberty of expression and growth which is fun
damental in any normal Christian development?
Is there not a more excellent way? I have already
intimated what would be preferable to the usual routine
at a morning Church service. Why not throw the whole
Church, Sunday School, Christian Endeavor Society, and
indeed all the rest of the departments (if what I have men
tioned are not exhaustive) into a great Bible class or classes'?
It may be that at some places different classes, superintended
by competent leaders, would be the best arrangement. There
should be the utmost freedom as regards details. The main
thing to be secured is the study of the Bible and mutual
exhortation. The Lord's Supper should be administered either
at the beginning or at the end of this service, and ample time
should be taken for it. At present it is practically crowded
into a very small corner, and is usually hurried through in a
manner which is wholly unworthy of the important place
which the Supper occupies in New Testament teaching.
I am not pleading for uniformity. This is precisely what has
done much of the mischief. What is needed is the right
thing, and then a wise management will make it a success.
Let every man who becomes responsible for a service take
such course as he finds suitable to himself and to those whom
he serves. If he is a sensible man he can usually adapt him
self to his environment, so that everything will work for edi
fication. Almost any method with variation would be better
than the best method firmly stereotyped. We must have more
flexibility as regards methods and more stability as regards
principles. Firmness at the latter point does not exclude vari
ety at the former.
It may be well to say a word about the evening service.
This should usually be of an evangelistic character. Whether
the service should be held in or out doors will depend. If the
190
[April,
plan I have already suggested could be made practical, then a

service might be provided in several places. A sermon or
sermons could be preached with special reference to the needs
of the unconverted. But in every case the preaching should
be in the simplest terms, and with the most careful discrimi
nation as to their meaning. Let everything, as far as possible,
be spoken in the language of the people, and "the language of
the people" is only another phrase for "economic language."
Say what we may, it is a fact which can not be successfully
denied that commercial life is the most dominating influence
in modern society.
We must, therefore, generally use
economic terms when addressing mixed audiences, and espe
cially when preaching in our great commercial centers. By
giving careful attention to the foregoing considerations, the
evening services ought to yield encouraging results in adding
to the Church both converts and spiritual power.
Of course I am not attempting an exhaustive statement
of the whole case ; consequently I will mention only one other
matter to be considered with respect to Church life. I refer to
what is called the "fellowship." This is a fine word if
properly understood; but it no longer means what it once did.
The Koinonia of the Greek has been translated and re-trans
lated until it now has an ecclesiastical meaning which practi
cally changes the use of the word. Theological mills are re
sponsible for quite as much harm as good. This word has
been ground to powder in some of these mills. Can we not
translate it into the economic language of the present? We
all understand the meaning of partnership. Why not use
that word instead of "fellowship?" The common people
would then understand our meaning, and the idea which the
word conveys would be practically the exact idea intended by
the original. When we have come to take this view of the
matter, association in the Church of Christ will mean much
more than it now does. We will then understand that Chris
tians are copartners in a great economic firm, and then each
one will feel bound to contribute to the capital of this firm
exactly as the Lord has prospered him .
1898.]
191
CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM.
(3) This brings me to the third and last point to be con
sidered. There can be no question about the fact that both
Apostolic teaching and practice suggest a much closer com
munity of interests in the primitive Church than is even
attempted in any of the Churches of the present day. We
have not yet learned that the Church is the body of Christ,
and that Christians are members in particular ; and that, fur
thermore, if one member suffers all the members suffer with
it ; while if one member is honored all the members rejoice
with it. Just here we touch one of the vital defects of modern
Christianity. It has become selfish to a dangerous degree. I
know that some will say that it is less selfish than in the days
of the primitive Church ; and in proof of this I will be pointed
to the large benevolence shown by the Churches in maintain
ing various Christian enterprises. But I fear that the very
best showing on this account can not be regarded as very credit
able to the Christians of the present day. The whole amount of
money contributed by the Christian Church, in all of its divi
sions, is simply contemptible in comparison with the wealth
of these Christians on one side and the great need of the world
on the other. But even the amount that is contributed is, for
the most part, an unwilling offering. When we think of the
various devices which are resorted to in order to secure the
comparatively small sum which is raised, it is difficult to reach
any other conclusion than that selfishness is still the rule
rather than the exception with a majority of Christians of
the present day. Where do we find that complete self surren
der, that entire consecration of life and means, that unre
served flinging of the whole energies into the thickest of the
conflict with the forces of evil which ought to characterize
every man who is not his own but who has been bought with
the precious blood of Jesus Christ? Echo answers, where?
I am not proposing any wild, impracticable socialism. I
have no faith in anything of that kind. Nevertheless, I firmly
believe that we must carry out the principles of the New Tes
tament with respect to the socialism taught by Christ and his
Apostles, as well as what they taught with respect to other
192
[April,
matters. It is easy to say that the unity of the Church is an

impossible thing. Indeed, some are already saying that vari
ety is the law of Church life and not unity. But variety is
really the law of unity. There can be no unity where there
is no variety. I am not pleading for sameness, but for oneness.
These are very different things. But variety does not include
a difference which is offensive to both God and man; it
includes only a difference which is normal.
There are many other matters that could be mentioned of
equal importance with those we have had under consideration ;
but as this article is already long enough, I must reserve any
further remarks until I have time and space for a fuller devel
opment of the subject. While I am conscious that what I
have written is only a partial statement of the case, I am not
without hope that it will lead to a careful examination of
the facts I have presented in connection with the great needs
of the time in which we live. If such should be the result I
shall have not written in vain.
However, before closing, it may be well to guard against
a possible discouragement which may present itself to the
mind of the reader. The reformation I have suggested may
appear to be impossible from a practical point of view. I
hope no one will accept this notion as a finality without an
honest look at all the facts of the case. It appears to me that
the times are propitious for just such a religious movement as
I have proposed. There is restlessness everywhere through
out the religious world. Men are feeling their way to some
thing better than the present state of things. No one is satis
fied as matters now stand. Surely this is just the day to issue
a call to move up toward the mountain top. The fogs are on
the lowlands ; there is clearness of vision up higher. We may
have some difficulty in climbing. No matter for that. Difficulty
is really the measure of duty. The greater the difficulty, the
greater is our responsibility.
But however this may be,
no one will dispute the need of an inspiring ideal, if we wish
to accomplish anything worth living for in this present world.
The average Christian ideal at the close of the nineteenth cen
tury has nothing in it to incite to deeds of noble daring. The
1898.]
Jesus and the Existing Order.
193
Christian life of to-day is colorless and tasteless. We want

something that will appeal to the heroic in men and women,
and then we shall begin to grow martyrs who will dare even
die for perishing souls. My suggestions may, at least, furnish
a text for a training school where a torch will be lit that will
enlighten the world.
W. T. Mooee.
JESUS AND THE EXISTING ORDER.*

The relation of the Church to the social problem is not
one of institutional self-interest. From discussions I read
and hear, this fact doth not always appear to Church clubs and
religious conventions. These discussions seem to turn upon the
question of how the Church is to reach greater numbers, or be
come in and for itself a greater social or communal power. The
question contains no hint of social vision, and misapprehends
the Church's right relation to the social situation. The delu
sion that getting the multitudes into the Church has anything
to do with the social problem is one of the weakest of the day ;
but it is able to lead us into many lies. It sometimes puts the
Church in the attitude of viewing the people as religious prey;
of taking advantage of a frightful human situation in the in
terests of an institution.
The Church was not sent to build itself up out of the world,
but to build up the world out of itself; it is not an end, but a
means. Its mission is not to convert men to a system of re
ligion, nor to enfold them with an institution. Jehovah long
ago declared Himself nauseated, so the Hebrew prophets say,
with the increase of Church attendance and religious benevo
lence that accompany increasing social and national wrong.
The prayings and religiousness of the Hebrews were unbear
able. What did Jehovah care about their tramping up and
down His courts? He would much rather have the temple
doors shut, and the whole religious performance stopped. If
*The substance of this paper was given In an address in Cooper Union, New York City, March
6, 1S96, under the auspices of the Social Reform Club, and is now published for the first time
The address excited much attention at the time of delivery, and it was earnestly requested for pub
lication ; but as it is to form part of a volume, soon to be issued. Dr. Herron refused to permit its
publication, but has finally consented to its appearance in the Quarterly.Editor Quarterly.
Vol. 24
194
[April,
they wanted to reason together with Him in the things of re

ligion, and would havetheir scarlet sins washed white, they
must quit bribing their courts and corrupting their legislature ;
they must give the hireling his wages, relieve the oppressed,
and give economic and political healing to the nation. All
this was said in a social situation precisely analogous to ours.
If the Church could get the multitudes inside its doors, it
is a fair question whether their last state would not be worse
than the first. With the present type of Christianity, the
population of the earth might be piously Christian, and in a
sense the worse for that; for the social task would remain,
and be infinitely harder because of the enmity of the good re
ligious classes to the better human life. The Church might
make the multitudes more respectable by capturing them for
its fold ; but we religious folk are always mistaking respecta
bility for Christianity. We forget that Jesus was not respect
able, nor His disciples, and that Christianity had to be
founded by and among the disreputable. Jesus was put to
death by the "good people," and their politicians. The "ju
diciously progressive," the "wise" managers of reform, saw
His death to be a necessity: He spoiled all their plans, and
seemed unamendable to reason. The fishermen of Gallilee,
with the slaves and outcasts of the Roman empire, and not
the "good citizens" of Jerusalem, made the new earth. When
the philosophers of Alexandria and Athens got the Christian
directorate, and the Roman upper classes began to make Chris
tianity a fad, its springtime of moral glory had gone, while
the summer was soon ended, and the long and yet continuing
winter of the faith of Jesus began.
Nothing is more morally grotesque than our appeals to
"good citizens" to organize to save the city, or reform the na
tion. If our "good citizens" were in any fundamental or
Christian sense good, if they were not in fact the socially
worst, the very ones whose exploitations make politics and
society wrong, they would not have to be desperately wrought
upon in order to gain for human beings some small measure
of the interest they give to making money. Our vehement
appeals to "good citizens" to rise above their material selfinterests, and that on the ground of more material self-in
1898.]
195
terest, lest the political corruption they have begotten sweep

their material things away, must strike God, if He ever laughs,
as the grimmest joke of the social making epoch. It is from
our "good citizens" the people need salvation. The social re
demption will come, at last, through the people the "good
citizens" exploit and fear. Were he to appear to the social
situation unknown, Jesus would likely get a more effective fol
lowing on the Bowery than on the Board of Trade or in the
churches of Fifth Avenue.
Waiting for "good citizens" to effect the social redemp
tion is quite as promising as the current cant about the need of
a "business" administration of the city, or the state. The cant
begins in the usual response of the almost deified business man
to every appeal for a better social ideal or political pattern: "I
am a business man, and have to view things from a practical
standpoint ; we business men have too much experience, too
much knowledge of the world, to give attention to the theo
rists and doctrinaires." Yet if there is anything the good God
would deliver this world from, it is this so-called practical
business sense, which is proving itself the most impracticable
of all nonsense, and which is bringing the world to the verge
of anarchy. The precise thing we do not want, and which we
in fact have, is a "business" administration of state or of city.
Commercial integrity is largely a wretched hypocracy, as every
business man knows. "Business" is the economic covering
for fraud, extortion, lying, stealing, and gambling. The po
litical corruption of which we talk is simply the overflow of
business corruption. Political corruption may even be said to
be an integral part of the present business system. It is "busi
ness" that corrupts our national legislatures, elects our United
States senate, influences our courts, and debauches all our na
tional functions. "Business" is the heart disease that threat
ens our nation with moral impotence, if not destruction. It is
long past time to be done with the disgusting cant about
"practical business sense;" the commercial whine as to the
evil effects of politics upon business interests; the industrial
fanaticism tha tcenters national worship in the chamber of com
merce. The religion of commercialism has had its day. The
nation will not much longer take its social holiness from the
196
[April,
dervishes of the stock-exchange. It will not continue worship

ing by the rituals of the Board of Trade. The people, as well as
Jehovah, are getting morally nauseated by monopolistic piet
ism, taught by its priests the economists to name everything
monstrous and oppressive as "natural law." And it has al
ways been the dreamer, even the lonely mystic, like Moses or
Bernard, Hildebrand or Cromwell, that Grod has called to or
ganize order out of slavery and political chaos.
The religious problem of to-day, which has already waited
with over-patience for the Church, is an economic problem; it
is not a problem of more Churches and Church members. It
is a problem of how to make human life more sacred, valuable
and respectable than the abundance of things the individual or
national life may possess. The Church's present mission is
the application of Christ's kind of righteousness to the organi
zation and administration of economic and political activity.
The problem has been made threatening to our nation by
the subversion of every human interest to money. In no na
tion on earth is there such abject submission to mere money,
in both Church and State, as here in America. This is the
truth, and we know that it is the truth. Organized money
has possession of our economic and political forces. It owns
our state legislatures, indirectly makes the decisions of our
courts, and the United States senate is more largely made up
each year of the paid agents of its corporation property. There
is scarcely any legislation in the land, municipal or state or
national, that is not now bought and sold in the open market.
"Before we are aware of it," says Dr. Gladden, "the whole
structure of society is changed, great tyrannies are entrenched,
social parasites have become vested interests, and interests are
at work to paralyze the law, to pervert conscience and to un
dermine the very foundation of the commonwealth." What
Justice Harlan intimated, in his dissent from the Income Tax
Decision, is a fact: constitutional government has been prac
tically overthrown in America in the interests of organized
money. In New York City, the bottom municipal ailment is
not Tammany Hall and its retainers, but the monied respect
ability that has used Tammany to buy legislation at Albany
and franchises at the City Hall, and that will direct our muni
1898.]
197
cipal reforms so as to keep them bounded by monied interests ;

Tammany is but a symptom, or a disease, of a social system
that is through and through corrupt and exhausted. Money
owns the public press, inspires its dispatches, writes its edi
torials. Money is gradually adopting legal, journalistic, and
religious means to suppress freedom of speech. Our educa
tional and missionary organizations elect men to their boards
of directors for the bald reason, when divested of its pious
humbuggery, that they have money; and this without a
thought of how obtained, only so the possessors be religious
and fairly orthodox. Money dictates what shall be taught in
our colleges, and qualifies the utterances of the pulpit to an
immeasurably larger degree than we are willing to admit. The
social conscience of our day, and the depthless human need
from whence it cries, are as but dust in the balance when
weighed with the subtle and indirect, yet absolute, influence
of money over official religion and politics. So subtle and
persistent is this influence, that religious leaders who strongly
and specifically cried out against economic wrongs, no longer
than five or ten years ago, are now dangerously silent ; it is
not now "good form," and it is too offensively agitating, to
speak against money before religious assemblies. If I were to
stand before any representative religious gathering in the land,
and there preach actual obedience to the Sermon on the
Mount, declaring that we must literally do what Jesus really
said, I would commit a religions scandal ; I would henceforth
be held in disrepute by the official religion that bears Jesus'
name. If the head of some great oil combination, though it
had violated every law of God or man, besides the so-called
economic laws which neither God nor man ever had anything
to do with, and though it had debauched our nation infinitely
beyond the moral shock of the Civil War, were to stand be
fore any representative religious gathering with an endowment
check in his hand, he would be greeted with an applause so
vociferous as to partake of the morally idiotic, if not the in
tellectually insane. This, too, is the truth, as we very well
know.
Organized money is to-day the international anarchist, and
the chief producer of anarchy among the people. It menaces
198
[April,
both the being and perpetuity of existing governments. Of

every national situation it has, or is quickly gaining, control;
it is governing the people in its interests, holding international
diplomacy in its hands, making and breaking treaties for its
profit. The peoples international are thus calling in question,
as never before, the utility of government, and are beginning
to distinguish between the government and the nation. From
St. Petersburg to the plains of the Dakotas, toilers and pro
ducers are asking why they should toil to produce billions to
support governments which are the instruments of the privi
leged classes to further exploit them. They are asking why
they must support navies, armies and parasitic legislatures to
protect them from each other, when they are in reality brothers
and need no such protection. The idea of government as
fraternal co-operation, as brotherhood, as friendship, is the
living dynamite that is getting underneath the thrones of the
Old World, and underneath the legislatures of our American
money lords, who are preparing the explosion of what might
be a growth.
The emancipation of life, of our nation and its institu
tions, from the rule of money is our religio-economic problem
in its first and political aspect. It presents the national and
social situation for which we are each responsible, and points
out the deliverance for which we must individually and collec
tively give ourselves; only the insane, or the very rich, are
held irresponsible at such a time as this.
The rule of money makes the immediate relation of the
Church to the social problem unmistakably specific ; as specific
as the relation of the Hebrew prophets to the worship of Baal,
when such worship commercially advantaged the nation. In
fine, it calls the Church to represent the national attitude of
Jesus. We piously say that Jesus had nothing to do with in
stitutions or with politics, and that he went about appealing
to individuals to "be saved." As a matter of fact, the first
public act of his ministry was to go up to Jerusalem and clean
out the capitol. The Jewish temple, which he purged, was the
political capitol of the nation. Jesus did precisely what you
or I would do if we should go to Washington and produce a
panic in the United States senate body, by arresting its pro
1898. ]
199
ceedings with a sudden exposition and denunciation of its

political iniquity; and he did it, too, without a whit less
reason, and for doing it got himself crucified. According to
John's gospel, the first year of his ministry was spent in trying
to get some sort of a national recognition. When we read the
Gospels historically, the career of Jesus becomes as certainly
political, in relation to his times and nation, as the career of
Joseph Mazzini of Italy, or of Charles Sumner of America,
except that he held no official position. The Sermon on the
Mount, in its historical and theocratic setting, is as truly a
political document as the Declaration of Independence or the
Great Charter. Jesus' preaching was of the kingdom of God,
which never meant other than a righteous human order, and
which was tbe social cry of the Judea of Jesus' day, for which
the Romans put men to death as anarchists, so Jewish
scholars tell us. It was the synonym for social justice, and
was so understood by the people. Both John the Baptist and
Jesus put this divine social order in the moral perspective of
the individual first ; then they appealed to him to accept it,
and renounce all he had in behalf of its establishment. When
Jesus was rejected, it was a governmental as well as ecclesias
tical rejection. It is absurd to suppose that he was put to
death for going about healing sick people and appealing to in
dividuals to "be saved," or to "be good," as we understand
these terms. He was crucified for disturbing the existing
national order of things; crucified as a national menace,
because he was aiming at the wrong at the heart of the nation.
His avowed purpose was to make the Jewish people a messianic
and redemptive nation to the world. When he came, he
studied the social fact and planted his feet solidly in the human
situation ; he went at Jerusalem far more fundamentally and
directly than Dr. Parkhurst went at New York City ; for he
attacked the system of things while Dr. Parkhurst attacked an
incident. We read the Gospels to no social purpose if we do
not see in his weeping above Jerusalem, on that Olivet morn
ing, the outpoured agony of the matchless patriot, broken
hearted over Jerusalem the doomed capitol and primacy
doomed because the nation would not accept the glorious
world mission of giving the righteousness of the kingdom of
200
[April
God to all nations. After rising from Joseph's tomb, Jesus

commissioned the Apostles to discipline the nations, not
unrelated or aggregated individuals. And, as Hegel points
out, the political life of the nation is the final revelation of the
moral worth and living power of religion. The real religious
creed of the people, the unmistakable evidence of what they
actually believe, is their politics. A corrupt state is simply
the expression of a decadent and formal religion. And a
merely respectable religion is the worst human enemy.
Of course, religion reaches its political manifestation
through the medium of economic activity. The life of man
is objectively an economic life, grounded in religion, and show
ing forth its fundamental faith in political conditions. As I
have already said, political corruption is the overflow of eco
nomic corruption; and behind economic corruption lies an in
adequate and unethical religious experience and organization.
Now the idea of Jesus, which the Church is bound to re
present if it be not apostate, was altogether more economic
than we care to discover. Nearly all His statements of reli
gious principles are in social or economic terms. No man can
read the Gospels honestly without seeing that He regarded in
dividual wealth both as asocial crime and a moral fall; that
men understood that in becoming His Disciples it was incum
bent upon them to surrender private property to the brother
hood. When He declared that it was hard for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of God, it is clear that He meant that
it was hard for him to yield to the essential thing
in his case, which was the giving up of his property to the
common good ; because he was not able to do this, the rich
young man went away sorrowful. When He said that a man
must renounce all he had to become His Disciple, He was not
speaking vaguely; He meant exactly what He said. He re
garded social or economic inequality as the manifestation of
religious apostasy and moral disorder. According to Jesus'
whole teaching, however seen in His moral perspective, the
possession of individual wealth was social violence. Nothing
did He regard as more irreligious, more defiant toward God or
wicked toward man, than content to have while others have
not. That men of greater ability than their brothers should
1898.]
201
use that ability to exploit them, that the strong should prosti
tute their strength by making human need and ignorance their
profit and prey, was to Jesus a horrid blasphemy. He taught
that the power to serve is not only the sacredest gift, but is in
itself, in its intrinsic worth, the highest human reward; noth
ing was more morally frightful, or more cheapened God to
human thought, than the idea that serving power was some
thing to be rewarded by things other than itself, or to be sold
and paid for in the highest market.
It may be a debatable matter whether communism is prac
ticable ; but that Jesus never contemplated anything but a
brotherhood state of society, that by the kingdom of God
He never meant other than an organization of human life in
which all men should work for the common good, is not open
to question. We are told that the early Christian communists
of Jerusalem were reduced to poverty because of their com
munism; but we have not an iota of evidence that such was
the case. In fact, the historical evidence is quite to the con
trary. The siege of Jerusalem under Titus reduced the whole
nation to such poverty that mothers ate their babes. In that
awful rebellion and national extinction, the Christian commu
nities alone seem to have fairly survived. Even down to the
time of Augustine, who would admit no one to the churchly
offices save on the surrender of all private property, the com
munistic idea largely prevailed. Of the majestic St. Ambrose,
Dean Farrar says: "Constantly was his voice raised against
the oppression of the rich while he faithfully warned against
the lying imposture of the mendicants. When men were un
justly persecuted, he extended to them the rights of asylum.
When multitudes were taken prisoners in the incessant battles
against rebels and invaders, he unhesitatingly melted down
the sacred vessels to purchase their ransom.
Nobody spoke
more boldly against vice. He denounced the customs of drink
ing toasts, and put down the vice of revelling on the feast days
of martyrs. He rebuked the perfumed and luxurious youths;
the women who reclined on silver couches and drank in jew
eled cups; the men who delighted in porphyry tables and
gilded fretwork, and cared more for their hounds and horses
than for their fellow-Christians. Nor did he less faithfully
202
[April,
denounce the idle multitude who patronized the madness of

the circus and the vice of the theatre. To the rich he said :
'You cloth the walls of your houses and leave the poor unclad ;
the naked wail at your gates, and your only thought is of the
marble with which you shall overlay your floors ; he begs for
bread, ''and your horse has a golden bit. Costly apparel de
lights you, while others lack food. The very jewel in your
ring would protect from hunger a mass of people.'" "We
must admit," says Professor Nitti, in his great work on
"Catholic Socialism," "that Christianity was a vast economic
revolution, more than anything else." "The early fathers of
the Church," he says, "faithful to the teachings of Christ,
professed thoroughly communistic theories.
They lived
among communistic surroundings and could not well have
maintained theories contrary to those held by Christ and the
Apostles." Professor Nitti has done noble service in collating
the sayings of the Church fathers with regard to private pro
perty. "Opulence," says Saint Jerome, "is always the result
of theft, if not committed by the actual possessor, then by his
predecessors." All is in common with us except women,"
says Turtulian. "Behold," writes Saint John Chrysostom,
"the idea we should have of the rich and covetous: they are
truly as robbers, who, standing in the public highways, de
spoil the passers-by; they convert their chambers into caverns,
in which they bury the goods of others." "It is no great
thing," writes Saint Gregory the Great, "not to rob others of
their belongings, and in vain do they think themselves inno
cent who appropriate to their own use alone those goods which
God gave in common ; by not giving to others that which they
themselves receive, they become homicides and murderers, in
asmuch as in keeping for themselves those things which
would have alleviated the sufferings of the poor, we may say
that they every day cause the death of as many persons as
they might have fed and did not. When, therefore, we offer
the means of living to the indigent, we do not give them any
thing of ours, but that which of right belongs to them. It is
less a work of mercy that we perform than the payment of a
debt." "The soil," to quote St. Ambrose again, "was given
to rich and poor in common. Wherefore, 0 ye rich ! do you
1898.]
Jesus and the Existiny Order.
203
unjustly claim it for yourselves alone?" Nature gave all

things in common for the use of all, usurpation created private
right. "It was not until the thirteenth century," says Profes
sor Nitti, in concluding these quotations, "when the Church was
already immensely rich, that ecclesiastical writers appeared
openly maintaining the right of property." When this came
to pass, "the Church was not only obliged to repudiate its
original teachings, but it was forced, after a long struggle, to
exclude from the fold those who obstinately maintained them."
It is a fact of wonderful and imperative significance that
what we call the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, when genuinely
experienced by a religious group, immediately manifests itself
in economic brotherhood. When the Holy Ghost came upon
the apostolic fellowship, "the multitude of them that believed
were of one heart and soul ; and not one of them said that
aught of the things which he possessed was his own ; but they
had all things common. And with great power gave the
Apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus;
and great grace was upon them all. For neither was there
among them any that lacked; for as many as were possessors
of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the
things that were sold, and laid them at the Apostles' feet; and
distribution was made unto each, according as anyone had
need." And this, instead of being a singular experience,
about which the less said the better, is precisely what occurs
whenever Christian groups return to apostolic sources, to move
upon the world with early Christian feeling and will. To the
great monastic institutions, rising out of a matchless religious
chivalry, "it is hard," as Mr. John Fiske says of the Roman
Catholic Church, "to express the debt of gratitude which
modern civilization owes;" and these held the world together,
and conserved the religious and intellectual wealth of the
centuries, just because they were organized upon a communistic
foundation. Though favoring too much the privileged classes,
Martin Luther preached against wealth in terms that would
not be tolerated in any representative Protestant pulpit in
America. Professor Nitti, himself an Italian Catholic, credits
Wyckliffe, Huss, Jean Petit, and the Anabaptists with "mak
ing vain efforts to restore the theories of the Gospel regarding
204
[April,
property. If their disputes were almost always of a religious

nature, they nevertheless invariably bore an economic char
acter as well. It should not be forgotten that during the
middle ages all questions were discussed under a theological
aspect." In this, Professor Nitti was anticipated by John
Richard Green, who tells how the Lollards were put to death,
not for religious reasons so much as for reasons that were, in
the last analysis, economic. The preparer of John Wyckliffe's
way was John Ball, known as "the mad priest of Kent," in
whose preaching Mr. Green says "England first listened
to the declaration of the natural equality of the rights of
man." "By what right are these lords greater than we?"
asks John Ball. "Good people," he cries, "things will never
be well in England so long as goods be not in common. If
we all came of the same father and mother, of Adam and Eve,
how can they say or prove that they are better than we, if it
be not that they make us gain for them by our toil what they
spend in their pride? They are clothed in their velvet and
warm in their furs and their ermines, while we are covered
with rags. They have wine and spices and fair bread ; and
we have oat cake and straw, and water to drink. They have
leisure and fine houses ; we have pain and labor, the rain and
the winds in the fields. And yet it is of us and our toil that
these men hold their state." Even down to the time of the
Puritan exodus to New England, though many Puritans were
rich, economic inequality was more or less outrageous to the
deeper Puritan religious sense. John Winthrop's letters show
that economic reasons had much to do with his migration ;
He protested against the profanity of the talk of over popula
tion, even then beginning and which he declared would not be
heard "if things were right."
The Pilgrims, who came
before the Puritans, on the eve of leaving England, when the
sense of need was strong and faith was about to make its stern
adventure, agreed to begin their brotherhood and colony with
the common ownership of property.
A careful examination of Christian history may thus trace
the apostolic succession in the economic communion of Chris
tian springtimes. The nearer men approach to being of one
mind with God, the more impossible it becomes to hold any
1898. ]
20
thing as their own. When Christian experience becomes

fundamental, individual ownership becomes sacriligious ; it
becomes murderous, and behind it the shadow of Cain grows
dark. The procession of the Holy Ghost keeps step with the
human reaching after economic brotherhood, without which
there can be no real spiritual brotherhood ; for no man can
call anything his own and at the same time be a brother.
There can be no true communion of saints apart from the
virtual brotherhood of property. Religion can not be sepa
rated from property, and a man can not be religious in any
Christian sense without being practically communistic. The
horror respectable religion feels at questioning the sacredness
of the rights of private property is a revelation of religion 's
apostasy, and discloses the property values by which it
measures human life. It is a guilty thing in religious teachers
to shy at the historical unity of the Baptism of the Holy
Ghost with the economic brotherhood with which it is, in
some degree, invariably manifested. Would that the devil
might fly away with our precious metaphysics, his most suc
cessful device for bringing religion to naught, that religious
teachers might give themselves to establishing the kingdom
of God for which Jesus came. For this kingdom is nothing
less, and it could be nothing greater, than a society in which
all men should work and live for the common good. The
royal reign of God on earth is perfect human brotherhood.
Sooner or later it will have to be said, and the sooner
proclaimed the better for rich and poor alike, that a man sim
ply can not hold individual wealth as his own and at the same
time be a disciple of Christ ; strictly speaking, a man can not
be both rich and Christian. Nor can he evade the issue by
following John Wesley's immoral advice to make all he can
and then give all he can ; the philanthropy of economic extor
tion is the greatest immediate menace to religion and social
progress. Of course, one can not throw away, or destroy, or
desecrate, any property that is in his hands ; there is a sense
in which he can not get out of the system that now exists.
But the very least that one can do as a Christain, in the exist
ing order, is to administer what he possesses for the common
good, in the most literal sense of the term, and not for per
206
[April,
sonal gain ; and with this, exhaust his possibilities in chang

ing the system from one of private ownership and competition
to the service and communism of Jesus. For Jesus taught,
though he knew not our economic terms, that one can enrich
himself only by hardening his heart against his brothers. Pri
vate wealth and luxury, in a world of moral woe and economic
need like ours, are the precise antithesis to the faith and feel
ing that issue from the indwelling and serving Christ. And
sometimes I think that a single man with great economic
power, with the heart of Christ in him, could change the
world.
And it is economically true, notwithstanding our philoso
phies of wealth, that individual wealth can exist only through
the common property. Commercial and religious demagogues,
and the scholastic pipers to their dance, take frequent occasion
to show how blessedly prosperous the country is because of the
frugality and industry, with the high qualities of character, that
heap up great private fortunes, and that so beneficently endow
therewith our institutions of education, religion and philan
thropy. But this worst pessimism, which always passes for
gracious and pleasing optimism, has about exhausted its pos
sibilities for social deceit. It is quite time to plainly examine
and challenge the social right of great possessors of wealth to
their possessions. Of this wealth, the possessors are neither
the creators nor the rightful owners ; it was created by the peo
ple, and to the people it belongs. It is not true that the
laborer has been paid for his labor; and whoever holds that
labor is merely a commodity, to be bought in the cheapest
market, is a liar and a blasphemer, while he who treats labor
as a commodity is a murderer. To say this may be dangerous,
but there is infinitely greater danger in leaving it unsaid; it
can be suppressed only to explode.
Then the competitive system by which our great fortunes
are accumulated is the antithesis of Christianity. The teach
ings of Jesus are the direct antagonism of competition in every
form. Competition is always and everywhere a moral evil,
whether it be in the Sunday School, the theological seminary,
the market. Competition is the devil who claims to have
dominion over the earth and sea, and declares all the power
1898.]
207
and glory and progress to be his work, with the economists to

support his claim. To acknowledge competition as law is to
give up Jesus ; it is to bow down and worship the devil as
lord of progress, as truly as it would have been a worship of
the devil on Jesus' part to try to fulfill his mission within the
terms of the then existing Roman order.
Nature agrees with Jesus, when nature is truthfully read.
A newer evolutionary science will find that the meek animals,
the meek plants, the things socially fittest, are inheriting the
earth. The cow and not the lion, the hen and not the falcon,
the wheat and not the weed, are surviving as the fittest.
Prince Kropotkin, in his wonderful papers on animal sociol
ogy, has shown that co-operation, not competition, is the
great law of survival in native animal life ; that the Darwinian
competition is a scientific myth. Nature is as communistic
as the kingdom of God, of which social order Jesus is the liv
ing center. We pray to be given our daily bread ; but our
Father answered that prayer in nature before the foundation
of the world; nature provides resources for all to have in
abundance, when men become brothers, and cease to waste
the earth in that war for bread, which is, as good Robert
Louis Stevenson said, the most terrible of all wars. Jesus
said that we should not be anxious about to-morrow, and we
treat the saying as an empty pietism ; but nothing is so uni
versally practicable, if men would but co-operate to make
nature the organized providence of God. The whole physical
creation travails, as Paul puts it, in the birth-pangs of the
labor of God, waiting for the holy birth of co-operative man.
And Christianity has nothing to do with the survival of the
fittest ; the program of Christ is the fitting of all to survive.
The question as to whether economic brotherhood can be
made practicable is simply a question of whether Christianiy
is practicable. If Jesus was an anarchist and His teachings
are dangerous and destructive, or if He did not know of what
He spake and His teachings are simply impracticable, or if He
did not mean what He said and spoke as an over-wrought en
thusiast, then let us quit worshipping Him, and put an end to
this colossal lie we call Christianity. If Jesus is the Son of
God and Redeemer of man, and if He is the authoriative teacher
208
[April,
of practicable teachings, then it is high time we begin to preach

and practice what He taught, and that we proceed to divinely
enforce it as the just economy of human life.
Or if the Church is in such relations to the existing order,
and is so dependent on its money, that it can not examine the
social titles of organized wealth, nor get at the national situa
tion to set it right, nor cry aloud and spare not against the
political and economic crimes that affront the very skies, nor
make holy war against the system that begets and honors these
crimes, then the scepter of redemption will pass from it, and
anew redemptive organ will arise. It must call this civilization to
the judgment seat of Jesus, or it will itself recede, and a new
form of Christianity take its place. Nothing is more hopeless
than the notion that God is dependent on the present organi
zation of Christianity to save the world. God cares no more
for an institution for its own sake than a man cares for his
coat for the coat's sake. The institution is made for man and
and truth, and not man and truth for the institution. The
Jewish Church made a great mistake about this matter, some
eighteen centuries ago.
If the Church does not meet the issue between Jesus and
the existing order, then it will doubtless be met in a more ter
rible way. I thoroughly believe and advocate Jesus' doctrine
of non-resistance. I am opposed to war in every form, military,
industrial, or theological. But God seems to think that there
are situations infinitely worse than revolution. If the Church
will not see the day of its visitation, nor the powers of the na
tion accept their messianic opportunity. God may conclude
that revolution of the sort that wrested the Great Charter
from King John, or wrote the Declaration of Independence,
would be nationally healthier than the moral apathy with
which we tolerate organized money, from the money lords of
the senate down to the rural legislature, to prostitute every
sacred national interest and debauch every holy national
function, for corporate profit.
You say we have been making progress? Of course.
For some thousands of years, the world had been making
progress before Jesus was crucified by "the conservatively
progressive." The world had been making progress before
1898.]
209
Bernard or Francis came; before Huss and Luther arose;

before Oliver Cromwell was hurled as the incarnate judgment
of God against political vice and religious tyranny. The
world had been making progress before the French revolution
put history backward as well as forward, changing the
shadow of progress on the dial of history. The acorn pros
pered many days in the ground, and it was a tremendous
catastrophe in its life when it began to be an oak. The child
made progress before it was born; and, in our unredeemed
physical condition, the births of all our children are awful
tragedies in their mother's lives. When the Hebrew Church
gave birth to Christianity, the sun grew dark, the earth
trembled like a stricken life, the natural elements articulated
the universal travail, the dead were driven from their tombs
by the new life, and the heart of God was broken. Whether
the social birth be a universal tragedy, or a universal har
mony, depends on whether we hide our guilt and sloth in the
progress bought with the shed blood of past lovers of man, or
whether we press on to live for our brethren and the social
future. As Dr. Josiah Strong says, though he would by no
means endorse my application of his saying, we have only to
keep on making our present kind of progress long enough,
and our destruction is inevitable.
The social issue is not between capital and labor ;
the universal issue of to-day is between Jesus and the
existing order of things. Our social order is the antonym of
the social ideal of Jesus. The absolute Christian life is
impossible in the present civilization. Our economic system
is such that no man can live in it a truly Christian and a
so-called successful life. Jesus says that the meek shall
inherit the earth; civilization says that the earth belongs to
the strong and selfish, the covetous and cunning. Civiliza
tion gives Jesus the lie. If Jesus is right, our civilization is
an organized lie, and can not then stand. It must, therefore,
be taken down, and its materials rightly put together. The
axe must be laid at the root of the tree of economic evil. For
he whose right it is to reign will turn and overturn until that
right be established in social righteousness.
Vol. 25
210
[April,
No human being is good without Jesus who would not be

infinitely better with Him. The law of Calvary answers to
all my observation and experience, to all my knowledge of
nature and history; it gives me my philosophy of both.
Whether we would have it so or not, our civilizations will
never stand for long, and their time will be shorter and
shorter, until they are built squarely on Jesus' economy of
the Kingdom of God. We but add future social agony to
present social misery, if we build on any other than His foun
dation.
To save His religion for the social service, to the end that
human life may be saved from materialism and anarchy, is the
work of God for the hour. But, as my noble friend Henry D.
Lloyd says, "this work can be done only by dead men;"
that is, by men who have sacredly renounced their dearest
interests in the existing order, and who with divine stubborn
ness refuse to be deceived by this mad thing we call progress.
The issue is not to be met by allying Churches to form
"good citizenship" clubs, to initiate temperance crusades, to
organize charities for the poor, to establish reading rooms,
and the like. It is idle to unite Churches to solve the social
problem in the name of Jesus, when the said Churches have
but the dimmest conception of what the social problem is, and
do not hear the actual Gospel of Jesus preached. If the men
who cry so devoutly for the simple Gospel of Jesus were once
to hear it, they would cry for almost anything else under
heaven. Until the pulpit is heroic enough to stand in the
existing order for what Jesus stood and stands, the Church's
efforts to organize "good citizens," and reform the slums, are
simply a pious trilling with the situation. If we the Church
get beyond this, we must quit our religious fooling and socio
logical dilettanteism, with our pious and patriotic lying, and
get into the thick of the social agony, descend into the social
hell of our competitive system, to bear the economic shame,
to be beaten with political and ecclesiastical stripes, to be de
spised and rejected by the strong and rich, that we may suf
fer with Christ for the social salvation.
The issue does not suffer for the want of what we call
"clear thinking," which term has become the familiar cant
1898.]
211
of hypocrites and social cowards; nor for the want of analysis,

which has become a sort of an intellectual hysteria, exhausting
the moral nerve of both teacher and student ; but for the want
of that moral adventure of faith which alone achieves progress
and makes right. We need, as Mazzini said, "a social faith
which may save us from anarchy, the moral inspiration which
may express that faith in action and keep us from idle contem
plation." We wait for that holy passion, without which Hegel
affirms "that nothing great in the world has been accom
plished," which dares to initiate, in the name of Jesus and the
people, the great religious movement which alone can save the
nations. Our wanton distrust of moral enthusiasm must give
place to a passion for righteousness so sacred as to again be
called the baptism of the Holy Grhost. It will take the old
apostolic faith in the value of witnessing for the truth to
mobilize the great spiritual forces that are to save society,
through emancipating and organizing the yet untaught con
science of Christendom.
It is this want of moral enthusiasm, more than anything
else, that is turning noble social leaders from Christianity.
The idea is gaining ground, among pure and heroic men and
women, ready to lay down their lives for the brethren, that we
must give up God awhile, and the Christian terminology, in
order to procure the great human movement toward a co-oper
ative society. Largely because of the attitude of organized
Christianity, there is subtly at work the same deadly skepti
cism that wrought such disaster in France, both before and
after the Revolution. It is bearing the social leadership of our
nation toward the same abyss. To maintain one's integrity
of faith against the unfaith of organized religion on one side,
and against the doubt of that faith on the part of holy serv
ants and leaders on the other, is sometimes the most strenuous
moral effort of those who believe that the name of Jesus alone
can summon the world to its social task.
Mazzini's idea of a new synthesis of religious and political
forces, to form an international social program, will have to
be applied to Christianity. Only by this can the issue between
Jesus and the existing order be met. Not the religious initia
tive which Mazzini sought, but the idea of Jesus economically
212
[April,
stated, the mode of life he initiated raised by the social passion

from the system which crucifies and buries it, can alone begin
the great human movement for which we wait, and guide it
through the storm and change. Christianity is near the ex
haustion of its possibilities in the existing order. A new Chris
tian synthesis is the sole hope of civilization. It must so state
the facts and forces which were the sum of Jesus' idea, in such
clear terms of the present social need, as to afford to the social
conscience a definite, tangible, working program of faith.
Nothing else will meet the social situation, or deal with the
human fact we now confront. The social conscience craves a
religion, the social shame and woe cry for salvation, the world
waits for a faith, for which men are once more ready to die or
live with equal joy. The faith for which men seek death is, as
Mazzini has said, "neither the frenzy of culpable agitators,
nor the dream of deluded men; it is the germ of a religion, a
providential decree. " Only a new synthesis of Christianity
can furnish such a faith and prepare the way of a universal so
cial salvation.
That I have to-night spoken words disturbing to the exist
ing order will be made a subject of complaint. But for what
other end is this meeting called? What else can any humble
disciple do, and keep faith with his Lord? "No book could
be distributed among the servile population more incendiary
than the Bible, if they could only read it," said Mr. Lowell in
his famous Tract Society Address. No disciple, without
being apostate, whatever his sphere of work may be, can suf
fer any order to exist or crystalize short of the social goal of
Jesus. We are not here to preserve the existing order, but to
establish the Christ order, and his kingdom is our exceeding
great reward. If, as a great English ecclesiastic says, the
application of Jesus' teachings would destroy the present civ
ilization unto the foundations, then safety lies in ridding our
selves of such a civilization and building a better. It is strange
that, when the alternative is presented, this monstrous eco
nomic system should deem to us more humanly sacred than the
kingdom of God. As Judge Gaynor said in Brooklyn, a few
months ago, "the existing order of things may be the worst
possible order of things. The existing order of things cruci
1898.].
213
fled Jesus because he was a denouncer; and in this enlight

ened nation the existing order of things, even during the life
time of those of us who are still called young, was that one
human being might own another, and good men were mobbed
for objecting to it. We owe all that we have to the steady
advance of the human race against the compact mass of those
who have always cried out, and still cry out as lustily as ever,
"Don't disturb the existing order of things."
Out of no spirit of denunciation, but out of the burden
the Lord has put upon me, have I spoken. It is a sorrowful
mission to be pressed to speak the word of warning ; it is a
portion which no man would covet. But if the word of
Jehovah is not heard through broken human speech, however
rude and unhappy, it will have to be heard by word of fire and
blood.
With you I must leave this word to make good or ill
of as you will.
But your judgment is not with me ; it is with
the living Christ, between whom and the existing order the
conflict steadily advances.
But it advances that the Son of man may conquer. The
original idea of Jesus, once out in the social open as a mode
and economy of life, to be seen as it humanly is, will sweep
the world. His early standard, once lifted amidst the perplex
ity and strife, and millions will rally to it as if on wings, not
one of whom can be changed by our system of religion. His
kingdom of heaven once more at hand, and Christain con
science that overran the Roman empire, that wrought the spirit
ual chivalry of Francis, Xavier and Loyola, that went crusad
ing at the call of Hermit Peter and Abbot Bernard, that
endured rack and fire in Spain and English gallows and dun
geons, that crossed winter seas to found Pilgrim homes and
build Puritan states, will arise in a messianic passion vaster
than any summoned to change the world by crises past, to
dissolve our economic problem in its fervent heat, and prepare
the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.
George D. Heeron.
214
Alexander Campbell and the Christian Baptist. [April,
ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND THE CHRISTIAN

BAPTIST.
BUT few, if any, are now living of the generation of which
Alexander Campbell was "foremost in its files." A few
still linger who rested their young years upon his grow
ing prime; and still more can say "We saw him, and heard
him as the 'sage of Bethany' leaning on his staff."*
The most who are now living who saw him, saw him as a
man past his prime and wearing the gray hairs which were to
him "a crown of glory."
Perhaps it is well before all have passed away, who were
for any time his contemporaries, to place on record such views
and judgments of the man and his work as will help those in
the coming days to a full and clear understanding of the char
acter of the man, the peculiarities of the times in which he
lived, and the value of the work which he accomplished; and
there is no better way to understand him and his work than
by taking observations from the various standpoints of those
who were honored with a more or less personal knowledge of
him and relation to him.
HIS LIFE.
His life may be divided easily into three somewhat une
qual parts as to time, but each part so distinct and important
that neither can be overlooked in any estimate of the finished
life.
The first part includes the time from his birth to the year
1823, when he began the publication of the Christian Baptist
the second part includes the seven years of the Christian
Baptist or to the year 1830; the third part includes the re
mainder of his life during which he was editor of the Millen
nial Harbinger, for thirty-four years. Each of these periods
has its essential interest and is worthy of profound study ; but
* I saw liiin twice; once in the strength of his manhood, und once when he was old and feeble
F. M. Green.
1878.]
Alexander Campbell and the Christian Baptist.
215
it is the purpose of this essay to consider especially Mr. Camp

bell and his work for the seven years which bound the time
of the Christian Baptist.
THE MAN.
At all times in his history the man, Alexander Campbell,
is an interesting and attractive figure; but it is especially so at
the beginning of "the seven years war" on which he entered
in 1823. He was then thirty-five years of age and in the
power and splendor of a superb physical life and equipment.
The tint of youth was still upon his cheek, and the power of
the athlete was in his well formed body and his tireless limbs.
The features of his face were strongly marked and in this, it
is said, he bore a striking likeness to his mother. "The
Roman nose, the expression and color of the eyes, surmounted
by prominent frontal developments, the outline of the mouth,
and the general form and character of the face, so character
istic of the son, were equally so of the mother."
Fifteen years before he entered upon the contests recorded
in the Christian Baptist it is said of him:
"He had an air
of frankness about him, blended with decision and self-reli
ance, which at once inspired respect."
In every way his mental endowments were of the first
class ; and his rank in the intellectual world was as one among
millions.
Under the discipline of his scholarly father and in the
University of Glasgow, the powers of his rare intellect were
prepared for the mighty work which the Lord whom he served
had marked out for him.
"In him the understanding and the judgment largely
predominated, and his imagination displayed itself, not in
poetic creations, but in the far reaching grasp by which as an
orator, he seized upon principles, facts, illustrations and anal
ogies, and so modified and combined them as to render them
all tributary to his main design. It was in the choice of
arguments, in unexpected applications of familiar facts, in
comprehensive generalizations widening the horizon of human
thought and revealing new and striking relations, that this
faculty manifested itself." In intellect, in physical power, in
216
moral completeness, in spiritual fervor, in critical acumen and

in a world-wide knowledge and appreciation of existing reli
gious condition, Mr. Campbell was well prepared for the seven
years' "war of the giants" which began in 1823.
RELIGIOUS CONDITION.
To appreciate the controversies and discussions to which
the Christian Baptist was largely devoted there must be a clear
understanding of the condition of the religious world at that
time. Perhaps there were no more religious denominations
at that time than there are now; it is possible there were not
so many ; but such as there were were ranged in absolutely
hostile array, the one against the other.
Baldheaded Calvinism, with its hideous features, stared
into damnation all who held to the opposing doctrine of Arminianism. These were the two great theological forces ; but they
were divided and subdivided into a myriad of lesser divisions,
whose adherents bushwhacked and raided the towns and vil
lages and country places around. "Gurilla bands were roving
over the country with strange devices on their banners, and
stranger words upon their lips."
If men became interested in regard to their personal sal
vation from sin, their earnest question was not "Whom shall
I believe" but " What shall I believe?" The religious intoler
ance of the times had itself become intolerable and party
rancor was as bitter as hell.
Of this condition, Dr. R. Richardson, in "Memoirs of
Alexander Campbell," says: "There are few in fact of the
present generation, who have grown up under the influence of
the liberalizing institutions of the United States, and the more
enlightened views of Christianity since presented, who can
form a proper idea of the virulence of the party spirit which
then prevailed. Each party strove for supremacy aud main
tained its peculiarities with a zeal as ardent and persecuting
as the laws of the land and the usages of society would permit.
The distinguishing tenets of each party were constantly thun
dered from every pulpit, and any departure from the tradi
tions of the elders was visited with the severest ecclesiastical
censure. Covenanting, Church politics, Church psalmody,
1893.]
217
hyper-calvinistic questions were the great topics of the day;

and such was the rigid, uncompromising spirit prevailing,
that the most trivial things would produce a schism, so that
old members were known to break off from their congrega
tions simply because the clerk presumed to give out, before
singing, two lines of a Psalm instead of one as had been the
usual custom."*
In the midst of the contentions of the time, here and
there, voices were heard crying out for a better condition,
"How long, O Lord, How Long! " Among these was Thomas
Campbell, the father of Alexander. He was then in his prime
as a scholar and profound thinker on the problem of the age.
A few people in the western part of Pennsylvania had joined
with him and in union they prayed to God for a brighter day
to dawn upon the earth. To this little body in a "special
meeting" he announced the rule by which they were to work
"constantly and perseveringly to the end." As he closed
his address he said: "That rule is this, that where the script
ures speak, we speak; and where the scriptures are silent we are
silent." Henceforth the plain and simple teaching of the
word of God itself was to be their guide. "God himself
should speak to them, and they were to receive and repeat His
words alone. No remote influences, no fanciful interpreta
tions, no religious theories of any kind were to be allowed to
alter or pervert its obvious meaning. Having God's Word in
their possession they must speak it faithfully. There should
be no contention, henceforth, in regard to the opinions of
men, however wise or learned. Whatever private opinions
might be entertained upon matters not clearly revealed must
be retained in silence, and no effort must be made to impose
them upon others." * * * "Simply, reverentially, con
fidingly, they would speak of Bible things in Bible words
adding nothing thereto and omitting nothing given by inspira
tion." * * * "It was from the moment when these
significant words were uttered and accepted, 'where the Scrip
tures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are
silent;' that the more intelligent ever afterward dated the
formal and actual commencement of the Reformation which was
* Page 245, Vol. I.
218
subsequently carried on with so much success and which has

already produced such important changes in religious society
over a large portion of the world.""
To this sentiment and to "all the propositions and reason
ings" of the celebrated "Declaration and Address" which
first saw the light in complete form September 7, 1809,
Alexander Campbell "gave at once his hearty approbation."
He was captivated by its clear and decisive presentations of
duty and resolved to consecrate his life to the advocacy of the
principles which it presented. A new and unexpected field of
actionjwas opened before him, precisely suited to his bold and
independent spirit, and in perfect harmony with his convic
tions of religious duty. First, the paramount claims of the
Bible were to be asserted and defended ; second, the intolerant
bigotry of sectarianism was to be exposed; third, the people
of God were to be delivered from the yoke of clerical domi
nation, and primitive Christianity, in all its original purity
and perfection, was to be restored to the world."
Inducements were held out to him which if accepted by
him would have enabled him to "reign in a sect" rather than
serve in the Kingdom of Heaven ; and the "greatness and
lofty impulses of Alexander Campbell were never more strik
ingly manifested than when rejecting all the solicitations he
received to become the advocate of a party, and all the ready
opportunities for distinction which such a course afforded, he
determined amidst the contumely and opposition of the world
both religous and secular, to devote himself to the public
advocacy of the Word of God and of the primitive and simple
Apostolic Gospel. And all the years of his life from his child
hood were years of providential preparation for this sublime
and gracious work.
THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST.
The preface to the first volume of the Christian Baptist
was written on the fourth day Of July, 1823, and on the third
day of August following the first number of the periodical
was issued. From the first its appearance was greeted with
Memoirs of A. Campbell, Vol. I, page 236.
1898.]
219
intense interest by the friends and the foes of Mr. Campbell's

religious views; for he had already been before the public
long enough to gain many steadfast friends and develop many
opposers. His fearless and defiant attitude soon drew the fire
not only from the skirmishers of the opposition but from the
great guns which were soon unlimbered for the contest. Mr.
Campbell did not shelter himself behind intrenchments and
wait for the enemy to come to him and drive him out but he
bravely took the open field where he drew the fire from every
side. As he entered upon the work of the Christian Baptist
he issued the following formal announcement: "To all those,
without distinction, who acknowledge the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments to be a revelation from God ; and
the New Testament as containing the religion of Jesus Christ ;
who, willing to have all religious tenets and practices tried by
the Divine Word; and, who feeling themselves in duty bound
to search the Scriptures for themselves, in all matters of
religion, are disposed to reject all doctrines and command
ments of men, and to obey the truth holding fast the faith
once delivered to the saints, this work is most respectfully and
affectionately dedicated by the editor."
The scope and purpose of the Christian Baptist were given
in no uncertain words in the preface to the first volume.
The position of the paper was unique in religious journalism :
1. It had no constituency to which it could appeal for
support save those who might be willing to have all religious
tenets and practices tried by the Divine Word and were will
ing to search the Scriptures for themselves.
2. It was not the organ of any denomination, party or
sect in all the world.
3. Its controlling jurisdiction was to be bounded by the
Bible and that alone, and it defied "the poisonous breath of
sectarian zeal and an aspiring priesthood to blast it."
4. Its expressed and avowed object was to be the
"eviction of truth and the exposure of error," and its discus
sions were to "embrace a range of subjects and pursue a
course" unlike anything that had ever before been seen.
Having been trained in what was called the "popular
religion" Mr. Campbell knew every cranny and hiding place
220
in the old theological buildings of his time. He knew their

strength and their weakness, while his opponents were in
dense ignorance of his own impregnable position.
To fortify himself against any possible crystallization and
to open the way for the entrance of new truth iDto his heart
when it should be formed he adopted the following rule of
investigation and judgment, viz. : " Never to hold any senti
ment or proposition as more certain than the evidence on which it
rests; or in other words that our assent to any proposition
should be precisely proportioned to the evidence on which it
rests." All beyond this he esteemed enthusiasmall short of
it incredulity.
Of this rule one of Mr. Campbell's contemporaries said:
"It deserves to be written in characters of gold upon the walls
of every man's study, upon the door of every place of instruc
tion, and inscribed on the title page of every book."*
The opening editorial with which Mr. Campbell begins
the Christian Baptistis appropriately a generalization of "The
Christian Religion." It is a fine specimen of "editorial elo
quence." Its style is broad and majestic as the flowing of a
great river, and as strong as dynamite. Its characterizations
are vivid and full of the pathos of a great heart. What could
be finer than these opening sentences: "Christianity is the
perfection of that divine philanthrophy which was gradually
developing itself for four thousand years. It is the bright
effulgence of every divine attribute, mingling and harmoniz
ing as the different colors in the rainbow in the bright shining
after rain into one complete system of perfectionthe perfec
tion of Glory to God in the highest heaven, the perfection of
peace on earth, and the perfection of good mil among men."
"The eyes of patriarchs and prophets, of saints and
martyrs from Adam to John the Baptist, with longing expecta
tion were looking forward to some glorious age, indistinctly
apprehended but ardently desired. Every messenger sent
from heaven fraught with the communications of the Divine
Spirit, to illuminate, to reprove and to correct the patriarchs
and the house of Israel, was brightening the prospect and
*David S. Burnet.
1898.]
221
chastening the views of the people concerning the glory of the

coming age. The "Founder of the Future Age" as one of
Israel's prophets calls the Messiah was exhibited in the
emblems of the prophetic style, as rising, expanding and
brightening to view ; from the glistening "Star of Jacob" to
the radiating "Sun of Righteousness" with salutiferous and
vivifying rays."
"The person, character and reign of Messiah the Prince,
exhausted all the beauties of language, and the grandeur and
resplendences of creation to give some faint resemblances of
them. In adumbrating Immanuel and his realm, 'nature
mingles colors not her own.' She mingles the brighter
splendors of things celestial, with things terrestrial, and
kindly suits the picture to our impaired faculties. She brings
the Rose of Sharon and the lily of the valesthe mild luster
of the richest gems and the brightest radiance of the choicest
metals. She makes the stars of heaven sparkle in his hand
and the brightness of the sun shine in his face. She causes
the mountains to flow down at his presence ; his advent to
gladden the solitary place; before him the deserts to rejoice
and blossom as the rose. To the desert at his approach, she
gives the glory of Lebanon, the excellency of Carmel and
Sharon."
GREAT QUESTIONS.
During the seven years of the Christian Baptist a multi
tude of questions were considered and the most important
with critical care and consummate ability.
Naturally the "Ancient Order of Things" received first
and largest attention; and the "Ancient Gospel" took its
rightful place with a great host of honest people under his
superb leadership. In the prosecution of his work his voice
was the voice of a pioneer"like the voice of one crying in
the wilderness" an answer to a question proposed nearly
three thousand years ago, "Watchman, What of the Night?"
"The clergy and the clergyman" received his ardent
attention and when he had finished his picture of them they
delayed not to take their departure from his presence.
222
"Missionaries and missionary societies" received some

attention and his criticisms of them were based principally on
two grounds:
1. The abuse of the organization in making it an, agency
to disseminate what he believed was error and not Gospel
truth. In his debate with Mr. W. L. McColla in 1823, he
said: "I advocated the best means, as I conceived, of send
ing the gospel to the heathen, and was conscientiously opposed
to the present popular, monied, speculating schemes of hiring
missionaries."
2. The missionaries themselves were preaching a per
verted Gospel instead of the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.
His affirmative views concerning missionary agencies and
missionaries were not fully set forth until he entered upon the
publication of the Millennial Harbinger in 1830.
No man has a right to set Campbell against Campbell on
this question by quoting the Christian Baptist and the Millen
nial Harbinger in the same day. The utterances in the one
were largely negative growing out of the peculiar condition of
the time ; the utterances in the other were the matured affirma
tive and profound convictions of the great reformer.
The "State of Religion" in the world did not escape his
attention. The growing multitudes who heard him as an
oracle were taught "How to read and study the Bible."
"Creeds and sects" were mercilessly dissected by him. The
distinction between the "Jewish Sabbath" and the "Lord's
Day" was clearly made. "Faith and Hope" were not forgot
ten, and "Baptism" and the "Holy Spirit" were set in their
proper places in the "scheme of redemption." His arguments
for "Bible Translation" and the use of criticismhigher and
lowerin the study of the Book of Books have never been
overturned. While he insisted on the study of the New
Testament as "containing the religion of Jesus Christ" he
did not disparage or neglect the claims of the Old Testament ;
and "Man in his primitive state" was considered as well as
man under the reign of Jesus Christ.
But little was done during these seven years for "Chris
tian Union" except to clear the way and find the foundation
upon which it could be laid deep and strong. In the day of
1898.]
223
battle the noise is the "confused noise" of contention and

division and not the voice of love and union ; when the battle
is over then terms of peace and union may be considered.
He urged the importance and value of schools and colleges
in any complete plan of education, and his powerful pen was
used in their behalf.
His views were briefly given on "Dedications," "Re
vivals," "Text Preaching" and "Clerical Titles."
"Unitarianism," "Universalism," "Atheism," "Deism"
and "Skepticism" felt the stroke of his "thunder hammer."
During the seven years ending July 4, 1830,* "he issued
of his own works, from his little country printing office, no
less than forty-six thousand volumes;" he read his own
"proof," supplied regularly the paper and materials needed,
and conducted the printing business with the greatest
economy and with surprising activity and success. Besides
editing the paper he preached several times each week, made
several extensive "tours of observation," and specially pre
pared himself for two public discussions, one on the subject
of "Infant Baptism" with Rev. |W. L. McCalla in Washing
ton, Kentucky, October 15-21, 1823; the other on the
"Evidences of Christianity" with the celebrated Robert Owen
in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, April 13-21, 1829.
FIEST DEBATE.
The first public debate of Mr. Campbell was with Rev.
John Walker, a Presbyterian clergyman, of Mount Pleasant,
Ohio, June 19, 1820, on the general subject of "Baptism."
The result of this debate was to show clearly that the facts
and the argument were on Mr. Campbell's side, and so far as
Mr. Walker was concerned Mr. Campbell was an easy winner.
As he was closing the debate, feeling that he had not met
the ablest man in the Pedo-baptist ranks, he gave the follow
ing invitation or challenge: "I this day publish to all present
that I feel disposed to meet any Pedo-baptist minister of any
denomination, of good standing in his party, and I engage to
prove in a debate with him either viva voce or with the pen,
*Memoirs of A. Campbell, Vol. II, page 51.
224
Aexander Campbell and the Christian Baptist.
[April,
that infant sprinkling is a human tradition and injurious to

the well being of society, religious and political. This chal
lenge finally led to the debate with Mr. W. L. McCalla in
1823.
DEBATE WITH MCCALLA.
The debate with Mr. McCalla attracted much attention
and was looked forward to with great interest by all parties.
Some features of it were very interesting. Conscious of the
strength of his position Mr. Campbell was the aggressor from
the beginning to the end of the debate; on the other hand
Mr. McCalla moved timidly, and only moved at all as the
pages of his written manuscript were turned ; Mr. Campbell's
familiarity with the subject of debate, and with the Scriptural
and other teaching bearing upon it was apparent to all ; Mr.
McCalla's line of argument to prove infant baptism a Divine
command has long since been relegated to the "moles and
the bats" of religious controversy. His five propositions look
like antediluvian wonders to the men of this generation who
are accustomed to think and reason on Biblical questions :
1. "Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a
visible Church of God."
2. "The Christian Church is a branch of the Abrahamic
Church or in other words, the Jewish Society before Christ
and the Christian Society after Christ, are one and the same
Church in different dispensations."
3. "Jewish circumcision before Christ, and Christian
baptism after Christ are one and the same seal, though in dif
ferent forms."
4. "The administration of this seal to infants was once
enjoined by Divine authority."
5. "The administration of this seal to infants was never
prohibited by Divine authority."
Near the close of the debate Mr. Campbell offered, as he
had done at the close of his debate with Mr. Walker,
"another opportunity to some distinguished ecclesiastic of
still further contesting the subject;" and Mr. McCalla not to
be excelled in generosity declared, "that he would never dis
cuss this question again until his opponent should come
1898.]
225
from the regions discovered by Captain Simms, and until a

moderator would come from Holland weighing five hundred
pounds." The moderator chosen by Mr. Campbell for this
debate was Bishop Jeremiah Vardeman whose avoirdupois
was not less than three hundred pounds, while Mr. McCalla's
moderator was a man of comparatively slight stature.
This debate enlarged the horizon of Mr. Campbell's
influence and lent its power to the circulation of the Christian
Baptist.
THE OWEN DEBATE.
The debate with Robert Owen of New Lanark, Scotland,
in 1829, was, in many of its features unparalleled in the his
tory of polemic warfare.
Mr. Owen in many respects was a remarkable man. He
was teacher in a school at the age of seven, and undermaster at
nine. At the age of eighteen he was partner in a cotton mill
where forty hands were employed. He was raised from one
lucrative position to another until he was finally placed at the
head of an establishment upon which two thousand people
depended for support. Everything requiring the exercise of
the administrative faculties was of a rare quality of excellence,
and soon demonstrated his uncommon ability in the conduct
of affairs. "Such was the success of his industrial, social and
educational plans that his fame was widely extended, and
many intelligent theorists in political economy came to him to
learn his method. Inspired with the belief that his plans
would revolutionize human societyhe became a propa
gandist. He published various tracts and submitted his
schemes to the governments of Europe and America. He
visited foreign countries to communicate personally with
leading men, and presented an explanatory memorial to the
Congress of Sovereigns at Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1818." * * * * As
Mr. Owen's plans were designed exclusively for the promotion
of man's material interests, and made no provision whatever
for his spiritual wants, religion soon became a disturbing
element in the practical working of his plans, and the diver
sity of men's beliefs a barrier in the way of his "Social
Vol. 2.-6
226
System." He thought it, therefore, necessary to success to

put religion wholly out of the way, so that men might be free
to devote their entire time and faculties to the business and
enjoyments of the present life."*
Mr. Owen came to the United States and established
headquarters at New Harmony in the state of Indiana; and to
this place soon "were flocking theorists and skeptics of every
grade." Mr. Owen while lecturing on his favorite topic in
New Orleans gave "a formal challenge to the clergy of that
city to discuss with him the claims of religion."
Mr. Campbell had for some time contemplated this and
similar movements at a distance ; and when he found that
"they were armed against religion he at once ran up to his
mast-head the banner of the cross and prepared for action."
He saw that the Bible, some way or other, stood in the way
and seemed to be inimical to some favorite scheme or darling
hypothesis of the "builders of the city of mental independ
ence;" and scarcely a day passed that he did not hear either
a popgun or a blunderbuss discharged at revelation." An
arrangement was finally made with Mr. Owen as the chief of
skeptics and leader of the infidelity of his day, for a debate.
The terms were agreed upon, and these two representatives
met in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, in April, 1829, and the
famous debate began.
Mr. Owen's formal challenge to the clergy and which was
accepted by Mr. Campbell embraced the following proposi
tions: "I propose to prove, as I have already attempted to
do in my lectures, that all the religions of the world have
been founded upon the ignorance of mankind; that they are
directly opposed to the never changing laws of our nature ;
that they have been and are, the real source of vice, disunion
and misery of every description ; that they are now the only
bar to the formation of a society of virtue, of intelligence, of
charity in its most extensive sense, and of sincerity and kind
ness among the whole human family, and that they can be
no longer maintained except through the ignorance of the
mass of the people and the tyranny of the few over the mass."
*Memoirsof A. Campbell, Vol. II, page 265.
1898.]
227
As the debate proceeded it was apparent to all, that Mr.

Owen was no match for Mr. Campbell on the platform. It is
said of Mr. Campbell's first address that it "made a very
marked impression upon the audience, many of whom from
their exaggerated notion of Mr. Owen's abilities, had greatly
feared for the fortunes of Christianity. The powerful grasp
of the subject already indicated in Mr. Campbell's remarks,
his manifest consciousness of power, and his eloquent and
truthful words thrilled every Christian heart; all fears were
banished and the unbidden tear was seen to trickle from many
eyes."
All in all it is doubtful whether since Paul stood on Mars'
Hill, Christianity ever had so able and majestic a defense as
Mr. Campbell gave it in this discussion ; neither has infidelity
ever had an abler or honester champion than Mr. Owen.
The two debates thus briefly described were fairly indica
tive of the growing power and enlargement of Mr. Campbell's
mind and heart and influence.
His debate with Mr. McCalla was at the beginning of the
Christian Baptist, his debate with Mr. Owen near its close.
The intervening years had been battle years. But little more
could be done than to hold the plow with one hand and the
gun in the other. Great questions were investigated and the
light of God's Word turned on the methods and practices of
men. Good seed was sown with a liberal hand and tares were
pulled up with but little regard to the effect on the wheat.
Of his work during these years Mr. Campbell has left this
judgment: "Many subjects in this work have not been fully
and systematically discussed. General views have been sub
mitted, rather than full developments and defenses. Not a
single topic has received that finish, or that elucidation which
it is within the compass of our means to bestow upon it. I
have thought if life should be prolonged and an opportunity
offered, that I would one day revise this work, and have a
second edition of it published with such emendations as
experience and observation might suggest."*
No one should look into the Christian Baptist to find the
finished product of Mr. Campbell's intellectual labors ; it is
Christian Baptist, Burnet's Edition, page 665.
228
The Greatest Problems of the Church.
[April,
rather on the Vpflges 0f the Millennial Harbinger that his

matured judgment on the great questions which were so
fiercely contested and advocated in the Christian Baptist is to
be found.
The first twenty years of the Millennial Harbinger were
the years when his mightiest powers were shown in the dis
cussion of every religious question. He was in the prime and
burnished splendor of his majestic career. One thought from
the beginning to the close of his public life dominated his
entire personality and colored every action. The central
thought of his entire religious life was "Jesus the Christ,
the Son of the living God."
"No language can portray his lofty conceptions of the
glory of Christ or of the grandeur of the spiritual system of
which He is the Alpha and the Omega. With such deep con
victions as he possessed of the Divine Sonship and infinite
dignity of Christ it was not possible that his theology should be
erroneous ; for, since Christ was his Prophet, Priest and King,
he acknowledged no other authority than his, sought no other
sacrifice or mediator, and hearkened to no other teacher."
He recognized all power in heaven and in earth as resting
in Christ, by whom he thought all kings should reign, and in
whose name all judges should administer justice and in the
midst of his hottest contests he never lost his own "keen
relish for the bread of heaven, and for the loving contempla
tion and appreciation of truth."
F. M. Green.
THE GREATEST PROBLEMS OF THE CHURCH.

IT is certainly a fact that the Church does not reach the
masses. The lower classes in our large cities, as a rule
have no sympathy with the Church. They look upon it as a
kind of a club-house for the rich man, and do not consider
themselves even privileged to attend. This is not as it was in
the first century, for Christianity had a special message for
the poor. Christ came to preach the Gospel to the poor, and
the Apostles fully carried out His commission in that respect.
1898.]
229
The Church must bring itself again into sympathy with

the people. In comparing the great cities of Christendom, it
is a sad fact for our civilization that the greatest centers have
inadequate Church accommodations for the people. Berlin,
the Athens of modern times, has but sixty places of worship
for more than a million of people. These also include Jewish
Synagogues. When we consider the inactivity of the German
Church, it is not surprising that there is so much infidel
socialism in Germany. London has more than five million
of inhabitants, and only about sixteen hundred Churches to
accommodate this vast multitude. If things continue this
way there will in another century be many more than a sub
merged tenth.
It must be admitted that even in this country there are
very scant Church accommodations in the great centers of
influence. It is claimed that even the Churches we have can
not be filled. It is certainly not because there are not people
with which to fill them. It grows out of the hostility of the
masses toward the Church. The Church is partly to blame
for this, and much of it also grows out of social environment.
Whatever the cause may be, it must be remedied, or our civ
ilization is in danger.
The Church can not fulfill its mission unless it reaches
the poor. There is a tendency in this country to move the
Churches from the centers of the cities where the poor live to
the suburban homes of the rich. This leaves the poor without
Church privileges.
Some think the remedy for this is to build cheap chapels
for the poor. This is not in harmony with the principles of
Christianity, which makes no distinction between rich and
poor. All are one in Christ, and such distinctions only tend
to alienate the people more and more from the Church. Let
suitable and convenient houses of worship be built for all
classes to worship together. When a man becomes a Moham
medan, no difference how poor he is, all other Mohammedans
receive him as a brother, and how much more so should this
be with the followers of Christ.
There is a great responsibility resting upon the American
Church ; Foreigners and their children constitute more than
230
[April,
one third of our inhabitants. As these foreigners usually go

to cities, our cities soon come largely under foreign control.
Eighty percent of the population of New York City are either
foreign born or children of foreign born parents. In Chicago
the per cent is even larger. What, then, can the American
Church do for the foreigners? It is certainly a fact that
many of these foreigners have a special antagonism toward
Christianity. It may be a Herculean task, but these people
must be converted. Our forefathers were once savages, and
Christianity subdued their ferocious nature and gave us
modern civilization. It may be well for the State in certain
cases to restrict emigration ; but the mission of the Church is
to convert all. Christianity makes all men brothers, no dif
ference what may be the race or nationality.
" 'Turn, turn my wheel,' the human race, of every tongue, of every place,
Caucasian, Coptic or Malay,
All that inhabit this great earth, whatever be their rank or worth,
Are kindred and allied by birth, and made of the same clay."
THE CHUBCH AND THE INDIVIDUAL.
In a past age, individualism was carried too far and the
relation of the individual to society was poorly understood.
In fact, the greatest lawyers and statesmen were delighted to
speak of the social compact, and the sacrifices the individual
had to make for society. There never was a greater fiction
than this social compact. A man is born in society, and his
duties to society are as natural as his duties to himself. In
fact, man is a social being, and can only accomplish his mis
sion in connection with society. Those who talk about a
conflict between individualism and socialism have certainly
given but little attention to the problem. The great social
conflicts of the present age can never be settled except by a
proper recognition of the individual and his obligations to
society. While the pendulum once swang too far in the
direction of individualism there is now great danger of its
swinging too far in the direction of socialism. I believe in
true socialism, as I do in a true individualism; but infidel
socialism only brings ruin to society, as extreme individualism
led to infidelity; so extreme socialism leads in the same
direction. We should be careful to avoid extremes.
1898.]
231
Society is made up of individuals, so it can only be

regenerated by the regeneration of the individual. That is
exactly the method of Christianity in uplifting humanity.
While it has a golden chain extending from heaven to earth
and golden chords extending from this chain to all the nations ;
it has, also, golden threads extending to every human being.
Christ commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel to
every human being. The nations can only be converted to
Christ as the individuals of these nations are converted. The
Church, then, can never be divorced from true individualism.
Its appeals must always be directly to the individual.
This might be suggestive to many social reformers ; for
they try to regenerate society without regenerating the indi
vidual. I believe in the state's doing all it can to counteract
pauperism, and to promote a more just distribution of wealth ;
but State help can never supersede the necessity of self help.
Paul's position that the individual should not eat unless he
would work, is correct. Idleness is a crime against society;
and those who will not embrace the opportunities offered them
to provide for their own household are worse than infidels.
It is perfectly useless to talk about elevating society without
elevating the individual. If all are properly taught how to
make a success of life, the inequalities of society will rapidly
disappear. I do not mean that all will succeed exactly alike ;
but each in his own way can make life a success. I was a
teacher for several years ; and while I recognize the fact that
some students can succeed better than others, I have never
known any to fail who would properly apply themselves. In
all our efforts to advance the interests of society, let us never
loose sight of individual activity.
If all Christians will do their duty, the Church can do
much towards solving the great problems of the age. One
great difficulty in Christian work is the fact that the individ
ual gets lost in the multitude. More frequently do we hear
Church members of ability say that they should do so and so.
It is only the most active members that say we must attend to
such work. It is certainly a fact that the Church can not com
mand its resources. A large portion of the wealth of the
world belongs to the professed Christians. Suppose they pos
232
[April,
sessed the spirit and liberality of the early Christians, how

long do you think it would take to convert the world? If the
Church in the Ninteenth Century had the spirit and liberality
of the Church in the First Century, in less than twenty-five
years the world would be converted to Christ and the great
problems of the age would be largely solved.
THE CHUECH AND THE FAMILY.
God does not intend the Church to abolish either the fam
ily or the State. These are all intended to promote the
progress of humanity, and should work in perfect harmony.
The Church fully recognizes the Divine mission of the family,
and the Sunday school is designed not to supersede family
instuction, but to supplement it. One special mission of the
Church is to carefully guard the sacredness of the family re
lationship. All institutions therefore, which tend to destroy
the divine character of the family are deadly foes to the
Church. The Church and the family must either stand or fall
together. It is certainly a sad fact to contemplate, when we
find according to statistics, that divorces in some of the states
and territories have run so high as twelve and fourteen per
cent of the marriages. In many cases, there was separation
without any application for a divorce. While more strict and
uniform divorce laws would do good, even this would not
reach the root of the trouble. Careful investigation in several
towns and cities has shown the fact that many separate with
out even applying for a divorce, and form illicit unions as sub
stitute for marriage. I see no remedy for this except to lift
the people to a higher moral plane, and to hurl Cod's eternal
truth at the conscience of the people as Paul did when preach
ing before Felix and Drusilla. Christian people can do much
towards securing good laws for the protection of the family.
While I am fully aware that laws can not be enforced until
public sentiment is educated, the objector constantly over
looks the fact that law itself is a great educator. It must be ad
mitted by all persons, who have given attention to the subject,
that the property of woman is now much better protected
than her chastity. There is really no law against insulting a
lady, and this leaves the people a law unto themselves. That
1898.]
The Greatest Problems of tie Church.
233
is evidently one great reason why the shot-gun and the revol
ver are so frequently employed. A gentleman told me a few
months ago that he saw an excellent lady insulted on a train
some time ago. It was not long after this until that man
was killed for insulting another lady. I attended the trial of
her husband and if the jury had decided according to the law he
would have been convicted of man slaughter. The jury was
out three minutes, and brought in a verdict of not gulity.
The judge told me that they never could convict a man under
such circumstances; that the jury would pay no attention to
the law. We certainly need more strict laws for the protection
of the family.
Dr. Mulford truly says: "Sociology is the coming
science, and the family holds the key to it." The same au
thor also wrote, "The family is the most important question
that has come before the American people since the war."
Prof. Adams of John's Hopkins University, used this expres
sive language: "The family, oldest of institutions, perpetu
ally reproduces the ethical history of man, and continually re
constructs the constitution of society." All students of Socioligy should grasp this radical truth, and should also remem
ber that the school and the college, town and city, state and
nation, are, after all but modified types of family institutions,
and that a study of the individual elements of social and po
litical life is a true method of advancing sociology and politics
in general." While we greatly rejoice at the success that the
Church has made in its Sunday school work, we are sorry that
there has not been a corresponding advance in the religious
work of the family. We have no such work on the family as
Trumbull on the Sunday school and Mulford on the Nation.
It is very important that this department of Christian work
speedily be brought to a much higher standard of perfection.
The Church should unite its forces in abolishing the social
vice, for it is a deadly foe to the family. It is also one of the
most outbreaking and defiant forms of evil. The Church can
do much towards abolishing this evil in the following ways :
(1) Christians, if they will make a proper effort, can better
the condition of the laboring classes. The low wages, which
many women receive in our cities, are a constant temptation
234
[April,
to them to sell their chastity to obtain the necessaries of life.

The poor are also frequently compelled to live in a kind of
promiscuity that makes virtue almost impossible. The very
air around them seems to throb with foul speech; and we can
not otherwise than expect them to be influenced by their en
vironments. The Church can not afford to neglect the cries of
these poor women. (2) Christians should hold men respon
sible for their conduct the same as they do women. It is very
cowardly in society to banish the weaker sex for the sin it
appears almost to commend in the stronger. A moral leper
especially if he be rich, can ruin a number of women; and then
be received into society upon the same terms as the purest of
men. In fact he has no difficulty in marrying some pure wo
man. Christians can not afford to sanction such things, and
they should make the standard for man precisely the same
as they do for woman. (3) The Church has an important
mission in elevating the tone of social purity. I very much
fear that this subject is greatly neglected by the instructors of
the young. Unless proper attention is given to this subject
our public schools may become a source of evil. All classes
are there gathered together; and there is great danger that
the evil minded will corrupt the innocent. Christians can call
the attention of the teachers to this subject, and so organize
the students that great good can be accomplished. This is an
important field for Christian workers.
The Church should wage an unceasing war upon the
liquor traffic, for it brings more sorrow to the family than any
other vice. In fact, it is the foundation of all other vices and
crimes. The people want protection from this ruinous traffic.
A young lawyer not long since told me that he was frequently
invited to drink by older lawyers and by leading politicians.
This is certainly a deplorable state of society. A lawyer in
middle life sent for me sometime ago, and confessed that rum
had the better on him. It was sad to hear his wails and see
the weeping wife and daughter. Unless the Church is willing
to make a covenant with death and hell, her voice ought to be
unanimous against the liqour fiend. Unless we are up and
doing as Christians, what will another quarter of a century
bring forth? I am no pessimist: but I do tremble for my
1898.]
235
country, if the liqour taffic is permitted to continue twenty-five

years longer unchecked. The license business only tends to
make the traffic respectable. It is said that prostitution has
been so long licensed in some German cities that it has become
so respectable that candidates for the harlots life have to pre
sent certificates that they have been confirmed in the estab
lished Church. I have lived in cities where professed Christains would walk out of saloons wiping their mouths, and
looking as innocent as if they had been drinking soda water.
The sooner Christains recognize the situation and go to work,
the better it will be for their consciences and for their country.
Let us all do what we can for suffering humanity.
"I must do something for the weary and the sad,
I must give for the love that makes my heart so glad.
For God so fills my spirit with a joy that passeth show,
I fain would do his bidding in the only way I know .
So to suffering and to sorrow I shall always give my heart,
And pray to God that every day I may some good impart,
Some little act of kindness some little word of cheer,
To make some drooping heart rejoice, or stay some falling tear,
And when I've crossed the river, and passed its waters o'er,
And feel that some will miss me upon the other shore,
My grateful spirit shall ever bless the Lord divine,
Who crowns the humblest efforts of a human love like mine."
THE CHURCH AND SOCIAL PEOBLEMS.
The study of acts and epistles from the standpoint of
sociology would be both profitable and interesting. In fact, I
would like to see a good socialistic commentary on this part
of the New Testament. The comparative study of the terms
ecclesia and koinonia are of much sociological interest. There
can be no question that the early Christian Church furnished
the world with the highest type of society. According to the
science of Sociology, the best elements of society are: (1)
A common cause in which all are interested; (2) A pro
found conviction of the truth, developing the best faculties of
man; (3) Such an enthusiastic love that it conquers all
selfish elements. These things were all fulfilled in the early
history of the Jerusalem Church. We may add to these that
the early Christains had common sufferings and a common
hope.
236
[April,
The ancient Christians did not practice communism in the

sense in which it is advocated by the modern infidel socialists.
Distribution was only made to those in need ; and those that
would not work could not eat. There was no abolition of private
property, for Peter said to Ananias, while it remained it was
your own. Ananias was condemned for trying to deceive the
Holy Spirit in keeping back part of his property when he
claimed to have given all. The Apostle freely recognized the
right of Ananias to it before he gave it away.
The liberality of the Jerusalem Church is a model for all
ages. In fact, Antioch and other Churches showed a similar
liberality.
The early Christians would not lay up treasures
on earth while their bretheren were suffering for food. Noth
ing but a selfish exegesis can explain away the plain teaching
of the New Testament on the Subject. There is not a hint in
the Acts of the Apostles that the liberality of the Jerusalem
Church.was intended to be transitory. A distinguished Amer
ican Statesman has said that so long as it is possible for one
man to hold a hundred million dollars of property, and to
wield the vast power such wealth puts into his hands ; so long
there will be discontent among the laboring classes, and this
discontent will result in communism and anarchy. In the
Seventeenth century Thomas Fuller declared that if any sup
pose that society can be peaceful while one half is prospered
and the other half pinched, let him try whether he can laugh
with one side of his face while he weeps with the other. This
is a question the Church will have to face and its postpone
ment will do no good. Jt is certain that it is the greed of the
Church much more than its creed that is making so many
infidels at the present time. The Pope of Rome lives in a
palace with five or six hunderd attendants, and receives annu
ally one and a half million dollars. What will sensible peo
ple think of his claim to be the successor of Simom Peter who
scarcely had a place to lay his head? There is hoarded up in
Protestant hands about ten billions of dollars notwithstand
ing the fact that our Savior warned His Discpies against laying
up treasures on earth. The fate of Dives will certainly be the
fate of many professed Christians ; for Jesus taught the impossiblity of serving both G-od and Mammon. There is an
1898.]
237
impassable gulf between Dives and Lazarus in this world as

well as in the world to come, and it can only be bridged by
the conversion of Dives. This conversion must take place in
this world for Christ certainly taught that there was no help
in the world to come.
The Church can do much towards solving the labor prob
lem. I do not mean that is to be done by interfering with the
proper functions of the State. The work of the Church
is moral and religious and it should never loose sight of this.
While the Church has its missions, even in the political word,
it is of a moral and religious character. Dr. McCosh has
truly said that Gen. 3 : 15 contains an epitone of the history
of the world. The world is a scene of good and evil, and
there is necessarily a conflict between the two. Science har
monizes with the Bible when it calls life a struggle for exist
ence.
It is the business of the Church to condemn the wrong
wherever found. Human nature is much the same every
where, and if laboring men could exchange places with the
capitalists, they would act very much as capitalists now act.
This is shown by the way they treat one another. If a man
does not happen to belong to their trust, they will not let him
work ; and in this they violate the principles of the American
Constitution. It is an interference with personal liberty that
should not at all be tolerated. I know a young man well,
who was thrown out of work, because he could not conscien
tiously belong to a labor union. The union men would not
work with him. This was certainly an unlawful interference
with personal rights. The labor unions have doubtless done
good in protecting the rights of laboring men ; and in this we
rejoice. We can not, however, sanction wrong on the part
of any. The Church should make a special effort to convert
the laboring men, and protect them from the influences of in
fidel socialists. By a united effort on the part of all Christians,
the Church can do for the down trodden of the twentieth cen
tury what it did for the same class in the first century.
The Church can not afford to compromise with capitalists.
It does them a great injury when it does so. It has a message
for the rich as well as for the poor, and it should faithfully
238
[April,
present it. If it will convert the rich, it will largely have the
problem solved ; for no true Christian will fail to let the laborer
properly share in the profits of his business. Our Savior cer
tainly taught that none who placed trust in uncertain riches
could enter into the kingdom of God. Those who use their
wealth for the purpose of making more money simply to sat
isfy an avaricious disposition and to secure the influence that
wealth gives certainly trusts in uncertain riches. It must be
admitted that a large number of capitalists do this very thing.
Then they can not, of course enter into the kingdom of God.
The pulpit should be plain on this subject, and not have the
blood of this class resting upon it. Let us have the zeal of
the early Christians and we will soon be able to send much
surplus capital into the world doing good. This will greatly
help to bring about the Millennium.
The Church will never be able to fully co mmand its resources
until it returns to the unity and spirit of the Apostolic Church.
If the Church of the nineteenth century had the liberality of
the Church of the first century it would soon settle the labor
problem. When Cromwell saw in a cathedral silver statues
of the twelve Apostles, he ordered them to be coined into
money, so that they might go about doing good. There is
now hoarded up by professed Christians ten or twelve billion
of dollars which should be going about doing good. A careful
study of the New Testament from the standpoint of sociology
would now do great good. Those who are giving some attention
to this subject greatly deplore the divided condition of Christen
dom. Some Christian Sociologists advocate co-operation on
the part of all professed Christians ; others favor organic union
as it existed in the days of the Apostles. Co-operation may
prepare the way for something better; but all faithful students
of the New Testament must work and pray for the unity that
existed in the early Church. When we have the unity for which
Jesus prayed, then will the world soon be converted to Christ.
"Neither for these alone do I pray, but for them also that be
lieve on me through their word ; that may all be one even as
thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be
one in us ; that the world may believe that thou didst send
me" (John 17:20-21.)
James W. Lowber,
Austin, Texas.
1898.]
The Existence of Evil.
239
THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL.

NE of the most difficult problems of theology is to ac
* * count for the existence of evil in the world and to
reconcile it with the justice or goodness of God. A few men
only have attempted a theodicy, to establish this justice upon
a well founded philosophical basis, that in its completeness
and strict logical deduction would, like a mathematical demon
stration, satisfy the most intelligent minds. In fact it is doubt
ful whether any philosophical or theological systemwhich
latter must of necessity come within the domain of philosophy
can ever give rise to that irrevocable conviction that is
reached in many instances in both pure and applied science.
In the sphere of science the deductions of the reason
would often take precedence over any human testimony;
simply because they can be verified at all times by all minds
of sufficient intelligence, whilst human testimony simply, from
its very nature and history, is amenable to impeachment. No
testimony of men could stand against a proposition of Euclid,
or certain astronomical facts.
Testimony must be submitted to the criteria of knowl
edge, and as was said by Opzoomer of Utrecht University,
"Scienceof course in its sense of established knowledgeis
not to appear before the bar of faith, but faith before that of
science, for it is not the credibility of knowledge, but of faith
that is to be proved." But the testimony of one generation
may be amply supported by the knowledge of a later genera
tion. If, for example, all of the evidences of design from our
present knowledge, showing not only a government of the
universe under laws indicating supreme intelligence, but a gov
ernment seemingly designed for the good of the human race,
were collected together, then the a priori expectation of a
direct revelation would rest upon a basis of argument, and if,
in addition, the content of the revelation as viewed by the
higher orders of mind is found to transcend in its spirit and
teaching all profane teaching or development, as in the
240
[April,
splendid teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, it is easy to

see how such moral evidence would come to the support of
and establish the reliability of human testimony. Christ and
the Apostles spoke as if by authority, knowing the reasonable
ness of their teaching when submitted to investigation, and as
Longinusin a latin translationsays of St. Paul when class
ing him with certain orators of Greece he was one qui dogmata
traderet argumentis non probanda.
The system of Logic, as a syllogistic system, is as perfect
as any mathematical formula ; in fact it is only a philosophical
formula, and when we speak of formal logic simply, in which
the form and not the matter is considered, it is as purely
abstract as any highest truth in mathematics.
But the syllogism expresses a mere law of thought, and
acts with the precision of a machine.
Whatever is put into
it will come out at the other end, whether it be wisdom or
nonsense. A system may be as perfectly logical in any sphere
as any possible perfection in anything, and yet it may be
simply a castle in Spain or the baseless fabric of a vision. This
arises from the fact that the conclusion only follows as a
logical necessity, with mathematical precision from the prem
ises. But if the assumed premises, or conclusions used as new
premises, at any point in the line of argument be false, any
subsequent correct reasoning must be vitiated, and of necessity
give a false system.
Now in the case of the pure mathematics the premises
are axiomatic if not intuitional truths, products of what Kant
would call probably the pure reason, (die reine Vernunft,) and
carrying perfect conviction to every sound mind. But in
philosophy and theology though there may be truths uni
versal and necessary, intuitively perceived under the sub
jective laws of the reason, they are not so simple in their
character or so easily confirmed or rendered concrete by real
ization in nature. And then every abstract conception or
proposition or mystical assumption almost, may by some
minds be exalted to absolute verity, though having no bond
with the real in any realm. As yet no permanent philosoph
ical or theological system has made good its raison d'etre.
Victor Cousin himself, the greatest lecturer perhaps on phi
1898.]
241
losophy of modern times, describes the progress of philosophy

as being a mere cyclical movement passing with continual
recurrence through four prominent phases or schools. The
last two in order are skepticism and mysticism, the latter being
the offspring of the former, in that it is a full surrender of all
rational methods. It has its basis in the spontaneous or intui
tive recognition of the verity of primitive subjective data, but
is a perversion of a true principle, and an exaltation of mere
emotionalism or of evanescent dreams into revelations of the
reason.
Because found most nearly allied to religion in many of
its forms, it is too hastily concluded that it has no application
elsewhere, but any clear perception of its psycological char
acter shows that it is due only to peculiar mental character
istics that simply find in the region of mystery and the
supersensual a wider field for its winged flight. It belongs
also to philosophy and science, but more to the formeras
all German philosophy attests,for a like reason. The mystic
par excellence is the lunatic, where visions and vagaries of
thought are felt to represent the real. How would it do to
classify certain Christian Scientists as extreme typesthe reader
can make his own reference, to mystics or lunatics, and we
will not be responsible, as we believe in freedom of opinion
but a writer from Massachusetts, in the Religious Herald quotes
the following, which he calls "monumental nonsense,"
as the doctrine taught by some: "Disease is an illusion of the
mind. Think it away, and it is gone. Do not take drugs,
for you have no body to receive them. Even the drugs them
selves have no real existence, they are an illusion like the
body." This is as bad as the clown-ideas of materialism, that
inveighs so against the want of dignity in matter, as a dubious
compliment to Adam and Eve.
Science deals mostly with ideas that may be verified in
nature, philosophy with the supersensuous, where safe data are
derived with far greater difficulty. The question of a theodicy
necessarily involves the abstract ideas of philosophy. When
Science also steps beyond its empirical limits and begins to
hypothecate theories, it enters, as it has a right to do, the
domain of philosophy.
Vol. 27.
242
[April,
The scientist has a better right to philosophize upon facts

in his possession than the dreamer with no facts, or illusions.
It gives him a flair for the hidden truth, by suggestion, that
the other does not possess.
We come now more directly to our subject-matter. One
great difficulty in reconciling the existence of evil in the world
with our ideas of infinite wisdom and infinite goodness, is the
notion that there is no inherent constitution in the nature of
things. We assume a God without any fixed attributes as
essential to his very being, and do not recognize in the realm
of existence, whatever may be its ontological nature, anything
that may not be arbitrarily changed, when the very constitu
tion of things, in some phases, and God's own nature have an
unchangeable character.
In order to hypothecate omnipotence and omniscience of
the Deity, we mentally attribute to Him a power to violate His
own nature and all fixed and necessary relations in the universe.
The idea of necessary truth and necessary permanent rela
tions is hooted down the winds, by saying with a misapplica.
tion, that all things are possible with God. Let us see;
General Washington died, is the expression of a truth; can
God make the statement false? If God could make all of our
sins virtues, on principles of goodness and mercy, many of us
would have reason perhaps to continue in sin. All this pro
ceeds from a misconception of necessary relations, and attrib
utes to Divine power that which would not only destroy in the
human mind the validity of its subjective ideas of necessary
truth and reality, of the pure reasonthereby undermining
the foundations of faith in our powersbut at the same time
would reflect upon their author as creating within us a false
confidence in our intuitions of primitive data.
Suppose good and evil are due to relations existing between
the divine mind and the possibilites of primal existences, and
suppose that they can not in the nature of things be eliminated
from a universal scheme with an ultimate design ; then where
is God's responsibility for the evil?
Now it has occurred to us that all science and particularly
all philosophy has a tendency to carry beyond the limits im
posed by fundamental primitive conditions of existence, a
1898.]
243
principle which is the most important, most far reaching and

most essential to intellectual development and spiritual eleva
tion to grand conceptions of God's wisdom and power, than
any other. We refer to the principle of generalization. This
principle is the basis of all scientific, all philosophic method ;
it is the organization of knowledge into system, and brings
confusion and uncertainty in our knowledge to law and order.
Phenomena that are related and interdependent afford means
for generalizations that step by step converge toward one law,
that affords an explanation of diverse manifestations in nature.
But are we to expect that generalizations in one sphere of
thought, are in their ultimate result, to converge to a central
point, in which like generalizations in every other sphere will
also converge, so as to be brought under one universal law?
Now if the First Cause were monistic in formwe do not
say in attributes, for that would be differentiationthen the
conclusion might be correct perhaps, and the final explanatory
generalization of all existing phenomena, one, the final term
of which would be some monistic idea devoid of all content in
the way of attributes; that is simple undifferentiated Being,
which Hegel expressed by the formula Sein=Nichts or Being =
Nothing. And even the wonderfully acute mind of Bishop
Berkeley looked upon all reality as consisting merely in the
subjective cognitions of attributes. Let us see how this tend
ency to intellectual centralization affects our philosophy. We
have the monistic Absolute of Sir Wm. Hamilton and of much
of the German philosophy; the Unknowable of Herbert Spencer;
the Nomadology of Leibnitz ; the Cosmic Ether of Haeckel as a
divinity; the Abiogenesis of some evolutionists; and the one
starting point for the evolution of species of Darwin; and so on.
All because of a failure to think that the principium of all
things may have been a complex existence of divine powers
and energies, and possibilities of hidden or invisible forms of
force or matter, capable under organization of all the mani
festations of which we are cognizant in any realm.
Some will say perhaps that this mention of force and
matter, as possibly belonging to a primordial condition, looks
toward materialism. It would be hard to define materialism
unless we knew what was the ultimate ontological nature of
244
[April,
matter, but we do not even understand the X rays nor elec

trical, nor magnetic, nor chemical phenomena, nor a thousand
other things regarded as functions of matter.
The interpretations of Prof. Tayler Lewis however in his
"Six Days of Creation," on purely philological grounds, of the
first and second verses of the first chapter of Genesis claiming
that no reference is made to the absolute origination of matter,
relieves the text of very apparent objections to what is prob
ably the common view.
But this does not materially concern a hypothesis that
matter, however it may have originated, if it originated at all,
might not per se or by attribution of fixed powers enter into
relations with other existences, that have a character of neces
sity in the very nature of existence itself. The human mind
must recognize the existence of such fixed and necessary rela
tions, or surrender all faith in the ultimate intuitions of the
pure reason as to universal and necessary truth.
It is impossible to conceive that there are no fixed relations
between causes and effects or that all events do not take place
in time, or that the propositions of geometry do not depend
upon fixed and necessary relations of magnitude, or that a yard
stick could exist with but one end, or that truth might be error,
good, evil, or virtue, vice, and that no fixed relations exist
between them, but that they differ simply in name.
Now to suppose that divine intelligence regarded none of
the relations of existence as fixed and determinate, but that all
was indeterminate and characterless, including also the intui
tions of the divine mind, and that God should bestow upon
human intelligence a false faith in its ultimate primitive a priori
conceptions of necessary truth, is neither a worthy imputation
nor reasonable.
It will be seen therefore that if there are fixed eternal veri
ties in the ultimate nature of existences, and relations both of
energies, and of space and time, and qualities and attributes,
that any organized system designed to accomplish an ultimate
object, must be subject to these necessary limitations; such
limitations as must belong to everything that is not as charac
terless as the philosophical absolute or the unknowable.
1898.]
245
God did not create either good or evil ; surely no one would
say that he called evil into existence, and if he did not invoke
its existence then how responsible for it in a scheme presum
ably destined to overcome it for an ultimate highest good.
It is upon this basis that we not only place the existence of
good and evil, truth and error, right and wrong, and all of the
eternal verities, that are not only realities but as we shall show,
working forces, both spiritualistic and dynamic. God is not
then responsible for any intellections of fundamental character
that are inseparably linked to mind as part of its constitution,
in its relations to primal existences.
What we know is that
through ideas all of which have a dynamic potential, so to speak,
He has organized conflicting forces into an optimistic scheme
that has wonderful order, beauty, goodness; and is a revelation
to man of a higher destiny, even though we omit that part of
the scheme giving an immediate revelation.
In Stapfer's "Polemic Theology" as quoted by that very
able and very excellent man, the late Dr. R. L. Dabney of Texas
University, it is affirmed that the 11Essence of things is but
God's intellection of their possibility," and that God's will in
calling them out of posse into esse changes nothing in them.
Now as to the affirmation that the essence of a thing con
sists in God's intellection of its possibility , we shall not discuss
it, but the conclusion that the character of an idea is not
changed by its passing from posse into esse is true, except that
its form becomes dynamic instead of potential.
And it is, we supposewe have never seen the work
upon this ground that God is relieved of all responsibility for
the existence of evil. If true it is in accord with the thought
we have already presented.
Possibly Stapfer would have done better to say that the
essence of truth is God's intellection of its possibility, that is to
say possibility of its being realized in some realm. Truth is not
necessarily the agreement between an idea and its objective
realization or representation ; it may or may not be, and the
realization may only be possible. We may affirm that the
planets under the given law of gravitational force must revolve
in one of the conic sections ; actually realized in the planetary
system. But we may with equal truth say that if the gravita
246
[April,
tional force should be as the cube or seventh power of the dis

tance inversely, the orbits would be either the Logarithmic
Spiral, or the Lemniscata of Bernouilli, as a posssible realization
simply, but one which could not be permanent, as they are
both curves of destruction ; because the law as an idea had a
wrong potential if the design was to prevent instead of to cause
destruction.
We think then that the theory presented takes away all
responsibility for the entrance into the universal scheme of evil,
or of any necessary idea that either in its potential or realized
dynamic form, must of necessity remain in the system. It may
too, for aught we know, be a case of infinite intelligence organ
izing a system with infinite difficulties in an infinite number of
interdependent relations and energies. Finite wisdom is not
competent to realize or solve the difficult problems it is capable
of propounding to itself.
It should always be kept in mind that the problem of all
primordial existence is not only unsolved but will ever remain
a profound mystery, at which the mind surrendering even the
law of causality is staggered.
But this much is certain that there was no absolute begin
ning or no origin, but simply eternal existence, because back of
origin as a necessity of thought lies the great gulf of nothing
ness and in our fundamental intuitions of truth, nothing can
be more certain than the truth of the well known latin formula,
ex nihilo nihil fit.
The question of existence is the question of
the Sphinx, where the mind in its regressum ad infinitum,
halts ; looks over the abyss, and feeling its utter want of power,
accepts simply the fact. Even the subjective a priori revelation
of the principle of causalityif Kant in this is correctgives
way to the idea of an uncaused eternal cause.
But still more, there is not a single solitary ground, pos
sibly, for any a priori expectation as to what should have been
the ultimate nature or the characteristics of that eternal cause.
That could only be learned in the revolving centuries as
revealed by actual existences, whether through nature or by
direct revelation of ideas and truths by an intelligent first
cause, to human intelligence. But we can conceive of no
reason that could lead us primarily or without some form of
1898.]
247
revelation a posteriori to hypothecate existence of any one form

more than another.
Whether matter in some ultimate invisible form possessing
energy, or various energies, may not have existed in connec
tion or correlation with some other forms of energy, called
spirit energy, if you choose, is simply a question of fact and one
form has no anterior probability to another, because all idea
of origin is a profound mystery.
But as all energy of thought in man, or all motor ideas go
into action in a dynamic form by means of some unknown
function of the efferent nerves by some mysterious innervation,
so the most natural inference is that the ideas of God, possess
ing also their various potentials, should become dynamic in
form by some mediation between the subjective idea and its
outward realization, that exercised force or energy upon an
objective world in the organization of a universe under law.
It is by the organization of forces under law, and matter under
law, that all human mechanism, as a watch for example, is
rendered so far as human interference is concerned an automatonWe have no evidence of spirit energy not necessarily con
nected with some form of what we call matter, and there is a
spiritual body as well as a spirit. We know absolutely nothing
of the ontological nature of either matter or spirit ; but we do
know that in nature an intelligent being has realized the poten
tials belonging to certain ideas of law and order that we our
selves can grasp and comprehend, and that there are thou
sands of facts under law that as yet we can not explain. And
in the very existence of these lawsor uniform sequences of
events under like conditionsand in the obedience of natural
forces to method, whether these forces are derived by attribu
tion, or are considered as primordial and fixed, it shows that
the higher motor energy connected with mind overrules and is
dominant, and arranges all necessary energies into a continu
ous, and generally harmonious working, perhaps even amid
specific conflicts, to an ultimate highest and best design.
Nor is it necessary, but in fact rather derogatory, to
account for the evolution of nature, in its broadest sense, by
hypothecating the "Deus est omnium rerum causa immanens" of
Spinoza, which led to his deistic pantheism.
248
[April,
To suppose that a direct efflux of energy from some motor

idea of supreme intelligence, should immediately direct every
dynamical phenomenon, as manifested for example in chemical
phenomena, or the instincts of the lower organisms, or in
blowing up the warship Maine, or in causing deformation in
birth, and what not, is more than ridiculous, perhaps blas
phemy.
The thought that all ideas of the possible have a potential
capable of being realized is a very important one, and is a point
in psychology which deserves great stress and elucidation. The
whole world is governed by abstract ideas because in the
main the individual is. The ideas of liberty, fraternity and
equality brought on the French Revolution, and the idea of
manhood suffrage, with manhood improperly defined, our
delectable franchise system ; but in both cases under a mis
conception on the part of the masses as to what constituted
the true principle to be realized, and a perversion of the
reason due to the dominance of passion.
And what is still of more importance, the indulgence of an
idea tends somehow to give it, so to speak, a greater tension
towards its realization, explainable probably by a proper psy
chology. The man who continually cherishes the thought of
murder or of suicide will end probably by commiting the one
or the other, and the greatest tendency to all evil deeds is due
to indulging evil thoughts until they gain a tension that becomes
dominant as a motor idea, and issues in overt act. To associate
with evil thoughts of every kind is detrimental to character,
and worse than keeping bad company. These last remarks
are a little aside from the main topic, but being related, are
made on account of their importance. * * * Our assump
tion is that God as a supreme intelligence possessing unlimited
power has established a system in the universe under laws
working in very extensive and ramified applications, but under
necessary limitations due to primordial relations existing
between the various forms of energy or existences, having
essential fixed characters. In fine, whatever may have been
the primordial state, possibly with infinite relations of com
plex existence and invisible energies subordinated to some
form of spirit energy, this system has issued in the phenome
1898.]
249
nal world of to-day, bearing the stamp of a partially revealed

design looking to a consummation involving the highest
interests of intelligent moral beings.
Taking in the whole scheme as revealed to us by nature
itself, supplemented by a more direct revelation of truth that
could not be derived from nature alone, as to the will and
attributes of God, the ultimate design becomes manifest, and
the most natural inference is that whatever in the acts of men
contravenes in any way the laws which are involved in the
execution of the divine plan is evil, whilst a conformity with
these laws revealed in nature or directly is good. Conformity
to all law expressive of the intention or will of God is conform
ity to His will, and a violation of natural law even, may
not only meet with present punishment, but sometimes induce
moral degradation that looks beyond.
What has been written above has only been following out
in a tentative not dogmatic way, a tolerably bold line of thought
passing through the mind of the writer, of very recent date,
which the reader can stamp with any value he pleases and we
will still be friends. There are some perhaps who look with
disfavor upon all philosophizing touching the borders of
mystery, but since Plato, the world keeps up its old ways and
Confucianism is at a discount. " Those who think upon a diffi
cult problem of science or philosophy or theology are those
who perhaps are modest enough to think they may be mistaken,
while the pansophist of a lower plane will meet them with the
smiling self-complacency of a summer day and be amused at
their vagaries. The lecturer on arithmetic may have the sweet
comfort of self appreciation so highly developed as to call upon
a La Place to give up writing his Systeme du Monde, and the
genius who believes that the moon is made of green cheese
may look with supercilious contempt upon an advocate of the
Nebular Hypothesis, or even of St. Augustines theory of the
days in Genesis.
C. J. Kemper.
250
[April,
Ex. 20:7.
liThou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
Such is the rendering of this command in the Common Version.
A very common acceptation of this prohibitory law is, that its
direct intent and scope is to forbid the use of the name of Jehovah in
an idle, indifferent, irreverent manner; "in vain," i. e., uselessly, with
out any solemn, sacred purpose. That in its general intention and
effect it covers this abuse of the Supreme Name, need not for a moment
be questioned. But is this the designed, specific import of this com
mand ?
It ought to strike us at once that such an interpretation does not
give to the commandment the dignity, the moment, and force, in depth
and breadth, that a law of the Decalogue must certainly have. This
Table of the Ten Great Words of the Lord God, is the broad and deep
constitutional foundation upon which the whole moral legislation of the
Bible, "all the law and the prophets," rests, as Jesus himself has
declared. Every part of it, therefore, every one of its ten particular
declarations, must have in it this element of fundamental principle, that
it looks to that which is of essential, general moment in the life of men
in its relation to God.
What is then the true meaning of the second commandment?
Let us look at its essential terms. The Hebrew word nasa trans
lated in the Common Version "take" properly signifies "lift up,"
abundantly so used in the Hebrew Scriptures; as, for example,
"Jehovah lift up his countenance upon thee," Num. 6:26; to "lift up
the hand" in adoration and praise, as Ps. 28:2; 63:4; 134:2; to "lift
up the hand" in the solemn act of taking an oath, as Ex. 47:14;
Ps. 106:26; Neh. 9:15; etc., etc. The literal rendering of the last
citation is, "which thou didst lift up thy hand (*. e., didst swear) to give
them."
The word nasa is also often used in such expressions, as to "lift
up anything with the voice," i. e., to utter, as in a song, Num. 23:7;
Job 27:1 ; in prayer, Isa. 37:4; in reproach, Ps. 15:3.
To "lift up the name of the Lord God," must therefore, in har
mony with the usage of the Hebrew tongue as seen in the Old Testa
ment, refer to a solemn act of this sort, *.
the act of taking this
1898.]
251
Supreme Name to sanctify and confirm by an oath. So Gesenius

understands it; see his Hebrew Lexicon, sub voce nasa.
It remains to reach the proper meaning of the other word of chief
moment, shava (pronounced as pointed shav'), translated in the Com
mon Version "in vain." This meaning is easy of understanding. Its
essential signification in general is "evil," "iniquity," "wickedness;"
specifically "falsehood," "lie." Here we may rest, for we have
doubtless in this specific sense the true import of the word in the com
mandment in question. This is a familiar use of the word shava in the
Hebrew Scriptures, as, for example, Ps. 12:2; 24:4; 41:6; Job 31:5.
"Vanity" in these places, as seen by the parallelism, signifies "false
hood," "lie;" its synonym is deceit, etc., etc. Job 31 :5 is thus trans
lated in Lange's Bible-Work:
If I walked with falsehood ;
And my foot hastened to deceit.
Ps. 24:4 has a parallelism that sets forth forcibly the meaning of
the word shav' , and is at the same time a direct parallel to the second
commandment.
"He thatand
hath
a pure
cleanheart.
hands,
Who hath not lifted up his soul upon a falsehood
Nor sworn with deceit."
The second member of the couplet explains by its synonymous
parallelism the meaning of the first.
The proper rendering of the second commandment is therefore :
"Thou shalt not lift up (in the solemn act of an oath) the name of
Jehovah thy God upon a falsehood." So Gesenius, the great Hebraist,
interprets these words; see in his Lexicon sub voce shav'.
This interpretation gives the true dignity and force to this Word of
the Decalogue. It looks in two directions of immense moment in the
moral government of God on the earth. 1. To the support of truth
and justice in the affairs of men, against the subversion of these by
falsehood and deceit. It is the invocation, the interposition of the name
of God that is the strong tower of defense to truth and right in the
administration of justice ; it holds the consciences and souls of men, by
the highest obligation, to the ways of righteousnesseven the "Kings
and judges of the earth." What would the world be without such a
supremely sacred engagement on the part of men? 2. The name of
Jehovah, the only true God, shall not be invoked in idolatrous or other
impious practices, as in sorcery, witchcraft, superstitious rites, or in
any manner that sanctions a "lie;" for all these God abhors as hostile
to him, as abominable in his sight, as the service of what is diabolical.
252
The Confusion of Tongues.
[April,
It is a matter of interest also to understand how "vanity," "empti

ness," "nothingness" coincide with "falsehood," and "a lie." The
synonymy of these two classes of words is close and direct.
The Greek says, "He that says this, says nothing," i. e., tells a
falsehood, lies; for that which is false, is a lie, is not; this is the sim
ple, evident sense of this Greek expression.
So also in Hebrew. The Hebrew word aven, in its several forms
and applications, signifies what is not, nothing, emptiness. Hence it
comes also to mean what is false, -worthless, wicked, etc., etc. There
fore it is applied to an idol, idolatry, because these are not, are but
lies. So Paul, doubtless in direct allusion to this Hebrew idea and
usage, says: '-'-Idols are nothing in the world, and there is none other
God, but one." The Prophet Hosea, playing on the names Bethel
and Bethaven, in rebuke of the wickedness of the Jews, scornfully calls
Bethel Bethaven, *. e., the house of God has become the house of idol
atry (c. 4:15). So "nothingness," "vanity," also become in the use of
the word aven "iniquity," "wickedness;" for it looks to falsehood,
to idolatry, which are opposed to God. Jehovah is "the God of truth"
(Deut. 32:4; Ps. 31:5), and he hates every false way, every lie. And
"Satan is a liar, and the father of lies" (Jno. 8:44.)
The Word of God always gains in clearness and force when prop
erly understood.
Chas. Louis Loos.
THE CONFUSION OF TONGUES.
Gen. 11 : 6-9.
Translation: "And the Lord said; behold there is one race and one lip of
all, and this is what they begin to do; and now, nothing will be withholden from
them of all that they may have undertaken to do.
Come, and having gone down, let us there confound their tongue that they
may not understand one anothers speech ; so the Lord drove them from thence
upon all the face of the earth, and they left off building the city and the tower."
The point to be considered in this passage is, as to how the confu
sion of languages took place. The generally accepted view is that the
people were scattered over the face of the earth on account of some
miracle which Jehovah wrought at Babel, by which He confused their
languages, so that they could not understand one another; consequently
they were compelled to separate and go into different parts of the earth.
Now it is not denied that the confusion of tongues could have been pro
duced in this way. In any case there was evidently an extraordinary
interposition of Divine power; and no matter how or when the confu
sion was produced, it is evident that it was under Divine direction. It
is not, therefore, a question as to what could have been done, but
about what really was done.
1898.]
TJie Confusion of Tongues.
253
First of all, it seems reasonable to conclude that the confusion of

tongues would not, in itself, have compelled the people to scatter. It
seems more probable that they would have chosen to remain together,
if they found themselves unable to speak to one another. * * No doubt
in any case, there were certain groups who could understand each other,
for it is contrary to all the facts of history that there were as many
languages produced as there were individuals at Babel. But no matter
how this may have been, the question still remains was the con
fusion produced by some immediate disturbance of the organs of speech ;
or was the result obtained in some other way ? If the whole context is taken
into account it seems fairly conclusive that the Lord compelled them to
scatter by driving them away from Babel, and having located in differ
ent parts of the earth in groups or families they soon developed practi
cally different languages. Now this not only seems to follow from the
Scriptural narration but it is in perfect harmony with the law of devel
opment. The Hebrew word rendered "scattered," in both the author
ized and revized versions, means also to "drive," and this is probably
just what was done.
The Lord drove them away from Babel, and consequently they left
off building the tower. We first have a statement of what the Lord
proposed to do, and then we are immediately told "so He scattered or
drove them" etc., as if to explain,how He produced the confusion of
tongues. In short He confounded their speech by scattering them into
different parts of the earth.
This explanation harmonizes well with the facts as regards the
unity of language. It is well known that scholars are now almost uni
versally agreed that the present languages of earth can all be traced to
one common parentage. It is no longer doubtful that the unity of lan
guage can be demonstrated as clearly as the unity of the race. Just as
certainly as that men have descended from a common parentage so cer
tainly is it true that all the languages of the earth have their origin in
one original source. If this view of the matter is admitted, then it is
easy to understand how the language spoken up to the building of the
tower at Babel became the mother tongue of all the languages of the
earth ; for being scattered, the different nations would soon so decidedly
modify the orginal language as to produce practically a new language,
and yet this new language would retain many of the old root-words.
But if by some miracle at Babel the old language was completely con
fused, so that no one could understand anyone else it is difficult to see
how we can find to-day common root-words running through all the
great families into which the world's languages are divided.
254
The Two Accounts of Man's Creation.
[April,
If we examine carefully the localities where the different families

settled we shall find that their respective geographical positions harmon
ize exactly with the growth of language, as it is understood from a
scientific point of view. Hence our exposition of the passage under
consideration practically harmonizes Moses and science. In this re
spect the exposition is worthy of some attention. It surely offers a solu
tion which ought to be acceptable to all classes, as it in no way weak
ens the Biblical account, while at the same time it shows how that ac
count may be made to completely harmonize with the facts which sci
ence seems to require.
THE TWO ACCOUNTS OF MAN'S CREATION.
Gen. 1 :27; 2:7.
In the Mosaic record we find two histories of the creation of man.
The one reads, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living soul."
The other reads, "And God created man in His own image, in
the image of God created He him."
Do these two histories refer to the same creative act? We think
not.
We regard the first quoted as referring to the mere physical, intel
lectual animal man, which grew by a series of evolutions from a parti
cle of dust to the culminating point of the animal creation ; the other to
the creation of the man, created in the image of God, a spiritual,
immortal man.
This spiritual man was placed in the body of the physical man, and
Adam, the first man thus endowed, became a being possessing a dual
nature, whereas, before this endowment, he was a mere intellectual
animal. This indwelling man possesses a body as well as a spirit; a
spiritual body.
This duality, this mysterious union of the physical, intellectual
man, and the spiritual man, is referred to in the Scriptures by such
designations as the "old man" and the "new man," the "outward
man" and the "inward man," the "natural man" and the "hidden
man of the heart."
That the two histories relate to two distinctive creative acts we
think is evident from the following considerations :
1. The narrations themselves. The one declares that the Lord
God formed man of the dust of the ground, that is out of material
already existing; the other that God created man in His own image.
Now, we know that it is difficult to conceive of image or form, as
applied to immaterial things ; but is more difficult to conceive that a
1898.]
The Two Accounts of Man's Creation.
255
body formed from dust should be in the image or likeness of God who
is declared to be a Spirit. Paul expressly declares that there is a
natural body, and there is also a spiritual body, i Cor. 15.
2. The physical, intellectual man, existed beforeperhaps
ages beforethe spiritual man. Cain, when driven out from the face
of the ground, exclaims that "whosoever findeth me shall slay me."
Surely he did not fear his father, the only man on the earth at that time
of the Adamic race. Cain married a wife and builded a city. Whence
his wife and the population of the city ? In the sixth chapter of Gene
sis are mentioned three races, the sons of God, daughters of men, and
Nephilim, or giants, and it is stated that the Nephilim (giants) were
"the mighty men of old," that is the Autochthones or Aborigines.
(Revised Version.) Paul clearly distinguishes between the two men.
1 Cor. 15. He says: "The first man, Adam, became a living soul.
The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (Revised Version.) The
common version differs from the Revised, in translating the Greek
word egfeneto "was made," instead of "became." A plainer and
more literal rendering of the Greek would be, "The first man Adam
was made into a living being; the last Adam was made into an immor
tal spirit." This declaration relates to the priority of the man; the
next declaration the Greek version requires should be restricted to the
bodies, physical and spiritual, and should be thus rendered: "That
(body) that was first (made) was not the spiritual, but the physical
(body); afterward that (body) which is spiritual (was made)." The
Apostle next gives the origin of these two men. The first is (was) of
the earth, earthy ; the second man is (was) of heaven. (I quote the
Revised Version.)
3. In the mythological legends of many nations we find allusions
to a primitive, giant race of men, enemies to, and at war with the gods.
Later in the Greek mythology we read of the Fauns and Satyrs, mere
animal men. Now are these legends mere fanciful conceits, or are
they founded in fact? We think they have some truth as their basis.
4. Archaeological and historical researches are bringing to light
facts indicating, if not proving, the existence of man on earth long
before the period usually assigned for the creation of Adam. These
facts can not be disputed, nor can they be reconciled with the usually
received chronology of the Bible on any other theory than that man
existed long before Adam was placed in the garden of Eden. Assum
ing the two histories of man's creation, to refer each to the creation of
one man, one to the formation of the physical man, the other to the
creation of the spiritual man, all difficulty is removed, the chronology
of the Old Testament is undisturbed, and the genealogy of Christ as
given by Luke remains intact.
Dr. Ferris.
256
Seven Puzzling Bible Books.
[April,
LITERARY REVIEWS.

i.
Seven Puzzling Bible Books. A supplement to "Who Wrote the

Bible." By Washington Gladden. (Boston and New York:
Houghton, Mifflin & Co. The Riverside Press, Cambridge.)
This thing ought to be stopped. We refer to a very bad tendency.

When once an author writes a clever book so that his name is brought
prominently before the public he is at once accepted by credulous
people as authority on all questions, no matter whether he knows any
thing about them or not. If he can write one successful book the
general public is apt to regard him as capable of writing any number
of books and on any number of subjects. To illustrate what we mean,
it is only necessary to refer to. the case of Ian Maclaren. He made a
decided hit in writing some Scotch stories, and since then his services
have been sought for in almost every variety of literary work, much of
which he has no particular fitness for whatever.
The same is true of Dr. Gladden. He wrote one or two successful
books on social questions. His name became familiar through certain
works, somewhat related to Christian Ethics. Now he is supposed by
the credulous public to be competent to write on any question under the
sun. Nor is this all. We fear that he has half persuaded himself that
he is capable of writing books on Biblical criticism. Anyway, he has
made the attempt, and we have the result of part of his labors in the
curious volume before us.
We do not wish to be misunderstood. We have no desire to
create the impression that the book under consideration is entirely
without merit. Doubtless we need books in which Biblical criticism is
popularized. People ought to know something about the origin, canonicity and literary form of the books of the Bible ; and a work written
with this end in view has certainly a worthy aim. But such a work
should not be written from a partisan standpoint, and it ought to be
written by a man thoroughly acquainted with all the facts which are
to come under treatment. Apart from an easy style, well suited to the
popular mind, Dr. Gladden has scarcely a single qualification for the
work he has undertaken ; or if he has, he has certainly succeeded in
hiding his light under a bushel. No candid reader, who understands
1898.]
257
the questions involved, can possibly give him credit for even an ordinary
comprehension of the questions he discusses. He shows his utter igno
rance of the great matters under consideration again and again ; and
generally this ignorance is most manifest at the very places where the
most careful and intelligent treatment is required. We speak thus
frankly and strongly because such books as his are calculated to do a
great deal of harm. In the hands of intelligent critics they will receive
nothing but condemnation, but the general public can not be regarded
as acquainted with such matters as he disposes of in an ex cathedra
fashion, and to the utter neglect of most important truth. This is a
serious charge, but it is easily sustained by numerous references to what
he has written.
It is now time that we should give the reader some reasons for this
severe condemnation of a book which was no doubt intended by its
author to be a useful little volume in educating the public with respect
to a very important matter. Dr. Gladden is a good man, and we do
not doubt for a moment his perfect sincerity in writing as he has. We
simply think he has, at least in this instance, missed his calling. He
is clearly out of his depth, or else he has written without any careful
consideration of the facts of the case. We are charitably disposed to
take the view we have already intimated, namely, having written one
or two successful works, he made up his mind that he could write on a
question which requires very special qualifications in order to produce a
volume of any real value. This was his mistake. There is where he
went astray, as we shall endeavor to show.
It is unnecessary to take up much space in following our author
through his entire volume. It is certainly not necessary to cut through
a ham of meat to find out that it is spoiled. A very slight incision of
the knife will tell the story. In the present case we will confine our
examination to Dr. Gladden's treatment of the book of Daniel. He
gives more attention to this book than to any of the other six of the
"puzzling books" he has selected. The Doctor's treatment of this book
is along the line of the advanced higher criticism, and he repeats the stale
platitudes which have recently been used so frequently to convince the pub
lic that the book of Daniel was written in the second century before Christ,
and probably about the time of Judas Maccabaaus. In short he thinks that
it is a book on the style of Ben Hur or Quo Vadis, and that its descrip
tion of manners and customs was simply an effort to reproduce the age
wherein the scene of his story is laid. In fact, he does not believe
that it is history at all, but is a novel, intended to teach important
lessons, just as some works of fiction teach important lessons during
the present day. He thinks that its description of events which hapVol. 28
258
Seven Puzzling Bible Boohs.
[April,
pened in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes were described after these

events occurred, and that, therefore, the prophecy is really no prophecy
at all. But we weary of stating a position which is so at variance with
all the facts in the case.
What are the grounds upon which this amazing conclusion is
predicated? Many of his reasons are simply a rehash of Dean Farrar's
late work on the book of Daniel, and which every scholar now knows
has added nothing to the Dean's literary reputation. But some of Dr.
Gladden's reasons are undoubtedly his own, and these, for the most
part, are worse than no reasons at all. In one place he works up an
old argument against the historical accuracy of the book without the
slightest indication that he has ever heard of any explanation of the
difficulties he presents. His main attack upon the book is from the
standpoint that its chronological statements can not be trusted. For
instance chapter i: 5-18, and chapter 2: 1 are in point. He contends
that it is impossible to reconcile the "three years" and "the second
year" in these passages. But a little attention to the facts of the case
would clear up this difficulty, and at the same time furnish a key for
unlocking many other difficulties of the same kind. It is only necessary
to take into consideration the difference of reckoning the time of the
ascension of a king by the Babylonians, and the reckoning of the Jews
of the same thing, in order to thoroughly reconcile all the seeming
chronological inconsistencies in the book of Daniel. The Jews calcu
lated a king's reign from the day of his ascension to the day of his
death ; and in this calculation they included every year in which any
part of the reign could be properly located. For instance, if one month
of the year had yet to run, when a king began his reign, this month was
counted as if it was the whole year ; and should he reign through
another year and one month, the time of his reign would be reckoned
as three years, though as a matter of fact he would have reigned only
fourteen months. However, the cuniform inscriptions tell us that the
Babylonians made their calculations in an entirely different manner.
In the case supposed they would not have counted the first month of the
king's reign at all, but would have given it to his predecessor, while
the first year of the new king would have begun on the New Years day
after he came to the throne, and the following year would have been
counted as a whole year to him, although in that year he had only been
in office a single month. Whoever was on the throne when the year
came in, that year was counted to him, whether he continued to reign
to the end of the year or not. Now if it is remembered that the writers
of Jeremiah and II Kings use mainly the Jewish reckoning of time
while Daniel uses the Babylonian reckoning, there is no occasion what
1898.]
259
ever for the slightest conflict. When this difference is taken into account
we see not only how at the end of three years Daniel might be in the
second year of the reign, but we see also how he could not be in any
other. As Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in six hundred and
five B. C. his "first year" according to Babylonian reckoningwhich is
the method of the book of Danielwas six hundred and four and his
second year was six hundred and three, the very year in which Daniel's
training ended, according to the statement of the book. Hence, instead
of there being a contradiction here which invalidates the trustworthiness
of Daniel as a historian, we have a striking illustration of the value of
the tablets in helping us to understand many things in the Bible. In
short, when the difference between Jewish and Babylonian reckoning
of time is taken into consideration all the dates of Daniel completely
harmonize with the known facts.
We have given only a sample of the loose way in which Dr.
Gladden treats apparent difficulties. Had we patience it would be easy
to show how he has frequently gone astray quite as decidedly as in the
case we have mentioned. He seems to rely very much upon Dean
Farrar's remarkable argument wherein it is intimated that it is impossi
ble to believe that such a distinguished character as Daniel could have
lived and acted the part ascribed to him without some reference to him
being made in contemporaneous history. But how does anyone know
that no such reference was made ? We have very little history contem
poraneous with the book of Daniel, though much more might have been
written than we now possess. However, Dr. Gladden's argument
proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. Let us look at a
similar case. Joseph was a dreamer very much as Daniel was ; he was
also prime minister of Egypt just as Daniel was of Babylon. Now we
have not a scrap of contemporaneous history, outside of the Bible, that
even refers to the name of Joseph. Must we conclude that no such
man ever lived? But this is not all. Moses was the greatest law giver
of ancient times, but outside of the Bible we have no reference to him
in all the literature of that age. Joshua was a great warrior and
actually conquered a country, taking possession of it and allotting it to
his people, and yet we have, at present, no thoroughly trustworthy
evidence that any such man ever lived, if we shut up our Bible. But
if Dr. Gladden and Dean Farrar should say that these names all belong
to a much earlier period in history than that to which the book of Daniel
belongs, then it is simply necessary to call attention to the fact that
only two references are made in contemporaneous history to our Lord
Jesus Christ, and the genuineness of both of these has been stoutly con
tested. We fear that all this talk about contemporaneous history, if
260
[April,
believed in, would practically overthrow the Bible entirely as a trust

worthy book.
From what has already been said, the reader will easily guess how
Dr. Gladden disposes of "Belshazzar" and "Darius the Mede." But
it is, after all, somewhat remarkable, that these characters are treated as
if no word had ever been spoken in defense of their historicity. As
regards Belshazzar Dr. Gladden seems not to know that the latest in
vestigations from the tablets and other sources make it evident that
Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, and probably grandson of
Nebuchadnezzar; but as there was no Hebrew or Chaldee word for
either "grandfather" or "grandson" it was a common habit to speak of
the former as "father" and the latter as "son." It is well known by
scholars at least, that "the Chronicle of Cyrus" gives an account of the
reign of Nabonidus in seventeen successive years; and that this Chron
icle mentions the fact that Belshazzar, his son, commanded the
Chaldean forces at Accad. Part of this Chronicle has been destroyed,
and consequently what took place during the last three years of the
reign of Nabonidus can not be distinctly made out; but enough is plain
to make it almost certain that, during these three years, Belshazzar was
associated with his father on the throne and actually reigned over
Babylon at the time of its capture by the forces of Cyrus. It is also
made fairly evident, from the same source, that Belshazzar was slain by
Gobyras, when the city was captured. Both Mr. Pinches, of the British
Museum, and Dr. Scrader, the eminent Assyriologist, agree that this is
the best rendering of the language of the Chronicle.
It is not difficult to show also that Daniel's account of "Darius, the
Mede," exactly fits the facts of the case, as we have these facts from
the Book of Daniel, as well as from other sources; and Dr. Gladden's
effort to make it appear that Cyrus is the one who "took the kingdom"
after the capture of Babylon, has not a scrap of evidence to support it.
It is not proposed, in this brief notice, to even attempt anything like an
exhaustive defense of the historical trustworthiness of the Book of
Daniel, as regards the matters under consideration. Nevertheless what
has been said will enable the reader to understand how to estimate the
dogmatic assertions of those who get rid of Belshazzar and Darius the
Mede in the summary manner which characterizes Dr. Gladden's treat
ment.
For the benefit of the general reader it may be well to conclude
what we have to say by giving a brief summary of reasons why the book
of Daniel should be regarded as canonical and trustworthy history, for
the time has come when the people ought to be placed in a position
where they can take care of themselves in the presence of the kind of liter
1898.]
261
ature with which the country is now flooded ; a literature which assumes
to plead for a more rational interpretation of the facts connected with
the history of the Bible, but which is, after all, little more than a crazy
quilt made up of a patchwork of guesses.
We need scarcely say that we have the highest respect for every
earnest effort by competent critics to throw light on the origin, gen
uineness and authenticity of the Bible records ; but it is not denied that
we are growing somewhat impatient at the cock-sure style of such men
as Dr. Gladden, whose facts are all at second hand, and whose treat
ment of these facts pays little or no attention to the simplest laws that
should govern in writing either criticism or history. These men tire
us. They are really saying nothing new. They are practically
restating an old casea case, too, which has very little in it that will
stand when the guesses are all eliminated.
(1) It is well known that there is considerable difference between
the style of the first six and the last six chapters of the book of Daniel.
The former are written in the third person, and the latter in the first
person. The first six might have been written by any one acquainted
with the facts, the last six claim to have been written by Daniel him
self. As the Scriptures no where state that the book as a whole was
written by Daniel, nor that it was issued in Daniel's life-time, it is,
therefore, not at all necessary to contend for anything more than its
historical accuracy and the trustworthiness of its prophecies. It really
does not matter much whether the writer of the first part of the book
lived in Daniel's time, or, as some suppose, more than three hundred
years later. Many of our best histories are written hundreds of years
after the events, they treat, transpired. There is, therefore, nothing in
the historical part of the book which makes it necessary that Daniel
should have written it.
(2) It can not be said, however, that the latter part of the book
may be treated in the same way. This part is devoted to dreams
and visions, and we are compelled to believe that Daniel is its
author, though we need not contend that it was published at the time
he wrote it. But, if Daniel did not write this part, then the book is
wholly untrustworthy. He constantly speaks in the first person, and
professes to tell what he saw and heard, and it is inconceivable that he
could or would have spoken as he has done, if what he has said is all
a cunningly devised fable. But there is really no reason for considering
that he did not write the whole book, and that it was not published
about the time of the return from Babylon or very soon afterward. AH
the talk to the contrary is based on nothing but suppositions.
262
[April,
(3) The language and idioms of the book are such as fit the
exile period, or an early subsequent period. The writing is partly in
Aramaic and partly in Hebrew. The fact that the historical part is in
the former language is strongly suggestive that this part, at least, was
written in Babylon. The use of the Babylonian chronology is another
pointer in the same direction. There are also good reasons for believ
ing that the Hebrew part was written about the same time. It is no
argument to say that the Hebrew characters are such as were used at a
much later period. It is known that Ezra used the "square" or
Assyrian characters, with certain modifications, probably to distinguish
the sacred books which he edited from the Samaritan Pentateuch and
book of Joshua, which retained the old Phoenico-Hebraic letters. A
still more probable hypothesis is that he used the Babylonian characters,
because the people, during the exile, had become more familiar with
these characters than the Archaic letters of the Phoenician type. He
would naturally select that type which would facilitate the study of the
books he edited among the people generally, and consequently he
caused his copies to be made in the characters which were best known
to the people at that time. Now, if this "square" character was used
as early as the days of Ezra it is not strange that we find it still in use
during the Maccabean period ; for the Jews would not drop it for two
hundred years, and then go back to it again after the masses would
have ceased to know anything at all about it. But when the "square"
was once introduced, it is not difficult to understand how it would con
tinue in use even to the present time. It is probable, therefore, that
the book of Daniel was written in Babylonia or soon after the return,
and in either case Daniel must have written it, as he understood both
languages in which it is written, and all the facts point to him as its
author.
(4) Christ and his Apostles regarded the book of Daniel as
historically trustworthy and genuine, and they also regarded Daniel
himself as just such a person as the book represents him to have been.
Now, Christ either knew or he did not know the facts, if the book is a
fraud and if Daniel is a pure fiction. If he did not know, then it is
difficult to believe in his omniscience ; but if he did know, it is equally
difficult to believe in his honesty, for it is inconceivable that he would
have knowingly lent his authority to the perpetration of a glaring
literary imposition. It is also true that the prophet Ezekiel, who was
with the exiles, refers to Daniel in such a way as leaves little doubt that
he means the person who is mentioned in the book of Daniel.
(5) The Septuagent dates as far back as Ptolemy Philadelphus
(285 B. C), and this version contains the book of Daniel. This fact
1898.]
263
proves that it was written before the Maccabean period, or before 164
B. C, the time Dr. Gladden thinks it was written. Probably the book
was tampered with, as we know that Apocryphal additions were made
in Greek ; but no one now seriously contends that these additions had
anything to do with the origin of the original book.
(6) The fact that Josephus gives the substance of parts of the book
of Daniel, and also states that Daniel was the author of it, and that it
was written "many years" before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes
and the Romans, is strong proof that the book had an early origin. It
is practically certain that the "many years" referred to by Josephus
include the period from 534 to 164 B. C., and most probably point to
about 534 B. C, as this is the year that suits best for the composition
of most of the book. Some parts of it may have had a little later origin.
(7) The Persian words to be found in the book of Daniel seem
to suit the period of the exile, and not the Maccabean period. It is
very reasonable to suppose that as early as 534 B. C. many Persian
words were current among the Jews. But it has been said that the
Greek terms, contained in the book, are better adapted to the time
of the Maccabees, as Greek influence in letters was at that time very
considerable in Palestine. But it must be remembered that these Greek
terms are few in number, and relate to musical instruments. The
introduction of these terms is not hard to explain. It is known that the
Babylonians were originally not a musical people. They received most
of their ideas of music from other nations. Now, at the time of the
exile Greek culture had already begun to make itself felt in Babylonia,
and it is probable that these musical terms were introduced about that
time. There is nothing more common than to introduce foreign terms
as the names of the instruments that are imported by any people. The
English speaking nations have done this very thing as regards the
names of the musical instruments they have imported from foreign
lands. Hence we have such names as piano, guitar, violin, violincello,
trombone, banjo, etc. In confirmation of our contention, it may be
well to state that traces of Greek influence have been found existing in
Egypt at a period considerably antedating the exile. Mr. Flinders
Petrie says that "Greek names of musical instruments may have been
heard in the courts of Solomon's temple." But it is not necessary to
go back that far to account for the Greek terms in the book of Daniel.
If such terms were known at the time of the return from the captivity,
this is all that is essential to make good our contention.
Of course there are other good and valid reasons which could be
given why the book of Daniel should be regarded as historical and
canonical, but the foregoing are sufficient to show on what a slender
264
The Christian Doctrine of Immortality.
[April,
foundation Dr. Gladden has built his criticisms; for in our summary
nearly all his arguments have been practically answered. What he has
to say of the other "Puzzling Books" is of a piece with his adamadvertions on the book of Daniel. While it is not at all certain that the
"Song of Songs" should be regarded as necessarily a sacred book, at
the same time we can not accept Dr. Gladden's treatment of it, not
withstanding he follows almost slavishly such critics as Ewald, Driver,
Robertson Smith and Griffis.
Doubtless there are difficulties in connection with all the seven
books mentioned as ' ' puzzling. ' ' But the same might be said of any other
seven in the Bible. We can never get rid of difficulties no matter
which way we look. We can find "puzzling" things all through nature.
But such writers as Dr. Gladden not only do not deliver us from the
difficulties, but if we were to accept the conclusions of these writers
then the difficulties would be immeasurably increased. It is better to
"bear the ills we have than to fly to others we know not of." Conserv
ative criticism may not entirely satisfy, but much of the higher criticism
only makes matters worse.
2.
The Christian Doctrine of Immortality. By Stewart D. F.

Salmond, M. A. D. D., Prof, of Theology, Free Church College,
Aberdeen. (Second Edition, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.)
The future life has a strange fascination for most minds. It is more
than probable that a revelation concerning a future life is coeval with
man himself. Indeed, there are strong reasons for believing that some
notion of a future existence was among the earliest convictions of men.
Dr. Salmond follows the historic development of the various notions of
Immortality through the nations of antiquity, but he does not satisfy us
at one particular point. We are inclined to the opinion that the con
viction of a future life greatly degenerated, just as many other things
degenerated, under the influence of evil. At first men were monotheists, and only became polytheists and pantheists after they gave way to
the influence of environment. At least three things are fairly settled
by an appeal to the Scriptures, and they are also coming to be recog
nized as true by honest investigators in every educated circle. We re
fer to the fact of the unity of the race, the unity of language, and the
unity of religion. In our judgmeut, it will not be long until it will be
practically universally admitted that the whole race has descended from a
common parentage, all language has come from one original source,
and all religion has its foundation in the one religion which belonged
1898.]
The Christian Doctrine of Immortality.
265
to primitive man. The conclusion which may be deduced from such a

concession is tar reaching in its influence. The one particular point
suggested, which is available for our present purpose, is the degen
eracy of the race in many important particulars. We think it is more
probable that the savage is the descendant of a much finer type of man
than that the reverse is true. In short we think it is coming to be rec
ognized that the ancient races were superior to the present in many of
the nobler qualities of a true manhood. Consequently, instead of man
descending or ascending from some lower order of the animal kingdom,
the facts mainly go to show that his tendency has been downward rather
than upward, and that his whole history clearly indicates that something
took place, somewhere in the past, not unlike that which is described as
the fall in the garden of Eden. At any rate, it is practically certain that
all the better civilizations of the ancient world held strongly to the doc
trine of a future life, though this doctrine was variously stated, accord
ing to the notions respectively held.
It is coming to be very generally conceded that up to the time of
what is known as the confusion of tongues, the nations were of one lip
and one speech; but when they were scattered from Babel, different lan
guages were evolved, though the root-words show that all these lan
guages have a common parentage. In the different sections into which
men were divided nearly all primitive ideas were modified. The doctrine
of a future life, as it had been communicated to primitive man, had not
only degenerated before the confusion at Babel, but after the confusion
this degeneracy was considerably intensified owing to a growing indis
tinctness of a revelation which had been made at the beginning. Never
theless under all conditions men have retained some idea at least of an
existence after death, and the volume before us is a splendid contribu
tion to the discussion of almost every question involved in a compre
hensive investigation of the doctrine of a future life.
In view of what we have stated, with respect to the origin of the
notion of immortality, some will no doubt think it strange that the Jews
seem to have had little notion of a life after death. This conclusion,
however, is not supported by the facts of the case. It is true that the
Jewish law deals mainly if not exclusively with the present life, but
the reason for this is not far to seek. The Jewish commonwealth was
an arrangement for this life, and consequently the law provided for the
things of the present. However there is no lack of reference to the
future in the teaching of the Psalms and the Prophets, though some
will contend that this notion was the result of association with the Baby
lonians during Israel's captivity. It is quite probable the doctrine of a
future life received considerable emphasis during the captivity, but it is
266
Social Meanings oj Religious Experiences.
[April,
not certain that this resulted from any teaching on that subject which
the Jews received from the Babylonians. There are other causes which
led to the development, or at least to the accentuation of the doctrine in
question. It is scarcely probable that a people with whom the oracles
of God were deposited, in which oracles were found recorded such
cases as the translation of Enoch, would have known little or nothing
about the doctrine of a future life. Nevertheless, it is easy to under
stand how the Jews, in common with other nations, might have shown,
at different times in their history, a special interest in the life after
death ; and it is not at all improbable that their notions with respect to
such a life may have undergone changes, and indeed may have at times
become so perverted as to have been of little value in their civilization.
But no matter how this may have been, it is interesting to note the fact
that we catch the first clear note with respect to the future life after the
resurrection of Christ. The great value of Dr. Salmond's book is that it
gives us the Christian doctrine of immortality in contrast with the vari
ously perverted notions held by the ancients, as well as by the heathen
nations of the present day. We know of no other book equal to this
one in clearness of treatment, fullness of detail, as well as comprehen
siveness of scope. It is thoroughly up to date in scholarship as well
as in every other feature which goes to make up a real contribution to
Eschatology. It is a bookthat must be read and studied in order to
be appreciated ; consequently we can not attempt, in an ordinary book
review, to give even an analysis of its valuable contents. Neverthe
less, we do not hesitate to recommend it to all who may wish to know
the last and best word that has been spoken on a subject of perennial
interest.
j.
Social Meanings of Religious Experiences. By George D.

Herron.
(New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co.,Boston.)
This is the latest volume of four, by the same author and published
by the same house. The other volumes are respectively named "A plea
for the Gospel," "The New Redemption" and "The Christian State
A Political Vision of Christ."
It goes without saying that Prof. Herron is a radical Christian So
cialist; and we believe it will be generally conceded, by those who
give his books a candid and thoughtful examination, that his ideal is a
noble one and reflects much of the Spirit of our Divine Master. In
deed, his aim is so lofty that most persons will think that he is wholly a
dreamer and impracticable. We do not sympathize entirely with this
view. We do not just now discuss Dr. Herron's method of reaching
1898.]
Social Meanings of Religious Experiences.
267
his conclusions, but we think it is worth while to consider much of

what he says as within the range of practical Christianity, whether it
may be made to include practical politics or not. Undoubtedly the
Doctor has a vision of a future society which is altogether inspiring, and
though it should never be realized, it presents an ideal worthy of a great
struggle in order to attain to it. In the present issue of the Quarterly
will be found an article by Dr. Herron which will give our readers a
taste of his quality; and this article will probably stimulate to read
more from his trenchant pen.
Our main difficulty with the Professor is that he seems to be dream
ing about some kind of organization which he names "civilization," but
which practically has neither length, breadth nor thickness in either
Church or state. It is an ideal society without any definite description
of intervening steps by which it can possibly be reached. In this state
ment, of course we do not count "glittering generalities" in which the
Doctor's writings abound. Nor do we count the almost endless denounciations of the present order of things to be found on almost
every page of his books. After making due allowance for much he has
said that is really valuable we are bound to reach the conclusion, that
after all, he leaves us without any clearly defined method by which
his ideal civilization can be reached. One thing, at least, must almost
immediately strike the thoughtful reader. Prof. Herron does not rely
upon the Church to accomplish the work he has in view, nor is his ideal
a state of society where the Church dominates. Like the late Prof.
Drummond, he sees the city without a temple, and therefore the future
society as a state where there will be no Church at all. This, in our
judgment, is the fundamental mistake of all his reasonings. He sep
arates Christ from his Church, and therefore practically severs him from
his body ; and by doing so, leaves the world without any organic rep
resentation of Christ. If we change the figure, his teaching seems to
imply that Christ may dwell here without a house in which to dwell.
But is this the Scriptural idea? Doubtless, a very broad treatment of
some passages which professor Herron quotes may seem to yield the
meaning he gives them ; but we fear that the Doctor's conclusions will
not bear the test of a critical examination. His method of exegesis
does not always go on all fours ; and it is not strange, therefore, that
his conclusion is frequently not found in his premises.
To do the Doctor full justice, it is only fair to say that he seems to
have rejected the Church mainly because of its present unworthiness to
represent the body of Christ. If we understand him correctly, what is
called organized Christianity in the present day is with the Dr. or
ganized failure, if not something considerably worse. Anyway, taking
268
Social Meanings of Religious Experiences.
[April,
the Church as a whole, he evidently has very little use for it. Prob
ably in much of his contention, with respect to the weakness of our pres
ent day, divided Christianity, he is correct. But we can not agree with
him, on this account, that the Church described in the New Testament
is not the organization which represents Christ's society on earth. Our
socialism, and we believe it is Christs socialism, is precisely co-extensive
with Christ's Church and its influence. We do not say that only those
in his society must be regarded as belonging to his socialism, but we do
say that it is through this society that the world must be redeemed and
made what it ought to be. Consequently, instead of finding fault with the
Church of Christ, because our modern Christianity does not properly
represent that Church, our contention is that the thing to do is to make
that Church according to the New Testament pattern. In other words,
if Prof. Herron would turn his attention to the reproduction of the New
Testament Church instead of aiming at something he calls civilization,
in which he would include such men as John Stuart Mill (though they
do not believe in Christ at all) it seems to us, he would at once strike the
right line by which we are to reach the ideal society which he has so
graphically described.
One thing, however, should be very strongly emphasized. The
high spirit of consecration, the noble self-sacrifice and the generous be
nevolence which the Doctor everywhere advocates can not be too
strongly commended. In this respect nearly everything he says is a
note of inspiration. He talks like a prophet. His struggles to over
throw selfishness are worthy of the highest praise. From this point of
view his books must have a very elevating influence, and when study
ing him from this point of view, one practically loses sight of his some
what doubtful theories of an organized society. Though a pronounced
socialist, every utterance along the lines we now have under considera
tion is .in the interest of the most radical individualism; so that, after
all, in the last analysis, Dr. Herron is an individualist, as every socialist
must necessarily be unless he is wholly illogical in his reasoning. The
way to socialism is to make each individual right, and then, by uniting
these individuals in that organization which Christ himself devised, we
can go on to that co-operative work which practically has no end until
the world is brought under the dominion of Christ.
It is just here where we think much of modern socialism is at fault;
and while Dr. Herron has no sympathy with a Godless or Christless so
cialism, which is advocated by many, he, nevertheless, seems to us to
fail at a very crucial point. While he makes Christ the center of his
system he seems to practically ignore the teaching of the Apostles, ex
cept where they do not appear to antagonize his views. He has evi
1898. ]
A History of Christianity in the Aiwstolic Age.
269
dently failed to understand the statement of Luke, in the beginning o

the Book of Acts, that Christ only ilbegan to do and teach" certain
things while on earth, and that consequently the Apostolic ministry
was a continuation, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, of what
Christ "began to do and teach" before His ascension. In short, he
does not seem to understand that while Christ was on earth he did not
attempt any organized society, except what related to His Apostles,
and, that this fact in no way teaches that He did not contemplate and
provide for an organized society after he had ascended to the Father.
Indeed, it is very clear from His teaching that this is precisely what He
had in view, and that such a society followed is evidence that we do
not mistake His anticipation. Hence, we conclude, that it is a poor
compliment to Christ when we confine our estimate of Him entirely to
the representations of him in the four Gospels. We need to see Christ
in his organized Church and to hear what He has to say while He is
continuing to "do and to teach" through his body as the exponent of
a fuller development of His great mission to the world.
4. A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. By Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph. D., D. D., Washburn. Professor of
Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York,
pp. XXII, 672. (New York, Charles Scribners' Sons, 1897.)
This volume is the fifth in the International Theological Library.
The former volumes had awakened a keen interest in the work as a
whole, and Prof. McGiffert's contribution to the series admirably sus
tains, if it does not elevate, the standard of scholarly work already set.
Perhaps it is not too much to say that the book constitutes the most im
portant contribution to its subject made during the present century, and
certainly adds credit to American scholarship. The whole field of New
Testament Christianity is traversed with a careful and scholarly treat
ment. The chapters are devoted to the Origin of Christianity, Prim
itive Jewish Christianity, the Christianity of Paul, the Work of Paul,
the Christianity of the Church at Large, and the Developing Church.
The citation of authorities and the use of the latest helps in New Tes
tament research make the volume a storehouse of information for stu
dents of every class. By no means all the conclusions of Prof. McGiffert
will be approved by any considerable number of his readers. For in
a work that cuts across the current of accepted belief at so many points,
there will surely be found much that can not be received without care
ful consideration. Perhaps in this feature lies one of the chief advan
tages of the book. It is sure to compel earnest thought, and if the re
270
A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. [April,
suit should be a revision of some things formerly held, modern Chris

tianity has nothing to lose and every thing to gain by the process. Per
haps the most satisfactory chapter in the book is that which discusses
the Christianity of Paul, and more sympathetic treatment of the leading
ideas of the great Apostle could scarcely be imagined. The profound
influence which Paul exercised upon early Christianity, an influence
however unfortunately far less than might have been expected, and far
too brief in its duration, is sketched with great skill. The two diver
gent types of Christian doctrine, that of Paul and that of the church at
large, form an interesting theme for consideration. The contrast does
not result from any attempt on the part of the church to reject the
Pauline view, but from its general failure to understand the profound
character of his teachings concerning Jesus. The influence of Paul,
however, is traced in much of the New Testament literature, partic
ularly in i Peter, which is attributed to Barnabas, and in Hebrews,
whose author is not even suggested. The criticism of the book of Acts
is less satisfactory than that of Ramsey in his notable contributions of
recent years. Prof. McGiffert dissents from the usual view of the
Lukan authorship, as well as from the view that the author of the "We"'
passages and of the book at large are the same. It is perhaps at this point
that the volume is least satisfactory. However, valuable contributions
are made to an understanding of the relation between the author of
Acts and Paul. Prof. McGiffert points out the many instances in
which the writer of Acts fails in his acquaintance with the movements
of Paul and the events of his work, and finds it difficult to believe that
the author could have been a close personal friend of the Apostle.
One of the most notable features of the book is its reconstruction
of the chronology of Paul's life, substantially agreeing as it does with
the conclusions of Harnack and Weizsacker. In general Prof. McGiffert's scheme throws the different events in the life of Paul much earlier
than has usually been done. His conclusion is that the conversion is to
be placed as early as 31, the return to Jerusalem after three years, in
34. The visit mentioned in Galatians 2:1 and Acts 15, fourteen years
after the conversion, in the year 45. He makes the final journey to
Rome occur in 56, by a reconstruction of the historical data concerning
the administration of Festus, and the death of the Apostle he puts in
5S, almost a decade earlier than the date usually assigned, which is the
time of the Neronian persecution. The two visits to Jerusalem men
tioned respectively in Acts 11 and 15 he identifies, being unable, as he
says, to believe that a journey could have been made between that set
down in Acts 9 : 26, to which Paul alludes in Gal. 1:15, and that in Acts
15 to which Paul refers in Gal. 2:1. This conclusion is reached in view
1898.]
A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age.
271
of Paul's manifest intention to emphasize the fact that he had not had
opportunities for conference with the Apostles between the two visits,
which is at variance with such a visit as is chronicled in Acts n. But
there seems to be serious difficulty in identifying the two visits of Acts
ii and 15, among which may be mentioned the fact that John Mark is
said to have accompanied the returning Apostles (Acts 13:25) an<^ we
know that he went with them on their first mentioned journey (Acts
13:13) which preceded the visit to Jerusalem set down in Acts 15.
Ramsey identified Acts 11 and Gal. 2, but separated Acts 11 and 15,
and regarded the latter as referring to still another and later visit. But
nothing is clearer than that Acts 15 and Gal. 2 refer to the same events.
It seems better, all things considered, to accept the view of Neander,
Meyer and Lightfoot that Paul was commissioned to go to Jerusalem
with Barnabas on the occasion mentioned in Acts 11, and started thither,
but for some unexplained reason failed to reach the city, while Luke,
finding the record of the appointment in his sources, drew the natural
conclusion that both Paul and Barnabas made the journey. Regarding
Prof. McGiffert's chronology of the life of Paul, it may be remarked
that there is force in his assignment of Paul's conversion to a period
much nearer the death of our Lord. But there is not adduced sufficient
ground for changing the ordinarily accepted chronology of the later
years of his life, and it is perhaps better to hold to the view that his
death occurred under Nero, whether or not one holds to the conjectural
period of his release and subsequent missionary labors after his first im
prisonment. Prof. McGiffert places the Epistle to the Galatians earli
est in the list of the Apostolic writings, making it date about 46 just
after the beginnings of the second missionary journey. This is a novel
and somewhat attractive arrangement, but the arguments in its favor
are not convincing.
The discussion of the Johannine writings is interesting and suggest
ive. It is set down as an unquestionable fact that the author of the
Apocalypse could^not be the author of the Gospel and the First Epistle.
The former is placed, therefore, in the time of Domitian, and the later
works somewhere in the closing part of the century Of the authorship
of the Apocalypse he says: "All that we can certainly say then, is that
he was a Christian prophet of Jewish birth but of universalistic princi
ples, whose name was John, and who resided in Asia, and that he was
thoroughly familiar with the condition of all the churches addressed,
and thoroughly at home among them." It may have been John the
Apostle, or it may have been John the Presbyter. He believes the
author of the Gospel and of 1 John was the same. Of the former, he
says it contains a large body of genuine Apostolic matter, and though
272
A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. [April,
the picture of Christ is one-sided, its several features are in the main
trustworthy, and though the discourses in the form in which we have
them, are the composition of the author, they embody Christ's genuine
teaching. So much we can be sure of, even though we ascribe the
Gospel to a disciple of John instead of John himself, and more than
this it is impossible to claim even if we ascribe the Gospel to John.
The second Epistle of Peter is made the only pseudonymous work in
the New Testament, dating from the second century.
No system of brief extracts or random statements can possibly do
justice to the scholarly and earnest character of the book. It is a vol
ume that should be on the table of every one who desires to be in posession of the best helps concerning the Apostolic age, as its wealth of
citation makes it a compendium of the opinions of the best authorities
of recent years. Those who least agree with some of the positions
taken will feel indebted to Dr. McGiffert for a fresh and candid treat
ment of the most interesting period in history. In conclusion it may
be of interest to quote the author's remarks on baptism in the early
church, both because they reveal his unbiased position, and because they
serve to illustrate the temper of the book throughout:
"The ordinary mode of baptism in the apostolic age was immer
sion, as is proved not only by Paul's figure in Rom. 6:3 and 1 Cor.
10:2, but also by the 'Teaching of the Apostles.' The latter prescribes
immersion in ordinary cases, but allows pouring under exceptional cir
cumstances, when water is not at hand in sufficient quantity to permit
baptism by the former mode. It may safely be inferred from this that
while from the beginning baptism was commonly by immersion, the es
sential feature of the rite was the use of water and not the mode of its
use, and that such an exception as is made in the 'Teaching of the
Apostles' would have been generally recognized as valid. To assert
that in the time of the apostles particular stress was laid upon the ex
ternal form in connection with such a rite is to run counter to all that
we know of the temper of the age. The insistence upon form began
early, to be sure, but it did not mark the earliest stage in Christian his
tory.
"Whether infants were baptized in the apostolic age we have no
means of determining. Where the original idea of baptism as a bap
tism of repentance, or where Paul's profound conception of it as a
symbol of the death and resurrection of the believer with Christ pre
vailed, the practice would not be likely to arise. But where the rite
was regarded as a mere sign of one's reception into the Christian circle,
it would be possible for the custom to grow up under the influence of
the ancient idea of the family as a unit in religion as well as in all other
1898.]
With Feet on Earth.
273
matters. Before the end of the second century, at any rate, the cus
tom was common, but it did not become universal until a much later
time."
Herbert L. Willett.
j.
With Feet on Earth. Charles M. Skinner. (J. B. Lippincott

& Co., Philadephia, Pa.)
The author of this book is a thoughtful rambler who takes the high
est delight in a knapsack and a stretch of road. He has a roving and
philosophic eye, and a genial, sage opinion. He has learned that invaluabe lesson that "man wants but little here below." Give him a
good thick stick and a vigorous companion and you may turn him loose
anywhere on this rugged planet. We have been entranced while read
ing his thoughts, so much so, that his book became favored by increas
ing the list of our holiday presents. He is as happy in his utterance
as Jerome K. Jerome and can one say anything better of him ? Some
of his chapters head up as follows: "Night Tramps," "Humbugs in
Science," "A Tramp's Outfit," "The Rustler's Conscience" etc., etc.
The book is full of shrewd reflections, nor is it void of most excellent
counsel to young men who have their way to make in life. At times
one is reminded of "An Attic Philosopher." There are the same caustic
critcisms, and little side hits. It is a book for an idle hour, and bears
about the same relation to outdoor nature as Miss Repplier's books
do to the literary life. Both indicate, at every turn, a supreme mastery
of their respective fields. Such books are not produced except by
thoroughly equipped brains and devoted hearts. The wine of life is in
them. They are the very fruit of observation and rapt thought. One
of the noticeable features about such books is their freedom from crank
iness or from partizanship. All the world is their stage and every man
a brother. It gives us great pleasure to testify to the purity and pleas
ing impressions belonging to this work and we can wish anyone no
greater joy than the health and vigor of its versatile author.
J. W. Monser.
FOREIGN.
J.
Philipp Melanchthon. Akademische Festrede ; gehalten zur

Melanchthon-Feier, Am. 16. Februar, 1897, an der Universitaet
Berlin. " Von Professor D. Adolf Harnack.
Philipp Melanchthon. An academic address, delivered on the occasion

of the celebration of the four hundredth anniversary of MelanchVol. 29
274
Philipp Melanchthon.
[April,
thon's birth, at the University of Berlin. By Professor Dr. Adolt

Harnack. Berlin, 1897.
Philipp Melanchthon was born in what is now the Grand-duchy of
Baden, on the sixteenth of February, 1497; this year, therefore, cele
brates the four hundredth anniversary of his birth. All Protestant Ger
many has been filled with an enthusiastic memory of the great reformer,
for such he was in the full sense of the word. With the exception only
of Luther himself, none of the eminent living factors in the great Saxon
reformation exercised so potent and widespread an influence in giving
power and character to this mighty spiritual and moral revolution, as did
Melanchthon. The surface readers of the history of this most moment
ous event in modern history, can not understand the real significance of
this man as an agent in developing and in giving character to the
Lutheran reform. Melanchthon did not, like Luther, stand forth in
first prominence before the world as a reformer; his voice was not
heard like that of the mighty Saxon Hercules, "roaring like a lion,"
as he himself said of Luther, so as to be heard all over Christendom.
"Master Philipp" was a very modest, humble man; he longed to be
always in the shadow of "Dr. Luther," the royal leader of "the host
of the Lord" which was battling for God, his Christ, and his truth.
Nevertheless, this unpretending, retiring "friend of Luther" was a
giant in intellectual strength, in learning, in devotion to the true interests
of God's cause. No man labored more diligently, more thoroughly,
and more effectively to further the great reformation than he. It is only
they who have penetrated into the depth of the inner life of those
immortal days, that know the true place and merit of Melanchthon in
the mighty regenerating movement of the sixteenth century. No one
understood "Master Philipp" better than Luther, no one as well as he;
no one as well as the great reformer himself, knew his true indispensa
ble worth to the glorious cause to which the hearts of them both, and of
multitudes of other noble men were devoted for life and for death.
It is always true in the history of mankind, that there are periods
when, because of the predominance of other interests, the great deeds,
the eminently fruitful lives of illustrious men of the past are allowed to
fall into partial forgetfulness and neglect. But there are also always
sure again to come days when men are brought to reverse their vision,
and to see once more rising up before them the mighty forms of the
past and to study them with an intensity ot interest never vouchsafed to
them before. Indeed, these heroes of a former age, who fought the
great conflicts for God and humanity, and won the sublime victories, the
fruits of which we now enjoy, are better seen and more truly appre
ciated by later generations often when, after periods of neglect, potent
1898.]
Philipp Melanchthon.
275
causes have awakened in the minds and hearts of men a new extraordi
nary interest in their personalities and their history.
So it is with Melanchthon. The present year has witnessed an
extraordinary revival, in Germany and other Protestant lands of the Old
Continent, of interest in Melanchthon. Men can see better now than
at any earlier period the effect of Melanchthon's life and labors on Ger
many, and on Protestantism generally. It has come to the men of the
Old Fatherland to study again with renewed diligence what it was,
indeed, that gave to the companion of Luther the title of Praeceptor
Germaniae"The Teacher of Germany." What was Melanchthon to
the great reformation ? and what has he done for the intellectual, the
literary culture of Germany? are the questions which, during the cur
rent year, have stirred to its very heart the Protestant theologians and
scholars of the great Fatherland.
Of Melanchthon's works valuable parts have been republished. A
number of lives of him have been written ; innumerable addresses by emi
nent men, and a multitude of brochures treating of him, have literally
deluged Germany. One of the very best of these "Festival Addresses"
is the one named at the head of this notice.
The Protestant universities of the Fatherland have been foremost
in celebrating the memory of Melanchthon in his work as a theologian,
and as the preceptor of Germany in giving impulse, direction, and
organization to higher education.
Professor Harnack, of the University of Berlin, stands in the front
ranks of theological professorsunfortunately not in the right "camp,"
as they say in Germany. He is a man of extraordinary power in learn
ing, literary culture, and intellectual force. This address on Melanch
thon is remarkable for its depth and breadth of thought, and its elo
quence ; its diction is superb.
"To teach the regenerated Christianity," says Harnack, "and to
maintain it in union with the culture of his age, was Melanchthon's '
task since the year 1525 ; he carried it on under the eyes of Luther for
fourteen years after that date."
"The work of theology was in reality not his inner passion; he
devoted himself to it in obedience to the categorical imperative of duty.
It was the systematic pedagogical formulation of theology that attracted
him ; his real inclination was to his accustomed philological studies. If
ever a man felt the burden of his theological task, it was he ; but he
knew that no one could relieve him of his labor ; therefore he stood to
his post to the end."
"In the forefront stands for him also the pure Gospel, the reno
vated Christianity with its assurance of faith and inner life, and there
276
Philipp Melanchton.
[April,
fore also the right and duty of the individual man to appropriate it with
out priestly intervention. Like Luther, he is profoundly penetrated
with the thought that this is the real problem of the age, and in Luther
he sees and reverences the leader and prophet. But alongside of this
he has returned to his first love, and is convinced that classical antiquity
has wrought out and developed immense treasures, namely, a wellordained, natural, and scientific recognition of God and man, firm
moral rules of right, and a sure method of discovering and presenting
truth. If this glorious treasure, that alone protects us against barbarism
and moral decay, is not to be lost, then it becomes our duty to unite with
it the cause of regenerated Christianity. The newly acquired inner rela
tion to the invisible must receive its complete formative development in
the world of thought and action with the help of the forces which
humanity has elaborated for itself in its classical periods. 'Sapiens et
eloquens pietas'*in this watchword all ideals are embraced. From
piety in alliance with the languages and the sciences, a stream of civil
izing effects is to pour forth over all life and all forms of social order."
"But the great teacher in whose hands everything became didactic
a subject of instruction, religion not less than poetrynot only taught,
he also created and fashioned. Never was the calling of the man ot
learning, of the professor, conceived more ideal and greater, never
realized more worthily ; and therefore, he not only collected around him
hearers, but he also reared, cultivated for himself real scholars. That
the vocation of the teacher must call forth a moral, cultured community
of those striving after great ends ; that the man of learning must stand
to the man of learning in the relation of a friend ; that a community of
all those teaching in the service of science, was not a mere dream, but
an attainable ideal, was to him a certainty. With this purpose he
labored, and drew to himself his students as well as every scholar, as
friends in personal intercourse(nothing with him was more precious
than a docta and arnica confabulatio)and in his immensely rich corres
pondence. Many thousands of letters from him are already known,
and the number is constantly increasing."
In my library at my side stand eight large double-columned quar
tos, a part of the Corpus Reformatorum, filled chiefly with Melanchthon's letters, most of them written in his elegant Latin, many in rude
German, and a few in Greek.
Well did Luther say of this wonderful man Ubi Philippus, ibi
Viteberga; "where Philipp is, there is Wittenberg."
* i. t.t first piety ; but a piety armed with the hnowledge and eloquence(the power of thought
and expression)which classic culture imparts. C. L. L.
1898.]
Das Buck Jesus.
277
In fulness of heart we exclaim, in leaving the task before us, Have^

have doeta et fia anima, have Praeceptor Germaniae!
Chas. Louis Loos.
2.
Das Buch Jesus. Die Urevangelien, neu nachgewiesen, neu

uebersetzt, geordnet und aus den Ursprachen erklaert. Von
Wolfgang Kirchbach.
The Book Jesus. The original gospels newly verified, newly trans
lated, arranged and expounded from the original tongues. By
Wolfgang Kirchbach. Berlin, 189S; pp. 1S0.
It is instructive to true believers to know what radical criticism, a
system of judgment based entirely on an extremely rationalistic concep
tion of things, is making out of the Bible. At a distance there is a sort
of captivating charm, a luminous nimbus, around the thought that
everything now, divine as well as human, is to be subjected to the sov
ereign decision of reason. It flatters human pride that the human
intellect is the supreme arbiter of all things ; that it is the court of final
decision, from which there is no appeal, and to which everything must
bow in earth and heaven.
There is a class of men in the ranks of Christians, of "theologians"
especially, who regard it a glorious day of "the emancipation of the
human mind" from the fetters of "the traditional incubus of the past"
that is the favorite expression, I believethe dawn of "the day of
loftiest liberty," when we demand and exercise the right to "overhaul
anew and in a radical way" the whole Bible with everything in it, text,
history, doctrine, precept, morals, by the "keen search-light" of "mod
ern science," of "the emancipated human thought." "The dead past
must be buried ;" "a new order of things' inaugurated by Jove," i. e.,
by the God human reason "begins upon the earth." Very well! we
shall see what the maturest results of this radical criticism in its eman
cipated freedom and wisdom will be and now is in its work on the
Bible ; we shall learn to what end this outrageous, licentious perversion
of the magnificent science of Biblical criticism will bring us.
The author of the book named at the head of this notice is a man
of some ability and learning. This book is the second of this sort from
his hand. He proceeds upon the ground assumed by the radical critics
relative to the Old Testament and the New, that the common texts of
these collections are corruptions, a sort of chaos in which the genuine
is lost in a submerging, confusing mass of traditions, often very puerile,
the work of later hands, from which the critic, by the light of his own
278
Das Buch Jesus.
[April,
subjective judgment chiefly, must seek out with much labor and inge
nuity the true material and by means of it construct by himself and for
himself the genuine historical facts, the true doctrine taughtin fine
from which confused accumulation of mingled truth and falsehood he
is to reconstruct the real original documents. Indeed, as in the gos
pels, the original documents were themselves, these critics hold, a mass
of misconceptions on the part of their authors, and it is our task to-day
by the light of our own critical discernment to discover and separate
the pure gold from the gross dross. And this is the spirit and purpose
of Kirchbach's book to which he has given the simple title "Jesus."
The author's claim, as everywhere declared in both his books, is
to disengage from our present gospels the "Urevangelien," i.
the
original gospels, and thus to discover the true history of Jesus, his
genuine teachings, and then to expound these in a rational way, free
from the traditional misconceptions and prejudices which through the
Christian ages have darkened and perverted this history and these
teachings. It is certainly strange that, from the beginning of Christian
times to this late day, the whole Church has so signally failed to get
hold of these "Urevangelien" and to understand rightly the true life
and teachings of Jesus ; and that it was left to the radical critics of the
nineteenth century to find out what the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments really are, and to reach the true import of their teaching.
But such actually is the argument of Kirchbach's books. On the life
of Jesus he says :
"No attentive reader of the preceding "Book Jesus," who remem
bers so many traditions and legends which are found in the so-called
'gospels'attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but written
in later timeswill doubt that a great part of the events which are
related of Jesus' life are but highly colored enlargements of original
facts, and legendary expansions of sententious precepts and parables
which the foregoing part of this 'book of teachings' contains in the
true form in which the Hebrew rabbi Jesus would give them and doubt
less gave them. We at once recognize that, e.g., the story of the
denial of Jesus by Peter and of the crowing of the cock rests upon a
verbal acceptation of the figurative teaching used by Jesus to set forth
the mystery of the human conscience. In like manner many a miracu
lous healing attributed to Jesus is only an anecdotical coloring of a
parable and of a figurative expression which Jesus used in his teaching.
It has become evident that these legendary biographers, who regarded
Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, proceeded in the following manner,
especially the later authors of the book of Matthew and of the book of
John." Then he proceeds to describe how these writers used the figura
tive and symbolical, sententious teachings of Jesus to build up on
1898.]
Das Buch Jesus.
279
them, as a foundation, actual historical events. The impersonal para

bles of Jesus, in which he merely speaks in the name of Wisdom, they
made personal, and figure and symbol in his discourse they turned into
facts. From this extreme misrepresentation of Jesus and his teaching
by the evangelists, these radical critics, through a process of "subjec
tive expurgation" and purification, create an entirely new Bible for us,
historical, doctrinal, and preceptive; everything superhuman, the mi
raculous element, of course, is entirely cast out. And this product,
this new book, we are to understand, is the only true Bible. Many a
century, however, we venture to think, will pass away before the old
venerated Book of God will be thus successfully transformed, and this
expurgated Bible replace the old one in the faith and hearts of believers.
As to the person of Jesus himself, the following quotations will
give an idea of the manner in which this higher critic Kirchbach has
conceived him :
"Who then was this Jewish poet-rabbi and wandering teacher, to
whom we owe this splendid system of doctrine?
Doubtless he was the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth. But just as we
know of the great poet Shakespeare, who lived only three hundred
years ago, but little that can serve for a biography, so also only the
following reliable facts are known to us about Jesus of Nazareth, drawn
partly from the legendary records, partly from history : Tacitus, the
great and trustworthy Roman historian, who wrote only forty years
after the death of Jesus, testifies in his Annals that there actually lived
in Palestine a person, a man, who was regarded as a Christ. The his
torian Josephus also confirms the existence of this Jesus or Jeshu of
Nazareth.
The following may be considered as historical : Jesus or Jeshu
Ben-Joseph of Nazareth was the legitimate first born son of the archi
tect Joseph, who we have good ground to believe was the son of one
Jacob, of whom we know nothing further. The legend makes Joseph
a 'carpenter,' since naturally every house builder in Judaea employed
carpenters.
This 'tekton' was by his very office a cultivated man of
good condition in life; for we can trace the fact in the entire Old Tes
tament that the architects in Palestine occupied a high and honorable
position. It is natural that the son of this cultivated architect also
early enjoyed the advantages of a good school, most likely at Nazareth,
a city not far from the lake of Genezareth, the so-called Sea of Gali
lee. Whether the family lived for a long time before in Bethlehem,
separated from Nazareth only by a mountain ridge, and Jesus was born
there, and the architect had gone from that place to Egypt with his
wife Mary or Miriam, is difficult to determine. But it is highly im
probable ; for the story of a slaughter of children in Bethlehem, that
280
Das Buck Jesus.
[April,
led to a flight into Egypt, belongs to the domain of fable. So natur

ally do also the attractive, poetical legends of the child in the manger,
of the Magi from the East, the fabulous character of which strikes us
at first sight. Some of these fictions are doubtless from the Indian and
Buddhist cycle of legends, others are expansions of ancient Jewish
legendary tales.
At that time there appears an Essaean wandering preacher, whose
Essaeism is at once detected in his garb of camel's hair and the
leathern girdle about his loins.To him Jesus came.
It is therefore historically correct that Jesus was a disciple of John,
and that he also accepted the external sign of a change of mind and
self-emancipation (from Jewish bondage to law and tradition) in the
rite of baptism. And probably through this discipleship he was intro
duced by the Essaean John into the mysteries of the books that pass
under the names of Isaiah, Daniel, Sirach, and Ezekiel, and thus
learned to read and interpret them correctly, evidences of which are
found in his conception of the 'manna,' and his enlargement of the
Danielan fanciful notion of 'the Son of man.'
The books of Moses and the Psalms were already known to
him as they were to every Jew."
Such is an example of this critic's reconstruction of the evangel
ical history of Jesus.
The first and greatest part of the bookalmost the whole of itis
occupied with the author's exposition of the teachings of Jesus ; his
conception of these is extremely fanciful, entirely different from that
found in our evangelists. Kirchbach calls Jesus throughout a "Lehrdichter," a didactic poet, *. e., a gnomic teacher after the manner of
Solomon or Siracides in their books of proverbial wisdom.
The following specimens will suffice to show how the teachings of
Christ can be unceremoniously distorted out of all shape and meaning
by this system of subjective, arbitrary exposition.
"The Teacher says: 'Who is my mother and who are my breth
ren? Behold my mother and my brethren! For every one that exe
cutes the law of the will of my primeval cause in the All, himself is my
brother and sister and mother.' Matt. 12:48-50.
What does this mean ?
The deepest relationship of all men, of the human family, of the
universal fraternity of humanity, lies in this: That we fulfill the great
moral law of nature, which rules in the All, as a law of the primeval
cause of the world.
'Tome has been delivered all authority in the All and on the earth.
Go forth, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the primeval cause, and of that which has come forth from it, and
1898.]
Das Buch Jesus.
281
of the holy spirit; and teach them to observe everything which I have
committed to you! And, lo! I am with you for all days to the eter
nal consummation.'
What does this mean?
We must, in the name of the primeval cause, in the name of cre
ated Nature and of the spirit of humanity in it, in the name of the
spirit of truth, which is the holy one, bear this doctrine to all nations,
for in it is the authority, the freedom of all good for the world. And
to the eternal consummation this doctrine will be with us, and more
and more bring all coming generations to this consummation.Bap
tism, as the sign of inner change of mind, was the external symbol of
the well-understood and accepted teaching in our spirit.
The teaching says :
'You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt becomes insipid,
wherewith shall we salt? It is henceforth good for nothing but to be
cast out and to be trodden under foot of men. You are the light of
the universe. A city situated on a hill can not be hidden. Neither do
men light a candle and put it under a measure, but on a candle-stand,
and it gives light to all in the house. Thus, also, your light shall shine
openly before men, that they may see your excellent works and praise
your primeval cause in the all.' Matt. 5:13-16.
What does this mean ?
'Man is the salt of this earth and the light of the Universe, t. e.,
he is the best that the world has brought forth ; yea, he is, so to speak, the
very mind of nature. If this mind, this intelligence, this salt become
insipid and dull, of what value then can be the whole world? Man
should therefore remain clear and sharp in his intelligence. And the
good which he does he should accomplish in this sense, that it may also
enlighten others and strengthen them in a faith in the divine which
works in the all.' "
After this fashion all the teachings of Jesus are interpreted.
According to Kirchbach, while Jesus is represented, and represents
himself, as speaking personally, he speaks actually in the name of
impersonal Wisdom, as the teacher in the Proverbs of Solomon also
speaks, in the first and eighth chapters of that book. By "My Father
in Heaven," Jesus, i. e., Wisdom, means the primeval cause, and him
self, as Wisdom, the emanation that proceeds from it. The "All" is the
"heavens and the earth," the universe, the Hebrew olam.
And is this the Jesus of the New Testament, whom Christians
have believed in, and loved and obeyed and followed as disciples, and
hoped in for eternal life for two thousand years? Is this the Jesus we
are to preach to the world as a personal, living, eternal, glorified
Savior? And is this the gospel, and this the doctrine of Christ we are
to teach to the world? No! this is the Jesus this annihilating radical
criticism proudly offers us in exchange for the one the evangelists and
the apostles have given us !
Chas. Louis Loos.
282
On Slipperiness.
[April,
ROUND TABLE.
On Slipperiness.Recently as we drew our [chair up to this genial table the
boys were dashing down the road helter-skelter on skates to school. It had been
raining and freezing all night and the ways were slippery. Hence this style of
locomotion. There is a facility about sliding here and there that has an element
of fatality in it. It is unquestionably a rapid transit. One glides along with
speed and momentum. But ever and anon a stone or stick protrudes to catch
the toe. And, then what about slopes? Try it, you whose joints are somewhat
stiff and tell me if you do not prefer the bare dry road !
There are other ways altogether too slippery. Although one may natter
himself that he is "getting the start of the majestic world" it is only a momentary
delusion. Paths, level and safe, are not to be scoffed at. There is a sense of allrightness in traversing them that gives confidence. Others have been before you
and beaten out a sure path. The journey has done honor to the man Some
ways were rugged; some distant and drudging; but they were worthy thorough
fares and you walked in them with joy. There were no slidings nor backslidings.
The thump of the soul at a sudden fall entered not into the experience of your
life, nor the keen pain that resulted from some spiritual fracture. Some people
glide on at a continual loss. On occasion they appear superb in their gait, but
there is no telling the moral outcome. Really one does not know that himself.
His route is one of risks. It is at best, but a dash at the unknown, and, at last,
one becomes the victim of his own rash venture. It is not, as often, the unex
pected. The prediction has come to pass. "Their way shall be unto them as
slippery ways in the darkness; they shall be driven on and fall therein."
J. W. M.
Divine Fatherhood.It is not surprising that our exposition of the Scrip
tural doctrine concerning the Fatherhood of God has not received universal com
mendation. It is one of the strange features of modern Biblical criticism that
the doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of God is seriously accepted by not a few
who claim to have rediscovered a great truth which has been for ages covered up
in the smoke of Babylon. That we are not overstating the case one has only to
read such works as Dr. Fairbain's admirable book, in many respects, entitled
"The Place of Christ in Modern Theology," and Dr. Watson's "The Mind of
the Master," to be convinced that the doctrine referred to is regarded as funda
mental in any Theology worthy of the Nineteenth century.
Now all depends upon what is meant by Fatherhood. If what is meant is
simply the fact that God, in a metaphorical sense, may be regarded as the Father
of all men, then certainly this is no new discovery, for throughout all ages of the
Church such a relationship has been recognized. In this sense God is called a
"Shepherd," but no one would certainly reach the conclusion from this fact that
men are sheep in any literal understanding of the term. No doubt because men
are God's creation, and because He has a providential care over them, it is proper
enough to regard Him as potentially their Father. But this is not what is meant
by Dr. Fairbairn, Dr. Watson, and others who claim that they have made a new
discovery. They mean that we are God's children by virtue of an actual rela
1898.]
Divine Fatherhood.
283
tionship which we sustain to God such as a child sustains to its natural father.
In other words these able critics to use Dr. Fairborn's language contend that God
is Father of all men not in a merely figurative but in as real a sense as any that
can be imagined. He says "Fatherhood did not come through creation, but
rather creation because of Fatherhood." Dr. Watson does not accept the notion
that God's Fatherhood expresses a physical relationship, but only a relationship
which is ethical. Now this is making matters worse. Undoubtedly all men do
not occupy the right ethical relationship towards God, but if sonship depends
upon this, then it is simply certain that the Fatherhood of God can not be uni
versal in the ethical sense. Yet this is the only sense in which it would be proper
to say that any one is a child of God.
When we come to study carefully the Scriptures it is not difficult to determine
that they, at least, do not teach an ethical universal sonship. Indeed, there are
passages which clearly slap this notion squarely in the face. We might quote
many of these but one will suffice our present purpose. Certain of the Jews, dis
puting, said to Him "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even
God." The reply of Jesus is very significant. He said "If God were your Father
you would love me; and He afterwards adds "Ye are of your Father the Devil."
Now here are persons whom Jesus practically declares are not God's children,
and as if to make His statement doubly strong He clinches it by affirming that
their Father is the Devil. It would be difficult, we think, to find a passage more
explicit than this on any question of importance. Undoubtedly the whole rela
tionship discussed in these statements of Christ is purely ethical, and that is pre
cisely the way in which the Fatherhood of God is always regarded when it is dis
cussed in reference to His children.
Certainly no one can claim to be a child of God in precisely the same sense
that Jesus was. This being conceded, then there are only two other ways in
which God can be regarded as Father. One is in the metaphorical sense to which
reference has already been made, and the other the ethical sense which we believe
is exactly the point of view from which our Divine Lord views the matter when
ever He refers to it at all.
But we are curious to know how this last view may be regarded as anything
new. It has certainly been the doctrine of Christian teachers throughout all ages
of the Church; and all the talk about the Fatherhood of God being a contribution
of the latter part of the Nineteenth century to Theology has really no foundation
in fact. There are philosophical reasons against the notion that God must be re
garded as the Father of the race in the sense of the relation between Father and
child, but we can do little more than hint at these reasons now. A single thought
will be sufficently suggestive to the reader. If the notion should be maintained
then evidently every man would have to regard himself as having two Fathers in
practically the same sense. But this is not the way God talks to His creatures.
However it is very beautifully true that God uses the relation between father and
child to illustrate and enforce the ethical relation which He sustains to all those
who are His children. Hence we are told that "like as a Father pitieth his chil
dren, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him." Of course it would be easy to say
many more things on this somewhat important subject, but we deem it unneces
sary to press the matter any further at present. Sometime, within the near
future, it is hoped that the whole subject may receive a treatment which will prac"
tically settle the question, so far as Scriptural teaching is concerned; and, so far
as those, who make their imagination supply the facts they use, are concerned, it
284
The Church Music Question.
[April,
is not possible, we suppose, to say anything that would be satisfactory to such a

class. Anyway we think it would be a profitable discussion that would give a
comprehensive treatment of the whole question of the Fatherhood of God and the
brotherhood of man. We hope that one of our ablest scribes will undertake this
task and give us the results of his investigation in an article for the Quarterly.
The Church Music Question.The Church music question will not down.
It is not a question of organ or anti-organ. That has been fairly thrashed out,
and, excepting such cases as have no real bearing upon the right or wrong of
using the organ, there can be no discussion from the organ point of view. But
there are matters of a practical character, in connection with the use of organs in
Churches, which lie outside of its casuistical relationship. It may be perfectly
right, from an ethical standpoint, to use the organ, while, at the same time, it
may be very unwise from another point of view. The introduction of an organ
takes with it a number of other things. In any case there must be some one to
play it, and in many Churches there is no one who is capable of playing it as it
should be played, if it is to be worth anything at all as a help in the music. In
such cases it is necessary to go outside of the Church to secure an organist; and
the result is often very unsatisfactory, for the reason that some one is employed
who is not a Christian ; while occasionally the choice falls upon a man or woman
who has little or no sympathy with Christianity at all. This is a monstrous evil;
but it is an evil to which every Church is exposed more or less where an organ has
been introduced.
Another thing is necessary, or at least, is thought to be necessary, as soon as
an organ gets into a Church. The usual view of the matter is that everything
must now be in harmony with the advent of the organ ; consequently a choir of
some kind is regarded as indispensible. But this is precisely the point that we
wish to discuss. Is a choir absolutely necessary? We may put the question in
another form and ask: is it really best to have achoiratall? In answering this
question all the facts should be carefully considered. Probably a choir may offer
the best solution where there is sufficient material at hand to constitute a choir.
But this material must be of the right kind, and must be under complete control,
or else it will prove to be an element of trouble rather than of help to the Church.
Choirs are proverbially centers of discord rather than harmony. It is certainly
remarkable that the people who are supposed to make harmony are often the
authors of more discord than any one else. But no matter whether this be so or
not, the choir does not, as a general rule, offer the simplest solution of the music
question.
What then is the solutiont We believe that most of the Churches would get
on far better if there was no choir at all. Indeed, it is doubtful whether anything
more than good congregational singing should be attempted in any of our
Churches. It can not be denied that what is extra than this is often little better
than a mere performance, and is intended to gratify the ear rather than to feed
the heart, or benefit the spiritual life. We do not say that this is always the case ;
but everyone who knows anything about the matter at all knows that our solo and
quartet, and even choir singing, where it is confined to a select few, is mainly a
mere performance and has little thought in connection with it of the real purposes
of Church music. It is, therefore, of no value whatever as a spiritual function,
and is usually not regarded of any value, except as it may be a card to "draw" the
people to the Church. But any such a view of the matter is unworthy of the re
ligion of Jesus Christ.
1898.]
The Curse of Stereoperfunctity.
285
Without considering the whole subject from every point of view, we will
make a few suggestions which we think may help those who are honestly seeking
to use music in the church for the honor and glory of God.
(1) Let the management of the organ, and, indeed, everything connected
with the music, be with those who have charge of the public service. This will
usually be the Elders of the Church. This ought to be very distinctly understood
and emphatically insisted upon, since it often happens that those who are chiefly
instrumental in raising the money to buy an organ wish to control it, and often
do practically take it, as well as the Church music, out of the hands of the
preacher and the Board of officers. This is an evil, the influence of which can
not be very well estimated, for it not unfrequently happens that the element re
ferred to is made up chiefly of those members who are not specially noted for
their spiritual gifts. They have a sort ot feeling that they ought to be consulted
as regards everything for which the organ may be used, since they were mainly
instrumental in putting the organ into the Church. This evil should be scotched
at once wherever it shows itself, or else it may become a source of endless trouble.
(2) As already suggested, a choir may be useful if it can be made up of godly
men and women who will be controlled by the officers of the Church, whenever
any control is needful, and who will keep constantly before them the place
Church music has in public worship. An anthem may be sung at the beginning
of the service, but after this only such music should be attempted as is adapted to
congregational singing. With some precaution, restriction and careful manage
ment, a good Christian choir may be made a helpful part of every public service;
but the ordinary choir may generally be regarded as an element of weakness
rather than of strength in most of the Churches throughout the land.
(3) It is our decided conviction, after watching the matter for many years,
that the best solution of our Church music question's a good organ and then a
good Christian man or woman to lead the whole congregation in the singing. In
short, a good precentor, who will stand in front of the congregation and generally
beat the time so that the people may sing together, is what is needed. This plan
will secure congregational singing, the very thing that is necessary in order to
make Church music helpful in Church worship. All other plans, more or less,
tend to injure congregational singing rather than benefit it. Even when there is
a good choir the congregation is not specially encouraged to sing. As a rule they
either can not or will not sing the hymns that are selected. They often simply
listen to the choir singing, because they are afraid their own voices would not
harmonize very well with the voices of the choir. The suggestion of the precentor
is altogether the most practical solution of the Church music question that has
yet been offered; and not the least thing that may be said in its favor is its great
simplicity and its avoidance of that worry which is almost sure to attend any
other plan.
The Curse of Stereoperfunctity. Let no one be alarmed at this strange
word. We have found it necessary to coin it in order to express a common char
acteristic of nineteenth century Christianity. We have been unable to find any
current English word which exactly describes the stereotyped formality, the
artificial piety, the dreary monotony and the heartless performances of much
of the preaching and many of the religious services of the present day. Hence
we have been compelled to make a word to order, and unless we are greatly mis
taken it has come to stay. It certainly meets a felt need in our English lan
286
[April,
guage. We have had the thing- for a long time. We have now got exactly the
word which fitly describes it. What we now write will supplement, in some re.
spects, the first article in our present issue; for, in pleading the need of a new
terminology it is certainly necessary that we should be able to predicate some
thing suitable to put into it. Our new words must have meaning. In short, we
must have the right thing even if we do not have the right word to express it.
Names, after all, are only valuable in so far as they represent what is signified by
them; and in dealing with the preaching and public worship of modern times we
must demand that they shall be permeated and vitalized by a different spirit from
that which seems now to pervade them. Without this spirit the new terms would
become as sounding brass and a clanging cymbal. In fact, they would only
make "confusion worse confounded." Their pretence would be hollow mockery,
and consequently they could serve no useful purpose.
But is it not possible at least to begin the avoidance of stercoperfunctily] Can
we not strip our Church services of that dreary round and round system which
now prevails to such an extent that there is really no place left for a pleasing and
helpful variety? This seems to us to be a most important matter. We have not
only drifted away from Apostolic precept and example, as regards the preaching
of the Gospel and the public exercises of the Churches, but we have adopted a
system of preaching and public worship which has not a single thing to recom
mend it except that it is familiar to the average Church parson and non-conform
ist minister; and as the people are generally supposed to be able to understand
what is the next step in the performance, we can usually reckon that the services
will be conducted to the end without any serious break in the monotony. We
do not wonder that the people know what is coming next, for they have heard the
hurdy gurdy system so long that it has become a sort of second nature to them.
Even the length of the performance is regulated by the tick of the clock.
Every service is measured with as much exactness as if it was so much calico and
was worth so much per yard. In most Churches, the sermon occupies more than
half the time, while the singing, reading the Scripturs and the prayers are regulated
to fill up the rest of the seventy-five minutes usually allowed when the Lord's sup
per is not administered. When the supper is attended to, fifteen minutes extra
may be added to this seventy-five. This last part, the most important of all, is
nearly always rushed through with unseemly haste, simply for the reason that
every thing must be finished within the hour and a half, and even then there is gen
erally some anxiety manifested to shorten the time rather than to lengthen it.
It is not denied that this setereoperfunctity has some advantages. It cer
tainly guarantees good order. But this ought not to be conclusive as to its real
value. There is usually good order at a funeral. Almost always there is
good order where death reigns. Indeed, good order and stereotyped formality
may be carried to such an extent as to become the very signs of death; and this
is precisely what we fear has come to pass as regards the spirit which seems to
characterize much of our modern Churchianity.
Is there any remedy for this evil? We think there is. Something can be
done at once, but it will take time to overcome the whole of the present tendency.
Established institutions or customs are difficult things to overthrow. They have
the traditions of ages very frequently to sustain them, and this is exactly the case
with respect to the matter under consideration. The formality of which we com
plain has the precedents of many years in its favor. It is an inheritance of the
ages. It has come down to us from the fathers, and consequently has all the
1898.]
287
venerable sanctions of a long history. Hence, when a preacher is asked now

adays to proclaim a simple Gospel in the language of the New Testament,
a Gospel which declares the facts, commands and promises which are involved
In a comprehensive statement of all that belongs to the joyful message of
salvation, he at once consults the forms of speech which he has been accus
tomed to use ever since he came out of the Theological mill where he was
ground into that strangely proportioned creature denominated "clergyman" or
"minister of Christ." Let no one expect too much of this curious nondescript.
No doubt he generally imagines himself to be the very impersonification of pro
priety and the very fullest representation of the functions belonging to his order.
Nor is he always to be severely blamed for holding to this view. It has grown in
to him from the very conditions of his environment. It has really been his meat
and drink from the day he entered upon his theological training to the last time
he performed in the pulpit. He is, therefore, the creature of a system of things
for which he is not specially responsible; and from this point of view he is to be
pitied rather than blamed. Indeed he often does better than anyone has a right
to expect, in view of the imperious demand of stereoperfunctity to which he is,
nolens volens a victim. He is generally the result of a manufacturing process at
the theological seminary before he enters upon the ministary at all; and when he
assumes ministerial functions, he finds himself still beset by the same environ
ment which so powerfully influenced his character while he was in theological
training. We do not wish, therefore, to speak harshly of this product of a false
system of ministerial education and an equally false representation of practical
ministerial and Church life. But all the same, what he actually is does not fairly
represent the type of preacher needed in the present age.
Of course it should be understood that we are just now describing a fungus
growth which does not fitly portray every minister of the Gospel. It is a real
pleasure to know that there are thousands of good men in the ministry who
lament, as much as we do, the perfunctory style of things to which attention has
been called, and these men have struggled'long and faithfully to overcome the evils
of which we complain. Nevertheless, it is probable that there has not yet been
any very decided, co-operative effort which has for its object a return to the sim
plicity of Gospel preaching and the Scripturalness of dealing with souls who are
inquiring the way of salvation. What is needed, just now, is a strong, united
movement for the purpose of redeeming the ministry from stereoperfunctity.
The influence of such a movement would tell mightily in many directions.
While the Scriptures teach "like people like priests," it is equally true when it is
put the other way, namely, "like priest like people." When ministers of the
Gospel become natural in their style of preaching and sensible in their manner of
conducting things, while fulfilling the functions of their position, we may then
look for a very helpful emphasis on the better side of Church life. At present
our Churches are dying of stereoperfunctity. They are set in their ways, and
these ways are frequently very far from the best. The tread-mill system, which
very generally prevails, is a weariness even of the flesh, to say nothing of the
spirit. We plead for a change. Of course we want the right thing, if that is at
all possible; but almost anything would be an improvement upon the present
order.
Seriously, has not the time come when a movement should be started in favor
of a better representation of Christian life? The highest type of Christian man
hood and womanhood is not dependent upon mere routine. Surely good order is
288
[April.
not a thing to be despised. In the right place it is an important factor in both

character and work. But we ought to have everything in the right proportion.
Five are not more than ten, and no sort of mathematical jugglery can make the
lesser number equal to the greater. This fact touches the center of the whole
question; and when this fact has been duly considered, and when the lesson it
teaches has been faithfully applied to the modern conditions of Church life, it is
probable that we shall then begin to see the dawning of the new reformation for
which we plead. Is it too much to call upon all who have not sold themselves to
stereoperfunctity to help break the chains of formalism and inelasticity which
just now prevail to such an alarming extent?
Some will no doubt think that the picture presented is overdrawn . There
are always those who do not see any thing wrong in established customs. Of
course it will be impossible to move these to lend a helping hand. These people
are faithfully described in the New Testament. They never see the danger till it
is too late. The present distress calls for immediate and active reformation. So
imperative is the demand for this that any long delay may prove fatal to the best
interests of the cause of Christ. The evil is just now on the increase. The rea
sons for this are not far to seek. One of these is a manufactured ministry. Wooden
men have been jerked into shape by a sort of half-education in colleges which live
only because they are able to deal in this wooden material and dress it up in the
clothes of a make-believe preacher of the Gospel, and then pass him upon the world
for the genuine article. This thing should be stopped. Who Will lead a move
ment that will aim to deal faithfully with all phases of the evil tendency which
has been under consideration in this brief notef We should be glad to hear
from our readers on this question.
Who Writes the Articlest-The editor-in chief has not thought it neces
sary to sign either his name or initials to anything he writes except leading
articles, but he finds that this course has misled some as to the authorship of
articles. Let it be understood then that everything not signed is written by the
editor-in-chief.
THE
Christian
Quarterly.
JULY, 1898.
DENOMINATIONALISM.
THE most superficial glance at Christendom finds a state
of distraction and strife.
There are Papists, Episco
palians, Presbyterians and Congregationalists. There
are Baptists and Pedo-Baptists, Calvinists and Arminians,
High Churchmen and Low Churchmen. There are Lutherans,
Wesleyans,Winebrennerians, Mennonites, Millerites and Campbellites (?). In many a village of only a few hundred souls
are little groups of these parties struggling for existence and
growth, and biting and devouring one another in their efforts
to thrive.
This is a lamentable state of affairs. But it has been so,
in greater or less degree, always. Since God called a people
out of the masses to be his people and to love and serve him,
there has never been, for any long time, harmony enough
among them to work thoroughly well together. It is a sad
commentary on the weakness of human nature that, even un
der direct divine guidance, misunderstandings, disagreements,
confusion and strife, have so often prevailed against the work
of the Lord. It has only been occasionally and for a short
time that it could be said, "the multitude of them that believed
were of one heart and of one soul."
Under their grievous bondage in Egypt the children of
Israel were held together by the common suffering and sympaVol. 21.
(289)
290
Denomina tionalism .
[July,
thy, but more perhaps by outside pressure. But as soon as

they became a free people, established in their own land which
God had covenanted to them in Abraham, they began to fall
out with each other, and their history thereafter is largely a
history of strife and confusion. One tribe in its selfishness
contended against another tribe throughout the centuries that
the judges ruled in Israel. After the monarchy was estab
lished there was only a brief time, less than a century, under
David and Solomon, that they were one people. And even in
that short period, it took the whole power of David's armies,
under that master general, Joab, to put down a rebellion in
augurated by David's own son. Immediately after the death
of Solomon they were rent into the two kingdoms of Israel and
Judah, a breach that was never healed, even after both mon
archies had been destroyed. A thousand years afterward, when
Jesus sat on the curbstone of Jacob's well to rest himself at
noonday, this division was so confirmed that a historian could
say in truth, "the Jews have no dealings with the Samari
tans." Every one knows of the sects of the Pharisees* the
Sadducees, and the Essenes, and has heard of several other
factions or sects among the Jews.
It should be borne in mind that through all these strifes
and contentions among them, God still held them as his peo
ple ; and without ever giving a word of sanction or approval
to any of their divisions, sent prophet after prophet to Israel
and Judah alike, to instruct, to exhort, and to warn them.
In the favors of the divine providence Israel fared as well as
Judah.
In either kingdom the people who worshiped and
served the Lord received his favors. This fact should be a
suggestion to these narrow-minded sectarians of our own day
who assume that they only are the elect and precious in the
sight of God. The Lord's people are fearfully divided and
scattered among a score or more of warring factions. Israel
and Judah made war on each other; but "the children of
Israel," meant all the twelve tribes and included the people of
both kingdoms. So the sects of Christendom wage war upon
one another; but scattered among them all, are the Lord's
people, to whom is addressed the admonition, "Come out of
her my people."
1898]
Denominationalism.
291
Christianity, at the first, united all its votaries. But be

fore Paul was old in his ministry of the apostleship, he went
up to Jerusalem to have a contention in the Church at Antioch
submitted to the Apostles. Backed up by this authoritative
decision, Paul gave the rest of his life to the work of demon
strating that Christ had "broken down the middle wall of par
tition" between Jews and Gentiles. Again, late in his life, he
warned the Churches of "the mystery of iniquity," which, he
said, "doth already work." This prophecy is generally un
derstood as referring to the exaltation of the Episcopacy,
backed by the civil and military power. The assumptions of
the papacy continued until universal spiritual dominion was
claimed by the bishops of Rome. Then "the Man of Sin"
sat in the temple of God, "setting himself forth as God." (II
Thess. ii:4.) Thus was developed, "The Holy Roman Catho
lic Church," with "His Holiness, Lord God, the Pope," as its
head.
This assumption by the popes of Rome has always been
disputed by a number of professed Christians larger than the
number who adhered to the papal Church. Constantinople in
the east never surrendered to Rome in the west. But it was
not until about the middle of the ninth century that the rup
ture was open, formal and final. At that time the bishops of
Rome and of Constantinople, each declared the other a heretic
and excluded him from the Church. Since that time there
have been the Eastern or Greek Church, and the "Western or
Roman (Latin) Church. The one is headed by a "patriarch"
and the other by a "pope." The Greek Church has prevailed
in the hardly more than half civilized peoples of Eastern Eu
rope, Western Asia, Northern Africa, Greece, and the Archi
pelago; and as just stated, has outnumbered the Roman or
Latin Church. But the dominant civilization of modern times
has been developed among the Latin nations, and the Roman
Church has therefore figured much more conspicuously in later
and current history. Unfortunately, it has figured chiefly as
an obstruction to the dissemination of learning and of the
arts, and of civil and religious liberty, as well as of primitive
Christianity.
Many protests were entered from time to time against the
assumptions of the papacy; but it was not until the first quar
292
Denominationalism.
[July,
ter of the sixteenth century ,that Martin Luther succeeded in

firmly establishing the opposition which has since been known
as "Protestantism."
Calvin, who was cotemporary with Luther, taught that all
ministers were of equal rank, and that each Church was an
independent ecclesiasticism, ruled by her own chosen minister,
who was called a "presbyter," or elder. This gave rise to
"Presbyterianism," which has, however, departed in a meas
ure, from the teaching of Calvin. Luther's mind and strength
were chiefly occupied with other subjects, and he appears to
have left nothing to guide his followers on the subject of
Church government.
Lutherans, in Sweden and Norway,
have an Episcopal government, and in Denmark a "Superin
tendent" who exercises Episcopal authority. The Lutheran
"consistory" in Germany is neither Episcopal nor Presbyte
rian, but with a stronger leaning to the former. In the United
States the Lutherans are Congregational.
Breaking away from the authority of the papal Church
would necessarily raise the question of Church government.
And from their habits of thought all Protestants would con
ceive of some form with centralized authority. Any number
of Churches coming into existence, would tend to form some
kind of ecclesiastical union. The course of events is not easily
traced with this question alone in view. Other matters of
controversy were continually involved. But the question of
Church government was an ever present one, and is not yet
settled after three hundred years of discussion.
One result of this discussion is that Christendom is divided
into Papal, Episcopal, and Presbyterian ecclesiasticisms, while
numerous other denominations, having no centralized organ
ization, are called Congregational. There is the Papal Church
with the pope and his cardinals as the central authority.
There is the Greek Church with a number of patriarchates
without any close connection among them. As the patriarchs
are superior to archbishops and since there is a close relation
ship between the words "patriarch" and "pope," the Greek
and Roman Churches may both be classed as "Papal"
Churches. There are several Episcopal Churches, each with
a conference or convocation of bishops as the central author
1898.]
Denominationalism.
293
ity. There are quite as many Presbyterian Churches, ruled

over by presbyteries, synods and general assemblies. There
are other denominations which hold the local congregation to
be an independent organization. In some of these "Congregationalist" denominations the local Churches are represented
by messengers or delegates in a central meeting which is called
an "association," but which never exercises authority over
any local Church.
But these general names no longer suffice to make the
necessary distinctions, for other questions have arisen on
which people are divided. "The Episcopal Church," is in
definite, because there are several Episcopal Churches, while
agreeing as to the form of ecclesiastical organizations, they
differ in other matters, and other qualifying words must be
added in the name. It is now necessary to say, "Protestant
Episcopal Church of the United States," or "Methodist Epis
copal Church," or "Methodist Episcopal Church, South," etc.
Churches organized under the Presbyterian form of govern
ment can not now be aggregated as "The Presbyterian
Church," but we must say, "The Presbyterian Church of the
United States," or "The United Presbyterian Church," or
"The Cumberland Presbyterian Church," etc.
There are
many believers to whom the general name of "Congregationalists" is applied. The term came into use, like all others, to
distinguish where there was a difference. But while one large
denomination is specially called by this name, yet there are a
number of Congregational Churches to whom it is never ap
plied. All the Baptist Churches are Congregational Churches,
and so are some of the other denominations. But generally
they have some peculiarities involving the necessary use of
some other word. The word "Baptist" is, perhaps, the most
familiar of all such terms. For a time this was quite definite;
and when a. man said he was a "Baptist," he was exactly
located. But at a later date Baptists disagreed on predesti
nation, on the use of means in conversion, and on the right to
organize Bible and missionary societies. Then some word
was necessary to tell what kind of Baptist any one was.
There were "Calvinistic Baptists," "Free-Will Baptists,"
"Means Baptists," and "Anti-Means Baptists," "Missionary
294
Denominationalism.
[July,
Baptists," and "Anti-Missionary Baptists," etc. This made

dreadful confusion and irregularity among the Baptist
Churches. Owing to their Congregationalism, the Baptists did
not become so many different sects as these names would indi
cate. But multitudes of their Churches were divided, and the
people in places where divisions occurred freely used these distin
guishing epithets. When the people grew tired of it and aban
doned the discussion of the subjects indicated by these terms
they ceased to be used. As a form of asserting that they had
never been disturbed by these irregularities, many Churches used
the term ' 'Regular Baptist. ' ' Since the earlier discussions have
passed into history the word "Regular" seems to be surplus,
and is now rarely heard. Again it seems to be enough to say
"Baptist Churches," while the whole body of people are called
"The Baptist Denomination."
I. Names. Names are a necessity to intelligent speech.
Names stand for things. A sentence is an affirmation about
something. Every sentence involves two "essential" ele
ments. One of these is a word used as the name of the thing
about which something is affirmed. It has often been said
that "there is nothing in a name." This can not be true.
The intelligence of speech depends on a name. And the
name must not only be spoken or written, but it must be under
stood. The speaker and the person spoken to must know the
name and agree upon the meaning of it. Here are two seam
stresses. One speaks only English, and the other only Ger
man. One of the things with which they are both familiar,
the English woman calls a "thimble;" the German woman
calls it a "finger-hut." One name serves just as well as the
other. But they must come to know and agree upon the
meaning of the word used before they can understand each
other.
This illustrates how all the theological controversies have
been involved in the names used. Papal, Episcopal, Presby
terian, Congregational, are all significant terms. So long as
one Church is Episcopal and another Presbyterian, it will be
necessary to use these names by way of distinction. When
any Baptist Church divided on the use of means, and formed
two Churches in the same locality, the people very properly
1898.]
Denominationalism.
295
and significantly referred to them as the "Means Baptists" or

the "Anti-Means Baptists." When a discussion about mis
sions ended in the division of a Baptist Church, the one was
called "Missionary Baptist" to distinguish it from the other,
which, of course, was "Anti-Missionary Baptist."
There is very much in names. So long as the Baptists
carried their discussions so far as to divide Churches, neither
they, nor the people about them could get on without such
distinguishing epithets as those above enumerated. There is
no way to get rid of names except we first get rid of the things
for which they stand.
While there is one party organizing and conducting an
ecclesiastical establishment with a college of bishops at the
head of it, and another party organizing and conducting an
other establishment under the control of a congress of presby
ters, some terms will be necessary by which to designate and
to distinguish them. Episcopal and Presbyterian answer well
enough ; and these, or some equivalent terms will continue to
be used by the people. While there are to be found a class of
people who base all Church organization upon the idea that
each local society of Christians is an independent community
having the right to regulate its own affairs without any out
side interference, people will find some word to use as a name
for them ; and the name will carry in it their especial charac
teristics. They will be called "Congregationalists," or by
some equivalent name.
A Methodist Church in an Indiana town disagreed on the
question of dress. One party claimed the right to wear as fine
clothing as they were financially able to wear. The other party
insisted upon it as a Christian duty to wear cheaper clothing,
plainly made. The contention was so sharp that a division took
place. Some plea, other than the real difference between them,
and that their conference accepted, was made, so that both
Churches were recognized as societies in the Methodist Episco
pal Church, and cared for alike. But the people, knowing the
actual cause of the division, named them respectively "Silk
Methodists," and "Calico Methodists." After some time the
course of events brought these Churches nearer together in the
matter of dress; and then the nicknames ceased to be used.
296
Denominationalism .
[July,
The discussion raged at the time of the division, and it was

then that the names were invented. Let it be noted here that
there was no ecclesiastical action throughout this affair which
took cognizance of the real difference between these Churches,
and that there was no such action in the adjustment of it.
A similar course of events may often be observed where
congregations divide on the question of instrumental music in
connection with the song service. The people at once desig
nate them as "The Organ Church" and the "Anti-Organ
Church." When each is fairly established in its own way and
the discussion has ceased, these terms cease to be used, and
the Churches will be described by location or number, as "East
Side" and "West Side," or "First Church" and "Second
Church."
It seems, therefore, that the fact of such distinguishing
names being used, indicates the further fact that there are
characteristic differences among the people. And we can only
get rid of such names by getting rid of the things which the
names signify. Furthermore, we can only get rid of the things
by ceasing to discuss the subjects involved. Or, if we continue
to discuss them, they must be treated as matters of forbear
ance and not as tests of fellowship.
These considerations lead up to the following proposition:
11 The process by which the divisions among the Baptists were
healed and the distinguishing names have been made to disappear,
is the process by which Christendom will be at last united, until it
will be sufficient to say, 'I am a Christian.'' "
And this work would go forward very rapidly were it not
for the great ecclesiastical establishments in existence, and
which stand in the way of progress very much as the party
"machine" stands always in the way of political reforms. And
as people after long suffering, rise in their might and "smash"
the machine to force reform, so, when public opinion, the final
arbiter in what God has left for men to do, shall grow strong
enough to demand the union of God's people, the ecclesiastical
machines shall be ground into dust and scattered to the four
winds. "The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation," and
men can be saved only by preaching the Gospel to them. The
concentration of power in the hands of a few by the great
1898.]
Denominationalism.
297
ecclesiastical organizations is "the mystery of iniquity," which

began to "work" before St. Paul had finished his work. Such
concerns never voluntarily disband. They perish by revolu
tion or disintegration. The Lord shall "consume them with
the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy them with the bright
ness of his coming." (II These, ii: 3-8.)
The progress of this work is very marvelous already. Men
who are running Episcopal establishments recognize many as
Christians who are not Episcopalians. And the people are
beginning to ask: "If we may be Christians and not be Epis
copalians, why should we be Episcopalians?" If men may be
Christians and not be Episcopalians, or Presbyterians, or Meth
odists, or Baptists, as all these parties admit that they may, is
it not better that they should do so? What valid reason is
there why any one should be anything at all which is not nec
essary to his being a Christian ? Along this line of thought,
and as farther developing the subject, we now call attention to
II. The Denominational Chukch. The word "denomi
nation" has a special application in modern ecclesiastical
affairs. Webster defines a "denomination" as "a society or
collection of individuals, called by the same name; a sect; as,
a denomination of Christians." "Denominationalism," he
says, "is attachment to a particular sect or denomination." All
the people who are so well agreed in doctrine and usages that
any one may come and go and find himself equally at home in
the several local societies, comprise a "denomination." "The
Methodist Episcopal Church" is composed of a multitude of
local societies all organized and controlled under the laws of
the "Discipline." Another denomination is "The Presbyterian
Church of the United States." A multitude of local societies,
all modeled after the instructions set forth in "The Confession
of Faith," are united in one general or denominational Church.
In some cases the local societies are aggregated without a con
solidation, as when we speak of the "Baptist Denomination."
But there is no "Baptist Church," except the local society.
Baptist usage requires that local societies shall be aggregated
only in the plural number, as "Baptist Churches." This is
true of all congregational denominations. The people known
as the "Congregationalists," aggregate their local congrega
298
Denominationalism.
[July,
tions as "Congregational Churches." There is no general

"Congregational Church." This fact is the distinguishing
feature of Congregationalism. Each local society is a complete
Church in itself. Whenever an "association" is formed, it can
never be more than an association of Churches.
While the denominational connection exists people will
find language by which to designate it. The people accepting
the plea made by Luther were directly called "Lutherans."
Those accepting the plea of John Winebrenner were and are
called "Winebrennerians," but over the protest of Mr. Wine
brenner himself, who chose the name "Church of God," as
scriptural. Alexander Campbell became a prominent leader
in a movement to get away from denominationalism and to be
simply Christians, or disciples of Christ. The people involved
in this movement, in spite of their own vehement protest,
have been commonly designated as "Campbellites." Every
local society is referred to by the people as a "Campbellite
Church."
The protest has gone so far in this matter as to charge
discourtesy upon their neighbors who persist in the use of
these terms. Not meaning to be discourteous, the neighbors
say: "If you are not 'Campbellites' what are you? There must
be some way to distinguish you from others." The answer
generally made is: "We are only Christians, nothing more
than that ; and we do not care to be distinguished from other
Christians." When there shall appear a people who can make
this declaration true of themselves, the problem of Christian
union will be measurably solved. This is exactly the plea of
this nineteenth century reformation. It is a movement to do
away with all denominational distinctions, to be only Chris
tians, and to know no Church but the "Church of Christ," or
"Church of God." It is a lamentable example of the weak
ness of our human nature that people making such a plea
should so far compromise it as to say, in effect: "Yes; we are
a separate people, and there must be some way to distinguish
us from the other brethren. Therefore we have concluded that
our denominational name shall be 'The Disciples.' " This is
the blunder of John Winebrenner repeated. He and his colaborers adopted the name "Church of God," which is emi
1898.]
Denominationalism.
299
nently Scriptural, but used it in an unscriptural waythey

adopted it as the name of their party. This is the one chief
reason why the Winebrennerian reformation failed.
There are three forms or states of denominational exist
ence: (1) The consolidated Churches, such as the Papal,
Episcopal, and Presbyterian; (2) the associated Churches of
the Congregational order; (3) there may be a group of wholly
independent Churches, so much alike that a member of any one
of them may come and go and be equally at home among them
all. On account of such a likeness they would be classed as
"of the same faith and order," and would therefore comprise
a "denomination." In this last and loosest sense of the word,
any group of similar Churches would be a denomination. This
would be true of them although they may have gone wholly
back to the New Testament order in all things. And this is
precisely what has happened. There is a group of some nine
or ten thousand just such Churches. They are "Churches of
Christ," or "Churches of God." Their people are "disciples
of Christ," or "Christians." If the denominational relation of
this people is to be expressed in words, the words are not in
the New Testament. They are "Disciples," but not "The
Disciples" they are only some of them, and only a respecta
ble minority of the disciples of Christ.
There is yet much to be learned on this subject of denom
inationalism. Whoever undertakes to separate himself wholly
from what is meant by this word, will find that it is no easy
thing to do.
There is no word or phrase in the New Testament which can
be properly applied, either to a denomination or to a denomina
tional Church.
The word "Presbyterian" is a distinguishing word among
professed Christians. It is used to mark the separation of
some Christians from all other Christians. No Presbyterian
will claim that all Christians are Presbyterians. He readily
recognizes Episcopalians and Congregationalists as his breth
ren in Christ, that is, as Christians. So it is throughout the
Churches or denominations of Protestant Christendom. The
people of any one denomination readily acknowledge that there
are Christians in the other denominations. Each uses its own
300
Denominationalism.
[July,
distinctive name to designate itself, not as comprising all

Christendom, but as one party or portion of Christendom.
Now, when any number of Christians, whether they be many
or few, are separated from all other Christians, and are to be
spoken of as a party, Scripture language is impossible. The
general designations of the Lord's people may not be exclus
ively appropriated by a sect or party. Any group of them may
claim for themselves that they are Christians. They may go
farther and say, and should be able to say in truth, "We are
only Christians."
But they may not say "We are the only
Christians." Near the end of the first century there was a
party or sect referred to in Rev. ii : 6 and 16 ; and they were
given a party name. This serves to emphasize the fact that a
party should have a party name. But Nicolaitanes could not
be designated as such by calling them Christians. Apple
trees are often referred to as "fruit trees." So are pear trees.
When there is no occasion for distinguishing, the general
(generic) name may be used.
But there being several kinds
of fruit trees, whenever any one kind is meant a special (spe
cific) name is required. "Christians" is a generic name. If
there are two or more kinds of Christians, then two or more
specific names are, not a mere convenience, but a necessity.
Without them one can not make himself understood. The
same is true of the designation "disciples of Christ." This is
a descriptive phrase, rather than a name ; but it is as generic
as the name Christian, and belongs to all disciples alike. A
million of disciples may not claim it as a party name. This
would be as if the apple trees should insist that they shall al
ways be called "fruit trees." Concerning the trees this is only
a fable. But in human affairs this absurdity is historythere
are certain disciples who insist that they shall be called "The
Disciples." There are certain other disciples who are commonly
called "The Baptists." These two groups are on friendly
terms. "The Disciples" recognize "The Baptists" as disciples.
Reciprocating, "The Baptists" recognize "The Disciples" as
disciples. To the ear of the illiterate this sounds a little con
fusing; but to the eye of one versed in letters, as well as de
nominational phraseology, it is, perhaps, intelligible.
1898.]
Denominationalism.
301
The prevalence of parties and party names has led the

people into referring to the parties as "branches of the
Church." This amounts to a perversion of one of the Savior's
beautiful lessons. He said to his disciples, "I am the vine;
ye are the branches." But he meant persons, not Churches;
for he adds: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a
branch." (John xv:l-6.) Paul, also, in the figure of the
grafted olive tree, treats of individual membership. (Rom. xi:
13-24.) "I speak to you, Gentiles," he begins. On the other
side he places the Jews as, "the natural branches," which
"were broken off." "Because of unbelief they were broken
off; and thou standest by faith." (v. 20.) This is unquestion
ably individual connection with the tree. The local Church is
made op of a number of individuals. So also is the general
Church. The Church of God is not a confederacy of local
Churches. It is not an aggregate of local Churches. But the
denominational Church is such an aggregation and is often a
confederation or a consolidation. When we say, "The Roman
Catholic Church," "The Methodist Episcopal Church," "The
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States," etc., we,
in each case, refer to a general organization including many
local societies. This is the character of Papal, Episcopal, and
Presbyterian Churches. Congregational Churches are never so
organized into one general Church. "The Congregational
Church," as a general organization, does not exist. It can not
exist; for no such Church would be Congregational. Also, as
a general organization, there is no "Baptist Church," and for
the same reasonthe Baptists are Congregationalists as to
Church organization. One may find everywhere in their liter
ature the term, "Baptist Churches," "The Baptists," "The
Baptist Denomination," "The Baptist people," but never
"The Baptist Church." A Baptist association is in no sense a
Baptist Churchit is an association of Baptist Churches. This
is the Scriptural way. Paul addressed one of his epistles "to
the Churches of Galatia." and John addressed the Apocalypse
"to the seven Churches which are in Asia."
The. denominational Church, as a general organization, a con
federation, or even as a mere aggregation of local Churches, has no
warrant in the words of Scripture, or of usage in the primitive
Churches.
302
Denominationalism .
[July,
Although this is a negative proposition, the denial may be

sustained by the study of
III. The Use of the Word "Church" in the New Tes
tament.
"And at that time there was a great persecution against
the Church which was at Jerusalem." Acts viii:l.
"There were in the Church that was at Antioch, certain
prophets and teachers." Acts xiiirl.
"The Church of God which is at Corinth."I Cor. i:2.
"The Church of the Thessalonians."I Thess. i:l and II
Thess. ii:l.
"The Church which is in the house of Nymphas." "The
Church of the Laodiceans."Coloss. iv:15, 16.
"The Church which is in the house of Philemon."
Phil. i:2.
"The Church in Ephesus, in Smyrna, in Pergamas, in
Thyatira, in Sardis, in Philadelphia, in Laodicea""the seven
churches which are in Asia." Rev., chaps, ii and iii.
This use of the word is current everywhere, and is well
understood by all. Eighteen times the word is so used in the
New Testament, and refers to local Churches or congregations.
The last reference above, and several which follow, are exam
ples in which local Churches are aggregated in the plural num
ber:
"Then had the Churches rest throughout all Judea, and
Galilee and Samaria."Acts iz:31.
"Paul went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the
Churches. ' 'Acts xv : 41 .
"All the Churches of the Gentiles." Romans xvi:4.
"The Churches of Christ salute you." Romans xvi:16.
"Paul unto the Churches of Galatia."Gal. i:l, 2.
Thirty-seven times the word "Churches" is used where it
undoubtedly means an aggregation of local Churches, which
were, as the phrase now goes, "all of one denomination."
When any phrase was added to indicate what kind of Churches
they were, it was "Churches of Christ," or "Churches of God."
The former occurs once and the latter twelve times.
But the word Church is used frequently where it can not
signify a local society or congregation :
1898.]
Denominationalism .
303
Paul said: "I persecuted the Church of God." I Cor.

xv:9; Gal. i:13.
"Christ is head over all to the Church which is his body."
Eph. i:22, 23.
"Might be known by the Church." Eph. iii : 10.
"On this rock I will build my Church." Matt. xvi:18.
"The general assembly and Church of the first-born."
Heb. xii:23.
There are as many as fifteen passages in which the word
Church must refer to "the general assembly," to the whole
"Church which is Christ's body."
But every time that this word is used, it means either the
local congregation or the general Church. In no case can we
find a larger Church composed of an aggregation of local socie
ties. The denominational Church is therefore without author
ity in the Scripture. It is sectarian ; for it means that those
united in it are thereby separated from others whom they may
recognize as Christians, but with whom they refuse to hold
visible fellowship.
The simplicity of the Gospel is :
First. Believe and hope in Christ and obey all his com
mands.
Second. To be disciples of Christ, or Christians.
Third. To belong only to "the Church of Christ," or
"the Church of God." Membership therein is manifested only
by open connection with some local congregation. Therefore,
Fourth. Whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
The Christian should have no faith but to "believe on the
Lord Jesus, the Christ," no hope but to trust Him for salva
tion, and submit to no authority but the word of Jesus as illus
trated in His own life. He who does this is only a Christian,
or a disciple of Christ ; and he is not at liberty to be either
more or less than what is contained in these words. To say
that he is a Christian should express all that he is, religiously.
If he is such a person he is a member of "the Church of God,"
or the Church which is the body of Christ, or what is often
called simply "the Church." This ought to be held sufficient
to declare his Church connection. It does declare all except
denominational connections; and these can not be expressed
in Scripture language.
304
Denominationalism.
[July,
IV. Efforts at Reformation.Many times the effort

has been made to follow this course, and thus break away from
the sectarianism of denominationalism. The most nearly suc
cessful effort of this kind began in the United States in the
first quarter of this century. To be more exact, a series of such
efforts began about that time. Rev. David Millard in a sketch
of "The Christian Connection," written for Winebrenner's
"History of Denominations," relates that a group of Metho
dists at Manakin Town, North Carolina, in 1793, broke away
from Episcopacy and at first took the name of "Republican
Methodists," but "at a subsequent conference resolved to be
known as Christians only, to acknowledge no head over the
Church but Christ, and no creed or discipline but the Bible."
He relates further that Dr. Abner Jones, of Hartland, Ver
mont, began a work upon the same principles, and that
"Churches of the order were soon planted in all the New
England states, the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
and more recently in New Jersey and Michigan, and in Can
ada." He then sketches the early work of B. W. Stone, of
Kentucky ; but, for a reason that will presently appear, could
not do justice to that branch of this nineteenth century ref
ormation. These three, he says, when their work widened far
enough to bring them into contact, coalesced, and thus orig
inated "The Christian Connection."
Barton W. Stone and his colleagues, in Kentucky, were
Presbyterians. Dropping the word "Presbyterians," they
said they were only "Christians." Instead of planting "Pres
byterian Churches," they planted . "Christian Churches."
They formed and tried for a short time to run "The Spring
field Presbytery." But to do that would necessitate the con
tinued use of the discarded word "Presbyterian." So they
very soon, in something more than simply a facetious mood,
wrote and published "The Last Will and Testament of the
Springfield Presbytery," and dissolved it. The movement
grew prodigiously, and hundreds of "Christian Churches"
were planted. There is the most conclusive evidence that they
never thought of appropriating the word "Christian" and the
phrase "Christian Church," in a denominational sense. The
word "Christian" expressed fully what they were. Others
1898.]
Denominationalism.
305
might be something more or something different, and have

need of an additional term to tell what kind of Christians they
were. But, as for themselves, these reformers held the word
"Christian" was sufficient. When a congregation of them
assembled they were the "Christian Church" in that place.
They took into their minds no thought of any other visible
Church relationship than to be members of such local
Churches.
When this movement came to embrace a great number of
people and a multitude of Churches, it included many who
did not see clearly in this "New Light"they could only "see
men as trees, walking." They saw clearly enough to repu
diate the name "Newlight Church," that people about them
sought to fix upon them. This element among them came to
think of themselves as a separate community of people, and
sought some way by which they might be designated as such
in New Testatment language. This of course was impossible.
But when the questions of baptism and a mystic conversion
came up, this element drifted off and coalesced with the other
two reforms sketched by Mr. Millard, and the outcome is a
"Christian Denomination," or "Christian Connection." The
larger portion, however, of these Kentucky reformers and
their Churches refused to be compromised by any denomina
tional scheme; and held to their earlier conceptions.
Meanwhile the same spirit of reform began to develop
among the Baptists. In a score or more of places, almost
simultaneously, it began to be urged that the word "Baptist"
was a hedge about a part of the Lord's people that fenced
them off from their brethren in Christ. They began to realize
that "disciples of Christ," and "Christians," were sufficient
to express all that they were, and the word "Baptist" began
to be dropped. The current designation of the local Church
was shortened from "The Baptist Church of Christ," to "The
Church of Christ."
This movement became most distinctly outlined in West
Virginia and northeastern Ohio, owing to the presence there
of three men of great force of character. These were Thomas
Campbell, his son, Alexander Campbell, and Walter Scott.
It began in the name of Christian union, and plead for the
Vol. 22.
306
Denominationalism .
[July,
abandonment of denominationalism in order to the union of

Christians. This movement rapidly spread to the west, and a
multitude of churches were planted under the designation of
"Churches of Christ." But this plea was not made in quite
such simplicity as among the reformers in Kentucky. A num
ber of questions were raised and discussed in the hottest con
troversy. The speculative or scholastic theology was attacked
in general and in detail. The contestants joined issue on the
influence of the Spirit in conversion and sanctification, and
on the action, the subject, and the design of baptism, as well
as on the rights of ecclesiastical establishments.
Alexander Campbell went before the people in a monthly
periodical, on the rostrum, and in public discussion as well as
in the pulpit. His mighty attacks along all the lines just indi
cated drew upon him the intense hatred of the sectarians by
whom he was everywhere surrounded, and he was denounced
by them all as an arch heretic who must be put down at all
hazards. His doctrinal views were called "Campbellism," and
all who agreed with him were called "Campbellites." These
designations were vehemently repudiated, and the plea of
"Bible things by Bible names," was constantly urged. This
phrase covered the ground taken by B. W. Stone and others
as above set forth. But the violence of the controversy over
other matters made the Kentucky reformers very shy of those
in Virginia and Ohio. The two parties had, however, too
much in common to remain apart. After some consultations
among the leading men, it was found that they could preach
and worship together. There was no scheme of union devised
to be submitted and approved in representative bodies. There
were no representative bodies. There was nothing to do but
go to work together whenever they came in contact, preaching
to the people, baptizing converts, and edifying Churches.
A very considerable party, however, of the Kentucky
movement, as already observed, held aloof, and after coalescing
with similar movements in New England and North Carolina,
imbibed the spirit of denominationalism, and have built a
wall about themselves, not very high nor very solid, but suffi
cient to identify them as "The Christian Connection." Their
local Churches are called "Christian Churches," and their peo
ple wear the name "Christians."
1898.]
Denominationalism.
307
John Winebrenner started on the same line of reforma

tion in 1830 in Pennsylvania. In a sermon reported by him
self in his "History of Denominations," he said: "Agreeably
to the New Testament, Churches should be formed, (1) of
believers only; (2) without a sectarian or a human name; (3)
with no creed and discipline but the Bible; (4) subject to no
extrinsic or foreign jurisdiction; and (5) governed by their
own officers, chosen by a majority of the members of each
individual Church." This statement was approved by other
ministers present. But they at the same time organized an
"Eldership," which was essentially Presbyterian, and which
confederated their Churches and made them a new denomina
tion, to which they gave the name "Church of God." Recit
ing these facts in his book, Mr. Winebrenner adds: "Thus
originated the Church of God, properly and distinctively so
called, in the United States of America; and thus, also, orig.
inated the first eldership."
One wing of the Kentucky reformation has become "The
Christian Connection," and claims a pre-emption on the names,
"Christian" and "Christian Church."
The Pennsylvania
reformation appropriates and attempts to monopolize the name
"Church of God," as their denominational designation. And
now there be those who seek to drop back into the old denom
inational ruts and appropriate "The Disciples," for a denom
inational designation. Thus "history repeats itself." But
the repetition must end here ; for there is no other Scriptural
designation to be appropriated by the next new denomination.
The harmonizing of the contradictory elements among the
Baptists, and the union of the great masses of the Kentucky
and Virginia reformers illustrate the simplicity of the subject.
A mass of heathen converts, or even of our own young people,
would accept such a situation without question. But we are
so accustomed to denominational connections that it becomes
difficult to conceive of a profession of religion in which the
convert does not "join some Church," that is, become identi
fied with some "denomination."
Some popular "evangelists" assume to do an undenom
inational work, to do no more than "lead men to Christ," to
have them become Christians. Their converts, who are not
308
Denominationalism.
[July,
Methodists, nor Baptists, nor Presbyterians, etc., but only

Christians, are recommended to make their own choice as to
what sort of sectarian they will be. The Young Men's Chris
tian Association meet simply as Christians, and on a common
ground. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, although
not so entirely a religious organization, shows how much wider
is the term "Christian" than that of Methodist, or Presbyte
rian, or Baptist. Sunday school unions and Christian En
deavor conventions are other illustrations of the possibility,
and also of the desirability, of people meeting and worshiping
and working together as "Christians" only. None of these
organizations could continue to exist if any denominational
word were used instead of the word "Christian." If it were
named "Methodist Union," the Baptists and the Presbyte
rians would immediately forsake it. If it were named a "Bap
tist Union," Presbyterians and Methodists would have no
more to do with it. None of them can be anything else but a
"Christian Union," a "Christian Association," or a "Chris
tian Convention," with any chance of holding members of
different denominations together in any lines of Christian
work. This fact was fully realized and acted upon by Thomas
Campbell and his co-laborers when, in 1809, they organized
"The Christian Association of Washington County" in Penn
sylvania.
Aside from denominational interests and prejudices, the
subject would be very simple. If the converts from heathenism,
knowing nothing at all about our denominationalism, were
united in local societies under the name "Church of Christ," or
Church of God," they would accept the situation as a matter of
course, and without doubt. But the "mother of harlots" has
made protestant Christians so drunk with "the wine of her forni
cations, "that they will not abandon denominational connec
tions.
Other features of the subject will now be considered under
the sub-head of
V. The G-eneral Church.It is often asserted that
"one can live a Christian life and not belong to any Church."
In making this statement reference is had, of course, to the
denominational Church'connection. And in this case, it is not
1898.]
Denominationalism.
309
only true that one can live a Christian without belonging to

any denominational Church, but it is true farther, that this is
the way in which he should live a Christian. The union of
Christians means the abandonment of the denominational connec
tions. The denomination is a sect. It can not exist without
divisions among Christians. It is built upon misunderstand
ings and disagreements, generally about matters indifferent.
But the Church, the true Church of God, sometimes called
' ' the universal Church, ' ' and sometimes "the invisible Church, ' '
is the body of Christ. He is "head over all to the Church
which is his body." (Eph. i:22, 23.) A man must be a mem
ber of this Church to be a Christian at all. The members of
any living body die as soon as they are cut off from the body.
There is no spiritual life for man outside of the body of Christ.
Jesus himself says: "As the branch can not bear fruit of
itself, except it abide in the vine ; no more can ye except ye
abide in me. * * * If a man abide not in me he is cast forth
asa branch, and is withered." (Johnxv:5, 6.) And hence, also,
it is written, that "the Lord added to the Church daily such as
should be saved." (Actsii:47.)
What is the Church? The word "Church" is contracted
from two Greek words which together signify "the house of
the Lord." These two words are not combined in the New
Testament either in Greek or English. But the Church is
called "the house of God." (See I Tim. iii:15, Heb. x:21,
and I Peter iv: 17.) Peter said to Christians: "Ye are built
up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual
sacrifices." (I Peter ii:5.) And Paul said: "Ye arebuilded
together for an habitation of God." (Eph. ii:22.) These are
sufficient to justify the use of the word Church in its etymo
logical sense, as "the house of the Lord."
The only word in the New Testament translated "Church"
is eccleesia. This word of itself does not necessarily mean
what we mean by the word "Church." It may mean any
assembling of people for any purpose. (See Acts xix:32, 39
and 41, where it is translated "assembly.") Still the fre
quency with which it is applied in the New Testament to
designate the people assembled together to worship God, directs
attention to the derivation of our English word "Church,"
310
Denominationalism.
[July,
and it may be studied with profit in this way. This derivative

implies something more than a meeting by chance. So does
the word eccleesia in the New Testament. It is a meeting in
response to a calla meeting of "the called out ones" (ek, out,
and kaleo, to call). The people of God have been "called out
of darkness." (I Peter ii:9, 10, and II Thess. ii:13, 14.)
The distinction between the local Church and the general
Church has already been drawn. They who are in one place
and meet together for the worship of God are the Church, the
eccleesia in that place. All in every place who have heeded
the call of God comprise the general Church. The congrega
tion is the Church made visible by coming together for wor
ship. The general Church is to man invisible as to its entirety.
No man can aggregate and list its membership. It is not
an aggregation of Churches, but an aggregation of persons.
It includes all true Christians. In the Bible the Churches are
always aggregated in the plural number, as "Churches of
Christ," Churches of God," and perhaps oftener, simply as
"the Churches." Thus, instead of "the Church in Galatia,"
the New Testament language is "the Churches of Galatia."
Denominationalism aggregates all the Churches "of the same
faith and order," into a general Church of that "faith and
order," and assigns a name to it more or less expressive of
the denominational "faith and order." In this way we have
"the Methodist Episcopal Church," the "Protestant Episcopal
Church," the "Presbyterian Church of the United States," etc.
Where Episcopacy prevails this aggregation is an actual
consolidation of local Churches through representatives in a
general body called a convocation or conference. Presbyrianism does the same thing, and the representative assembly
is a presbytery, a synod, or a general assembly. In the Winebrennerian establishment it is an "eldership." In some
smaller denominations it is a "consistory." Under the forms
of Congregationalism such a consolidated organization can not
exist. There is a large denomination known as "the Congregationalists." But there is no general Church known as "the
Congregationalist Church." Representative assemblies are
organized by them, which they call "associations of Churches."
This designation recognizes the autonomy of the local Churches.
1898.]
Denominationalism.
311
No association of Congregational Churches ever attempts to

legislate for the Churches associated. The liberty and indi
viduality of the Churches are recognized in fact as well as in
name. The Baptists are Congregational as to Church govern
ment, and while they, like the Congregationalists, hold asso
ciations and conventions, there is no general "Baptist Church."
The denominations that are Congregationalists know no such
thing as a Church of Churches. Neither do the oracles of God.
This state of the case is favorable to the ultimate union
of Christians. When the spirit of controversy and strife
abates there will be no occasion for reorganization. There
will be no confederacy to be remodeled. To reunite the
"Methodist Episcopal Church," with the "Methodist Episcopal
Church, South," there must be general propositions submitted
by the General Conference of the one to the General Confer
ence of the other body. After favorable action thereupon,
there must be a conference committee from each to prepare
and submit a plan of union. This plan must be reported
to and accepted by each body. The plan must compre
hend new statements of doctrine and usages about which
there has been disagreement. The positions and prerogatives
of officials under the old and the new systems have to be care
fully considered and adjusted. There are vast property rights,
also, to be considered and disposed of. In the reunion of the
Baptists there was no such complicated work to do. When
the strife was over, people found places to worship in the
nearest Baptist Church ; and that was all there was of it. The
Churches were simply Baptist Churches when the strife was on.
They are only that since the greater portion of Baptists have
come to be one people.
The great nineteenth century reformation has included
two movements, which, by flowing into one, furnish another
striking illustration of this process of union. Barton W. Stone
and his co-laborers in Kentucky planted hundreds of Churches
which were generally called "Christian Churches." Alexander
Campbell and his co-laborers in West Virginia and Ohio planted
hundreds of Churches which were generally called "Churches
of Christ." When these workers began to come into contact,
they found that they were so much alike that they could preach
312
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
and worship together. This they proceeded to do, and the

union was perfected without any ceremony whatever.
When it shall come to pass that Christians shall lay aside
all their opinions and usages which separate them into parties,
or shall hold them in abeyance so that they shall no more be
made tests of fellowship ; when they shall abandon all their
denominational organizations and know no Church but the
local congregation and the general Church ; and when all the
names which mark the divisions among them shall be used
no more ; then shall the prayer of Jesus be answered, that all
who believe on him may be one, as He and the Father are one ;
and then shall Zion arise in her beauty and shine as the bright
ness of the firmament.
Joseph Franklin.
THE APOSTOLIC AGE.

THE first century of our era is a period of supreme inter
est to every student of Christianity. Hence every new
volume that deals with that period immediately receives
wide notice. Such a volume is that by Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph. D., D. D., Washburn professor of Church History
in the Union Theological Seminary of New York, entitled A
History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age.
It is a notable volume, and is creating quite a stir in the
religious world. Opinions concerning the book vary all the
way from warmest commendation to heartiest condemnation.
The religious press is very general in its condemnation of the
book and its author. Many rumors from the east indicate that
there is at least a possibility of another heresy trial in the
Presbyterian Church. On many sides it is claimed that the
precedent established by the Briggs trial imperatively de
mands that the Church vindicate its consistency by proceeding
at once to deal with McGiffert.
As representative of the opinion of conservative review
ers, the following paragraph in the Chicago Interior, from
the pen of its editor may be cited. After quoting a number of
radical utterances, referring chiefly to Christ, he says: "As I
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
313
said above, a small section of the canvas is sufficient. I am

sorry to occupy these white pages with so much of itbecause
it is painful and appalling to our gentle Christian readers.
They will bear us witness, however, that we do not quote as
saults upon the more sacred truths of our faith, even for the
purpose of repelling them. Had Prof. McGriffert withdrawn
from our ministry before publishing his book it would not have
been alluded to here."
On the other hand, the liberal school of Biblical critics
speak in terms of highest praise of the work. As representa
tive of these we may quote from Prof. Shailer Mathews, asso
ciate professor of New Testament History and Interpretation,
University of Chicago. "The character of the volume in gen
eral, makes it, on the whole, the most notable addition to the
theological literature on the side of critical Church history
and New Testament criticism as yet made by any American.
If, therefore, we feel obliged to differ with some of its main
positions, such dissent by no means should be interpreted as
evincing a lack of appreciation of its method and spirit, or
dissent from most of its conclusions."
(Biblical World,
Nov. '97.)
The book is written in clear and forcible English. Its
statements are, for the most part, concise and straightforward.
To any one at all interested in the period of history covered it
must prove a readable volumeand this without regard to
opinion as to its real value as a true history.
It is the work of a man of undoubted scholarshipone
thoroughly acquainted with the bibliography of his subject ;
and this is certainly to its author's credit at a time when many
are writing without having taken pains to prepare themselves
for their work, either by broad general training or by special
mastery of the subject in hand. The importance of the vol
ume, however, is not due to its clear English, nor to its au
thor's scholarship, nor yet to its originality. In none of these
respects is it more remarkable than many volumes that will
attract less notice.
Its importance is due rather to existing conditions in the
theological world.
There is a demand among thoughtful
people for a middle ground between the old dogmatism of tra .
314
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
ditional orthodoxy and the new dogmatism of destructive

criticism. This book at least claims to be an attempt to meet
that demand. The author states in his preface, "My aim
throughout has been positive and not negative, constructive
and not destructive." (p. VIII.) In the present state of
things such a volume is sure to attract attention ; those accept
ing its critical theory will approve it in spite of its faults, those
opposing its critical theory will condemn it in spite of its mer
its. Meanwhile it is of importance to learn what are its
faults and its merits. It is worth while to endeavor to learn
what service, if any, has been done the cause of truth by its
positiveness and its constructiveness.
The chronology of Paul's life will first claim our attention.
Since the chronology of Acts is confessedly uncertain, it is no
matter of surprise to find McGiffert at variance with the gener
ally accepted dates that mark the principal points in Paul's
life. In order to contrast his dates with those commonly ac
cepted, I shall make use of the chronological table given in Dr.
Wm. Smith's New Testament History, as fairly representa
tive. McGriffert starts with A. D. 30, the commonly accepted
date of Christ's death. The other dates that I shall notice are
the following:
McGiffert.
Smith.
Death of Stephen, 31 or 32 A. D
36 or 37 A. D.
Conversion of Paul, 31 or 32 A. D
37 A. D.
Paul in Jerusalem, 34 or 35 A. D
39 A. D.
Paul in Cilicia and Syria after 35 A. D
40 A. D.
1st Miss. Journey, before 45 A. D
45 A. D .
Jerusalem Council, 45 or 46 A. D
48 A. D.
2d Miss. Journey, 46-49 A. D
49-53 A. D.
3rd Miss. Journey, 49-52 A. D
54-58 A. D.
Arrest in Jerusalem, 53 A. D
58 A. D.
Imprisonment at Caesarea, 53-55 A. D.
. 58-60 A. D.
Journey to Borne, 55-56 A. D
. 60-61 A. D.
Imprisonment at Rome, 56-58 A. D
61-63 A. D.
Release and 4th Journey . . . 63-65 A. D.
2d arrest
65 A. D2d Roman Imprisonment . . 65-68 A. D.
Death, 58 A. D
68 A. D
From these contrasted dates it will be of interest to notice
particularly the date of Paul's conversion, of his transportation
to Rome, and of his death.
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
315
It will be noticed that the date assigned Stephen's death

and Saul's conversion brings those events several years nearer
the death of Christ than formerly. This seems to be the ten
dency among scholars of the day and has much in its favor.
With regard to the Caesarean imprisonment and the trans
portation to Rome, McGiffert says: "Paul's Caesarean impris
onment, which has been engaging our attention, has been
commonly employed as a starting point from which to reckon
the chronology of a large part of the apostle's life. It is clear
that he was sent from Caeserea to Rome soon after the acces
sion of Festus. If the date of the latter event, therefore, can
be determined, the time of his imprisonment can be fixed
with a good deal of exactness and calculations can be based
upon it respecting preceding as well as subsequent events.
Unfortunately, the desired date is not directly given in any of
our sources. * * * The prevailing opinion is that Festus be
came procurator in the year 60. But there is good ground, it
seems to me, for revising that opinion and for pushing the
date of his accession back to the year 55." (356) Our au
thor then gives a succinct statement of his reasons for accept
ing the early date. Space forbids mention of these further
than to say that he draws his data from statements in Josephus
and Tacitus concerning the procuratorship of Felix and his
successor, Festus. (357, 358)
Against his conclusions Prof. Mathews, in the article
already quoted upon another point, puts forth a clear argu
ment, based upon a fuller examination of all the data, and a
fairer statement of all the difficulties connected with them. As
I have not given McGiffert's argument it would be unfair to
give that of his critic, but I may state that Mathews demon
strates to my satisfaction that the commonly accepted date of
Paul's departure for Rome (A. D. 60 as against McGiffert A. D.
55) is by far the more reasonable. It is significant that in do
ing this, although he is manifestly a fair and friendly critic,
Mathews reveals the fact that McGiffert has not given his
readers the benefit of all the data in the case nor shown the
real difficulties connected with their use. At one point it is
indicated that "McGiffert avoids the difficulty by overlook
ing the specific data of Tacitus," and at another, after calling
316
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
attention to statements by the Jewish historian, it is said,

"Prof. McGiffert makes no use of these specific chronological
data of Josephus. This is to be regretted, not alone on the
grounds of incompleteness of induction, but also from the
desire one feels of learning how on this hypothesis he would
divide the time between 55 and 62." It is evident that the
failure on the part of our author to make a fair induction in
this case makes a strong impression of his untrustworthiness
in such matters upon Prof. Mathews. In commending McGiffert's treatment of the pastoral epistles, and the clearness
of the conclusions reached with regard to Paul's last days he
says, "One hesitates at some of the conclusions this criticism
reaches one might say, just because of the distinctness of the
method. For one fears lest possibly some discordant data,
like those which have been so generally introduced in other
portions of the volume, may have escaped notice."
If we reject the conclusion that Paul was sent from
Caesarea in 55 and arrived in Rome 56, it of course follows that
his death can not be placed in 58, but must, at the earliest, be
put in 63 ; and this only upon the supposition of McGiffert that
Paul suffered martyrdom at the end of the two years' impris
onment mentioned at the close of Acts. The arguments against
Paul's release and fourth missionary journey are based largely
upon the silence of Acts and the untrustworthiness of the pas
toral epistles. If the genuineness of these epistles be accepted
there is, of course, no room to question that Paul was released
and did make another missionary journey. It is worthy of
note that Harnack, who is in substantial agreement with McGif
fert in his general estimate of the pastoral epistles, and Ram
say, who is at one with McGiffert as to the purpose of the book
of Acts, are yet both firm in their conviction that Paul was
released and perished later, in his second imprisonment.
Therefore, whatever be the fate of the pastorals, it seems most
in harmony with all the facts (as for instance the well sup
ported tradition of the death of Peter at Rome at the same
time Paul suffered, which McGiffert agrees must have been
fully six years later than his date for the latter' s martyrdom)
to hold to the common theory that Paul was released at the
end of two years. We may let Prof. Mathews have the last
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
317
word upon this part of our subject: "Taken altogether, there

fore, one hesitates to yield assent to most of the changes in
apostolic chronology proposed by Prof. McGiffert, although
the strength of his position is at times very great."
I shall next endeavor to state briefly the author's position
as to the date, authorship and general purpose of the various
books of the New Testament, for the most part leaving it
entirely to the reader to decide to what extent it differs from
the commonly accepted views. It is, of course, impossible to
give even a bare statement of all his arguments in support of
his theories. I shall take the books in the order given in the
New Testament rather than in the order of their consideration
by McGiffert, with the exception of the Acts which I shall
reserve to the last for somewhat extended notice.
Matthew was written by a Christian Jew and apparently
for his own countrymen, but who he was or where he wrote
can not be known. It is highly improbable that Matthew wrote
it since seven eighths of it are drawn from written sources, as
would not be the case had its author been an eyewitness of
the events reported. It was evidently written by a Christian
of the second or third generation. It was attributed to
Matthew because its author made large use of the Logia of
Matthew, a collection of sayings of the Lord written in Hebrew.
(574-576)
Mark is the earliest account of Christ's life that has come
down to us. It was, no doubt, written by a Jew, and we may
accept the tradition that Mark wrote it as he received it from
Peter. It may have been composed in Rome and must have
been written after the destruction of Jerusalem since it distin
guishes that event from the second coming of Christ, which is
not the case in the Logia as preserved in Matthew. (571-573)
Luke, "like Matthew, was based primarily upon Mark and
the Logia." It, like Mark, must have been written after the
destruction of Jerusalem, but probably before the end of the
first century. Its author was apparently a Gentile Christian,
but who he was or where he wrote there is no way to tell.
(576-577)
John was composed with a free hand. Although its dis
courses are not pure invention, their peculiar form is due to
318
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
the author, and his presentation of Christ is largely due to the

form of his speeches. It is an ideal picture of Jesus, yet it had
some basis in fact. McGiffert is sure "the time is past when
it can be explained as a mere piece of religious fiction from
the pen of a second century writer, but the time will perhaps
never come when it can be claimed to be either an absolutely
exact picture of Jesus' character, or a really historical account
of his ministry." Possibly it was written by one who got his
information from sources, as did Matthew, possibly it was the
direct work of the Apostle John. The question of its author
ship is of little real importance since it may fairly be claimed
that criticism has shown it to contain "a large body of gen
uine Apostolic matter. " (610-616)
Romans was written from Corinth, by Paul, A. D. 52-53;
(325) chapter 16 was originally a separate note introducing
someone to the Church at Ephesus. (275) McGiffert calls at
tention to the fact that the arguments against this theory are
fully given by Sanday in his recent commentary on Romans.
That work is perhaps easily the greatest commentary on
Romans that has appeared since Meyer's monumental volume.
It is interesting to know that both Meyer and Sanday are em
phatically opposed to McGiffert's position. Sanday states
all the arguments in its favor, tells us it was first put forth by
Shultz in 1829 and has since been very generally accepted, and
then argues conclusively against its adoption.
First Corinthians was written by Paul from Ephesus,
A. D. 51-52. It is really the second Epistle, the first not hav
ing come down to us.
Second Corinthians was also written from Ephesus by
Paul, A. D. 51-52. It is made up of two Epistles. Chapters
10-13 are really Paul's third letter to Corinth, while chapters
1-9 are the fourth, written after the troubles alluded to in the
third were all happily ended. This position is taken because
McGiffert considers that the difference of tone shown in chap
ters 10-13 makes it difficult to believe they were a part of the
letter we have in chapters 1-9. In 10-13 he is in the midst of
a conflict; in 1-9 he is writing after the conflict is over.
Chapters 10-13 are the letter to which he alludes in 7:9 sq.
the severe letter that he had almost repented writing them,
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
319
but that he was glad he did write after he learned that it

wrought in them a godly sorrow that brought them to repent
ance. (311-313) Furthermore chapters 1-9 are not a unit.
In them is an interpolation running from 6:14 to 7:1. It is
regarded as an interpolation because it seems to break the
continuity of thought which is traceable between 6:13 and 7:2.
This interpolation McGiffert thinks may plausibly be regarded
as a part of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians which is al
luded to in what is now known as First Corinthians but which
has been lost. (323n) Here again it is reassuring to those
who do not like to see the books of the Bible torn to pieces in
this way to learn that the great Meyer regards Second Corin
thians as a unit, and easily explains the difference of tone that
is noticable between its first and second parts. And Meyer was
a bold and free scholar.
Galatians was written about A. D. 46 from Antioch, by
Paul, very shortly after the Jerusalem Council and trouble with
Peter at Antioch, and directed against Judaizers. According
to this the epistle is placed first among Paul's writings and
about nine years earlier than the commonly accepted view
which dates it from Ephesus in 55, during the third missionary
tour. (226 sq.) This conclusion depends ultimately upon
an acceptance of the South Galatian theory, made so promi
nent and so ably sustained by Prof. Ramsay in his Church
in the Roman Empire, which makes Galatia not the old
Celtic kingdom of that name but the Roman province which
embraces a great territory and extends far enough south to in
clude Pissidian Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, cities visited in
the first missionary journey and supposed, upon this theory,
to be the location of the Galatian Churches addressed by Paul.
While I am quite well satisfied that the South Galatian theory
is correct, I am far from sure that McGiffert has made a clear
case by his arguments in favor of the early date of Galatians.
To do so involves Luke's account in Acts in serious difficulty.
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, are placed during the
imprisonment at Rome, though in accord with our author's
chronology they are dated several years earlier than according
to the common view. Ephesians is regarded, not as a letter
320
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
to Ephesus, but as a circular letter to Churches which were

probably all in the province of Asia, a theory that is now very
generally accepted. (379 sq. ) It is noteworthy that McGiffert
accepts all these as genuine. First Thessalonians and Second
Thessalonians may also be dismissed with a word as not being
dealt with in any unusual manner.
The pastoral Epistles, First and Second Timothy and
Titus, are regarded as unauthentic. McGiffert advances five
arguments against their genuineness. (1) The external evi
dence to their genuineness is weak. (2) The manner in
which Timothy and Titus are addressed is not what would be
expected from Paul to his tried and trusted diciples. (3)
The style is un-Pauline. (4) The author's attitude toward
false teachers and teaching evinces an imperfect or hazy idea of
the heresies attacked, and a polemical method wholly un-Paul
ine. (5) The Christianity of the pastoral Epistles is not the
Christianity of Paul. This is truly a formidable list of objec
tions against three small letters, yet it is at least safe to say
that all scholars have not forsaken them, and their case is not
utterly hopeless. Even Prof. McGiffert believes that in these
epistles we have authentic letters of Paul, although these have
been worked over and enlarged by another hand. (404, 405)
The author is not sure that his attempt to decide just what
verses are Pauline is successful. Philemon needs no special
remark.
Hebrews was written during the reign of Domitian (A. D.
81-96) by some unknown Christian who was quite power
fully influenced by the Christianity of Paul and equally in
fluenced by the thought of Philo. It is improbable, according
to our book, that this is addressed to Jewish Christians.
The usual arguments in favor of that view are set aside on the
ground that they apply with equal force to Gentile Christians.
It was probably addressed to the Church at Rome. It was
written during a time of persecution. "It was the writer's
chief concern to arouse his readers to their old-time faith and
zeal, to impart renewed courage, and to warn them against the
danger of back-sliding and apostacy." Its purpose is not
doctrinal but practical. (463-469)
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
321
James appears to have been a homily, originally written

with an eminently practical purpose and afterward sent out as
a general Epistle with its present superscription added. It is
very improbable that it was written by James the brother of
our Lord or by any one who had known Jesus personally.
Where and by whom it was written can not be known though
the author was evidently a Jew. McGiffert does not say when
it was written but from several remarks one might conclude he
is inclined to place it in the second century. (579 sq.)
First Peter was probably not written by Peter. It is the
most Pauline of any of the New Testament books not coming
from Paul, it is addressed to Gentile Christians, it has few
personal reminiscences of Jesusall of which tell against a
Petrine authorship. It is not likely that the letter was orig
inally pseudonymous ; it is more likely it was anonymous, like
Hebrews, and that some scribe of the second century attached
Peter's name to it. It was written during the persecution
under Domitian, for the purpose of encouraging Christians to
endure. It was apparently written in Rome, and McGiffert
advances the original theory that Barnabas was the author.
(593-598) Second Peter is a second century forgery, the only
strictly pseudonymous piece in the New Testament. (600 sq.)
First John was certainly written by the author of the
fourth Gospel, whoever he was, and near the time when that
was composed. Second and Third John may have been writ
ten by the same author or by the presbyter John, they are at
least from one man and were written at about the same time.
(617-620)
The date and the authorship of Jude are uncertain as is
also the place of writing. The contents of the letter point to
the second century or close of first. Its author was certainly
not the brother of James and of the Lord. (585 sq. )
Revelation was certainly not written by the author of the
Gospel and First Epistle of John. If the Apostle wrote the
latter he could not have been the author of the Apocalypse.
All that can be said with confidence is that the author was a
Jew residing in Asia, whose name was John, and that if he
was not the Apostle he was probably the presbyter, both of
Vol. 23.
322
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
whom lived in Asia during the latter part of the first century.
(621-634)
Before passing to a consideration of McGiffert's treatment
of Acts it may be well to venture a remark or two upon these
theories. They are sufficiently radical, but the author has, in
the main, been true to his purpose to be "positive and not
negative." At many points, considering the uncertainty of
his position, he is so positive as to merit much of Matthew
Arnold's sarcasm concerning critics whose theories are charac
terized by "vigor and rigor." Such positiveness may well
raise the question whether it would not be better not to build
so elaborately upon a foundation of sand. It reminds one of
the remark that has been attributed to Josh Billings: "I'd
ruther not no so mutch then to no so meny things that aint
so." But I pass to a consideration of Acts according to McGiffert.
The first thing to impress the student of this work is that
he is left to his own inference very largely as to the theory
upon which McGiffert proceeds in his treatment of Acts. Upon
this point we will hear again from Prof. Mathews: "The first
matter for which the student of New Testament times looks in
a work of this sort is the author's general critical position as
regards Acts. No book of the New Testament has of late
years received more attention as a possible key to a proper
criticism of its period as a whole. And, indeed, any scientific
historical work is impossible that is not based upon an exam
ination of sources. Prof. McGiffert has a critical theory as to
Acts, which he uses constantly and consistently, but which is
introduced incidentally in connection with the discussion of
various incidents. It is not easy, therefore, to disentangle the
criteria upon which it is based, or the theory itself as a whole.
Such a method has its advantages, but it sometimes leaves the
reader without clear views as to the worth of the grounds upon
which one element of a narrative is taken and another rejected,
and often exposes the author to the charge of subjectivity. In
certain portions of his works this suspicion is somewhat sup
ported by the author's occasionally dismissing some element
in his source with the bald statement that it is 'improbable,' or
that it 'could not' be true. In fact, although it is by no means
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
323
true that Prof. McGiffert is moved frequently by dogmatic

reasons, it would be strange if in some instances such a charge
were not brought against him simply from the lack of any
comprehensive statement of his critical position as a whole."
This is certainly a grave fault but it is not so grave, in my
estimation, as are the results of his theory when applied to
Acts. It is amazing the assurance McGiffert has that he can
decide what is true and what false in the book, and the confi
dence with which he proceeds to handle this and all other
sources. One wonders from what secret springs the man
draws his knowledge of the period of which he writes, that he
can in so high-handed a way discredit or reject the only
sources of information upon which ordinary mortals can de
pend in studying Apostolic times.
Let us note the results of his method as he applies it to
Acts. Chapter 1 : 13-20 may be accepted as generally accurate,
not because it is reported as history but because it seems rea
sonable to our Professorthatthingsshouldhave been as reported.
(44) Concerning 1:16-22, where Peter addresses his breth
ren in regard to Judas and the choice of his successor, we are
told that Peter, of course, did not utter all of it but may have
spoken everything but verses 17-19. (44n. ) Luke's concep
tion of the office and position of the Apostles in the Church is
contradicted by the facts of the Acts itself. "The notion is
evidently purely dogmatic, resting upon the author's assump
tion of what the Apostles must have been to the Church in its
early days." (47) Pentecost was not the birthday of the
church, which was in existence before that time, nor was it the
beginning of the Spirit's dispensation. The Spirit promised
by Jesus had evidently been received before they recognized
him after his resurrection. (49) It is only "in accord with
his general conception" that Luke finds the chief significance
of Pentecost in the descent of the Spirit which he erroneously
regards as not having been given until then. (50)
The gift of tongues was evidently attended by the identical
phenomena that Paul describes in First Corinthians, but Luke
has made the mistake of thinking it was a form of intelligible
utterance. (51, 52n. ) It is upon this point that Rev. Simon J.
McPherson, in a letter to the editor of the Interior, says: "But
324
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
the most naive thing occurs at the beginning of the footnote,

already mentioned. Speakingof the gift of tongues, our modest
doctor says : 'It is clear that the author of the Book of Acts had
another conception of the phenomenon in question than that
presented in the text.' Nobody with any sense of humor
would dare say that this suggests Luke versus Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph. D., D. D. It is the 'author of the Book
of Acts' versus the author of the 'Apostolic Age.' In point of
authoritativeness the advantage obviously is on the side of
the very latest book ! Union Seminary may perhaps be glad
that Luke is not its Washburn professor of Church history.''
Peter's sermon (2:14 sq.) in emphasizing the Messiahship
of Jesus rather than the fatherhood of God is a reversal of
"The Master's estimate of value." Because Christ's igno
minious death (54) was a stumbling block to the acceptance of
him as Messiah, the disciples began to search the Scriptures to
find some way of explaining it. Peter said nothing about it
in his first discourse, but by the time he gave the address in
3:12 sq., they had hit upon the theory that Jesus died to ful
fill prophecy, and for no other reason. This explanation of
his death satisfied them for some time, and there is no evidence
that they conceived of his death as in any way contributing to
the well being of his followers or the interests of the kingdom.
(57) Paul's idea in 1 Cor. 15:3, that Christ died for our sins
became dominant before the end of the century, but there is
no evidence that any such connection between his death and
salvation was made at the beginning of the Apostles' work.
(57n. ) To Peter in those early days "Christianity was Juda
ism and nothing more." (58) "It would be a mistake to sup
pose that he intended, during those early days, to enunciate a
new way of receiving God's favor or a new method of salva
tion." (59) The reader will not fail to notice that whatever
McGiffert's critical method is he makes it go any way he pleases,
at one time deciding that Luke's clearest utterances are no
ground for assurance of a fact ; at another making his very
silence serve to prove the weightiest matters, as in deciding
that the Apostles at first never proclaimed the death of Jesus as
necessary for forgiveness of sin.
With regard to the supernatural manifestations in the
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
325
early Church, Luke's accounts "are of a very general

character, and sound like additions of his own; but some
specific cases are reported where it can hardly be doubted that
he made use of earlier sources, either written or oral." (74)
The figures given of the growth of the Jerusalem Church are
not merely the result of Luke's "idealization of the early his
tory," but are surely taken from unreliable sources. (80)
Luke is no doubt right in tracing the attacks upon the Chris,
tians at this time to the Sadducees and not the Pharisees, but
"the reason he gives for their hostility betrays a misappre
hension of their true character." (83) In reporting the speech
of Gamaliel in Acts 5, it seems "that the author of the Acts,
unconscious of the anachronism involved, must have put into
Gamaliel's mouth words which he did not actually utter."
(84n.) In connection with the report of the persecution at the
death of Stephen, "the notion that the Apostles stood by
Jerusalem after the flight of all their brethren, rests upon a
misapprehension as to their position and functions, which is
characteristic of the author of the Acts as well as of the age in
which he lived." (92n.) In fact Luke's whole conception of
the Apostles and their work is the outgrowth of later times
which he falsely transfers to the period of his history (97 andn. )
and is only in keeping with many other anachronisms or un
intentional falsehoods found in his account. (98, 102, 105, 109)
Passing to the later portions of Acts, those that deal with
Paul and his work, we find them handled in the same lofty
fashion. The record in 11 : 1 sq. of Barnabas bringing Paul from
Tarsus to Antioch to labor with him is accepted because
"there is nothing intrinsically improbable in this narrative."
(168) The two accounts of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, as given
in 11: 27-30 and 15: 1 sq., are identified with the visit
mentioned in Gal. 2:1 sq.
True, Luke makes them
two distinct visits, but here again Luke must yield to McGiffert in point of authority. Luke is wrong, though it was
but natural that he should suppose that two accounts of
the same visit found in his source referred to two different
events. (172)
With chapter 13 sq. the second section of Acts is entered
upon. "Like the first twelve chapters, it is based largely upon
326
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
older sources of varying worth." However, "throughout a

large part of this half of his work, the author was in posses
sion of much fuller and more trustworthy documents than for
the period covered by the first twelve chapters." (172, 173)
While there is no doubt that Paul and Barnabas preached to the
Jews in Pissidian Antioch "it may fairly be questioned whether
chapter 13 actually reproduces with accuracy what Paul said"
(186) this because Paul is reported as using language like
Peter's on Pentecost and at Caesarea.
McGiffert's theory that Galatians was written before the
visit to the South Galatian Churches upon the second mission
ary journey, recorded in Acts 16, involves him in serious diffi
culty when he comes to the account of Timothy's circumcision.
He argues that it is incredible that Paul circumcised Timothy in
Galatia after the trouble with the Judaizers reported in his
Epistle, as such an act in that very territory would lead to
serious results. The argument is not without force. There
are several courses open to him in getting out of the difficulty.
(1) He might reject the South Galatian theory and so remove
this incident from the territory where the difficulty with the
Judaizers occurred. (2) He might reject his theory of the
early authorship of Galatians and so remove the improbability
that Paul would act as reported. (3) He might assume that
there were circumstances not reported by Luke that made it
expedient for Paul to act as represented. (4) He might decide
that Luke is in error in his history. It is characteristic of the
man and his method that he chooses this last alternative and
promptly declares that it is Luke who is wrong.
Here is his
explanation of Luke's mistake: "The report can not be
regarded as an invention. It is altogether probable that Tim
othy, though the son of a Greek father, was actually circum
cised, and that too under circumstances which excited remark
and caused the fact to be remembered. May it be that he was
one of Paul's Galatian converts who had received circumcision
at the instance of the Judaizers? And may it be that when
Paul arrived in Galatia, he found him so regretful for what
had taken place, and so earnest and zealous in his support of
the true Gospel, that he chose him as a companion, with the
declaration, 'circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
327
nothing; but a new creature?' It would have been easy in

that case for the tradition to grow up that the Gentile Timo
thy, Paul's convert and dearest fellow-worker, had received
circumcision at Paul's own hands, and the fact that his mother
was a Jewess might naturally seem to supply the explana
tion." (234)
In reporting Paul's work at Athens he thinks the sober
and meager details show Luke was not "merely romancing"
but the names of the two converts, Dionysius and Damaris, he
probably inserted on the basis of tradition; his documents
probably reported no conversions. (259 and n.) The whole
account of Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, together with his ar
rest, his speeches of defense, etc. , are dealt with in the free
manner which we have seen to characterize our author. The
speeches, like all others in the book, are mixtures of truth and
falsehood, Luke putting into Paul's mouth whatever he
thought he ought to have said upon such occasions. (338-345,
349-359) The journey to Rome is passed hastily over.
The task of deciding upon what theory McGiffert has pro
ceeded in his treatment of Acts I shall leave to Prof. Math
ews. "So far as the composition of Acts is concerned, Prof.
McGiffert holds as follows: The book is made up from vari
ous sources, chief among which are the 'we' sections. It is by
no means clear that these are a part of a larger source that un
derlies the whole of Acts, or even of the second half. The
sources of the earlier portion of the work are derived from
primitive Christian documents, but in no place have the Epis
tles of Paul been used. These sources have been freely re
worked by the author of Acts, who has not hesitated to repre
sent the organization of the primitive Church as conforming to
that of later days, or to misrepresent, perhaps through ignor
ance, other features of the early era of Christianity. As to
the author and date of the book, Prof. McGiffert is somewhat
in doubt. Indeed, at times it seems as if his views had varied
during the production of his worka possibility perhaps ex
plaining the difference of terminology and implications in dif
ferent portions of the book. Thus it would appear from pages
47 and95n. as if the author of Acts presents a conception of the
office of the Apostles current in the second century, while on
328
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
page 437 he is represented as most probably writing during the

persecution of Domitian. Something like vagueness of termin
ology attaches to the name of the author himself. Although he
is repeatedly spoken of as Luke, Prof. McGiffert holds that
he could not have been Luke, for Acts was not written by a
disciple of Paul. The reason for this view is that the author
of Acts could not have been the author of the 'we' sections, as
he is too ignorant of events in the primitive Church, the life of
Paul, and also of the doctrine of Paul."
His theory of the purpose of Acts is in accord with Prof.
Ramsay's. It was written during a time of persecution, most
likely that under Domitian, to show that formerly Christianity
was not regarded by Roman officials as pernicious. This is
done by pointing out that in all cases where Paul and his fel
low workers were brought before Roman officials they were lib
erated and exonerated. This is why the report of Paul's ar
rest, trial, imprisonment and transportation to Rome are given
so disproportionate a place in Luke's account. (345-349)
McGiffert, however, parts company with Ramsay when he
holds that Luke brings his account to a close at the end of
Paul's two years' imprisonment at Rome because Paul was
then condemned and executed, and to relate that fact would
interfere with his purpose.
This theory of Luke's purpose has some things in its
favor. But it is always somewhat precarious to judge of a
writer's purpose and his tendency in the absence of any direct
proof. We have not forgotten what Bauer and the Tubingen
school were able to do with Acts in this line. They saw in
these very facts used by McGiffert and Ramsay in deciding the
purpose of the book, evidence of a subordinate kind that went
to support their main argument that the book was to reconcile
Jewish and Gentile Christianity. I think we shall be safest in
agreeing with Dean Alford who says: "Any view which at
tributes ulterior design to the writer beyond that of faithfully
recording such facts as seemed important in the history of the
Gospel, is, I am persuaded, mistaken. Many ends are an
swered by the book in the course of this narration, but they
are designs of Providence, not the studied purpose of the
writer. ' '
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
329
McGiffert's method of handling this book, and the con

clusions he has reached concerning it are opposed, not only by
conservative dogmatists, and by the average common-sense
reader, but by many critics of undoubted scholarship who are
in no way influenced by fears of charges of heresy. Chief among
these is the noted Professor of Humanity in the University
of Aberdeen, W. M. Ramsay. Ramsay's testimony concerning
the trustworthiness of Acts is of the highest value and may
well be here cited as an offset to McGiffert's. He tells us in
his St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, with what pre
conceptions he began his study of the book. "I may fairly
claim to have entered on this investigation without any prej
udice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to
justify to the reader. On the contrary I began with a mind
unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness
of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.
It was however gradually borne in upon me that in various
details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact begin
ning with the fixed idea that the work was a second century
composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy
for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a use
ful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations." Thus
he shows that his researches in the topography, geography,
archeology and numismatology of Asia Minor led him to be
gin to rely upon Acts as a trustworthy history.
One can trace the growth of his confidence in the book.
In his Church in the Roman Empire he is just fairly begin
ning to rely on Luke. In the light of facts that had come to him
after the first part of the book was printed he says in a post
script: "I now feel even more confident than before, that Acts
13-21 is an authority of the highest character for the historian of
Asia Minor. Formerly I looked on it with much suspicion,
and refrained entirely, in my Historical Geography from
founding an argument on it. Now I have learned that those
points which roused suspicion were perfectly true to the first
century, but were misjudged by me, because I contemplated
them under the influence of prepossessions derived from the
facts of the second century." Again, in his article on New
Light on the Book of Acts in the volume on Recent Re
330
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
search in Bible Lands edited by Prof. Hilprecht, after a brief

statement of the progress and general results of discoveries
made recently in Asia Minor, he says: "What I have now
said is equivalent to asserting the exact historical authenticity
of the narrative, and that is the great result of recent discov
ery. It has already ceased to be possible for a rational criti
cism to maintain that the narrative of these journeys is a free
second century composition; and it is rapidly ceasing to be
possible to regard it as a series of first century scraps, pieced
together by a second century compiler for his own purposes.
Only a narrative written with full mastery by an eyewitness,
or by one who was in communication with eyewitnesses, and
able to use their accounts with delicate precision, could stand
the minute study that is now demanded and applied." Still
later in his St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen he is
ready to affirm: "Our hypothesis is that Acts was written by
a great historian, a writer who set himself to record the facts
as they occurred. I shall argue that the book was composed
by a personal friend and disciple of Paul, and if this be once
established there will be no hesitation in accepting the primi
tive tradition that Luke was the author." Furthermore, Ram
say maintains both in his larger works already referred to, and
in his articles in periodicals, that Luke and Paul are in full
agreement in the Acts and the Epistles, and that Luke wrote
the Acts with the Epistles before him to supplement his per
sonal recollections.
This is reassuring after following McOiffert in his work of
discrediting Acts. As a matter of fact McGiffert seems to be
a slave to his preconceptions all through his work. He seems
to distrust the Acts and repose confidence only in his ideas of
what ought to have been said, or ought to have happened,
rather than by what Luke reports. His confidence in his
ability to decide accurately in such matters is the more amaz
ing when we find him representing Luke as going wrong when
employing the same method under circumstances much more
favorable to its success. Witness his comment on Luke's
account of Paul's speech at Thessalonica as reported in Acts
17:13 which he rejects, since he says it "is based evidently not
upon direct knowledge but upon the author's inference as to
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
331
what he must have said" (244). When it comes to deciding

between the value of McGiffert's inference and Luke's, I pre
fer to follow Luke, especially when it is only by McGiffert's
inference that Luke's statement is taken from the realm of
fact and reduced to mere inference. To decide upon imperfect
induction what must have been the condition of things at any
given period and then to make all history fit the theory or be
rejected as false is nothing new in the records of Biblical criti
cism. It was the method of the Tubingen school. And Dr.
Philip Moxom, in his history of the Church from Jerusalem to
Nicea, remarking upon the fact that the emperor Trajan was
not the first to persecute Christians simply as Christians and
not as evil doers, quotes from Ramsay a sentence which indi
cates another instance of the folly of the method of criticism
just noticed: "It is one of the most astounding facts of
modern historical investigation, that so many modern and
especially German critics of high standing and authority, have
reiterated that Trajan was the first to make the name a crime,
and that any Christian document which refers to the name as
a ground for death must be later than his rescript."
I much mistake if McGiffert has not been guilty of such a
method of criticism in his handling of Acts and other New
Testament documents. I also believe that the great Harnack
in the introduction to his Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis
Irenaeus nebst einleitenden Untersuchungen has laid bare the
secret of McGiffert's difficulty in this whole matter when he
says: "The presuppositions of the Bauer school can now be
fairly said to have been entirely discarded. Yet there is left
in Biblical criticism, as an inheritance from that age, an unde
fined suspicion, of a kind practiced by a trickster lawyer, or at
least a petty, fault-finding method which still clings to all
manner of minor details, and from these argues against the
clear and decisive facts in the case. The tendency to criticism
as a principle has given way to a method which searches and
seeks for tendencies of all kinds and for interpolations on a
grand scale, or to a scepticism that places the probable and
the improbable on a level. Even the best work that we have
in the department of New Testament criticism, the introduc
tion of Holtzmann, is not free from this weakness." In view
332
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
of this after effect of the Tubingen school upon Biblical

scholars, was not Bauer right when on his death bed he
somewhat jocosely remarked "that to his Tubingen school, so
often reported vanquished, might with truth be applied the
words of Paul: 'As dying, and behold, we live?' "
It will be interesting to glance at what McGiffert says of
Christ. The accounts of the infancy of Jesus are passed over
in silence. In connection with the record of his visit to the
temple when twelve years of age our author remarks that Jesus
had at some time prior to that event in some manner become
convinced that God was his father, and that it was right "to
allow what he regarded as his filial duty to his divine father to
take precedence of his ordinary duty to his parents." (16)
The development of his dawning Messianic consciousness is
further noticed in connection with his baptism. We are told
it was then that he "seems to have received for the first time
the revelation of his Messiahship, of his own ultimate and
peculiar relation to the kingdom for whose coming he was
looking (17). Farther along he says that Christ had expected
larger success than he achieved in his ministry, that his hopes
were disappointed. (31) The human limitations of Jesus
are again declared when we are told that he held mistaken
views as to the time of his second coming. True, the professor
thinks that a large part of our conception of what Jesus taught
on the subject may be due to errors made by his reporters,
but he must have led all his followers to believe that he
expected "at least an early consummation, an expectation which
was entirely in line with all we know of his conception of the
kingdom" (24).
We also learn of Christ: "That he anticipated that the
law would ever be done away there is no sign. " (26) Again,
while he believed himself the son of God and called upon men
to accept him as such, there is no evidence that he regarded
such acceptance as a new condition of salvation. He merely
looked upon it as a condition of knowing and entering into
fellowship with God. "We may conclude, then, that Jesus'
emphasis of faith in or acceptance of himself is throughout an
emphasis not of his personality, but of his message." (30)
This is somewhat disturbing when we are beginning to natter
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
333
ourselves that we are getting "back to Christ" by insisting

that his personality is more than his message, and that it is
more important to accept him than to assent to propositions
concerning him. Here also is something perplexing to Chris
tians of simple, old-fashioned faith. When the Holy Spirit
was promised to instruct his disciples "it is doubtful whether
Jesus meant to separate sharply his own coming and the com
ing of the Spirit." (33) And yet again, when Jesus first
foresaw that he must die he seems to have realized that it
would be for the good of all his disciples, but the idea that
he was a sacrifice whose blood should seal the covenant
of God with his disciplesthe idea that his death had
value in itself, as he represents it at the last supper, "can
hardly have been in Jesus' mind from the beginning * * *
his earlier allusions to his death indicate that he found
the reason for it in the principle of service." (34) Why has
it not occurred to Prof. McGiffert that the earlier references by
Jesus to his death may not have revealed all he thought upon
the subject, but disclosed to his disciples only such part of his
conception of the value of his death as they could comprehend
at the earlier period, reserving its deeper significance until the
proper time for its disclosure? Perhaps the professor is the
slave of an evolution theory that makes it necessary for him to
trace a development in the knowledge of "God manifest in the
flesh," upon this and all other subjects. According to this
theory one can not help wondering what might have been
Christ's conception of the value of his death if he had lived
thirty years longer! Who knows what the world has lost by
Christ's dying before he had given his best thoughts to men?
The statements by our author of Paul's ideas of the death
of Christ, the influence of Christ on the lives of his followers,
and the Christian's freedom from all law, together with the
argument that Paul was misunderstood by all the other preach
ers of the period and that their conceptions finally prevailed in
the Church, make up an interesting part of his book. Their
presentation must be passed over here, but will be found in
the chapters on "The Christianity of Paul" and "The Chris
tianity of the Church at Large" in the book under considera
tion.
334
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
The chapter on the "Developing Church" has its faults

and its merits. McGiffert holds, rightly enough, that the
organization and officiary of the Church were a gradual growth.
But there is room to question whether he is right in insisting
that the elders first mentioned in the New Testament were not
officers but simply the "older brethren" whose experience in
the Christian life and work gave them a certain unofficial pre
eminence. To maintain this position consistently he has to
assume that Luke and other New Testament writers misrepre
sent early conditions in the Church by putting into their
accounts language that would apply only to later develop
ments.
I must not neglect to notice our author's much criticised
position concerning the Lord's Supper and Baptism. With
regard to the former he thinks it probable that it was Paul
who first separated it from the ordinary meals of the Chris
tians. At first every meal was the Lord's Supper. It is far from
certain that Christ directed his disciples to eat such a supper in
memory of him.
As he evidently expected soon to return he
could hardly have been solicitous about the preservation of
his memory. By his use of the bread and wine it is likely he
wished merely to call attention to his approaching death and
its significance. On the subject of Baptism McGiffert delivers
himself to the effect that on the day of Pentecost men were
baptized in the name of Jesus because their crime had been
against him.
On later occasions the rite naturally took the
same formwas administered in the name of Jesus. The
formula "into the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit" was
certainly of much later origin. "It involves a conception of
the nature of the rite which was entirely foreign to the thought
of the early Christians and indeed no less foreign to the
thought of Paul" (60,61). No part of the book has been
more severely or more justly criticized than that containing
these statements. There is absolutely no ground for them so
long as Matthew, Luke and Paul are considered trustworthy.
In presuming to sap the foundations of our faith in Christ and
the two ordinances of the Church, McGiffert has shown where
his method of criticism leads when carried to its legitimate
conclusions.
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
335
The Independent finds in this book an outspoken con

viction that the New Testament actors were more or less
directly and constantly under the influence of personal divine
revelation and says: "It is no more than simple justice to note
this point at the beginning, for Prof. McGiffert's remarkably
free treatment of the materials of which the New Testament is
composed might, standing alone, unmodified and unrelieved
by this consideration, make a very different impression." I
confess myself utterly unable to discover any evidence that our
author is burdened with any positive convictions concerning
the divine guidance of the New Testament characters.
From what has been said of his views and theories and
treatment of the New Testament books I shall leave it to the
reader to decide whether he teaches that their writers were in
any real sense inspired. His position concerning miracles in
general is not very clearly revealed. He preserves a remarka
ble silence upon a number of New Testament passages where
his utterance might enable us to test his views had he chosen
to speak. Among these may be mentioned Matthew's and
Luke's accounts of the Nativity, Paul's release from the Philippian jail by an earthquake and the incidents during the ship
wreck on the journey to Rome. However, he evidently does
not endeavor to dodge all such passages, but he fails to speak
out on the subject. He says Luke is evidently right in repre
senting that the early Christians believed that such miraculous
powers as Jesus had possessed were still manifested among
them. (74) This shows only the belief of the early Christians
and not Prof. McGiffert's view as to its value. The professor
also eludes us again when he states that the first missionary
journey of Paul was undertaken in obedience to a command of
the Holy Spirit "according to Acts 13." (173) But when we
come to the account of Paul's miracles during the stay in
Cyprus he seems to show his real position by saying of Luke's
statement that Paul smote the magician Bar-Jesus with blind
ness: "He could hardly conceive of Paul as coming into con
tact with such a man and not giving convincing evidence of
his mightier control over the forces of nature, and it may have
been a denunciation by Paul of the spiritual blindness of the
Magician that led him to suppose that the Apostle inflicted
336
The Apostolic Age.
[July,
physical blindness upon him as recorded in verse 11." Our

assurance from this that we have our author's real conviction
with regard to miracles is soon disturbed by a footnote in
which he says: "That Paul worked miracles is confirmed by
his own statement in II Cor. 12:12." (189) As we proceed
we come to his comments on the passage where Paul was for
bidden by the Holy Spirit from entering Asia and Mysia and
called by the vision to Macedonia. The vision was a dream,
and for the rest, "As he looked back upon these days of uncer
tainty and indecision, when obstacles hemmed him in on this
side and on that in unaccountable ways, and prevented him
from carrying out one plan after another, it is not surprising
that he saw God's providence directing his every step and
leading him on to the larger work across the seas." (236) So
the miraculous evaporates. In treating of the spiritual gifts
in the Church, as of tongues, interpretation, prophecy, McGiffert again makes it clear enough what was the belief of the
Christians as to the reality of supernatural influence but he
does not indicate his own belief. (522-530) In tracing the
development of the Church in the concluding chapter of his
work he speaks in a way that gives more ground for the infer
ence that he believes in the supernatural guidance of the early
Christians. (625) Yet even here he seems to regard their
inspiration as merely a matter of enthusiasm for he says of
prophets, etc., "There may well have been many Churches,
especially after the original enthusiasm had somewhat cooled,
in which they were not always present." (659)
When we turn to his deliverances concerning the crown
ing miracle of the New Testament, the resurrection, we find
the same obscurity. He gives a good summary of I Cor. 15.
(309) He sets forth his idea of Paul's conception of the
resurrection (134). He speaks of the common belief in the
resurrection of Christ and believers as it existed in the early
Church. But of Paul he says, "As he conceived it, it was a
purely spiritual thing." The common belief in the Church was
different from Paul's. (452, 453) He seems to hold that
the belief in the resurrection was the natural outgrowth of a
mistaken notion that there would be an earthly and visible
kingdom of Christ at his speedy second coming.
1898.]
The Apostolic Age.
337
In his remarks on the effect of Christ's resurrection on

his disciples he shows that their belief in his resurrection must
have rested on actual appearances of the Lord to them. (37)
This clearly shows that McGiffert believes in Christ's existence
after his death, but whether he believes in his bodily resurrec
tion I can not tell. I have neither desire nor reason to mis
represent Prof. McGiffert upon this point. In writing a
history the author was under no obligation to tell his own
theological opinions, but in the light of the above representative
citations, taken in connection with his free handling of all New
Testament characters, not excepting Christ, and their writings,
we are certainly justified in refusing to allow the Independent
to disarm criticism on the plea that our author is a devout
believer in the divine guidance of the New Testament actors.
After the uncertainties of Prof. McGiffert's position con
cerning the miraculous in the Acts and elsewhere, it will be
refreshing to hear again from Prof. Ramsay: "The superhu
man element is inextricably involved in this book ; you can
not cut it out by any critical process that will bear scrutiny.
You must accept all or leave all." "Twenty years ago I
found it easy to dispose of them; [these miraculous elements]
but nowadays probably not even the youngest of us finds
himself able to maintain that we have mastered the secrets of
nature, and determined the limits which divide the unknown
from the impossible. That Paul believed himself to be the
recipient of direct revelations from God, to be guided and
controlled in his plans by the direct interposition of the Holy
Spirit, to be enabled by Divine power to move the forces of
nature in a way that ordinary men can not, is involved in this
narrative. You must make up your mind to accept or reject
it, but you can not cut out the marvelous from the rest, nor
can you believe that either Paul or this writer, Luke, was a
mere victim of hallucinations. " (St. Paul the Traveler and
Roman Citizen.)
Our final estimate of this book should not depend upon
our reluctance to accept its conclusions and their consequences.
It ought not to be a question as to whether or not it is palat
able, but whether or not it is true. Is the man's method
Vol. 24.
338
PauVs Letter to the Romans.
[July,
right and has he applied it faithfully? As Algernon Sydney

said, "A consequence can not destroy a truth."
When his method of procedure touches Christ, the Supper
and Baptism, it comes home to "our business and bosoms,"
but, as a matter of fact, if we grant that the method is allow
able in dealing with even the minor details of the New Testa
ment record we should not complain when it is carried to its
logical conclusions. W. J. Thamon has said, in the Chris
tian Quarterly, concerning the application of modern crit
ical methods to the Bible, "We ought not to want a Bible
or a creed that can't stand on its merits, precisely as the
multiplication table does. A robust faith puts its Bible into
the hands of the critics and says, 'Hasten your work; I want
to know your results.' " This is sane and sound, yet, since
the interests at stake are of vital importance to all the race for
all time, our critics must not be surprised if we watch their
work with keenest interest, if we accept no revolutionary con
clusions until they are thoroughly proved. I rest confident in
the conviction that the startling theories of Prof. McGiffert's
Apostolic Age, when subjected to the sifting process of a
sober and severe criticism will not stand the test. "Howbeit
the firm foundation of God standeth" and "The word of God
is living and active."
W. M. Forrest.
PAUL'S LETTER TO THE ROMANS.

THE greatest Epistle of the greatest Apostle is ever worthy
of our careful study; and if the following pages shall
remove any barrier or afford any help to a better appre
ciation of this richest legacy of the Church, the purpose of this
writing and of much study will be accomplished. Instead of
much which might have been more easy to write and more
entertaining to read, I have presented that which seemed to me
to conduce most to a clear view of the circumstances and pur
pose of Paul in writing, knowing that these are the keys to the
great treasure-house of truth, the Epistle itself. My wish is
1898.]
Paul's Letter to the Romans.
339
that if any reader may possess himself of the keys he shall not
hesitate to enter into the treasury, and laden his mind and
heart with imperishable riches.
I. The City and People of Rome. The traditions of the
Romans date from the founding of their city seven hundred and
fifty-three years before Christ; but just as the sources of a
great river are far up the mountain, inscrutably hidden by
the clouds, so the earliest events of Roman history are lost
among a multitude of uncertain legends. Excavations prove
that this queen of Italian cities was originally surrounded by a
quadrangular wall, and was confined to the Palatine Hill,
which was a low eminence on the south bank of the Tiber river,
about fifteen miles from its mouth. Probably this location
was selected with the intent to guard the northern frontiers of
Latium against the Etruscans.
For about two and a half centuries the city was ruled by
kings; but their deeds and even some of their names are too
doubtful for the pages of authentic history. The last three of
these were of Etruscan origin, and the last, Tarquinius Superbus, was so tyrannical that the people banished him and
his house from Rome, and organized a republican form of
government, and this (509 B. C.) only one year after the
tyrants were banished from Athens.
Lasting nearly five hundred years, the Roman republic,
through awful disasters, and yet by glorious victories, obtained
a dominion over that vast territory that extends from the
Atlantic ocean to the Caspian sea and from the German forests
to the barren wastes of Sahara and Arabia. But prowess and
power, wisdom and wealth could not sustain a free govern
ment among a people whose minds were enslaved with heathen
thoughts and whose hearts were bound with shackles of sin.
At the battle of Actium (31 B. C.) the last effort was made to
prolong the days of the expiring republic. Weary with war,
and exhausted by a hundred years of strife at home and con
quest abroad, the fainting government fell helpless into the
hands of Octavius Caesar, whom the senate named Augustus,
and who, with consummate skill and unparalleled success,
wrought a work of reconstruction whence issued an empire
strong enough to stand another half millenium.
340
[July,
It was during the reign of Oetavius when the temple of

Janus was closed to signify that Rome was at peace with the
world, that Christ was bom in Bethlehem. Before this time
the Romans worshipped the divinities of the Greeks except
under Latin names. Jupiter (Greek Zeus), to whom a temple
on the Capitoline Hill was consecrated, was the head of the
Pantheon and the especial protector of the Roman people.
Mars, the war god, was next; and because he was the favorite
deity of the fabled father of the Roman race, they called them
selves the "children of Mars." The warlike spirit of the
Romans fully justified this title. The goddess Vesta was sym
bolized by the fire on the hearth, and the nation, as if it were
a single family, kept the sacred fires burning on a common
hearth in the temple of Vesta. The Lares and Penates were
household gods, of which the former were spirits of ancestors
supposed to hover as guardians about the home.
But of the God of the Jews the Romans knew nothing
until gradually the dispersion introduced their synagogue
worship into the imperial city. At the time that Paul wrote
to the Church at Rome the Jews in great numbers had for
years been dwelling in that city, and their peculiar religion
had attracted some attention and made some preparation for
the introduction of Christianity. Paul's letter reached Rome
during the first five years of Nero's reign, while the emperor
was yet under the mild influence of his old teacher Seneca,
and before the monarch began his career of burning and
butchering.
The centre of the empire was a most important place to plant
a strong and influential Church. Moreover, the intelligence of
the people of the great capital encouraged our author to write
to them the fullest discussion of the profoundest theme that
ever engaged his pen.
II. The Origin of the Church in Rome. The found
ing of the Church in Rome, like the founding of the city itself,
is lost to the historian. The earliest mention of this Church is
found, not in Acts, which records the origin of most of the
Churches to which Paul writes, but in this Epistle which recog
nizes in the salutation "all that are in Rome beloved of God,
called to be saints" (1:7), and in the conclusion, "the Church
1898.]
341
that is in the house" of Aquila and Priscilla (16:5). The Acts,

however, does not neglect to mention "the brethren" from
Rome (28:15), and that when Paul was approaching the city
two years after writing this Epistle, they went forth to meet
him with welcome.
The claim of Roman Catholics that the Apostle Peter
founded the Church in the days of Claudius (A. D. 41-54) and
continued with it till his death, rests partly or entirely on the
worthless foundation of an error of Justin Martyr, who thought
a statue on an island of the Tiber, which bore the name Semo
Sanciis (a Sabine god) to be a memorial of Simon the sorcerer
(Acts 8: 14-24), and hence that Peter must have come to Rome
to withstand him.
The claim has been abandoned by many Catholic scholars
on the following grounds: (1) That proof is wholly wanting;
for those early writers who mention Peter as founder of the
Church at Rome, asEusebius (2:14), are dependent on Justin.
(2) It is inconceivable that Peter should be at Rome when
Paul wrote and received no recognition among Paul's many
salutations in the Epistle. (3) Paul expressly announces his
ambition not to build on another man's foundation (Rom.
15:20; cf. II Cor. 10:15, 16); which, if Peter founded the
Church and was still its bishop, is entirely inconsistent with
Paul's writing this didactic letter and with his cherished pur
pose to visit the Romans that he "might have some fruit
among them." (Rom. 1:13.) (4) It is evident from Acts
12:3, 4 that Peter was in Jerusalem A. D. 44, from Acts 15:7
that he was still there in 51, and from Gal. 2:11 that he was
in Antioch in 54. (5) The ignorance of the Jews in Rome
concerning Christianity when Paul arrived there (Acts 28:22),
is proof that Peter, the Apostle to the Jews, had not yet
labored there at all. (6) It is highly improbable that Peter
had come to Rome before Paul wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, the only letter certainly written by him in Rome, seeing
that Paul would certainly have mentioned so notable a fellowApostle, and could not have complained of being forsaken, as
in Phil. 2:20, 21. (7) Paul found no Churches in Macedonia
and Greece already established, and it was only by special
divine direction that he at that time entered Europe
342
[July.
(Acts 16:9); it is not likely, therefore, that another Apostle

had carried the Gospel much earlier as far West as Italy.
Even if it could be proved that Peter visited Rome, it
would not prove him founder of the Church, especially in the
face of Paul's practice not to build on another's foundation.
There is strong evidence* that Peter came to Rome, where
soon after he was executed; but this must have been after
Paul wrote to the Phillippians, Colossians, Ephesians and
Philemon; for in these books he says nothing of an Apostolic
visitor.
Inasmuch as we have no evidence that the Church at
Rome was founded by any person whom we can name, it has
been thought probable that Jewish worshippers from Rome
while attending national feasts at Jerusalem may have em
braced the Christian faith; and, having returned to Rome,
may have proclaimed it in the synagogues with so great effect
as to establish a Christian community at the capital. We are
distinctly informed in Acts 2:10 that in Jerusalem at the
next Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ there were "so
journers from Rome, both Jews and Proselytes." To what
extent Jewish Pilgrims, who may have been converted to
Christianity in Judea and may have carried the new doctrine
to their people at home, may have planted Churches in foreign
lands, we do not know; but in Acts the record of Paul's Mis
sionary tours in Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece, does not
mention a single instance of his finding a community of dis
ciples thus already established. Only in Ephesus had disci
ples preceded the Apostle (Acts 19:1-4); and the fact that
these had been baptized "unto John's baptism," is evidence
that they were not converted by those who attended the mem
orable Pentecost or any later feasts in Judea.
Such pilgrims would work mainly or wholly among Jews.
But the strongest proof that the Church in Rome was not
planted in this way is the fact that the Jews in Rome when
Paul arrived there were ignorant of Christian doctrine t (Acts
28:22). That other influences must have contributed to the
* Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius 2:25; Caius in ditto; Clement of Rome, Clement of
Alexandria. Origin, Irenncus, Tertullian, etc.
t On the request of the Jewish ciders to hear Paul we may notice, (1) that they do not ask for
I'aulimsm, but Christianity, as Paul's response indicates ; and (2) that they arc not merelv feign
ing, to entrap him, for they listen with disposition to learn, and some believed while others did
not, but none persecuted.
1898.]
343
establishment of the Church at Rome is further evident from

the large Gentile element there when Paul wrote to them
(Rom. 1:13).
It seems more probable that the Church at Rome, since it
was composed of both Jews and Gentiles, was the result of
Christian evangelization in various parts of the empire. Com
merce, law, politics and various other influences, drew men
from the provinces to the great Capital ; and it can not be
questioned that disciples from Judea, Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia,
Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece, may have collected grad
ually into a Church without Apostolic aid, and without preach
ing in the Jewish synagogue. Renan correctly says that
"Rome was the meeting point of all the oriental forms of wor
ship, the point of the Mediterranean with which the Syrians
had most connection. They arrived there in enormous
bands." Now the Gospel took a deep hold in Antioch in
Syria about A. D. 40, fully eighteen years before Paul wrote
Romans ; and there were believers in Caesarea, Cyprus, Tar
sus, and on various other shores of the Mediterranean at an
earlier date. From all these places disciples probably went to
Rome.
Moreover, travel from Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece
to Rome was constant and after Churches had been planted in
these provinces by Paul, time enough had elapsed for many
Christians to have drifted to Rome. Only this will explain
the fact that in the closing chapter of this Epistle Paul calls by
name twenty-four persons known to him in the Church at
Rome and of these names fifteen or sixteen are Greek. This
drift of Gentile Christians explains also the persecutions by
Nero only about six years after Paul wrote this letter. Had
the Christians been mainly Jews, the synagogue itself could
hardly have escaped; but the fact is, that Christians suffered
much while the Jews were undisturbed. It is only when we
have these facts in mind, also, that we can explain Paul's fer
vent interest in this Church ; they were his own children in
the faith. He can write to them freely, and visit them freely;
and they, with reciprocal love, go forth as far as Appi Forum,
when he approaches their city, to extend to him their hearty
greetings.
344
[July,
III. Movements of the Apostle. Speaking freely, it

may be said that Paul at the time of writing this letter was
concluding the fourth important period of his life. If we may
regard his childhood in Tarsus as the first period ; his studies
and labors in Jerusalem as the second ; and his early labors in
Syria and Cilicia as the third ; then his three great missionary
tours through Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece may be
counted as the fourth. These periods rise in importance, each
a basis for those that follow, until in this fourth the power
and grandeur of a great life are manifested in a broad arena of
usefulness as Church after Church is planted along the course
of European and Asiatic commerce, and the cause of Christi
anity chiefly by the labors of this one man is imperishably es
tablished from the Antitaurus mountains to the Adriatic sea.
The Apostle himself believed that he had "no more any
place in these regions," and that he should map out before
him another great field of labor, of which Rome should be the
base of operations and Spain an objective territory (Rom.
15:23, 24). He was then hoping that he would soon realize a
long cherished wish to see Rome (15:23), that he might have
some share in the good work done there (1 : llf. ), and that the
brethren in that city might assist him in his next great journey
westward. Meanwhile, he must go to Jerusalem to carry
thither an important contribution from the Gentile Churches
to the saints in Judea, which, as Paul hoped, would not only
bring relief to many sufferers in poverty, but what was to be
more blessed in the crisis of a controversy between the Judaistic and the Gentile believers, the gift might be received as a
sincere expression of love from the one party to the other, and
perhaps seal a bond of perpetual fellowship.
It is just at this turning point in the work of the Apostle
that the letter to the Romans is produced. Its masterly expo
sitions of those fundamental truths that make the Gospel "The
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth," and
its depth of insight unto the relations of justice to the atone
ment and of law to faith demonstrate its worthiness to stand
as a monument at the end of this most productive period of its
author's fruitful life.
IV. Time and Place of Writing. It is not difficult to
1898.]
Paul's Letter to the Eomans.
345
determine when and where this letter was composed. The

writer says, "But now I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto
the saints, for it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and
Achaia to make certain contributions for the poor among the
saints that are at Jerusalem" (15:25, 26). To this he adds
that when he shall have accomplished this, he will visit Rome,
and go thence to Spain. This corresponds exactly with Paul's
position in his third tour, as Luke gives his purpose before he
left Ephesus, "Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed
through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying,
"After I have been there, I must also see Rome" (Acts
19:21). He wrote from Ephesus to Corinth, the capital of
Achaia, to prepare the collection (I Cor. 16:2, 3), and that he
would be in Corinth soon. Again, he writes to the Corin
thians from Macedonia that he is soon coming, and hopes to find
the contribution ready (II Cor. 9:1-4). That he went to
Corinth and staid three months is clear from Acts 20:1-3:
"He departed to go into Macedonia; and when he had gone
through those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he
came into Greece; and when he had spent three months, and a
plot was laid against him by the Jews, as he was about to set
sail for Syria, he determined to return through Macedonia."
The chronology of Paul's life shows this stay in Corinth
to have been in the winter of 57-58. Paul writes when he is
almost ready to go east; and we learn from Acts 20:6 that he
reached Philippi, about 200 miles on his route, just at the
"days of unleavened bread," which was in the spring of 58.
That the place was Corinth rather than Macedonia, is con
firmed by the salutations in the closing chapter of the letter.
Phoebe, who was going to Rome and probably carried the
letter, was of the Church in Cenchrea, near Corinth (16:1).
Gaius, Paul's host (v. 13), was probably the same person that
was baptized by Paul in Corinth (I Cor. 1:14). Erastus, the
treasurer of the city (v. 23), was probably the same as Paul
names in II Timothy 4:20, "Erastus abode in Corinth." The
letter could not have been written at an earlier period in Paul's
life, since at no previous time could he say that "from Jerusa
lem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the
Gospel of Christ" (Rom. 15:19) ; and it could not have had a
346
[July,
later date, for Paul had not yet been at Rome (Rom. 1:13),
whither he went in 62, immediately after this visit and his long
imprisonment in Palestine. We may therefore be very certain
that he wrote from Corinth early in the year 58.
V. Purpose of the Letter. The Apostle does not dis
tinctly announce his purpose in writing this Epistle; and the
letter itself does not bear the marks of special design that we
are accustomed to find in Paul's productions. There is no in
dication that any local question in the Roman Church had been
communicated to the author to call forth this writing, such as
appear so prominent in the letters to the Galatians and the
Corinthians; but, on the other hand, the general character of
the teachings and the rarity of allusions to any particular con
ditions of his readers serve to obscure his object. The greater
part of the letter is a close argumentation and almost a sys
tematic exhibit of the leading primary doctrines of the Gospel.
The writer alludes to his readers in the opening and closing
parts of the Epistle in such a manner as to reveal the occasion
of his writing, but not his purpose. He notes with joy that
their faith was reported in all the world (1:6). He expresses
a desire to visit them, and to bestow on them the blessings he
had brought to other Gentiles (1:13); he tells his plans for
the future, that he is leaving the Grecian Provinces, going first
to Jerusalem, thence through Rome to Spain (15:23-25), ex
pecting to bring with him the fullness of the blessing of Christ
(15:29); he then greets his many friends in Rome (16); but
in the midst of his greeting, as if he had neglected a matter,
he exhorts them to turn away from such as produce divisions
(w. 17, 18). Certainly in these references it is difficult to
find a clue to his purpose in writing such a letter, unless in the
last point, those who cause divisions should refer to Judaizers ;
but why allude to them only in a sort of postscript if they
have been the central figures in his mind throughout the
letter?
Three widely different views have been expressed by prom
inent writers that deserve attention :
1. It is a very ancient opinion that the Judaizing in
fluences that had affected the Churches in almost every Province
from Judea to Greece had also reached the Church at Rome,
1898.]
347
and that Paul wrote this letter to arrest its progress. This
.was the view of Hilary, bishop of Poictiers (360 A. D.):
"The Christians of Rome had allowed Mosaic rites to be im
posed on them, as if full salvation were not to be found in
Christ; and Paul wished to teach them the mystery of the
cross of Christ which had not yet been expounded to them."
Such was also the view of Augustine, bishop of Hippo (now
Bona in Algeria), 400 A. D. ; Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus (in
Syria west of Euphrates), 450 A. D.; Melancthon, and many
others. Some of these suppose a majority of Jewish Christians
in Rome, who must be brought to accept the Gentiles on
equal grounds in Christ; while others acknowledging a pre
dominance of Gentiles, insist, as did Dr. Hodge, that "con
flicts now and again arose, both regarding doctrine and disci
pline, between the believers of the two races." Volkmar called
the letter "a war and peace treatise" to reconcile the Jews to
Paul's free Gospel; and Thiersch of Marburg (1852) thought
that Peter left the Roman Church "in a state of doctrinal in
feriority, and Paul sought to raise it to the full height of
Christian knowledge."
It is inconceivable that such an object should have been
foremost in the Apostle's mind without his revealing it some
where in the letter. He commends the Romans' faith in the
first chapter (v. 8), and their obedience in the sixth (v. 7)
and sixteenth (v. 19) ; and nowhere hints at their weaknesses,
disagreements, or dangers. He does, indeed, discuss the moral
status of the Gentile and the Jew in the first three chapters; but
not their relation to each other in the Church, but as they stand
out of Christ. He verily contrasts the law and faith, but no
where encounters a legalist imposing on a believer.
2. The view set forth by Baur of Germany and either
followed or modified by many others, regards the Jewish
Christians as in the majority in the Church at Rome, and finds
in Paul's letter an effort to prepare their minds for his visit
and his work in Spain by removing their prejudices against
his ministry to the Gentiles. According to this view, the
Jews were not seeking to impose circumcision on the Gentiles,
but insisting that the Jews should first receive the offers of the
Gospel, and the Gentiles should not be evangelized till the
348
[July,
Jewish people had generally accepted Christ. As Paul is

changing his field of labor and wishes the assistance of the
brethren at Eome, he must bring them to regard with favor his
work with the heathen even in distant lands ; and hence the
key to this letter may be found in chapters 9-11, that treat
of the rejection of the Jews, the acceptance of the Gentiles,
and the conciliatory predictions that ultimately the Jews will
come into the Kindgom of God.
There is at present a general abandonment of this view
among scholars for the following reasons: (1) The facts are
strongly against the predominance of the Jews and favorable
to that of the Gentiles in the Church at Rome. (2) The evil
which the Apostle is supposed to combat is not known to have
existed in Rome or in any other country in that age, but it is
wholly imaginary, being without a vestige of evidence in the
New Testament or in any other work of Christian antiquity.
(3) The actual desire of the Jewish Christians at that time was
that Gentiles should be evangelized, but some insisted that they
should also keep the law of Moses; and the question of pri
ority in accepting Christ was not in dispute. (4) This view
does not account for either the matter or the tone of most of
the Epistle; the first eight chapters are systematic, doctrinal,
and unmarked by solicitude or apology.
Chapters 12-16
are composed of moral advice offered in the calmness and
majesty of a mind undisturbed by a care to win over an adver
sary; and even chapters 9 to 11 have not the tone of a writer
endeavoring to counteract a dreaded and deep rooted
opposition, but that of one answering a question which springs
spontaneously from his own argument. Besides why all these
laborious chapters to accomplish merely the end of justifying
Paul's missionary practice? It truly seems, as Schwegler says,
that "the expenditure of means is disproportioned to the end."
(5) This view would present Paul not only as "building on
another man's foundation," which he was resolved not to do
(15 : 20) , but as attempting to take the Church at Rome virtually
into his own hands, to bring it into accord with his own mind,
and to turn it into a station of supplies for his future mission
ary campaigns. This is wholly foreign to the spirit of Paul's
independence if it be not a serious compromise of his moral
integrity.
1898.]
349
Some scholars have thought that although the Church at

Rome was mostly Gentile, still Paul wished to awaken and
quicken its sympathy with his work before he entered his great
western field. This folly of regarding the Gentiles as holding
the doctrine of Jewish priority is sufficiently exposed by Beyschlag : ' ' What strange believers those Christians at Rome must
have been, who, while themselves enjoying the blessings of sal
vation, notwithstanding their Gentile origin, imagined that
these same blessings could not be offered to the other western
Gentiles till after Israel had been wholly converted!"
3. A great number of writers ancient and modern agree
in finding in this Epistle an effort to give the Romans a method
ical statement of Christian doctrine such as he had doubtless
given orally and in more extended form to those Churches
which he had visited in person. We are informed in Acts 19:9,
that at Ephesus Paul taught Christian doctrine in the school of
Tyrannus daily for two whole years; and often in his Epistles,
Paul refers by such words as, " Know ye not that," etc., to the
instructions he had given to the Churches, and not seldom
does he allude to points of doctrine rarely treated in modern
pulpit ministrations, (cf. Godet, Com., Eng. Tr. p. 55-6).
Thus the author of the Muratorian Fragment (A. D. 170),
which contains the earliest list of New Testament books, says
that Paul wrote "concerning the plan of the Scriptures showing
that their foundation is Christ." So Chrysostom (Constanti
nople, d. 407): "His desire was to embrace the whole world
in his ministry, and to instruct the Romans." Theodoret
(Cyrus, 458): "The inspired Apostle offers in this letter
varied doctrine of all kinds." Luther: "The Epistle con
tains in itself the plan of the whole Scripture, and is a most
complete epitome of the New Testament Gospel." Calvin:
"The whole Epistle is so systematic that even the exordium
itself is composed according to the rules of art;" and "justi
fication by faith is the principal question of the whole Epistle."
Melancthon calls the letter a "compendium of Christian doc
trine," except he notes the omission of the mysteries of the
trinity, the mode of the incarnation, the creation, and the end
of the world. It would seem evident from these omissions that
Paul did not intend to compass the whole field of Christian
teaching.
350
[July,
It is certainly very natural for Paul to write as he does.

Many of his converts are already in Rome, but he has not yet
been there to teach the Church, and it will still be many
months before his visit. He now writes a carefully prepared
treatise embodying the leading doctrines of the Gospel, and
hopes soon to meet them "in the fullness of the blessing of
Christ" (15:29). He says nothing of Judaizers as they doubt
less have not yet disturbed this Church ; and yet his teaching is
well suited to strengthen the Church to meet them if they should
ever come. He makes no effort to win over the Church to his
special missionary plan ; and yet the very nature of the glori
ous gospel that he expounds to them is adapted to lay immov
able foundations for their interest in the salvation of the whole
race. Paul is neither pitching a battle nor placing an apology,
but he is doing a broader work, arming the Church with im
pregnable truth, warming their hearts with a Gospel of uni
versal love, and at the same time leading them into a clearer
vision and to a holier life.
Here Paul's deep wisdom appears. Whether the Judaistic tendencies shall ever reach Rome or not, or whether some
other error shall spring as a fowler's snare at their feet, it mat
ters not ; a clear insight into the everlasting truth of God will
be their surest protection, the only infallible safeguard. The
Jewish and Gentile Christians maybe at peace to-day, to-mor
row they may come to strife ; in any case, ignorance is the worst
foe to harmony, and jealousies will breed most where the
philanthropy of the cross is least understood.
Besides this broad, unselfish blessing to the believers in
Rome, this letter must inevitably benefit the Church at large.
It is clear that Paul in some measure appreciated the magni
tude of his labors (Rom. 15:19; I Cor. 15:10), but he may
not have foreseen the influence of his writing upon the Church
in coming ages; yet we can not conceive that he wrote blindly
a letter that should serve as a depository of the vital doctrines
of the Christian faith for all time. The Epistle itself shows,
indeed the first chapter demonstrates, that Paul's mind was in
its power, and that his thoughtwhether stimulated by the
the prospect of Rome and the fields beyond, we may not
1898.]
351
knowwas at such a tension as to put forth by the help of the

spirit the greatest product of his genius.
We know that Paul did not forget that Rome was the
centre of a broad circle of influence, that believers were trav
eling thence into almost every province, and that the Church
there must be as a light to the whole world (cf. 1:8, 16:19) ;
and while we are forced to believe that he wrote to meet the
needs of that Church, yet it can hardly be questioned that a
care for all the Churches that he was about to leave, was weigh
ing upon his heart. He must have considered that whatever
light he kindled by his letter at Rome, would be reflected upon
the Churches in Macedonia and Achaia.
Paul could not overlook the prospect that yet for many
years the enemies of Christian truth and liberty would ply
their evil work ; and it seems to be no accident that he gave to
that Church, which could most effectually use it an irrefragable
argument for the freedom of believers and the all sufficiency
of Christ's provision for redemption.
Moreover, a new vista
opens before him. He is looking to the evangelization of
Western Europe. Is it not probable that errors that have harrassed the East will also seek a foothold in the West? In such
a case the Church at Rome, well grounded in gospel truth,
must be to them an insuperable barrier.
The language of Godet is suggestive when he says that all
the "various and particular aims find their full truth only
when they are grouped around this principal one : to found afterhand, and, if one may so speak, morally to refound the
Church at Rome. " This is only too radical a statement of what
seems to be the real truth. Paul himself informs us what
burden was on his heart when he wrote. He was longing to
go to Rome to "impart unto them some spiritual gift to the
end they might be established" (1 : 11) ; and he had often pur
posed to go that he might have "some fruit among them also
even as in other Gentiles' '(1:13). To this he adds significantly,
"So as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the Gospel to
you that are of Rome also" (1:15). The stateliness of this
translation conceals its force. He really says, "I am eager
with all my might to evangelize you also that are at Rome."
Comparing this earnest desire of the writer with what he
352
Bishop Merrill on "Buried by Baptism."
[July,
has written, we may justly conclude that Paul aimed to pre

pare the Church for a full appreciation of his preaching and a
greater result from it when he should reach Rome ; not exactly
to "refound the Church," as if it had lost its basis, but to
strengthen it, impart to it stability.
If this could be done with a letter, all would be well with
his visit, for his evangelization would succeed ; otherwise, his
visit would be one of taxing labor with the Church and almost
fruitless effort with the unbelievers. Paul wanted fruit there ;
so he gave his first attention to the vine already planted, lest
in his visit he gather nothing but leaves.
How deeply he
turns the Gospel soil! How richly he deposits the fertilizing
doctrine! How neatly and carefully he trains to the moral
trellis! Great Apostle! He was unconsciously preparing
to have fruit in all lands and in all ages."
Clinton Lockhart.
BISHOP MERRILL ON "BURIED BY BAPTISM."

) ISHOP MERRILL, of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
is the author of a book entitled "Christian Baptism,"
which contains an elaborate treatise on Romans 6:3-6,
in which he attempts to show that this passage does not allude
to immersion. The treatise covers forty pages of the Bishop's
book, and his labored effort shows clearly that he feels the
force of the argument that is based on this Scripture in favor
of immersion. Between the lines it is manifest that he real
izes the difficulty of the task he has in hand. And this will
excite no wonder when it is remembered that the good Bishop
throws himself against the powerful current of scholarly
exegesis, and in his undertaking is opposing the learning of
the world. His boldness evidently has largely the advantage
of his discretion.
The following is the opening sentence in the essay that I
am about to consider: "It is generally conceded that, if im
mersion is taught in the Bible, it is here ; and, if it can not be
found here, but few persons will insist that it is the exclusive
mode of baptism."
1898.]
Bishop Merrill on " Buried by Baptism."
353
This statement contains two misconceptions respecting

the subject treated. In the first place, it assumes that Romans
6:4 is regarded by immersionists as the main support of
immersion, which is incorrect. On the contrary, the meaning
of the word used by the Savior in establishing the ordinance
is esteemed by scholarly immersionists as the chief foundation
of their faith and practice as regards baptism. As is well
known, that word is baptizo; and by the common consent of
scholarship the word, when the Teacher used it, meant "to
immerse." On this point there is impressive unanimity
among Greek scholars. Prof. J. H. Thayer, of Harvard, in an
swer to a question propounded to him, says : "As to the mean
ing of baptizo * * * all reputable lexicographers are now agreed
that its primary meaning is 'to immerse,' etc." Dr. Adolph
Harnack says: liBaptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion
(eintauchen). No proof can be found that it signifies any
thing else in the New Testament and the most ancient Chris
tian literature." Prof. Anthon says that it meant "to
immerse," and that "sprinkling is entirely out of the ques
tion." Prof. Sophocles, after defining the word in his lexicon,
as meaning "to dip, to immerse, to sink," says: "There is
no evidence that Luke and Paul and the other writers of the
New Testament put upon this verb meanings not recognized
by the Greeks." Immersion's strong citadel is the meaning
of the word.
In the second place, the Bishop shows a strange lack of
discrimination in supposing that immersionists regard immer
sion as "the exclusive mode of baptism." It is not regarded
by them as a "mode of baptism" at all. If it were a mere
question of "mode" immersionists would have no contention
about it. They hold that immersion is baptism itself, and not
a "mode of baptism." They do not grant that sprinkling is
a "mode of baptism," and simply contend that immersion is
a better mode! Were this the case they would be in very
poor business. Discrimination between things and modes
would greatly assist to clear up this whole matter; and with
out such discrimination a proper appreciation of the baptismal
controversy is impossible. There should be no serious dispute
Vol. 25.
354
[July,
about the mode of baptism, but earnest contention for baptism

itself is not only legitimate but also necessary. If immersion,
sprinkling, and pouring are "modes of baptism," what is the
thing of which they are modest Shooting is a mode of kill
ing, but shooting is not killing, for one can shoot without
killing. It would be edifying and interesting to see Bishop
Merrill make an effort to differentiate immersion, or sprink
ling, or pouring, as a mode of baptism, from baptism itself,
making the difference stand out in bold relief. One can fill a
vessel withi water by sprinkling, or pouring or, immersion.
These are simply modes of filling, and the difference between the
filling and the modes is very apparent. Affusionists have often
been requested to point out the distinction between baptism
and its alleged modes ; but so far as I am aware no serious
effort has yet been put forth.
The Bishop files some objections to the idea that the
sixth chapter or Eomans teaches immersion, which deserve
passing notice:
"First. I object to confounding the 'burial' with the
'baptism.' The two things are distinct, and should not be con
founded. It is absurd to say we are immersed by an immer
sion, or that we are buried with a burial; therefore the
'baptism' is one thing, and the burial is another thing."
Precisely so ; and if the Bishop could make as clear a distinc
tion between baptism and its alleged modes, he would be
doing something very helpful to his cause. Immersion as a
mode of burial is intelligible, and from this point of view
Paul's statement can be understood. Burial is usually ac
complished by putting a body into a tomb and covering it up.
This is the mode commonly observed. But the Apostle men
tions a burial which is accomplished by pressing the person
into the element, and allowing that to flow over the person
thus completing the burial. In this case immersion is the
mode of burial. This is all perfectly clear, and the Bishop is
in error when he says that immersionists confound the two
terms by making them synonymous and interchangeable.
"Second. I object to this interpretation that it violates
all rule and authority by making some of the terms in this one
process literal, and others figurative. It makes the 'burial'
1898.]
355
literal, and the death, the planting, and the crucifixion figura
tive."
This is a pretty serious allegation to bring against a vast
majority of the world's best scholars and critics! The
modesty that would restrain one from making the charge that
such men as Wesley, Clarke, Barnes, Bloomfield, Meyer,
Chalmers, Lange, Macknight, Ellicott, etc., "violate all rule
and authority," might adorn even a Bishop! If the allega
tion were correct, the thing complained of would not be logic
ally vicious. It is no uncommon thing to use some words
literally and others figuratively in the same sentence. "Go
and tell that fox." "go" and "tell" are literal and "fox"
figurative. "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Here
"beware" and "Pharisees" are literal and "leaven" figurative.
Indeed it is next to impossible to employ a figure of speech
without using some words literally and others figuratively;
and this objection falls to the ground.
But the Bishop errs in assigning to immersionists the
position that in baptism there is a literal burial. Perhaps
expressions have been used that would justify such an infer
ence; but a little reflection will show that this was not the
intention of those using them. A literal burial would require
a dead body, a tomb excavated in stone or earth, the placing
of the body in such tomb and the closing of it. These are the
circumstances attending a literal burial, but such circum
stances do not attend a baptism, hence baptism is not a literal
burial. The literal meaning of a word is the sense in which it
is used in common every day discoursethe meaning that the
people usually attach to it when used without modification.
A word is used literally when it is employed "according to in
herent or fundamental purport ; free from figure or variation
of meaning. * * * In accordance with the natural or estab
lished use of language; comformable to the most obvious
intent."Century Dictionary. If you say that A. was buried
yesterday you use the term "buried" in its literal sense, and
the obvious import of your statement is that A. died and was
was put in a grave and covered up therein. If all this is not
true you use the word in a figurative sense, and you should
use some modifying term or phrase to indicate that fact. If
356
[July,
Paul had simply said that certain persons had been buried, he
would have used the verb in its literal sense, and we would be
obliged to understand him as saying that such persons had
literally died and been literally buried. But he used the word
figuratively, and to indicate that fact he introduced the modi
fying phrase "by baptism," which at once shows that he
turned the word away from its usual sense, and used a figure
of speech.
The Century Dictionary says that a word is used figura
tively when "manifesting or suggesting by resemblance."
When a word is applied to a thing to which it does not nat
urally belong, because of some striking similarity in that
thing to the thing to which it does naturally belong, it is
used figuratively. "Go and tell that fox" is a case in point.
"Fox" is the name of a very cunning animal; but the Mas
ter turns it away from its usual application, and applies
it to a man because of the fox-like cunning and artfulness
that characterized Herod. Thus the word is employed
figuratively. This brings out the force and beauty of Paul's
figure in saying that people had been "buried through
baptism." In baptism there is something strikingly similar
to a burial and on account of such similarity the figure is
used. The point of contact and similarity is found in the fact
that there is envelopment in both burial and baptism.
It is on the ground of similarity, but from a different
point of view, that the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the
Apostles is called baptism. In baptism the subject comes
wholly under the influence of the water, and the Apostles
were wholly under the influence of the Spirit on the day of
Pentecost, when they began to "speak with other tongues as
the Spirit gave them utterance." For this reason that phe
nomenon is called baptism in the Holy Spiritone thing
being called by the name of the other on account of similarity.
The Greeks spoke of people as baptized in wine, in debt, in
sleep, etc. One who had only taken a sip of wine was not
thought, of as baptized in wine, nor as baptized in sleep when
lightly dozing, nor as baptized in debt when owing but a few
pennies. This might have been the case, and it would have
been appropriate if the Greeks had ever imagined that the
1898.]
357
sprinkling of a few drops of water upon a person could be

regarded as baptism. This figure was only used of persons
who were profoundly drunk, in deep sleep, heavily in debt,
etc. These figures of speech could be based on nothing short
of immersion from the standpoint of baptism. The same is
true when baptism is called a burial. Nothing but immersion
will satisfy the demands of the figure.
"Third. I object to this interpretation that it utterly mis
takes the points of comparison which the apostle makes, and
substitutes for them other points of comparison which are not
in the passage, and could not have been in the writer's mind.
It assumes that the comparison is between baptism and the
burial and resurrection of Christ. * * * This is the great point
in the interpretation. If it is wrong here, it is wrong through
out ; and it is wrong here, egregiously wrong. There is abso
lutely no such comparison in it."
If strength of assertion could compensate for weakness of
argument, the Bishop would surely have a strong ease. That
there is such comparison in it is manifest upon the face of the
passage, and this is what has led nearly all interpretersboth
immersionists and affusioniststo see immersion in the text.
There is scarcely a passage in the Bible upon which exegetes,
ancient and modern, Catholic and Protestant, are more
entirely in accord. And this obvious meaning is thoroughly
sustained by the parallel passage in Col. 2:12"Having been
buried with him in baptism, wherein (i. e., in which baptism)
ye were raised with him through faith in the working of him
(God )who raised him from the dead." Here it is distinctly
declared that both burial and resurrection take place in baptism ;
and it is so axiomatic that there is comparison between bap
tism and the burial and resurrection of Christ, that no expla
nation can make it plainer. But the Bishop says: "If the
comparison is as claimed, why do the advocates of this claim
invariably leave out the 'crucifixion,' and restrict the analogy
to the burial?" For the very simple and obvious reason that
there are three analogies in the text, which immersionists
allow to stand apart as Paul placed them, while Bishop Merrill
mixes them in a jumble of confusion. The Apostle is develop
ing the process of passing out of the kingdom of darkness into
358
[July,
the kingdom of God's dear Son, in doing which he uses three

distinct figures of speech. Man's death to sin is made analo
gous to the death of Christ, his baptism, analogous to the
burial and resurrection of Christ, and his union with Christ
analogous to the engrafting of a bud upon a stock and the
growing of the two together. Consult Revised Version.
"Fourth. I object to this interpretation that it confuses
and confounds the sacraments by putting baptism where the
Bible puts the Lord's Supper. In the Lord's Supper we show
forth the Lord's death. But this interpretation makes baptism
show forth or represent the death and burial of Christ. It
places baptism where it does not belong, and gives it a mean
ing it was never intended to have; and worse still, it destroys
the design and significance of the rite as Christ ordained it.
Baptism relates not to the death and burial of Christ, but to
the office and work of the Holy Spirit. This is its fixed and
invariable meaning, as we shall see more fully in the direct
exposition, while the Lord's Supper relates only to Christ's
death, and not to the Holy Spirit. Baptism is the ordinance
of the Holy Spirit, and the Supper is the ordinance of Jesus
Christ."
Here is another cluster of plump, lusty, and unsupported
assertions and assumptions. Look at the last statement in
the quotation. By what authority does the Bishop allot bap
tism to the Holy Spirit as his ordinance, and the Supper to
Christ? Christ ordained both baptism and the Supper, and
the Spirit neither. Christ observed both, and the Spirit
neither. Whence, then, this unscriptural allotment which the
Bishop makes? It is impossible to see how the Supper is any
more the ordinance of Christ than is baptism, or how baptism
is any more the ordinance of the Spirit than is the Supper.
Indeed the assertion has the appearance of trifling with sacred
and weighty matters. No passage of Scripture so much as
hints at the distinction which the Bishop seeks to establish.
Nor does "this interpretation" put baptism where the
Bible puts the Lord's Supper, as is alleged. It puts it by the
side of the Lord's Supper, that the two may jointly commemo
rate the three great facts of the gospel, namely, the death,
burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul teaches that these
1898.]
359
facts enter into the Gospel, and that they must be kept in
memory in order to be efficacious unto salvation. The Lord
has graciously made provision to help our infirmities, by
ordaining some simple, yet sublime, institutions which, when
properly observed, suggest to the mind of the beholder, that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that
he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day accord
ing to the Scriptures. These glorious facts must live and
flourish in the pious mind as long as these commemorative
ordinances are Scripturally kept. They are the Lord's Day,
the Lord's Supper, and Christian Baptism. The Supper com
memorates Christ's death, the Day, his resurrection, while
Baptism commemorates all three of these important events.
The divorcement of the Lord's Supper from the Lord's Day,
and the substitution of sprinkling and pouring for baptism
have about destroyed the testimony of these three witnesses
whose commemorative testimony beautifully and efficiently
helps observers keep the gospel facts in memory. The word of
God clearly and forcefully teaches this, and the Bishop's special
pleading can not set the teaching to one side. His objections
antagonize the Scriptures themselves, rather than what he
calls "this interpretation." The meaning of Romans 6:4, and
Col. 2:12, is so plain upon the face of the passages, that they
do not need interpretation ; and Bishop Merrill's exegesis is a
conspicuous example of darkening counsel. "This passage
(Col. 2:12) can not be understood unless it be borne in mind
that the primitive baptism was by immersion." This laconic
statement of Conybeare and Howson expresses the exact truth
in the case.
Next comes the Bishop's "direct examination of the pas
sage before us." After a good many cursory and speculative
remarks he says: "What is it that is buried? Everything in
the passage must hinge on the answer to this question." A
great deal certainly depends upon getting the right answer to
this question ; and the Bishop is correct in his position that
those who died are the ones who were buried. But there is a
link missing from his chain. The ones that were raised are
the ones that were buried, and this is the rock the barque con
taining the Bishop's interpretation, is destined to go to pieces
upon.
360
[July,
The following excerpt presents the core of his theory:

"The 'old man' is crucified, dead and buriedcrucified with
Christ, dead with Christ, and buried with Christ. And here
the 'old man' is left. He is 'put off,' not to be put on again.
He is buried, not to be unburied again. He is not in the
resurrection. That which is buried must remain buried."
Perhaps more absurdities were never packed into the same
amount of space, than the foregoing quotation contains. It
assumes that the persons or things that died and were buried,
were not raised. It also assumes that only the "old man"
died and was buried. Now if all this be true there was no
resurrection at all! But Paul positively declares that there was
a resurrection: "Wherein ye were also raised with him." Here
it is not only affirmed that there was a resurrection, but it is
declared that the same ones who had been buried, were raised.
Those who had been buried, were "unburied." Hence, if
"the old man" was buried, the "old man" was raised again!
But the resurrection of the "old man" the Bishop stoutly
denies. His theory is badly deranged.
Let us look at this matter in the clear light of Scripture
teaching. The following statement contains the key to the
situation: "We who died to sin." Notice that Paul does not
say, "Our old men who died to sin." This is the sentiment
of the Bishop's theory, but not of the Apostle. "We were
buried." The idea is not that people or things that were then
dead, had been buried, and remained buried. This thought
is decidedly Merrillian, but it is not Pauline. "So we also
might walk in newness of life." Here the pronoun "we" is
used three times without the least intimation that in two
instances it refers to one class of beings, and in the third
instance to another and a different class; and the assumption
that it does only shows what absurdities can be perpetrated in
support of an error. For a sinner to die to sin, can mean
nothing more nor less than to "cease to do evil and learn to do
well." The "old man" that is "crucified" and "put off," is
simply the old life which is forsaken.
The Christians in Rome had died to sin by giving it up ;
through baptism they had been buried in the likeness of
Christ's burial; and though still dead to sin, they had been
1898.]
361
raised with Christ, and were walking in the new life. Hence
Paul's admonition, "Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be *
dead unto sin but alive unto God in Christ Jesus." The
same people were both dead and alive, in that they had been
buried and resurrected. The Bishop's analysis which buries
the "old man" into the death of Christ is out of the question.
"It has already been said that this burial is not a momen
tary affair, but a permanent result. I wish to emphasize this
thought. The burial is not a ceremony, but a profound ex
perience. It brings us into a new relation to Christ, a new
state of spiritual activity, and makes us new creatures. Old
things pass away, and all things become new. The language
is not, 'we were once for a moment buried with Christ,' but
'we are buried.' If we are in Christ to-day, we are as much
buried as we were at the hour of our entrance into the 'new
ness of life.' The aorist tense here employed by the Apostle,
alludes to past time, to the period of crucifixion, death and
burial; but it also expresses a continued effect. When we say
of a dead man that he is buried, we allude to a past occur
rence, to the time when the burial took place; but we also in
clude the thought that the man is yet in the grave. So this
mystical burial was present with Paul and those to whom he
wrote."
Here is a curious display of inconsistency and contradic
tion. The "we" and "us" used in the foregoing paragraph,
must allude to Christians ; and the following sentence leaves
no room for doubt in this regard: "We are as much buried as
we were at the hour of our entrance into the newness of life."
This is a complete surrender of the Bishop's strong contention
that the subject of the burial is the "old man!" And his
statement that the burial expresses a "continued effect,"
pointedly contradicts Paul's declaration that "ye were also
raised with Him." All along he has stoutly insisted that the
"old man" is buried; but he now says that "we (Christians)
are as much buried as we were," etc. He says that those
buried remained buried, while Paul says that they "were also
raised." So he arrays himself against both Paul and the
Bishop! In these contradictions we have a marked example
362
[July,
of what is sure to happen when a man goes to contending

against the plain teaching of the word of God.
The Bishop's grammar is as lame as his exegesis. He
emphasizes the expression "we are buried," and says, "The
language is not 'we were once for a moment buried with
Christ,' " and adds, "The aorist tense * * * also expresses a
continued effect." Here is what Dr. Winer, a distinguished
German grammarian, says in his "Grammar of the Idiom of
the New Testament:" "In general, the tenses are employed
in the New Testament exactly in the same manner as in Greek
authors, viz., the aorist marks simply the past (merely occur
rence at some former time-viewed too as momentary), and is
the tense usually employed in narration." The same noted
author says: "Nowhere in the New Testament does the aorist
express what is wont to be done." The Bishop says that the
burial was not "for a moment," but Winer declares that the
aorist "marks an occurrence as momentary." The Bishop
says that the aorist "also expresses a continued effect," but
Winer protests that the aorist does not express "what is wont
to be done." Buttmann's Greek Grammar says: "Hence
there arises a second usage, by virtue of which, without any
reference at all to the relation of time the imperfect is con
nected with the idea of duration ; and the aorist, on the con
trary, with the idea of something momentary." The gram
marians and the Bishop are at cross-purposes as regards the
aorist, and the reader must decide between them.
There is no modern translation of the Scriptures that
renders the passage in question in harmony with the Bishop's
idea. "We were buried with Him through baptism into
death."Revised Version. "We were buried therefore with
him through the baptism into the death."Davidson. "We
were buried therefore with him through our baptism into his
death."Alford. Such is the voice of modern scholarship.
Alluding to a past and a momentary event Paul uses the aorist
tense, and says "we were buried," and, "ye were raised." It is
true that when we say of a man that "he is buried," we necessa
rily imply that the burial took place in past time, but when we
say that a man was buried we do not necessarily imply that he
remained in that condition. Lazarus was buried, but he did not
1898.]
363
remain in the grave. Christ was buried, but he rose again.

Beyond the resurrection it can be said that people were buried,
but that would not mean that they remained buried. This
takes the Bishop's argument out of his hands ; and when the
Holy Spirit says that the same ones who were buried were also
raised, those who are not disposed to cavil will acquiesce.
"Wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith
of the operation of God, not by the muscular power of the
preacher's arm." It is a little difficult not to use some sever
ity here. Can it be possible that this remark put into the
Bishop's mind the idea of "handling the word of God deceit
fully," which a little further along he applies to the immense
army of scholars and critics who understand Romans 6:4, as
alluding to immersion! "Not by the muscular power of the
preacher's arm!" Paul's declaration is that those who had
been buried in baptism, had also been raised with Christ
"through faith in the working of God who raised him from
the dead." That is, in being buried and raised with Christ in
baptism, they exhibited their faith in the resurrection of
Christ, which their baptism symbolized.
The Bishop says some unlovely things about "immersionists" who see an allusion to immersion in this passage. Who
are these immersionists? Well, they are the scholars and
critics of all Churches of both ancient and modern times. The
following citations represent the general trend of exegetical
scholarship on this question:
"It is altogether probable that the Apostle in this place
had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immersion."Dr.
Barnes.
"Buried in death; an oxymoron, according to which
burial precedes and death follows, as is illustrated in the im
mersion into the bath of baptism." Dr. Lange.
"We have been (thus) buried (in the waters of baptism).
There is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of baptizing by
immersion."Dr. Bloomfield.
"Jesus Christ by death underwent this sort of baptism
even immersion under the surface of the ground, whence he
soon emerged again by his resurrection. We, by being bap
tized into his death, are conceived to have made a similar
364
[July,
translation. In the act of decending under the water of bap

tism to have resigned an old life, and in the act of ascending
to emerge into a second or new life."Dr. Chalmers.
"He (Christ) submitted to be baptized, that is, to be
buried under the water by John, and to be raised out of it
again, as an emblem of his future death and resurrection. In
like manner, the baptism of believers is emblematical of their
own death, burial and resurrection."Dr. Macknight.
"Holy baptism is the outward, visible sign of water in
which in those days, one was immersed, or, as it were, buried;
the sign, indeed, of our dying and rising again." Bishop
Colenso.
"There seems no reason to doubt that both here and in
Romans 6:4, there is an allusion to immersion and emersion in
baptism." Bishop Ellicott.
"There can be no doubt that baptism, when it is admin
istered in the primitive and most correct form, is a divinely
constituted emblem of bodily resurrection. And it is to be
regretted that the form of administration unavoidably adopted
in cold climates, should utterly obscure the emblematic signi
fication of the rite, and render unintelligible to all but the
educated, the Apostle's association of burial and resurrection
with the ordinance. Were immersion universally practiced,
this association of the two, at present, heterogeneous ideas,
would become intelligible to the humblest."Dean Goulburn.
"Baptism means immersion, and it was immersion. The
Hebrews immersed their proselytes ; the Essenes took their
daily baths; John plunged his penitents into the Jordan;
Peter dipped his crowd of converts into one of the great pools
which were to be found in Jerusalem. Unless it had been. so,
Paul's analogical argument about our being buried with Christ
in baptism would have no meaning. Nothing could have been
simpler than baptism in its first form. When a convert de
clared his faith in Christ, he was taken at once to the nearest
pool or stream of water and plunged into it, and henceforth
he was recognized as one of the Christian community."Dr.
Cunningham.
"This sprinkling, which appears to have first come gen
erally into use in the thirteenth century, in the place of the
1898.]
Bishop Merrill on "Burial by Baptism."
365
entire immersion of the body, in imitation of the previous

baptism of the sick, has certainly the imperfection that the
symbolical character of the act is expressed by it much less
conspicuously than by complete immersion and burial under
water."Dr. Van Osterzee.
"We are buried with Him. Alluding to the ancient man
ner of baptizing by immersion."John Wesley.
"Immersion which takes place in baptism, signifies and
expresses, as has been said, the burial of Christ."Chancellor
Est.
"All commentators of note (except Stuart and Hodge)
expressly admit or take it for granted that in this verse * * *
the prevailing mode of baptism by immersion and emersion is
implied, as giving additional force to the idea of the going
down of the old and the rising up of the new man."Dr.
Philip Schaff.
The scholarly opinions given above are not from "immersionists" in Bishop Merrill's sense of the term. They are
from Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and
Methodists. Surely such scholars are not to be accused of
partiality in favor of immersion. One of them says that "all
commentators of note"with two exceptionsunderstand
"buried by baptism" as an allusion to immersion. It is
proper to state that Prof. Stuart, one of the exceptions men
tioned by Dr. Schaff, concedes that the primitive baptism was
immersion. He says: "But enough. 'It is' says Augusti,
'a thing made out,' viz., the ancient practice of immersion.
So, indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly investigated
this subject conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient
time which seems to be more clearly made out. I can not see
how it is possible for any candid man to deny this." Thus this
distinguished scholar, while he does not think that Paul alludes
to the practice of immersion in Romans 6:4, grants that
immersion was practiced as a matter of fact, and is not able
to see how any candid man can deny it.
J. B. Briney.
366
Evolution and Christianity.
[July,
EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY.

OUR decades ago Charles Darwin published the "Origin
of Species." The resultant discussion established a newera in scientific thought. For more than a quarter of a
century the attention of the scientific world has been focused
upon the facts of progressive development. Before Darwin's
time many of these were not unknown, but, to those familiar,
the perceptive genius of this man added a multitude of others.
With them he then inwove a striking hypothesis in effort to
explain the method by which such unfolding had resulted.
The word "evolution" had received an added meaning. This
new meaning, however, has, up to the present time, lacked
both precision and homogeneity. It has never crystallized.
The broad generalizations of Darwin underwent criticism
from many acute minds. The result was never conclusive but
the game was exciting. To find an hypothesis which should
satisfactorily explain how, by general process, in intelligible
manner, the mutations of Nature made for progress, here was
immortal fame, almost apotheosis.
At its christening, it must be allowed, Christianity showed
scant favor to this new child of speculation. Why should the
new term "evolution" take the place of the old name "prog
ress." There was a feeling that the sponsors were not hurt
with piety, that it was scarcely a desire to draw near to God
which pushed back as far as possible any assumption of divine
decree, nor may it be denied that, in brief space, some of the
manifestations of this protean child of genius justified the dis
pleasure of the friends of God.
Under such circumstances there rapidly developed no
small antagonism between the believers in the divine records
of revelation and the champions of the new hypothesis.
It is no purpose of this paper to review in detail the various
phases of this controversy. In its progress the devotees of
science have shown themselves not less dogmatic, and, in the
judgment of the writer, fully as credulous as the followers of
the old faith in its most crystalline forms. The outcome on
1898.]
Evolution and Christianity .
367
both sides tends to saner conceptions. The days are near at

hand when few will deny that the records of the ages have
something to communicate concerning vast eras of world
development, and when few, on the other hand, will find in
them the infallible teacher of the very process of cosmogony.
If, indeed, a hoary dogmatism has learned to modify its con
ception of divine fiat, even audacious ingenuity has found no
philosophy of its devising able to obviate necessity for call upon
divine power. The sober thinking world has been willing at
last to rechristen "Progress," "Evolution," but, as yet, sees
no grounds for the deification of the child.
We are passing through an age when ingenuity has been
unduly reverenced. Many, if not most of the disciples of the
inductive methods of investigation, while loud in profession
of humblest devotion to truth, have shown themselves in
practice, quite as likely as the philosophers of old to give
allegiance to fantastic theory. If the crumbling of the creed
is striking testimony to the frailty of human philosophy, surely,
not less so, is the periodic collapse of the vaunted conclusions
of modern science.
The great objection upon the part of the Christian world to
the original exploitation of the term "evolution," was, as has
been previously intimated, the mad desire which apparently
impelled its votaries to get as far away from God as possible.
If, at last, God was to be admitted into their philosophy, it
should be at most only into a distant age, there to touch some
primordial plasma. With many there was manifest shrinking
from even this far off contact with the divine. We were shortly
condemned to "Agnosticism." This was the deification of the
tangible. On the contrary, they to whom as to the Psalmist,
"The heavens declare God's glory," these, are led by a dif
ferent spirit. To them it sees no dreadful calamity if the fate
of empires to-day be not without the touch of the divine hand,
and if, at last, the fittest to survive shall be decided by omnis
cient mind.
But this driving of God far from modern life, gave won
drous scope for the exploiting of human ingenuity. Hence
its attraction as a philosophy of cosmic process. There
remained the stupendous creations, the forces left were appar
368
[July,
ently of the slightest. To partially succeed in establishing

them as effect and cause must win admiration, to plausibly
determine a law of independent causation will bring disciples by
the thousand. Subtle device. The world is entertained by a
good detective story.
We all rather admire "Sherlock
Holmes." To do much with meagre materialit is genius.
What is true in fiction holds good also in philosophy and in
life. Napoleon, in spite of his eminently selfish character,
wins sympathetic applause by the matchless daring of his
Italian campaigns. Behold the voluminous manifestations of
life. Against their multiform activity the genius of a man
arrays a simple phrase or two "Natural Selection""The
Survival of the Fittest""A Tendency to Variation in all
Directions."
Arrayed with unrivaled care, weak points carefully con
cealed, the theory seems to win. Surely, thus has our world
made itself. The ranks fill up. The sublime audacity of genius
gives it empire. But, for Napoleon, there was afterward
Leipsic and Waterloo, and for every theory reared by ingenuity
without the truth, there comes also the day when it lies
crushed beneath the onslaught of newly discovered facts.
Christian faith confidently predicts such ultimate destiny
for any theory of the world's unfolding which does not admit
the Divine Immanence into all its manifold activities, nor does
it mean by "The Divine Immanence" aught less than sentient
oversight and administrative control of potencies and pro
cesses both physical and spiritual.
As already noted, the new philosophy had strong attractive
powers. Its marshaling of commonplace agencies such as
"Adaptation to Environment" and "The Struggle for Exist
ence," to the explanation of the subtle harmonies of nature,
was seductive. It had originality and flavor of the paradoxical.
Evolution soon became a cult. The realm of the natural
sciences it boldly called its own.
It is not to be denied that resultant researches have added
largely, to known facts of life's progressive manifestations; but
the failure of all the genius devoted to such investigations to
come to agreement as to ultimate processes, will yet compel
the virtual abandonment of all theories in favor of the simple
1898.]
369
facts. The truth is that, to human intellect, any theory in

this field, must be "a priori.''
It is beside our purpose at this time to make any compari
son between the theories of Darwin, Huxley, Haeckle, Wallace,
LeConte, and others. The destiny of evolutionary theories is
committed to that law of survival administered by the great
Lawgiver of Truth. Suffice it to say that a "Godless Evolu
tion" has already failed as a world-philosophy.
However mistaken in some opinions championed in the
early days, the instincts of the religious world were right in
recognizing the new cult at its inception as an enemy of faith.
We may look back and smile at the narrow interpretation
which would create the universe in one hundred and forty-four
hours, no more; but, after all, we ought to smile respectfully.
The sequel has justified suspicion. Under the robe of Science,
Skepticism has sought entrance into the fold of faith. Until
quite recently, the evolutionists were practically a unit in treat
ing the world as, in bare possibility, a child of the Divine,
but, at least, cast off at birth to be the plaything of circum
stance. Recent reasoning, however, calls more on God. That
the tendency is to still higher things is, in part, because of the
sturdy faith of ignorant men. They have grown wiser, but
their faith bears fruit.
At bottom then, the antagonism between the religious
world and the evolutionary cult in its original manifestation,
was not one as to the processes of creation, but the far greater
question, "What is the relation of the world to God, of God
to the world?"
This philosophy claimed ability to account for known
existences, dispensing with divine providence in administra
tion of the physical, and hoped to obviate necessity for refer
ence to Him in touching on first appearances. To such a pro
cess of reasoning there arose, almost immediately, certain
very logical corollaries. A miracle could not exist. Jesus
Christ was not a divine, but a purely human manifestation.
Inspiration had been a vain imagining. God, who is remote
from the workings of the physical world, must equally be far
from the unfolding of the spiritual. Indeed, the spiritual
itself is but an outgrowth of circumstances working through
Vol. 26
370
[July,
ages upon the physical. I confess to having always been a

little puzzled at that credulity which could take for granted
the existence of "circumstances" which tended to the develop
ment of the cerebral rather than the caudal extremity of the
prehistoric ape. The known facts of physical surroundings
would seem to point rather to the probable evolution of the
prehensile member into a fully developed hand. Before the
necessities of theory, however, probabilities have had little
influence. The unity of evolutionary process is too grand a
concept to be cast aside for slight discrepancies in the evi
dence. It is better to rectify evidence which has manifestly
been distorted. By such easy method, Evolution enters,
flushed with victory, the realm of the spiritual. Here it imme
diately finds similar work to do. History, and especially
religious history, is evidently all awry. It must, perforce, be
rewritten to correspond with the facts, that is, the dogma of
the new philosophy. The distinction between sacred and pro
fane at once disappears. The Biblical records being then,
"profane," are without compunction, still further profaned.
To accord with the extreme evolutionary hypothesis, all reli
gious concepts must have been the outcome of human environ
ment and its reaction upon the human mind. A "Chosen
People," a "Divine Revelation," an "Incarnation," are impos
sible. Such, the axioms, ever unproved, but needing no
proof, in the new orthographic geometry of the soul.
Hence, a new exploiting of ingenuity. Effort is made to
so rearrange the writings of the Old Testament that there
shall be a semblance, at least, of steady and uniform progress
in the world's ideas of duty and righteousness. Controversy
is rife as to the validity of the testimony of the erstwhile hal
lowed records, but after all, is there cause for alarm? Every
untruth carries in its nature the germ of its own undoing.
"Evolution" has unified its philosophy of all progress until
the overthrow of one point will shake the foundations of the
whole. We see tacit recognition of this impending collapse of
the primal philosophy of evolution in the multiform modifica
tions of theory which, to-day, adhering to the name, are yet
so blended with theistic belief as to have a distinctly different
trend. Nor is the reason of the threatened collapse far to
1898.]
371
seek. It was inevitable that this world philosophy should at

last be forced to the test of application to modern life. It is
easy to reconstruct ancient records to match a theory. The
witnesses are dead. Their spirits are not restless. With yes
terday it is different. The ghosts of the unburied past are
uneasy. They haunt the philosopher of to-day and insist on
telling their story. The evolution of a Homer, of a Shakespere eludes the keen vision even of a theorist. Yes, the glorious
spirits of all the "Elizabethan Ages" will yet be seen pointing
condemning fingers at following decadence, and withering
with a glance of scorn the theory of undeviating development.
Out of every collapse of overburdened philosophy or false
system of life, however, something of truth remains. Europe
and France were the gainers from the Napoleonic era in spite
of the personal tyrrany of the man. The unity of the inter
ests of nations was placed in strong relief against the blaze of
his sordid selfishness. So, when it shall have become mani
fest that the old evolutionary hypothesis is insufficient for its
purpose; it may well be that processes once championed as
all-sufficient to account for the origin of species, may, though
discredited in that sphere, still have abiding place in science
as methods of the infinite variety which diversifies the unity
of nature. In short, we shall recognize and better understand
evolution, the fact, while compelled to reject, in all its nondeistic varieties, evolution, the theory. In like manner when
the present rage for patchwork philosophy in Biblical study
shall have run its course, when human ingenuity shall have
exhausted itself in efforts to arrange a dissected record to
accord with a preconceived philosophy of life, the world will
not be the loser. A new stimulus will have been given to the
study of the relations of God to man. A new emphasis will
have been laid upon the deeper spiritual content of the record
as against the superficial facts, and it will have been discov
ered that, in every era of awakened thought, a horny chrysa
lis of dogmatic interpretation must be violently rent asunder
before the awakened spirit is free to grow nearer to the divine
truth.
There is an evolution in religious concepts as in the world
of nature, but it is not stereotyped and undeviating. The
372
[July,
records of the rocks are full of stories of cataclysms, of new

outbursts of life. The necessities of theory alone plead for
the long intervening eras the records of which are completely
lost.
So, periods of progress come in spiritual thought,
indeed, in all thought. Old conceptions perish and remain in
the fossil strata of the past. New ideas of a higher type take
the place of those reverently held by former ages. In the
natural world moreover, we often note with wonder how the
species of successive strata, in spite of comprehensive changes,
retain generic relationship. So, the divine formulations of
faith remain the same from age to age, while the human con
cept draws from time to time, nearer the divine.
An age is dawning, hastened on, I doubt not, by the very
controversies which now excite the religious world, when truer
meanings will attach themselves to many familiar terms;
when the world shall realize more clearly still that God reveals
Himself, not to satisfy human curiosity, but to stimulate
human effort; when the world shall be solicitous, not as to
how God is doing his work, but as to how far humanity is con
forming itself to the image of his Son.
The conclusion seems inevitable that, in this world of
nature, God's creative edicts are not finalities. The bewilder
ing variety of natural manifestations points to a flexible
design. On the contrary, nothing but reckless speculation
may presume that the tendency to variation takes, in general,
the direction of progress, except by divine control.
It is worthy of remark that language seems to be analogous
to all other creations. We are wont to look upon words as the
arbitrary signs of ideas. A closer examination shows, however,
that words are rather skeletons about which ideas dispose
themselves. It is this fact which makes the intellectual and
spiritual world bear a measure of resemblance to the material.
Otherwise every revelation of God would be complete at
once. Instead, we see, in every era of spiritual progress, the
same tendency to variation and adaptation which is apparent
in nature. The revelation made becomes, for every individual,
subject to the forces of environment and heredity; and
only slowly do the mutations of idea which wrap it round,
finally approach definitely and fixedly toward the divine ideal.
1898.]
373
This is evolution in the religious realm, a thing which appears

partly a series of creations or revelations, partly a succession
of periods of mutation and growth. As bearing on practical
life, however, our attention is drawn to the question of varia
tion.
This is the human side of religion.
The divine
expression of truth must be considered absolute and complete.
The human comprehension thereof, by reason of manifold
limitations, can only approximate toward the thought of the
Creator. Is not this in the mind of the Master when he refers
to the ears that are closed; in the mind of the apostle, when
he mentions the vail that is over the hearts of the followers of
Moses ! Hence the fatuity of all attempts at the formulation,
for all time, of an authoritative creed. It is a fighting against
God.
It attempts to render crystalline that which he has
ordained shall be plastic. It does violence to the secondary
laws of progress.
God's revelations have a purpose. That purpose is
summed up in the conclusion of the fourth Gospel, "That,
believing, ye might have life." Outside of the impress of the
divine life in Jesus of Nazareth, whatever of creed exists for
any man, must be that expression to himself of infinite
relations, in which he finds the greatest incentive to righteous
ness. By this motive power must any creed be judged.
Because of this intimate personal purpose of a creed, the
formulation of creeds for the mass is a stupendous mistake.
The attempt of one generation to bind them as a yoke upon
those following is surely vicious; but, for the age, or for the
man promulgating them they must be judged by their fruits.
The, to us, iron fatalism of Calvin, must have been something
else to him, for it made him one of the world's great
champions of moral reform.
In the natural world, moreover, a striking fact, in the
midst of incessant variation and ultimate progress, is the per
sistence of specific types. The very forces that make for
variance are sometimes retroactive and therefore lead to a
certain fixity.
New varieties of plant or blossom must
frequently be guarded against tendency to reversion. So, in
the intellectual world we have a sort of frequent atavism. It
is not easy to uncloak oneself from the past.
The most
374
[July,
familiar phrases of communication, when not dealing with the

concrete, aye, the very base forms of human expression, are
continually found by the individual wrapped in the scented
cerements of past ages. Were they human in their nature,
they had long been mummified. But speech is not human.
Thoughts tinged ever so faintly with truth, have a divine
life. It is possible to remove the wrappings, and to find, when
we have reclothed them for the world we live in, that they
throb with the pulsing of the very heart of God. In nothing
so much as in religious thought is this tendency to prenatal
bondage apparent. True, it permeates, in a measure, all our
thinking; but that measure is the real continuity of theme
between past and present thought. By as much as most modern
subjects of investigation are the outgrowth of new conditions,
thought, in these departments, is enfranchised. In religious
matters, however, we are always striving for an understanding
of the same great themes, Godhis lovehis mercyhis salva
tion: manhis sinhis forgivenesshis redemption. Recur
rent outbursts of controversy concerning conceptions of these
themes, is evidence only of the effort made by every Present
to throw off the shackles of prescription and adjust its con
cepts to the intimate needs of its own life. So insidious is the
influence of the past upon our thought that it holds us in
bondage by the very primary expressions of religious truth.
Phrases such as "The Atonement," "The cleansing blood of
Christ," "Justified by faith," "Saved from sin," "For the
remission of sins," are flavored to this day with the super
ficiality of an age of sacerdotalism. Every now and then,
even in the midst of our declared freedom of speculative
thought, there breaks out an angry protest against any dis
turbance of age hallowed ideas on these most personal and
most spiritual themes. A larger heartedness is needed even
in this our day. If the vague idea that Christ's death, in
some way, purchased man back from a sin-caused condemna
tion, influencing God to revoke his previous disfavor, if this
shadow no longer stirs the heart of the world, that heart must
not be prohibited from its own interpretation of the record,
"That God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself."
If the incentive to righteousness be found to-day in the call of
1898.]
375
Christ's ambassadors, "Be ye reconciled to God," then let us

for the time, lay emphasis upon our need of "Repentance
unto life." To the heart outflowing in desire for likeness to
him whose compassion is testified by Calvary it is very chaff
to offer quasi logic about the vicarious satisfaction of offended
justice. If to-day has lost regard for mystical estimate of the
exact value of the shed blood of the Redeemer, and finds
itself trembling rather with fervent yearning after the holiness
of Christ's inflowing life, why should the dry dust of the
cloister rest like a hallowed pall upon the heart of the world?
If the phrase "For the remission of sins," seem to some
student to-day, to be filled with human purpose rather than
divine decree, shall we insist on our ability to state just when
God begins to look with favor upon a faith-inspired life?
This is evolution, alike in nature and in religious thought,
under the guidance of God's Spirit to make for progress.
That Spirit adapts the interpretation of his ultimate truth to
the urgent needs of to-day. Let us give it free course.
"For we doubt not, through the ages one increasing purpose runs,
And the thoughts of men are widened with the process of the suns."
In its environment, and for its needs, the indwelling
Spirit of God will grant unto the faith of every age such
mutable concepts of his infinite truth as shall be to it the
highest receivable inspiration toward his holiness. So shall
his redeemed move toward him, out of cloud and shadow,
until, in the full splendor of his presence, they who have
desired him shall be like him, for they shall see him face to
face.
A. M. Chamberlain.
376
Machiavelli.
[July,
MACHIAVELLI.
HERE is a resistless fascination about Machiavelli that
somehow keeps the eyes of the world fastened on him. It
is as inexplicable as it is irresistible. Whether it be that
morbid interest which inheres in the evil one whose counter
part he is supposed to be ; or the attractive simplicity of his
literary style ; or the surprising frankness with which he tells
what he sees; or that his clever insight into the character of
men in that day has enabled him to read the secret of much
political scheming and sinning in our own day; or his really
valuable services in blazing the path for political science ; or
giving the example of modern historical methods ; or whether
it be all of these or none we can not quite tell. But at any
rate he lives. He is hated and heeded ; he is maligned and
thereby magnified ; refutation is perpetuation to him ; his im
morality is his immortality. The nine lives of a cat or a
heretic are as nothing in comparison.
"Robert Elsmere" lived by being so often slaughtered but
Machiavelli will at least have a name when "Robert Elsmere"
shall have been long forgotten.
On him have been laid conveniently the sins of royalist
and revolutionist, papist and protestant. He has been written
up and cried down from his century to ours.
Earlier in our century Macaulay took occasion to express
his views in the matter in the Edinburg Review. In the last
year a writer in the Nineteenth Century must needs show how
he influenced the Reformation in England. And the Romanes
Lecturer, the Hon. John Morley, devotes his learned attention
to the same character, "the last and best word on Machia
velli."
Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1469. His career
extended to 1527. Of his early life little in detail is known.
His education was good but limited. He was widely read in
the classics of his own country but did not know Greek. This
restriction of his reading to the affairs of Italy was both cause
and effect of a deep desire for her unification and glory.
1898.]
Machiavelli.
377
In 1498 he came to the office of chancellor of the second

chancery in Florence. His duties were those of secretary of the
commission who had charge of affairs pertaining to war and
foreign relations. His position required accurate knowledge
of the details of the departments. He was trusted with all the
secrets of state and consulted on important questions, yet he
never was responsible for action taken. It was his business to
know; others would do.
Frequently he accompanied embassies to various other
powers and of course was conversant with all the facts in every
case. This gave him wide knowledge in affairs of state and so
gave him material for his celebrated work on autocratic
government, "The Prince."
In one of these embassies he was sent to Caesar Borgia
who became his ideal absolute ruler, possessing those qualities
which Machiavelli lauds in "The Prince."
He was bold and unwavering in his own conduct, firm and
thoroughgoing in his rule, yet prudent withal and exceedingly
skillful in the use of fraud. Machiavelli was also impressed
with his use of native troops in his army. When he returned
he sought to procure the adoption of the same system in
Florence.
This had been the plan of Eome in the olden time and his
enthusiasm for the antiquities of his country did but quicken
his desire for this reform. Indeed there can hardly be any
doubt of the wisdom of the idea. The mercenary troops of
that day were a mere caricature of the true soldier. It was
true then as now that a sense of the right and justice of a cause
was necessary to valor. Soldiers well knew that their own
interests were subserved better by pretense than by earnest
fighting. If they fought too valiantly and successfully the
war would soon end and they be without employment; if they
wrought too great ravages on the country of the enemy it
might be they were destroying the resources of the ruler who
next year would be their employer ; if they killed a soldier they
had killed a fellow craftsman against whom they had no
quarrel and who, like themselves, was fighting for no principle
either good or bad, but only for wages. So Machiavelli
reasoned that a citizen soldiery who had interest in the out
378
Machiavelli.
[July,
come of the war would be safer and cheaper and altogether

more satisfactory.
A self-indulgent and peace loving people had thrown off
the burden of patriotism upon mercenaries so that they them
selves might be free to pursue personal enjoyment. But soon
their country was threatened with utter destruction because of
its inadequate defense.
There was a sage long before their time who lived in an
obscure province of ancient Rome who could have taught
them the utter folly of their procedure. His teaching was
that by seeking his life a man (or a nation) would lose it; but
by losing it for the sake of righteousness he would surely find
it. These self-seeking Florentines had not learned this.
Machiavelli worked hard for three years against great
obstacles to secure the adoption of his plan. Finally he suc
ceeded. But his cherished hopes were not to be realized. It
would seem that even governments, ultimately, can do with
the people only what the people wish.
Machiavelli did not fully realize the tremendous though
silent power of moral forces. He had perfected a military
machine. But it was thrust upon a people whose spirits were
not stirred with the animating principle of self-sacrificing
patriotism necessary to make it a success.
All his painstaking work of preparation was prevented
from even its possible chance of success by the unfortunate
choice of Don Micheletto, a bloodthirsty foreigner, to be the
leader of this citizen army which was to be filled with lofty
patriotism and zeal! Failure was inevitable and when it came
it involved the republic in ruin.
When the government went down of course Machiavelli
was out of office. He was but forty-five years of age and nat
urally he was unwilling to be retired so early in life. So he
set about winning the favor of the Medici family into whose
hands the government had fallen. It was a tedious process
and he resorted to his books to while away the time, driven to
literature by failure in politics just as Anthony Hope of our
own time.
His political aspirations were never realized, notwithstand
ing the dedication of "The Prince" to Lorenzo de Medici in
the hope of such a result.
1898.]
Machiavelli.
379
It is well that we should look at a few of the sayings that

have made his name so odious. "A sagacious prince," says
this teacher of princely sagacity, "can not and should not ful
fill his pledges where their observance is contrary to his inter
est, and where the causes that induced him to pledge his faith
no longer exist."
Modern politicians have this wisdom. They practice it
but do not preach it.
Again, "a prince should be a fox, to know the traps and
snares; and a lion, to be able to frighten the wolves away."
One could think that "prince" was a misprint for "police cap
tain." Again he says, "Cruelties should be committed all at
once as in that way each separate one is felt less and gives less
offense;" and "a prince who desires to maintain himself must
learn to be not always good, but to be so or not as necessity
may require;" and a prince "either spends his own substance
and that of his subjects, or that of others. Of the first two he
should be very sparing, but in spending that of others he
ought not to omit any act of liberality." "Whoever becomes
master of a free city that has been accustomed to liberty and
does not destroy it, must himself expect to be ruined by it."
These are a few of the sayings which have blackened his
name.
Yet it is a question whether this generation is worthy to
cast a stone at him. Our practice is not so far removed from
his principles that we need a commentator to explain his mean
ing. Bacon well said of him: "He writes of what men do, not
of what they ought to do," and a recent writer has more hap
pily put it, "He writes of what men do as being what they
ought to do."
His offense is in his frankness. He says bluntly what no
one denies but what others hardly dare to think. This is a
trait of innocent childhood as well as of hardened sin. The little
girl voiced the acted feeling of a large adult constituency who
prayed "I saw a little girl this afternoon who was cold and
barefooted; but it isn't any of our business, is it, God?" The
adult can not say that but he can do it.
The modern Machiavelli writing of political matters would
in many respects say the same things to voice the principle of
380
Machiavelli.
[July,
action as did the original one. If he were to write of church

affairs he might even now shock the refined sensibilities of
some good people merely to state in plain passionless words
the things we see daily and thoughtlessly. In this day of the
quickening social conscience how saintly hands would be raised
in holy horror to have him say that the teacher of the Christian
religion must be able to speak out of a heart full of enthusiasm
for humanity and that church officers should be carefully
selected from those well to do and with prominent social
standing; that leaders in the church should be men of cosmo
politan breadth who discern that God has made of one blood
all nations of men for to dwell upon the face of the earth;
and that a Christian brother the complexion of whose skin is
a shade blacker should be organized into a separate denomina
tion as likewise should be the brother whose theological com
plexion differs by a shade of blue more or less.
Machiavelli's principles are unethical but his having
written is not an unmixed evil. He brought to his task the
practical and ready grasp of the man of affairs. Such a man
commands our attention. It is refreshing to think after a man
whose thoughts are not confined to the conventional groove.
Even when we agree with him no more fully than with Machia
velli or Goldwin Smith in "Guesses at the Riddle of Existence"
there is a freshness and fearlessness of thought and treatment
that attract us.
It is well to remove those things that are shaken that those
things which are not shaken may remain.
But greater is the profit that he paved the way for political
science. He was a gatherer of facts. He wrote of what men do .
What, then, shall we say of this man?
In justification, little; in extenuation, much. He erred
both politically and morally ; politically, because morally.
His moral error was that he was regardless of the means
to ends. His fundamental political error is the disregard of
the individual in his zeal for the state.
He looked at things through the medium of circumstances
local and temporal.
He lived in a small community threatened by invasion
from without. To his mind the security of the state was the
great end to be attainedand very naturally so.
1898.]
Machiavelli.
381
All our thought is for the citizen. Differences in inci

dentals give different coloring to our thought. That is all.
He was solicitous for the state when the precarious condition
of the state was the chief source of calamity to the individual.
He regarded that condition as permanent and founded his
philosophy of society upon it.
We under a stable government give more attention to the
details of individual comfort.
His ruling passion was to
make Florence strong and to reunite Italy. His moral obliquity
can not be condoned. But while we must condemn, and that
unsparingly, let us not forget that the logic of such a pro
cedure ends in self-condemnation also.
We admire boldness in a criminal. We are Anglo-Saxons
and the savage rudeness is not all out of our veins.
We send the chicken thief to prison and the railroad thief
to Congress. The one goes to our state, the other to our
national capital. It is a question whether it is not as bad to
steal a railroad in daylight as a chicken in the dark.
The Italian favors the latter action, the Anglo-Saxon, the
former. The one is subtle and wary ; the other is brutal and
gory.
We despise refined diabolism but there is another product
less refined which is also diabolism. Vice does not cease to
be vice, and despicable, when it becomes bold and open.
There are other sins than hypocrisy and deceit. Before we
thank God that we are not as other men are or even as
Machiavelli let us turn Machiavelli and write a book. Let
us write in it the things men do as being what they ought
to do and hand it down to posterity as a guide to the young in
the art of becoming generous, noble-hearted citizens.
Let us counsel the youth that if he would be such an
ornament to society he should get money. By fair means if
possible, but get money.
That it is beneath the dignity of a man of talent to rob a
citizen but to rob a city is a sure passport to honor and pre
ferment.
To be esteemed generous it is necessary to have an income
and to spend it lavishly. Let him rear his family in luxury
and idleness. A bit of gambling will add to his charm and he
382
Stumbling-Blocks: A Word Study.
[July,
must be known as a man who stands ready to enforce his

rights at the gaming table. Let him drink copiously of strong
drinknot light wines, that would be effeminate. Let him
drink only such liquors as are a terror to a weak digestion and
a menace to a strong one. Let him glory in his strength of
will and stomach and defy the ravages of self-indulgence.
And when under this training our strong man dies of acute
alcoholism in middle life let us call it cirrhosis of the liver.
Call in the minister to offer a prayer at the obsequies and a
fellow sportingman to enlarge upon the great, loving, gen
erous, noble heart of this man who was too lazy to instruct his
family in thrift and self-reliance and too selfish to deny his
appetites to provide them a competence.
So long as such despicable selfishness can manage to pass
current for the largest hearted generosity let us not despise
the teaching of this brainy but misguided Italian.
Our code of ethics needs revision until the vile person
shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bounti
ful, but a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes rule
in judgment.
I. J. Cahill.
STUMBLING-BLOCKS: A WORD STUDY.

fascinating but difficult and frei V I quently disappointing process, yet for the sake of its
possibilites men will pierce the crust of the earth with spade and
drill and will disembowel the mountains, spending their lives
deep in gloomy caverns where the sunlight and the multitudin
ous sounds of the upper world never penetrate. Very simi
larly, mining for the meaning of words, and especially for those
connected with difficult deliverances of the Scriptures, is a
fascinating but difficult task. One must pierce the crust of
the life about him and go down through the historic strata of
the centuries, like the miner for gold descending from one
level to another, until he reaches the age in which the utter
ance was originally made; and then he must explore the cham
bers of that sepulchred century, sometimes following where
others have been, sometimes excavating de novo as he goes.
1898.]
Stumbling-Blocks : A Word Study.
383
All of the delusions and dangers of ordinary mining are

his. The supposed mine may prove to have been "salted" in
the interest of some preconceived theory or utterly unhistoric
conception ; or what was supposed to be precious metal may
on investigation prove to be the "fool's gold" of mistransla
tion or false exegesis. And, most alarming of all, there is
the constant possibility of spending so much of one's existence
in the bowels of the past that all of one's life will shrivel for
lack of the sunlight, the fresh-blowing air and the kindly
sympathies of humanity about him. Or he may, like the
eager miner, in his haste for pushing on to new discoveries,
neglect to prop up the chambers as he goes with pillars of
faith and all may come crumbling down upon him some day,
crushing out his spiritual life forever. All of this however is
no argument against the mining. There are precious nuggets
of truth awaiting a proper search in these depths. We would
not bring present action into bondage to a past age, but we
must learn to know the past for a right understanding of the
current age. We must learn to translate New Testament
principle and precept into terms of Twentieth Century duty.
And for a proper application of New Testament teaching an
understanding of the force of certain single New Testament
words is of utmost importance. Such a one is the word offend
and its derivatives, characterizing an action against which
Christ utters his most solemn warning and the Apostle Paul
his most touching entreaty.
This article purposes the presentation of some of the
results of mining for word-meanings in this direction. There
has not seemed to be required an extension of the research
into classical literature outside of the Scriptural writings, in
this instance, since the characteristic word-form and its use is
peculiar to these writings; but in the Scriptures the study has
involved an examination of the Lexicons, Greek and English,
with especial use of Thayer's lexicon of the New Testament, and
Cremer's Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek ;
an examination, with the aid of an analytical concordance of the
English New Testament and a New Testament Greek concord
ance, of each occurrence of the word and of its derivatives and
cognate words, with a careful noting of the renderings of the
384
[July,
Revised Version ; an examination of Buttmann's and of Winer's

Grammars of New Testament Greek on grammatical points,
then an examination, oft-repeated, of the passages in their
connection, with extended study of certain passages and the
consultation of critical commentaries ; and finally and most diffi
cult of all, the classifying of results, involving a personal decision
of disputed points and the deduction of practical conclusions.
The study has been so helpful that something of its processes
and results are here stated with the hope that they may prove
suggestive to others.
We must first be rid of the confusion resulting from mis
translation. In King James version we find the viordi offend
used in singularly diverse senses. For example, it is used of
actions sinful in themselves, as where it is said that Christ
died for our offenses. Again it is used of actions only rela
tively wrong, as where we are warned against giving offense,
even by a proper act, to a weak brother; and in still other
cases it is used of action which can not be wrong in any sense,
since in these cases it is Christ himself who is said to have
given offense. Much of the difficulty at once disappears when
we find that the first class mentioned represent different Greek
words from those represented by the second and third classes ;
and that the Revised Version has replaced the misleading
translation in the first class of cases by such words as sin,
trespass. Then a flood of light is thrown upon the subject
when we find from our lexicons that the word translated
offense in King James version is usually scandalnn, an abbre
viated form of a Greek word meaning "the stick in a trap
upon the bait is placed and which when touched by the
animal springs up and makes the trap shut." The scandalon
or scandal is then literally "something which trips one up and
causes him to stumble," and "to scandalize" is primarily "to
cause one to fall into a trap." Accordingly we find the
Revised Version usually translating the word scandalon
"stumbling-block" or "occasion of stumbling," and the verb
scandalizo it translates "cause to stumble." To make it
clearer we find another Greek word, proskopto, used in the
same sense and translated sometimes "offend" and some
times "stumble" and this word literally signifies "to strike
1898.]
385
against," especially "to strike the foot against" so as to cause

one to fall, a meaning which also belongs literally to our
English word offend by its derivation.
But on reaching this point one encounters a danger of
hasty mining, namely, that of leaping to the conclusion that
the meaning of the word scandalizo, translated "offend" or
"cause to stumble" is always that of ensnaring another into
some sin. Even so well known an investigator into New
Testament etymologies as Professor Marvin R. Vincent of
Union Theological Seminary appears to have fallen into this
error, assuming that the derivation of the word scandalizo
limits its meaning to action which causes a brother to sin.
He makes this the basis of an assertion, in an otherwise
admirable article on "The Weak Brother as a Bully," that a
brother's conscience can have no claim upon us where the
question of his being led into sin by following our example is
not involved. He declares* "Paul's admonition assumes two
things: first, ignorance; second, such respect for another's
example and such weakness as to lead to follow the example
to the wounding of his own conscience. To 'cause to offend'
is not to give offense but to cause to stumble, as if by putting
a stone in another's path." While this argument might seem
justified perhaps from the etymology of the word proskopto
yet the fact that in the argument of the apostle in Romans
14 and I Cor. 8 the words proskopto and scandalizo are used
almost interchangeably and a third word lupcitai, "is grieved,"
is used as still another equivalent of the thought (see Meyer
on Romans 14:13 and 15, where he points out the practical
identity in signification of proskomma and scandalon, and the
fact that lupeitai does not refer to actual injury, as by being
led into sinful action, but to "moral affliction, i. e., vexation of
conscience, which is occasioned by the giving of a scandalon."
The same fact appears from the use of scandalizo in cases
where it can not mean to lead into sin, e. g. where Christ is
said to have caused certain ones to stumble ; and also by the
significant fact that this verb is one of those exemplifying the
common usage in later Creek of giving to a passive form an
active signification, e. g., the passive form "he was seen" is
* llu Illustrated Christian Wethly, March 7, l8yl.
Vol. 27
386
[July,
used with the active signification "he appeared;" the passive

form "he was judged" is used to signify "he entered into
litigation;" and amongst the verbs thus used Buttman dis
tinctly mentions scandalizo as frequently having in the passive
the meaning "to take offense," instead of its primary force
"to be caused to stumble."* The grammarian Winer points
out the further fact that this usage reaches back still further
and is probably derived from the similar usage in the case of the
corresponding Hebrew reflexive form Nikshal. Accordingly
when in the New Testament one is said to be "scandalized"
it may mean, not that he has been caused by the action of
another to imitate that action to his moral injury, but simply
that he has taken moral offense at that action. With this agrees
the secondary definition in Thayer's lexicon of New Testament
Greek, viz., in the active "to cause a person to begin to dis
trust and desert one whom he ought to love and obey;" in
the passive "to see in another what I disapprove of and what
hinders me from acknowledging his authority." This secondary
meaning is still more clearly brought out in the further defini
tion of the active; "to cause one to feel displeasure at a thing;
to make indignant." That this shifting of the meaning is the
result of a far-reaching tendency in language is indicated not
only by fact that the New Testament deponent usage just indi
cated is derived from the still older Hebrew usage, but by the
fact, revealed by an examination of our English dictionaries, that
the secondary meaning of the word scandalize has become the
primary meaning in the English so that "to be scandalized
never means with us" to be influenced toward the imitation
of an evil action" but only "to feel moral censure of an
action." The word scandalize has still further shifted its
meaning in some instances until it comes to mean "to bring
false and hurtful accusation against another," i. e., "to
slander;" for the words slander and scandal are called by the
etymologists "doublets," i. e., diverse derivatives from the
same root."*
We may now perhaps ascend to the surface and proceed
to examine a little as to the results of our somewhat laborious
mining. What is the significance of the facts indicated by
fSee Buttmann's and Winer's grammars and the English dictionaries, especially the Century.
1898.]
387
our research? They indicate for one thing the danger of

adopting a single definition of a word which has at least five
distinct uses as we shall see, one of these uses alone having
under different circumstances three distinct ethical values.
Then this exclusive interpretation of the word scandalizo as
"the leading of another to follow our example to his moral
injury" tend to confusion in important ethical questions.
The term "offense" or "occasion of stumbling," represented
in the original by scandalon and proskomma and their deriva
tives, and used practically as synonyms, has the following uses
in the New Testament :
I. It is used of an act wrong in itself which causes another
to fall into sin, e. g., "Wo unto the world because of occasions
of stumbling." Matt. 18:7.
II. It is used of an act not wrong in itself but which leads
another into sin, e. g., "If meat cause my brother to stumble."
1 Cor. 8:13.
III. It is used of an act not wrong in itself nor necessarily
inducing imitation but offensive to the moral sense of some fellow
Christian, e. g. :
Case 1. Romans 14:2-6, the eating of meat or herbs and
the observance of one day or all days is pronounced to be
ethically neutral in itself.
Case 2. Romans 14:15-23. Where a harmless act offends
the conscience of another, and causes scandal and dissension,
and where it is a mere matter of personal privilege like eating
meat or drinking wine, it is to be voluntarily abandoned in
obedience to the dictates of love.
Case 3. Gal. 5:1, "With freedom did Christ set us free:
stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of
bondage." Here and in Col. 2:16-23, the apostle directs the
Christian not to yield his liberty in the matter of Jewish
ordinances, since here the preservation of the very spirit
and principles of the Gospel and not a mere personal privilege
was involved. The words "offense," "occasion of stum
bling" and the like are not used in this case, but the question
involves the same idea.
IV. It is used of a right act ivhich antagonizes a wrong
conscience, e. g., "Knowest thou that the Pharisees were
offended (caused to stumble)? Matt. 15:12.
388
[July,
V. It is used of a wrong act which antagonizes a right

conscience, e. g., "Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art a
stumbling block to me." Matt. 16 :23.
Of these various uses neither the first two nor the last two
are likely to be in dispute. It is the third and central one upon
which pivots the practical interest of the whole subject and
around which have raged the controversies of the ages known
as the adiaphoristic controversies or those concerning "things
indifferent." The burning question is: What influence shall
a brother's conscience have over me in matters not wrong in
themselves ?
It has sometimes been assumed, as has already been
pointed out, that the derivation of the Greek words for
"stumbling block" limits the warning against offenses to the
act of causing a brother to fall into overt sin, and that a
brother's conscience can have no influence of restraint upon
our action where the question of his falling into sin through
following our example is not involved. That this assumption
is not justified is indicated not only by the lexical and gram
matical considerations which have been mentioned, but by the
course of the argument in the passage Romans 14:13 ff., where
there is contemplated perhaps both the case of an actual
stumbling into sin and the simple arousing of a brother's dis
approval with its consequent spiritual injury to him and to
the peace of the church, but certainly the latter is involved.
Compare the following statements :
v. 15. "If because of thy meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer
in love."
v. 17. "Let not then your good be evil spoken of."
v. 19. "So then let us follow after the things tvhich make for peace and things
whereby we may edify one another."
15:2. "Let us each one of us please his neighbor for that which is good unto
edifying."
5-7. "The God of patience grant you to be of the same mind one with another
according to Christ Jesus, that with one accord ye may with one mouth glorify the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another even as
Christ also received you."
These expressions clearly indicate that the danger of
interference with the esteem which one Christian should have
for another may be sufficient ground for the condemnation of
an action harmless in itself.
1898.]
389
The question of the authority of another's conscience

over us is further explicated by the passage 1 Cor. 10:27-11:1.
The Apostle declares that the Corinthian Christian might
attend a feast at an unbeliever's house, eating whatever was
set before him with no conscientious scruples. But if one
who sat by should say of a certain dish "This hath been
offered in sacrifice" the Christian should abstain from it for
the sake of the one raising the question. The Apostle insists
that it is not that the act becomes sinful to the one performing
it, but that for the sake of avoiding any possible "occasion of
stumbling," in act or thought, on the part either of Jews or
Greeks or the Church, he is to abstain from the act if the
issue is raised by another, and that in so doing he will be an
imitator of Paul as Paul was of his Master.
. The question of action not wrong in itself but involving
injury only to the state of trust and confidence which should
subsist between Christians, has therefore varying ethical sig
nificance. In general and ideally thece neutral acts are to be
left to the individual conscience, these who participate in
them and those who refrain from them alike exercising mutual
charity and respect toward each other. This is the teaching
of the passages Romans 14:1 and 15:7. But the liability of
a brother either to be led into a sinful act or to have his con
fidence in our Christian character shaken through our
indulgence in some act harmless in itself brings such indulgence
into conflict with the law of love. The cases stated, however,
are those where no conscientious reason exists for the per
formance of the act in question, and where its omission does
not conflict with our conscience. Where such conscientious
reason exists, however, the weak conscience is not to overrule
the positive conscience of the enlightened conscience as to
its duty. For example, in the cases of the Galatian Christians
it became positive duty to persist in action which doubtless
scandalized their Judaizing brethren.
And in modern
instances the conscientious conviction that religious services
are rendered more effective by the use of the organ has been
maintained in the face of the conscientious opposition of some
good Christian people to what they term "a kist 'o whistles."
Even so the conscientious call to the protection of our homes
390
[July,
from the drink traffic may not yield its conviction to the con.
servatism of some other Christian who may have conscientious
doubts as to the propriety of interfering with the personal
liberty of the drunkard or the drunkard maker.
We find then, in conclusion, that there is implied in
Scripture a warning not only against giving offense, but
against taking offenseat the difficult teaching of Christ or
at the failure of other conscientious people to adopt our
precise view of what is right and what wrong. Morever there
are cases where we are to pursue our course in the face of
offense caused to others ; yet in general the probability of
causing offense and spiritual injury to a brother by an act
ethically neutral calls for the abandonment of such action in
obedience to the dictate of Christian love. There is implied,
of course, the obligation of each Christian, while respecting
with utmost tenderness the weakness of a brother, to keep
himself and to rescue others as speedily as possible from the
state of weakness which requires continual nursing.
These then are the results of our mining. Yet every
mine brings its products to the assay office. The test by
which divine truth is assayed is that applied by Christ to his
own teaching. "If any man willeth to do his will he shall know
of the teaching, whether it be of God or whether I speak of
myself."
Augustine S. Carman.
1898.]
The Pharaoh Problem.
EXEGETICAL
391
DEPARTMENT.
THE PHARAOH PROBLEM.

Rom. 9:11-24.
11. (Tor the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or
evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but
of him that calleth;)
12. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God for
bid.
15. Forhesaith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and
I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that sheweth mercy.
17. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I
raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be
declared throughout all the earth.
18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will
he hardeneth.
19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath
resisted his will?
20. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the
thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one
vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22. What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known,
endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to distruction :
23. And that he might make known the riches of his glory oh the vessels of
mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the
Gentiles?
The object of this essay is to relieve the passage in Rom. 9:11-24
of an ancient and widespread misinterpretation.* According to some
of the creeds from Augustine to this day it seems to make God a mon
ster of injustice and cruelty. It is made the chief cornerstone of the
doctrine that "God foreordained all things whatsoever comes to pass,"
both good and evil, and then punishes transgressors for doing the very
wrongs He ordained they should do. The many honest and learned
friends of this view, it is well known, have signally failed to justify
such "ways of God to man," or to lift the cloud from this passage by
their exegeses. There has been no lack of earnest effort to understand
*See Hodge and others.
392
[July,
these verses, but the careful student is requested to look into the sub
ject from a view point different from what is usually assumed.
Without beginning far back in the Apostle's argument with the
Jew, the immediate connection with the Pharaoh problem is found in
Rom. 9:11 where the birth of Jacob and Esau is spoken of, which the
predestinarian thinks proves undeniably the unconditional election of
Jacob and the reprobation of Esau, and that these two unborn children
represent the destiny of the whole human family, and moreover, that
no human on earth has anything to do with fixing his condition in
heaven or in hell more than these two prenatal boys had in fixing theirs.
However, this harsh and unsympathizing decree may be molified at
times in the pulpit, or in private conversation, the logic of said interpre
tation can not be turned aside.
That said verse had no reference to the eternal destiny of either
Jacob or Esau is evident from the fact that Paul was discussing a very
different subjecttrying to correct the conceit of the Jew that he and
his ancestryAbraham, Isaac and Jacob were special favorites of
heaven because of their "good works" works of the Law. To meet
this pride of life and to mellow their feelings against the Gentile Chris
tians the Apostle tries to show them that Abraham was not justified by
works, but by faith ; and as for Isaac it was decided that he should be
next in the Messianic line before he was born, and of course he could
claim no good works ; and as Jacob was elected also before he was born,
Paul wants to know where their great stock of good works in their
ancestry was to be found, that held them so far above the Gentiles. If
Esau had done no good thing before his birth, neither had Jacob. This
brought neither merit nor demerit to either. So "Where is boasting
then?" "It is excluded" by the Law of Faith.
The divine appointment of Jacob to be a leader in the Messianic
line of the Abrahamic genealogy necessarily left Esau out as there was
to be but one chosen. All this was but a mere temporal, national affair
in the early history of the Jews and had no reference to the salvation or
condemnation of either of the brothers. Esau might have been saved
and Jacob lost for all the religious significance there was in Jacob's posi
tion. It no more affected the final salvation or condemnation of either
of them, than did the election of McKinley and the defeat of Bryan
affect theirs. The Lord wishes us to understand that He is capable of
managing His own affairs without reporting to such mundane animal
cules as we are his reasons for doing this or that, especially when his
appointment to office leaves the one appointed and the one not ap
pointed each to "work out his own salvation with fear and trembling."
But that God before the children were born decided that Jacob should
1898.]
393
go to heaven and Esau to hell, is not only a monstrous absurdity, but

an unmitigated blasphemy of the character of God. When God said
"Jacob have I loved and Esau have I loved less," he may have fore
seen characteristics in Jacob that would suit the divine purpose better
than those in Esau, but the election of Jacob to a temporary office
neither saved him nor condemned Esau, nor placed the Lord under any
obligation to explain it to us, and so he says, "I will show kindness to
whom I will show kindness." "What advantage then hath the Jew"
over the Gentile as "All have sinned and come short of the glory of
God," and are all alike without Christ condemned?
In the light of the above facts and reasonings let the doctrine of
election and reprobation take care of itself so far as the two unborn
innocents are concerned. But now a far more stubborn case comes
before us in the Pharaoh problem. A proper treatment of this part of
our text must come from the other end of the linenot a case of prena
tal children, but of a fully developed sinner whose villianies and demon
like oppressions of Israel are recorded in Exodus, fifth chapter, before
ever Moses and Aaron appeared before him. The brutal punishing of
the children of Israel because they could not make the same "Tale of
brick without as with straw," showed the demon in human form. Be
sides this, Pharaoh thrice hardened his own heart before the Lord
hardened it at all, and this brings us to note
i. That the servant who had received but the one talent and
showed himself to be so "wicked and slothful" as to gain nothing for
his Lord, deserved to have it taken from him and given to one that
would use it. So when a people will neither see with their eyes, nor
hear with their ears, but will "close their eyes lest they should see with
their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their hearts and
should turn and Christ should heal them," then Heaven is under no
more obligation to continue the gift of seeing or hearing or any other
divine influence to save them. They closed their eyes lest they
should see. And so in the parable to him that hath (gained anything)
shall be given, but from him that hath not (gained anything) shall be
taken even that (talent) which he hath. Even so when God gives
people eyes and ears and power to "turn" and they will use none of
such talents, he has a right in justice to close such eyes and ears and
hearts. Pharaoh was not the only one whose heart the Lord justly
"hardened," for see Jno. 12:40 where Isaiah is quoted as saying after
the Jews had seen so many miracles of Jesus and still would not believe
"He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts that they
should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts and
turn and I should heal them." This teaches that God does not intend
394
[July,
to be trifled with and mocked, that while he is lavish in his gifts to men
he does business on business principles, recalling his capital from recip
ients he has found unworthy to receive them.
2. This brings us directly to the principle involved in the hard
ening of Pharaoh's heart with the following results:
First. Pharaoh, as already said, had shown himself unfit to rule
over a subject race by his unreasonable and cruel exactions in their
daily tasks.
Second. Then in the presence of three notable miracles per
formed by the two servants of Jehovah he three times "hardened his own
heart, showing incorrigible obduracy.
Third. Thus having eyes he would not see and having ears he
would not hear and would not "turn" from his wicked ways. And as
when the Lord found similar characters among other nations he knew
that it was useless to sow any more seed on such stony ground so he
had a right to withdraw the opportunities which Pharaoh had so often
despised and to waste on him no more capital.
Fourth. But why should He harden Pharaoh's heart? For two
reasons, (i) If said hardening had caused him to commit any more sin
than he would have committed if left to himself, it is not likely that such
sins would be charged to his account, for that would be unjust. (2) It
visited upon Pharaoh no greater punishment than he had already
fully earned.
Fifth. But it is said God "raised him up for this very purpose
that he migh "show his power" in Pharaoh and that "His name might
be declared throughout all the earth." Whether Pharaoh was drowned
in the Red Sea with his hosts or otherwise died is not known. It is
more probable that Jehovah made his "power known" by the miracles
he wrought in Egypt than by the manner of Pharaoh's death. But if
it were the latter, our civil authorities generally have thought public
executions of great criminals advisable for the terror they inspire.
King Ahasuerus thought it both wise and just to "raise up" Haman
seventy-five feet into the air as an example. Pharaoh had never served
the Lord in any way; and if now he could be used to some good pur
pose, it was high time it were done,by giving occasion for said miracles.
He had not only oppressed Israel but said to Moses and Aaron, "Who
is the Lord that I should obey Him ?" The Lord did not create a Judas
to betray Jesus, but took a man that was already a Judas; nor did he
"raise up" a Pharaoh to be "hardened," but took a man that had already
shown himself an incorrigible sinner and dragged his wicked life into
the light. Guiteau, the murderer of President Garfield, was brought
to public judgment and public execution. The publicity did him no
1898.]
The Pharaoh, Problem.
395
injustice. Neither did the exposure of Pharaoh's evil deeds add to his
punishment.
3. To arrive at the real meaning of the phrase "raised thee up," let
us interrogate it.
First. As the Westminster confession says, "God foreordained
all things whatsoever comes to pass;" did he foreordain Pharaoh's re
bellious life, that he should reject his message to him by Moses? Did
he ordain that Pharaoh should harden his own heart three times and be
made willing that he should harden it seven times and then be punished
as if it had all been done by his own will? Who could love God with
such a character as that?
The truth is, Paul in Romans, was not discussing the question of
salvation, only very remotely. Pharaoh's salvation or condemnation
was not in his mind directly, if at all. The same general thought was
before him as in Rom. 9:11. When treating of Jacob and Esau he
was showing the querulous Jew that "known unto God are all his works
from the beginning of the world." And as he chose Jacob instead of
Esau, he would "show kindness to whom he would show kindness,"
that he had chosen Levi to be the priestly tribe, and Juda to be the
Messianic tribe and "raised up" Pharaoh for a certain purpose that did
him no injustice, and had not thought it necessary to consult a Jewish
Rabbi or any one else. The final salvation of Jacob or Esau, of Levi
or Judah was not the subject under consideration in either case, nor was
the condemnation of Pharaoh facilitated in the least by his having been
"raised up to make God's power known." He had never served any
good purpose previously that we have ever heard of, and it was now
proper he should be used for some good purposein a public instead of
a private punishment.
Second. But here comes the real Pons Asinorum of the Pharaoh
problem. If Jehovah has been throwing his blessings and his curses
around indiscriminately, sending some to heaven and some to hell "ac
cording to his good pleasure, why does he yet find fault?" Paul in sub
stance replies to those Jews and to all moderns who have misunderstood his
language in Romans"I have not been speaking of man's future destiny
but of your misconception of God's meaning in choosing Jacob instead
of Esau. You assume that he chose Jacob because of some peculiar
merit of good works in him that placed him and his children above all
other nations by virtue of which you refuse Gentiles a place in the
Church equal to your own. I have shown you the error in your reason
ing. God is not finding fault with his own management of nationa
affairs, but with your false and illogical assumptions. No one has,
and no one can, resist his will in any matter, nor have I said, nor in any
396
[July,
way implied that any one has resisted his will in appointing either Ja
cob or Levi or Judah to their respective offices ; but he does find fault
with your baseless assumptions of superiority on such a flimsy pretext.
He has concluded all under sin and you are "no better than they."
But finally, we have Jeremiah's illustration of "The Potter and the
clay," as in Rom. 9:20-24. Calvinists assume that man is just as pas
sive and as inert in God's hands as to the matter of salvation and dam
nation as insensate clay is in the hands of the potter on the wheel. We
find however in Jeremiah 18:1-10, from which Paul quotes that the
"Nation or the Kingdom" (Jeremiah's Clay) is quite able to "Turn
from their evil ways" and that the Lord exhorts them to do so that
he may "repent of the evil he thought to do unto them." This does
not seem as if he treated them as mere handfuls of clay, for they were
capable both of sinning and of "turning from their evil ways." All
depends upon the quality of the clay whether the potter can make a
vessel unto honor or not. See II Tim. 2:19, 20, where it is clear that
if any one desire to be a "vessel unto honor" he must "depart from all
iniquity." If a man desire not to "depart from iniquity" he is the
quality of "clay" that will "mar in the potter's hand" and will become
a "vessel unto dishonor," clearly showing moral responsibility. As the
"Nation or Kingdom that will not turn from their evil ways" and so be
"marred" in the effort to make them a "vessel unto honor," so with
the individual. If a man therefore desire to be a vessel unto honor, he
"must purge himself from these"dishonored vessels. "The good seed
can bring forth a good crop only in good groundin "good and honest
hearts." So it is very evident that no man is the pitiable object of
almighty decrees enforced with almighty power according to some
imaginary almighty whim that seized the creator long before time be
gan and made some hearts that would and some that would not "mar
on the wheel."
But if Calvinism is not the true meaning of the clay and the potter,
what is ? Who in Jewish history represented the different qualities of
the clay? Among the Kings of Israel, David, Hezekiah and Josiah,
who, though not perfect, honored God, while Ahab, Hosea and Zedekiah dishonored him and so were vessels of dishonor. All these had
bad hearts and God could not "repent of the evils he thought to do
unto them." Zedekiah was as "clearly raised up" as Pharaoh was and
for the same purpose. He was not made a bad man to do wickedly and
be punished for it, but being bad he was brought to a public, instead
of a private, execution to "make God's power known" as the avenger of
all unalterable wickedness as Jeremiah had shown. In all these cases
the men were certainly the architects of their own fortunes. If Zede
1898.]
397
kiah had repented as Manasseh did, he might have become a "vessel

unto honor and meet for the Master's use." According to Augustine,
Calvin, Luther and others, one half the world never had a chance on
the potter's wheel, nor indeed the other half who were predestined to
glory and consequently Paul's illustration of said wheel was one of his
innocent mistakes.
The wickedness of Pharaoh, before Jehovah undertook to expose
him, justified all the buffetting he received in the ten plagues without
the aid of any supposed predestination or even preterition to bring an
originally innocent boyhood life to such a public condemnation. On the
contrary, as with every other sinner, so with Pharaoh, it was '''iafter his
hardness and impenitent heart treasured up unto himself wrath against
the day of wrath" that God "brought indignation and wrath, tribulation
and anguish upon him and every soul of man that doeth evil."
(Rom. 2: 5, 9.) Man makes his own heaven or hell. Predestination
has nothing to do with it. If we say that God gives the grace to "con
tinue in well doing" to some and only withholds it from others, this in no
way helps the matter, for it is about as unreasonable as to put steam
into one engine and to "withhold" it from another and expect the latter
to work like the former. This view besides involves a serious charge
against the character of Jehovah, for in Ezekiel 33 : 1-9, we are taught
that if we neglect to save life when we could do it, "His blood will I
require at thy hand," and before the foundation of the world when God
was arranging to give grace to a part of mankind to be saved, it would
have been just as easy to arrange for all as for a part. It would not
have exhausted his grace to give the same power to all mortals. "Pre
tention" could hardly be excused on economical grounds. And yet
Augustinianism is by implication charging God with doing that for
which he threatens us with death"His blood will I require at thy
hand." How could God neglect to save a solitary soul and then face
his own word in Ezekiel ?
One more feature of this problem remains to be treated. "What
if God willing to show his wrath and to make his power known endured
with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction."
(Rom. 9:22). Did God fit them, or did they fit themselves for destruc
tion? If the former, he should not complain, it being the work of his
own hands. But they doubtless fitted themselves for he "endured them
with much long suffering." This could not refer to them as his own
work for whenever he made anything he always pronounced it "very
good." Pharoah doubtless, was one of said "vessels of wrath whom
he endured" a longtime and who with demoniacal pleasure oppressed
Israel beyond measure, "hardened his own heart" and was otherwise
398
[July,
offensive to God who could use him for no other purpose than to "make
his power known" to the nations around.
Another class of "vessels of mercy is named which he had pre
pared unto glory." And -who are these? Read Rom. 2:7: "To
them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, honor and
immortality"to these "He will render Eternal Life." These are of
those who did not "mar in the potter's hand." These are they who
"purged themselves were sanctified, meet for the Master's use and pre
pared for every good work." (II Tim. 2 : 21.) All this shows that
with the help we have in the Bible, in Christ, in the Holy Spirit and in
the church, we are expected to "Lay hold on Eternal Life" ourselves
instead of depending upon certain supposed decrees that no one knows
much about, the very existence of which depend upon the misinterpre
tation of certain Scriptures confessedly "hard to be understood."
CONCLUSIONS.
Those formed to be lost would have a right to complainWhy
has thou made us thus?Eternal nonexistence would be a quintillion
times preferable to eternal hell fire. Almightiness can be no apology
for the exercise of almighty cruelty in inflicting everlasting torment
upon men, women and children who never asked to be created at all.
Why were they not left in their painless nonentity? Jesus should have
said God so loved half the world as to decree them for heaven, and so
hated the other half as to prepare no place for them but hell. Infinite
power has no more right to inflict avoidable pain than finite power has.
Is there not even less excuse for the former than for the latter? Infinite
goodness should stand at an infinite distance from such a crime. Of a
thousand wicked men, the wickedest of them all would not do what
Calvinism says God has done. Even his sovereign will could not be
justified, on any principle of moral philosophy known to man, in calling
trillions of immortal beings out of nonentity into eternal perdition.
Mere pretention does not in the least soften the crime. In Ezekiel
33:1-9 the Lord shows that if we can save human life and fail to do it
we are guilty of murder, and "his blood will I require at thy hand."
How much more innocent would it be to create quadrillions of im
mortals and then carelessly see them daily falling into gehenna "where
their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched?" And yet Augustinianism charges God with committing the crime wholesale for which
he threatens us with death if we by pretention (neglect) commit it in
a single instance.
Surely the "name of God has been blasphemed" long enough even
by many of his steadfast friends:
Thomas Munnell.
1898.]
What is the Meaning of Eperooteemaf
399
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF EPEROOTEEMA?

I Peter 3:21.
Translation: "The antitypebaptismdoth also now save you, not a putting
away of filth of flesh, but the decision of a good conscience toward God, through
resurrection of Christ."
It is purposed to briefly consider this passage from three points of
view, hence the reader is invited to look at it critically, exegetically and
practically. Of course the examination must be brief.
1. Critically. The first thing to be determined is the meaning of
Efcrooteema, which is rendered in the Authorized Version, "answer,"
and in the Revised Version, "interrogation." Now, neither of these
versions expresses the idea of the original, though the Authorized Version
comes nearer it than the Revised Version. The interrogation of a good
conscience simply makes no sense at all, while the answer of a good
conscience is not a very intelligible phrase to most people. In fixing the
meaning of Eperooteema, the difficulty has been augmented by the
fact that it occurs only once in the New Testament, and only once in
the Septuagint. In Daniel iv. 17, the Authorized Version renders it
"demand," but it is at once evident to even the English reader that
there is something wrong in the translation. The passage reads as
follows : "This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand
by the word of the Holy Ones." Now Eperooteema translates in this
passage the Aramaic Sh'elah, to which Gesenius gives the meaning
"question," "subject of inquiry," "cause at law," "cause decided,"
hence "judgment" or "decision" {Decretum). Dr. Lange thinks the
word "command" will do, but we think "decision" comes more nearly the
idea of the Aramaic, as the corresponding words Gezerah and Maaniar
unquestionably mean decision. This being accepted, the whole passage
may be rendered literally as follows: "The antitype, baptism, doth
also now save you, not a putting away of filth of flesh, but the decision
of.a good conscience toward God, through resurrection of Jesus Christ."
2. Exegetically. Taking the whole context into view it is evident
that batism saves, not in any such sense as grace saves, or faith saves,
or hopes saves, but in a sense nevertheless important. The conscience
having been aroused by the Gospel and the heart purified by faith, the
final decision of the penitent believer is made in baptism ; it is his honest
decision to accept Jesus as Lord and Christ; and this decision has the
force of a solemn covenant as soon as the baptism takes place. It is
practically equivalent to the Roman soldier's sacramentum, by which
he took upon himself the obligations involved in his enlistment. The
400
What is the Meaning of Eperooteema?
[July,
transitional force of baptism is not only indicated in the reference

to the salvation of Noah and his family, but also in the phrase "toward
God." The water of the flood separated Noah and his family from the
old sin-stricken world, and translated them into a new state. Now,
baptism is the antitype of this water, that is, stands instead of it ; or is
related to us as regards our salvation as the water of the flood was
related to Noah's salvation, in so far as the idea of transition is con
cerned. Our baptism is "toward God, through the resurrection of
Christ." It is, therefore, practically renouncing the world, formally
burying the old man, and rising to walk a new life through the power
of Christ's resurrection ; thus assuming the obligations of the Christian's
state as indicated in the phrase: "decision of a good conscience toward
God."
3. Practically. The practical aspects of this question are very
great. All workers in inquiry rooms will bear testimony to the difficulty
of bringing penitent inquiries to anything like a definite decision as to
God. But does not this difficulty grow out of the substitution of
modern methods for that which was commanded by Christ, and con
stantly insisted upon by his divinely commissioned Apostles? Any
one who will carefully read the Book of Acts can not fail to see that
baptism was used very differently by the Apostles to what it is now.
It was then the deciding act by which the penitent believer took up his
allegiance to Christ; it was "toward God," and consequently it was
practically renouncing the old state of sin and entering covenant rela
tions with the New Master. Hence it always followed closely 'after
conviction. Just as soon as the people cried out they were told what
to do, and baptism was included in the directions, as it was
practically the sacramentum, or pledge, as well as the decision of those
who were seeking to be enrolled in the army of. the faithful. And this
fact presents a question, which our modern evangelists might do well
to consider. Without raising any discussion just now, as to what is
called the mode of baptism, is it not true that the primitive place of the
ordinance has practically been ignored by modern man-made methods,
which methods serve only to confuse and often finally disgust the honest
inquirer? He seeks for peace, and is told to believe in Christ, but
when he is conscious that he does most sincerely believe, he still finds
that he has taken no decisive step by which he assumes the obligations
of the Divine life, and it frequently happens that he can not be made to
realize that he has passed from death unto life. And the reason for
this is, he has not been directed according to the teaching of the Holy
Spirit. Hence, it may be safely affirmed that infant sprinkling has
robbed baptism of its practical import, and has thereby taken away
from the evangelist one of his most efficient means for dealing with the
1898.]
Was Paul Sent to Baptize f
401
unconverted. Baptism, when scripturally administered, is of the great

est practical importance. It is not, therefore, an arbitrary ordinance,
commended by Divine authority without any special use or significance ;
but it has a far-reaching spiritual meaning and as such, can not be dis
pensed with or prevented without great injury to the work of saving
souls.
The position of baptism, when considered in the light of our expo
sition, is made to occupy an importance which can not be ascribed to it
by any or all of the commonly accepted views. Our view involves the
following:
(1) Baptism is a covenent, and is equivalent to the Roman
soldiers' oath of enlistment. In baptism the penitent believer assumes
all the obligations of the divine life, and pledges himself to become an
obedient follower of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(2) Baptism becomes the act which separates between the old
and new man, just as the waters of the flood separated between the
old and new world. It, therefore, marks a change of state. Faith and
repentance are necessary prerequisites, but in baptism the penitent
believer distinctly, definitely, and formally passes over from the old
state of condemnation to that of reconciliation, or acceptance with God.
(3) The main significance of our exposition will be found in the
spiritual aspect of baptism which it emphasizes. Baptism is not a mere
bodily act ; it reaches back to the conscience, and looks forward
"toward God." From the human side it proceeds from the conscience ;
from the Divine side it lays hold of the resurrection of Christ. It is,
therefore, when properly understood, an intensely spiritual act. This
view relieves the ordinance entirely from the gross conceptions which
have gathered about it by those who make too much of it as well as
those who make too little of it.
WAS PAUL SENT TO BAPTIZE?

I Cor. 1:17.
Translation: "For Christ did not send me (only) to baptize, but (also) to
declare the joyful message."
This passage has been made to run the whole gauntlet of the
baptismal controversy. Can we know certainly just what the Apostle
means? Let us carefully consider the facts.
I. The commission which Christ gave to his Apostles just before
his ascension, and which includes the ordinance of baptism, was
Vol. 28
402
Was Paul Sent to Baptize?
[July,
unquestionably intended for all who should afterward preach the

Gospel as well as for all who should hear it. The commission compre
hended the whole worldall nationsand every creature. Paul did
not receive a different commission from this. He was simply appointed
for a special work under this commission and for this he received a
special call. In this special call he was told what work was intended
for him to do, but the manner of performing this work is not even
intimated. He was to open the eyes of the Gentiles and turn them
from darkness to light, etc., etc., but he was not told how this was to be
done. But Paul very well understood that the manner of doing it was
in harmony with the instructions which Christ had before given to his
Apostles, for in this same letter to the Corinthians (xv. i, et a/.), he
shows that the means which were to be used in the performance of his
work was the preaching of the Gospel, and this Gospel in its facts, com
mands and promises was embodied in the great commission which in
cluded the ordinance of baptism.
II. If Paul had no commission to baptize, then he clearly tran
scended his authority, for he himself tells us that he did baptize(i Cor.
i. 15, 16)and let it be observed that these are not necessarily the only
persons he baptized during his ministry. He is simply speaking of the
Christians at Corinth. He might have baptized hundreds at other
places, and doubtless he did baptize many. Paul thanks God that he
did not baptize many of the Corinthian Church. And he immediately
gives the reason for it. He does not say it is because he had received
no commission to baptize, but it was because not many were able to say
that they were baptized into the name of Paul, as he did not baptize
many. He was simply glad that he had avoided giving an excuse to
the partisans of Corinth, who were following men rather than Christ.
And this fact alone shows the importance of baptism, since it distinctly
bound those who were baptized into a name to accept the Leadership of
that name.
III. Let it be observed that the whole argument of the Apostle
clearly shows that all these Corinthians had been baptized by some one.
For if this were not the case he would not have made the reference he
did to their baptism. "Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?"
Evidently he does not question the fact of their baptism. Indeed it is
upon the assumption of their baptism into the name of Christ that he
grounds his whole argument against divisions. Hence it would appear
that this Scripture, when taken altogether, not only does not prove that
baptism may be omitted, but it distinctly emphasizes the importance of
baptism, and establishes beyond the possibility of a doubt that all the
Corinthian Church had been baptized, no matter by whom it had been
done.
1898.]
Was Paul Sent to Baptize?
403
IV. It is probable, however, that none of the Apostles did very

much baptizing themselves, at least this was true of those who were
prominent as speakers. And it was just as true of Peter as of Paul.
Peter has been called the Apostle of the Jews, and it is assumed that
baptism was a part of his commission, and that is why he told the Pentecostians to be baptized. But we are not distinctly told that Peter ever
baptized anybody himself. He commanded Cornelius and his house
hold to be baptized, and hence we have the right to conclude that he
did not baptize them himself. Now if there is anything in this fact, it
simply shows that Paul did more baptizing than Peter, for we have
Paul's own testimony that he himself baptized some while we have not
a word about Peter baptizing any. So the old notion of the Gentiles
being exempted from baptism falls to the ground.
V. It may still be asked what is meant by the passage: "Christ
sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel." Much depends
upon the force of the contrast notbut. Take an example of this idiom
in another place. "He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but
on him that sent me." (John xii 44.) Now if this sentence be
interpreted as some are wont to interpret Paul's language, then it fol
lows that the Saviour plainly contradicts himself. But his meaning is
clearly this: he that believeth on me, believeth not (only) on me, but
(also) on him that sent me. Now let us read Paul's language in the
same way: "Christ sent me not (only) to baptize, but (also) to preach
the Gospel." In other words, the argument of Paul is as follows:
"You Corinthians attach very great importance to certain leaders.
Very well. You were not baptized into^my name, and I am very glad
I did not baptize many of you, lest some one should have said that 1
baptized in my own name, and I was quite justified in not baptizing
many of you, for I was not sent simply to baptize, but to preach the
Gospel." Doubtless some one who was traveling with Paul did most
of the baptizing, or else some who lived at Corinth did it. In this view
of the matter we are justified by such commentators as Doddridge,
Wells, Hackett, Barnes, etc., etc. Commenting upon the passage, Albert
Barnes says, "Baptism was not his principal employment though he
had a commission in common with the others to administer the ordi
nance and occasionally did it." Doddridge supposes that the adminis
tration of the ordinance was intrusted to inferiors, because it was com
monly practiced by immersion, and was attended with some trouble
and inconvenience. Bishop Pearce translates the passage thus: "For
Christ sent me not so much to baptize as to preach the Gospel." And
Adam Clark sustains the Bishop's version in the following language:
"The writers of the Old and New Testaments do, almost everywhere
(agreeable to their Hebrew idiom) express a preference given to one
404
Was Paul Sent to Baptize ?
[July,
thing beyond another, by an affirmation of that which is preferred, and

a negation of that which is contrary to it, and so it must be under
stood here, for, if St. Paul was not sent at all to baptize, he baptized
without a commission, but if he were sent not only to baptize but to
preach also, or to preach rather than baptize, he did in fact discharge
his duty aright."
VI. Even if it were admitted, or could be proved, that Paul did
receive a separate and distinct commission from the rest of the Apos
tles, and that his commission did not include baptism, and that he nevei
did baptize any except those whose names he himself mentions, this
fact would settle nothing as regards the importance of the ordinance of
baptism or that it is not binding upon the Gentiles. It is not enough to
prove that Paul did not baptize, but it must be shown that no one else
baptized amongst the Gentiles, or that the Gentile Christians were
really none of them baptized. But this can never be done. On the
contrary it is easy to show that the Gentile Christians were baptized, as
well as the Jewish Christians, and it is not at all material whether the
baptism was administered by Paul or others whose duty was specially
to do that part of the work. The primitive evangelists usually went out
in couples, and it was doubtless the habit for one of these to mainly do
the preaching while the other attended to the baptizing.
VII. This passage, like many others must be interpreted in the
light of all the facts of the case. When this is done there is not the
slightest difficulty whatever. Paul simply did what he had a right to
do, viz. : he refrained from baptizing when he had some one else to do
this work and in the case of the Corinthians he was glad he had exer
cised his privilege, as it left the Church without excuse in keeping up
their partisan clamor by claiming him as their leader.
This case of the Apostle suggests an important fact. As the
Apostles seem to have gone out in twos, it is probable that one of these
generally did the preaching while the other did the baptizing, though
the baptizing might have been done by any of the local members of
the church, since in the days of the Apostles clerical orders were not
necessary in order to perform ministerial functions. Possibly the
effectiveness of Evangelistic work might be increased if this method
of division of labor could be generally adopted at the present time.
Anyway the special point in the passage under consideration places
emphasis upon the importance of co-operation of different talents in the
work of evangelizing the world.
1898.]
The Life of Philip Schaff.
405
LITERARY REVIEWS.

i.
The Life of Philip Schaff. In part autobiographical. By

David S. Schaff, D. D., Professor of Church History in Lane
Theological Seminary. With portraits. New York. Charles
Scribner's Sons. 1897.
This volume of 526 pages is altogether such a memorial of its dis

tinguished subject as one can imagine that he would himself have heartily
approved. Handsome in form and solid in substance as well as chaste
in style, it could hardly fail to give him pleasure if he could revisit the
scenes of his abundant labors. Professor Schaff may well be con
gratulated upon the manner in which he has done his work. He might
have filled several volumes with memorial material ; but he has shown
good sense in limiting his work, as above, and good sense, also, in
his selection of matter as well as taste in its presentation. Some readers
may wish that he had given more matter here or there ; but none will
wish that he had anywhere given less. Surely he can not desire stronger
commendation of the way in which he has performed his filial task,
than the statement that he has put his father before his readers as he
reallywas.
As the author remarks in his preface, Dr. Philip Schaff occupied a
unique place among the theologians in America in the last half century.
Born in Switzerland, but mainly educated in Germany ; choosing theology
as his field of study and labor ; a student at Tubingen, Halle and Berlin ;
an intimate acquaintance or a pupil of some of the most distinguished
men of his youth in Germany, as Schmid, Baur, Ewald, Dorner, Tholuck,
Hase, Mailer, and Neander : thoroughly devoted to the German learn
ing and what was best in its theology ; thoroughly German in spirit ;
untouched, withal, by the rationalistic method and spirit that were so
rampant in his time, but understanding both of them ; traveled on the
Continent and having acquaintances in England ; a privat docent in
Berlin and a promising candidate for university promotion ; firm in the
faith and devout in spirithe came to the United States in 1844, at
the age of twenty-five, to become a professor in the theological seminary
of the German Reformed Church at Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, and
here entered at once upon those labors of teaching and authorship that,
406
[July,
together with his work in more public and practical fields, led on to the
high position that he so long held in the American church. As one turns
the pages of the volume he is impressed by the extraordinary range
of his talents, knowledge, and interests, and, most of all, activities.
Even to inventory the events and movements in which he was most
prominent is here impossible; the reader must go to the book itself. No
one would claim that Dr. Schaff belonged to the first rank of theologians
or scholars ; some would say, perhaps, that multa describes him better
than multum, but he certainly did a very great amount of work of a
widely diversified character, and did it, or at least most of it, well.
One of the most pleasing phases of Dr. Schaff's life is the ready
interest and sympathy with which he took to America and things Ameri
can. German as he was by blood, training, and spirit ; valuing as he
did the German history, learning, and literature, he yet knew that this
is America, and that it is the destiny of America to create a new people,
speaking the English language, formed, indeed, out of many other
peoples, but still one in civilization and in spirit ; and he realized
perfectly that the sooner this could be brought about the better for all
concerned. The German in the United States could not remain per
manently a German, but must lose his identity and pass into the great
mass of American citizens. At first he lectured in German, preached
in German, and wrote his books in German, but afterward he used the
English language, save on exceptional occasions when he returned to
German. Perhaps at times his heart relented, as when his friends in
Germany rallied him on the loss of his identity, or when the old woman
said to him, after hearing him preach, "English is like cold water poured
out upon my heart, German is like balsam ;" his head, however, did not
relent, but kept on in the way he had chosen. He did his utmost to
bring the church of his childhood, which had called him to America,
and which was very conservative, into accord with the American spirit.
Among the most interesting portions of the book to a scholar are those
which deal with the various phases of this subject, especially chapter VII,
"The German Language and German Thought in America." He wrote
to a friend in 1845 : "Think of America as one may, there is here more
personal piety and practical church activity than anywhere in the old
world, unless it be in a few limited circles in Germany. Here is the
future of Protestantism, the cradle of a new and splendid reformation.''
And this book certainly gives us no reason to think that he ever changed
his mind.
In nothing that he did were Dr. Schaff's sound judgment, practical
tact, interest in the common salvation, and irenical spirit more con
spicuous than in his prominent connection with the movement that gave to
1898.]
407
the world the Revised Version of the English Bible. Nor did any events
of his life show more strikingly the confidence that Christian men, in
both worlds, placed in his wisdom and character. This subject is han
dled in a very satisfactory manner in a chapter of thirty-six pages. The
author thus introduces his brief account of the origin of the movement.
"It was quite in keeping with the mediatorial and unionistic feature of his
career that Dr. Schaff should have had a prominent part in the Anglo-American
Revision of the English Scriptures of 1881-1885. The Revision was the first effort
in two hundred and fifty years, with any ecclesiastical authority behind it, to
improve King James' Version. If the Revised Version does not come into general
use, it will not be because the best scholarship of Great Britain and the United
States was not adequately represented in its production. It was much more than
the product of an impulse of Greek and Hebrew scholarship. It represented the
devout purpose to make the pure mean'ng of the Scriptures more accessible to
English readers. One of the noteworthy features of the movement was that it
united together the leading Protestant denominations in Great Britain and
America through their representative scholars. The possibility of such concert of
action had been seriously doubted, and the fear that some single body might take
up the work in an insular denominational spirit had confirmed a disposition to
disparage all efforts at revision and to be satisfied with a translation which, by
general consent, was susceptible of improvement, lest, in the attempt to improve,
several versions might come into use. As early, however, as 1828, Bishop Herbert
Marsh had declared the Authorized Version to be in need of amendment."
Dr. Schaff, by the election of the English committees, organized
the American committees of revisers ; he was one of the revisers of the
New Testament himself, and the chairman of the joint committees from
first to last. Early in the history of the work serious difficulties were
encountered, growing out of the relations of the American and the
English revisers; which issue at one time, owing more to the influence
of the University presses than to the English committees themselves,
threatened to break off all practical relations between the two groups of
scholars, leaving them to go their own separate ways and to produce
two separate revisions ; but, finally, the Americans obtained practically
all that they asked for and the work proceeded on the lines previously
laid down, which might not have been the case if any other man
than Dr. Schaff, himself a German, had been the mediator between the
two countries.
Some of the paragraphs found in this chapter admit us to the com
pany of the revisers in session. For example,
"Dr. Schaff was a regular participant in the work of the New Testament
company. The two companies met in adjoining rooms at the Bible House, one
of which was his study, on the last Friday and Saturday of each month except
during the summer, when they held a session, usually lasting a week, at New
Haven, Princeton, Lake Mohonk, or some other place. President Woolsey, as
chairman, sat at the head of the table around which the New Testament revisers
408
[July,
worked. Dr. Howard Crosby sat at the foot. Dr. Schaff's place was next to
Professor Short, who, as the original secretary, sat at Dr. Woolsey's left. Opposite
them, at the chairman's right, sat Bishop Lee, Professor Thayer, the permanent
secretary, and Ezra Abbot. The day's proceedings were opened with prayer.
When Dr. Woolsey, who gave almost unrestrained liberty for discussion was
absent, Dr. Crosby presided, carrying with him to his seat his usual reputation
for promptness. Or, as Dr. Schaff was accustomed to say, 'Dr. Crosby drove
very fast.' Such cautious and deliberate scholars as Dr. Abbot sometimes looked
on with amazement at the rapidity with which matters were pushed, but all held
Dr. Crosby in love.
"The discussions were often very animated, hours sometimes being devoted to
single renderings, or to the proper English expression to be used. Although
Baptists, Methodists, Friends, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Presbyterians'
and a Unitarian sat together and joined in the discussion, and wide differences of
opinion were expressed in matter of the Greek text and the English idiom and
construction, there was at no time any departure from the principles of Christian
courtesy and good will."
It is not surprising, therefore, that Dr. Schaff should write in his
journal on the day of the last meeting of the New Testament committee
these words: "New Testament finished after eight years of labor. An
important chapter in our lives. We parted almost in tears, with mingled
feelings of gladness at the completion of the work and sadness at the
breaking up of our monthly meetings, so full of instruction and interest
and ruled by perfect harmony.
The chapter recalls to the reader who experienced them the ardent
feelings with which the Revised New Testament was received in Eng
land and America when it appeared in May, 18S1. The writer does
not exaggerate when he says, "The publication of the New Testament
created a sensation scarcely equalled, and probably not excelled, in the
history of English literature in this country." Nor will older readers
have forgotten the facts, thought so wonderful at the time, presented in
this quotation.
"In their Sunday issues of May 22, two days after the work was issued in New
York, the Chicago Times and the Chicago Tribune gave the text entire in their
columns. A copy was received in Chicago on Saturday night and the Tribune
employed ninety-two compositors to set it up. More noteworthy still was the
enterprise of the Times, more than one half of whose issue was made from a
telegraphic report. This journal, not without proper pride, said of its issue:
'Such a publication as this is entirely without precedent. It indicates on the one
hand the widespread desire to see the Revised Version, and on the other the abil
ity of the Times to supply the public with what it wanted. The four Gospels, the
Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistle to the Romans were telegraphed from New
York. This portion of the New Testament contains about one hundred and
eighteen thousand words, and constitutes by manifold the largest dispatch ever
sent over the wires.' "
Not unnaturally, perhaps, the event did not justify Dr. Schaff's
expectation of the reception that would be recorded to the Revision ; he
1898.]
Heredity and Christian Problems.
409
anticipated for it a much more favorable reception than it actually

received. He returned to this subject once and again, and apparently
died in the full conviction that, in time, it would receive at the hands of
the Christian public of England and America the favorable judgment to
which he believed it was fully entitled.
As is well known, the distinguished scholars who made this revi
sion received no compensation for their work. The University presses
bore the expenses of the English revisers, amounting to more than one
hundred thousand dollars, and received their compensation in later
copyrights ; the expenses of the American committees, amounting to
forty-eight thousand dollars, were raised mainly by subscriptions, Dr.
Schaff bearing the brunt of solicitation. In a foot-note it is stated on
the authority of Dr. J. H. Thayer, who was one of the Greek revisers,
that the surviving members of the two companies are engaged in
preparing a new edition of the Revision, which shall incorporate the
American preferences, originally published according to agreement in
the appendices, and will be published on the expiration of the period of
fourteen years from the completion of the English Standard edition of
1885. We may therefore expect to see this edition before the close of
the year 1899.
B. A. Hinsdale.
2.
Heredity and Christian Problems. By Rev. Amory H. Brad

ford, D. D. (New York: Macmillan & Co. $1.50.)
The Growing Revelation. By Rev. Amory H. Bradford, D. D.

(New York: Macmillan & Co. $1.50.)
Dr. Bradford has been getting the attention of Christian thinkers
the past half dozen years on account of his thoughtful utterances. A
believer in evolution as the law of the universe he puts to practice his
faith by readjusting the Bible facts in accordance with a progressive
conception of life and duty. In his work on "Heredity" we find that
he has availed himself of the best conclusions of Weissman and Ribot.
He fearlessly applies their principles to his interpretations of Scripture
but holds on with a firm hand to the doctrine of regeneration. The
problems of the age have no scare in them for him. He acts on the
idea that Science plus God, Christ and the Bible, are in majority. He
is lucid in his statements and sufficiently orthodox in all essentials to
keep the Church with him. In "Heredity and Christian Problems" he
deals with the law and theories of heredity, with physical, intellectual
and moral heredity, and with the problems of the will, home, education,
pauperism, vice and crime, sin and the race, faith, and the person of
the Christ.
410
Life and Letters of Harriet Beecher Stowe.
[July,
He does not claim to be an original investigator. Rather, a

gatherer of the well-attested results of the researches of others. This,
in order to have a clearer understanding of their bearing upon the life
of man, and as to how they affect his responsibility. He believes in the
sanctity of facts, and that one gains a growing freedom and an ampler
knowledge by giving them the proper consideration.
Dr. Bradford is at his best in his sermons. Here he gives free
scope to his investigations, applying his accumulated stores of knowl
edge with a vividness and directness strangely in contrast with the
ordinary homily.
In his prologue he gives a synopsis of the course of the New
Theology as follows:
"It is more anxious to know what Christ taught than who he was.
"It believes him to have been in a unique sense Divine because he
satisfies that which is nearest Divine in man.
"It is not so anxious to know who wrote the Bible as to know what
the Bible makes of those who read it.
"It believes in the Divine in mantherefore is humanitarian.
"It believes in the omnipotence of lovetherefore does not believe
that God can forever be defeated.
"It believes in the fact of sin, that it is an awful thing to be a
sinner ; that he who lives in sin lives in hell, and must continue there so
long as he sins."
J. W. Monser.
j.
Life and Letters of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Edited by Annie

Fields. (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.)
The long looked-for biography is now before us. Previous to this,
the editor thinks, Mrs. Stowe's life could not have been written in full.
There was too much prejudice in the country to receive such a work
in the dispassionate spirit necessary to do it justice. Time and accepted
truths have altered the public sentiment. People without regard to
locality desire to learn what they can of this wonderful author, and
many who once treated her contemptuously now acknowledge with pleas
ure both the validity of her purpose and the merit of her production.
This being the case, it is with satisfaction that we pass this book under
momentary review.
First, with regard to the editor. Perhaps no person was to be
found who better understood Mrs. Stowe than she. Herself a sympa
thetic, spiritual soul, with both nature and acquired delicacy of taste,
she was all the more competent to present the beauties and reserves
of this conscientious and companionable woman. That she has sue
1898.]
Die Christian.
411
ceeded in doing this, no one need be told who possesses the book. As
one traverses the pages one is impressed with the wisdom of the edito
rial selection. The most cautious critic will hardly venture a corrective.
There is just enough said and never too much, and as to the perspect
ive it is proportionable and satisfactory. It is a book, too, to be taken
up again and again. The famous author is allowed range, by means of
her letters, to unfold her girl-life to us, so that we can study this splen
did character in the making. Early in her career her heart throbbed
with the desire to do something for the betterment of mankind. Be
fore she attempted any aid for the black race, her thoughts were reach
ing out yearningly for the struggling ones of the world. Knowing this,
her very best advisers looked to her pen as the key to unlock the door
of the prison and set the captives free. How the development of her
intention occurred and what was the preparation undergone by Mrs.
Stowe are all skillfully set forth by the editor.
Of course this biography is not confined to any one episode, im
portant though it may be. The entire period of her authorship is tra
versed, and the personal allusions, and data given, form a very succinct
explanation of her various books. This is particularly so in the case of
her "Lady Byron's Story." Our author and the unfortunate English
woman were so alike in sympathy, and in purity of purpose, as is learned
by Mrs. Stowe's own reflections, that one can not wonder at the zeal
with which the defense was undertaken. But we forbear further re
mark. The style and matter of the book are as nearly perfect as editor
and publisher can make them. On the whole, it is a production that
everyone of literary tastes will want to have and to keep on his shelf.
J. W. Monser.
4.
The Christian. By Hall Caine. (New York: D. Appleton &

Co.)
Hall Caine has been gradually working his way up past Thomas
Hardy and has now obtained the preeminence. Both of these novelists
are wonderful in their portrayal of life, but the last has sacrificed him
self in the interests of a bestial realism. The story we are now con
templating, though curiously entitled considering the development of its
characters, is thoroughly clean and full of the sacred fire. Perhaps
there is a little too much of the disturbing element in it for the tran
quillity of the reader. One is hurried on in a sort of breathless rush,
lured by the zeal of the heated writer, until one loses, at times, all sense
of time or connection. Something of the calmness of Walter Scott thrown
into the fiery mass of Caine's ideas would make a profitable result.
412
The Christian.
[July,
The lives he portrays are vivid and energetic though there is a a sort of
irrationality constantly cropping out. John Storm, one of his leading
characters, seems too fickle in his determinations, influenced as he is by
the whims of Glory Quayle. She, on her part, is fascinating and alive.
Her letters to her old Manx relations have the charm of those of
"Clarissa Harlowe."
John Storm's struggles as a clergyman, his efforts to redeem
London, followed by the balks and obstacles contingent upon spas
modic clerical assaults; his evangelistic and monastic circumvolutions;
these aid in making up what is at least a character as quaint as one
cares to study.
As for Glory Quayle, the author's heroine, although "often unwise
and occasionally unrefined, through sheer exuberance she is always
essentially noble and large hearted." She is always at something and,
like John Storm, her lover, it is more likely to be an attempt at the im
possible than anything else. Both seem the victims of their own
emotions, and hence, while they have a deep passion for each other, are
constantly conceiving plans whose tendency is towards alienation. It
seems to us that these persons of Mr. Caine's are not such as we should
expect to meet on life's highway. They have nerve, are bright and
attractive, seem to have large impulses and noble purposes, but some
how they appear rather as combinations of antipodal qualities than as
people whom we must deal with in the world.
Outside of this the author has given us a fine piece of literary work.
It is said that the proof of this story was submitted to twenty different
specialists for revisiondivines, music-hall stars, doctors, hospital
nurses, and lawyers, lest any error of technic might have crept in.
This is praiseworthy. Too much care can not be insisted on by first
class workmen.
It is also common rumor that Glory Quayle is a composite of Ellen
Terry and Miss Letty Lind, a famous modern dancer, and that Miss
Terry has charged the author with this and he has not denied it. These
are interesting things to gossip over. But this last statement is nothing
new with writers of romance. A noted French novelist has just recently
determined to defer the publication of a story until the decease of one
on whom he has founded a leading character. To write from life is the
thing, but let it not be too composite when it appears. A simple,
earnest, resolute personification or a shiftless, irresolute one may do.
But in the name of truth, do not mix and confound them, and especially
when you are portraying "The Christian."
J. W. Monser.
1898.]
5.
The Story of Jesus Christ.
413
The Story of Jesus Christ. An interpretation by Elizabeth

Stuart Phelps (Mrs. Ward), author of Gates Ajar, etc. (Boston
and New York. Houghton, Mifflin & Co.)
There are some phases of Christ's character which a woman can

interpret better than a man. He represented in his personality the
whole of humanity. He stood for both the man and the woman, as
well as for the race. A woman has clearer insight, with respect to cer
tain characteristics, than a man has. She may not be so strong, broad
and comprehensive as man ; but she is higher and deeper, her intuitions
are more accurate and her vision of right and wrong more discriminating.
If these conclusions be correct it is evident that she is capable of dealing
with some phases of Christ's life with more insight than a man.
Mrs. Ward has shown in other books a very special qualification to
grasp the delicate points in character, and it is not surprising, therefore,
that in the present volume she has admirably succeeded in the very
work which we have supposed woman can do better than man. We
know of no other book so well calculated to bring the reader in touch
with the finer incidents in the life of Christ than the one now under con
sideration. It is a book which can not be described ; it must be read to
be understood. It is not a commentary, nor is it a book of sermons ;
neither is it a history in the ordinary sense. It is rather a series of pen
portraits, dealing with certain striking incidents in the life of our Divine
Lord. These incidents are given with life-like distinctness. It is this
freshness of treatment that is one of the attractions of the book. It is a
book that can be read without weariness, while it can not fail to impress
itself in a very decided manner upon the spiritually minded.
6.
Christ's Trumpet-Call to the Ministry, or The Preacher and the

Preaching for the Present Crisis. By Daniel S. Gregory,
D. D., LL. D. (New York, Funk & Wagnalls Company.)
Books of this kind are usually of little value. The world is full of
works on homiletf cs. It is not difficult to tell how preaching should be
done, at least it is not difficult for any man to give his conception of
what preaching ought to be ; but it is altogether another thing to freach.
There is perhaps nothing that illustrates more forcibly the difference
between theory and practice than preaching. A man may observe with
punctilious exactness every homilitical rule, and still fail to be a preacher
of any power ; another may break every rule and still be a preacher of
exceptional power. Of course this does not imply that rules have no
value. Probably the former man we have referred to would not preach
414
UEpopee Byzantine a la fin du Dixieme Siecle.
[July,
so well if he paid no attention whatever to homiletics, while it is equally

probable that the latter might be a better preacher if he gave more at
tention to the ordinary laws which govern preaching. Nevertheless it is
a fact that every man must preach very largely according to his own
conception as to what preaching is, and he must necessarily be a rule
unto himself rather than load himself down with conditions which wholly
unfit his temperament and habit of speaking.
Dr. Gregory's volume is not a treatise on homiletics. It occupies
a sort of middle ground between the ordinary treatise on that subject
and a work on Pastoral Theology. It discusses the preachers' mission,
qualification, responsibilities, opportunities, etc. It contains many
practical suggestions, and many of its pages will be an inspiration to
any preacher who is flagging in his work. It is far removed from a
book of dry details. Indeed it has much in it of encouragement and
helpfulness, though even its most practical features can not be made
available to any large extent by every preacher. Differentation and
selection in homiletics are as necessary as in anything else.
GERMAN AND FRENCH.

i.
L' Epopee Byzantine a la Jin du dixieme Siecle: The Byzantian

Epic at the close of the tenth century. By Gustave Schlumberger,
member of the Institute, Paris. Hachette & Co., 1896, one vol.
800 pp.
For a person of good literary taste and fond of history who desired
a standard work in French, nothing could be finer than this new book.
There are many persons of mature tastes who wish to master French,
but care little for works of fiction as reading matter. No book would
be better for such persons than this. The story told by Schlumberger
is one of such tragic interest that the reader is carried along from be
ginning to end.
The author calls his work the Byzantine Epic, and the word seem
well chosen. He treats of the years 969-989, when all the forces o^
barbarism, as represented in the Russians, the Arabs, the Germans and
the Bulgarians, hurled themselves against the Byzantian Empire and
thought to treat Constantinople as Rome had been treated. The figures
called forth are grandiose, terrible, or magnificent.
At every
page one's imagination is kindled by the magnitude of the interests
involved, the vivid background of shifting Europe, the rapid
sequence of frightful events. Before one has read a hundred pages he
begins to share in the shudder of anticipation with which the Christian
1898.]
415
Au Zambeze.
world looked forward to the year iooo, when it was felt that the world
was to come to an end. The scene of the assassination of the Emperor
Nicephorus by John the First ; that of the announcement of the murder
in the streets of the capital; the showing of the Emperor's bloody head
from the widows of the palace ; the terrible scene of the departure of
the late empress, betrayed by her late lover and fellow-conspirator,
John ; the scenes where the eunuch Basile appears ; that of the meeting
and parting of John and the defeated Russian leader, Sviatoslav on the
banks of the Danubethese are all scenes which the reader can not
forget and which are masterpieces of narration.
This superb volume, one of the most beautiful published within
the year by Hachette, is admirably printed, and richly, yet judiciously,
illustrated. It would make an admirable gift-book, and (like other
French books mentioned in these reviews) can be ordered of Alphonse
Picard et Fils, No. 82 Rue Bonaparte, Paris.
Raymond Weeks.
2,
Au Zambeze; Sur le pas de nos Missionaires.
Par M. Th. C.
On the Zambezi; in the track of our Missionaries.

Geneva: pp. 239.
By M. Th. C.
In South Africa the great river Zambezi, flowing in a nearly direct

easterly course, and stretching with its affluents almost from ocean to
ocean, falls into the Mozambique Channel. It passes through the cen
ter, as we may say, of what will soon be, and to a good degree now
are, the important European possessions in South Africa, as a glance at
the map will show. This fact shows the importance of the Zambezi
region to the interests of Christian civilization, and therefore to the
greatest of earthly enterprisesChristian evangelization.
Opposite to the mouth of the Zambezi, across the Mozambique
Channel, lies the great island of Madagascar, already to a certain
extent brought under the influence of Christianity, and now a part of
the colonial domain of France. English and French Protestant and
Roman Catholic missionaries have for years been established in this
important island. Immediately north of the Zambesi country are
Angola on the west and British Central Africa ; on the south German
Southwest Africa and British South Africa. The Zambezi passes
through the center of the Portuguese possessions lying on the Indian
ocean. All the regions drained by this mighty river are now well known
to the world, and are rapidly coming more and more under the control of
the great Protestant European powers of Great Britain and Germany.
416
Au Zambeze.
[July,
All south of this territory to the Cape of Good Hope is in the hands of
the powerful Germanic Protestant racethe British, Germans and
Hollanders. Commerce, this mighty vanguard of civilization, is push
ing its way with herculean energy in all directions through this entire
country ; and it will not be long before these lands, so rich in many of
the greatest natural elements of wealth, will be penetrated and traversed
by that powerful pioneer of progress and prosperitythe railroad.
The schoolboy is familiar with the story that Alexander, when he
had reached the farthest limit of his victorious campaign in the east,
"wept because there were no more worlds for him to conquer." This
will soon be true of the surface of our globe ; ere long no spot will be
left on our earth unknown, unclaimed, unoccupied by the great nations
that are conquering and subduing it by arms, and still more by the
mightier agencies of peaceable progress and victories, impelled by the
puissant genius of commerce and tradethe passion for gain. God
"makes the wrath of man to praise him, and then restrains the remain
der of his wrath." So he also makes the ambitions of nations to work
out his great designs, and open up paths for His kingdom over all the
earth.
For milleniums the Dark Continent lay before the world neglected,
almost unknown, except along the northern border.
Within the
latest centuries, only spots here and there along its western, southern
and eastern sea coasts, were known and occupied. But now, within the
last half century, a mighty passion has seized the great European
pioneer nations to know Africa, from its entire circumference to its
inmost center; to parcel it out among themselves for permanent occu
pancy, control and development. Whence came the impulse to this
marvelous new era of African exploration and colonization ? Stanley
says : *
"What is known of Africa in 1S98 is mainly due to the explora
tions which commenced with Livingston's journey to the Zambezi in
in 1854-57. By August, 1884, the basins of the Nile, Congo, Niger,
Zambezi and Limpopo, together with all the great lakes, were fairly
well known ; and since the exploration has been on such a scale that
there is now but little left to discover."
The impulse came through a great Christian missionary. Is not
the hand of the Most High in this?
Place under your eye a map of Africa of sixty and fifty years ago,
and then lay alongside of it the map of the Africa of to-day and see the
contrast !
*See The Independent of May 5, 1S9S.
1898.]
An Zambeze.
417
The book named at the head of this notice is of intense value

and interest to us ; it discourses in an intimate way about the French
Protestant missions in the valley of the Zambezi.
One of the most interesting facts about South Africa in its relation to
Christendom, is that French Protestantism, although very weak in num
bers and in financial strength, has for years in a quiet, unostentatious way
maintained missions in that dark land. Those familiar with the history
of Madagascar, know that the descendants of the brave Huguenots,
under the sorest trials, including martyrdom, have been active "in
the Lord's work," as they are wont to say, in that island. And nowhere
in heathendom are there more zealous, devoted and more humble mis
sionaries than those sent out by the French Protestant churches.
Open the map of Africa and fix your eyes on the great river Zam
bezi, and you will see the territory chosen by these brave Frenchmen
as one of their fields of activity. They did not do it because it is a land
pleasant, salubrious, comfortable to the missionary; it is just the reverse
of all this. Only men of singular consecration of soul, stout-hearted
heroes, men of God's own choice, will select such a land as a "vine
yard of the Lord" in which to live and labor, both "to sow and reap in
tears," to gain rich harvests of precious souls for Christ. It is the
study of such mission fields, with their wonderful history of sublime
devotion, of labor and suffering and martyrdoms, that amazes the world,
that fills even Unbelief with awe. It is good for men to throw them
selves with soulful passion into the contemplation of Christian evan
gelical missions.
In the first pages under the head of "The Country," our author
thus speaks:
" 'Do you like romance? If you do, read history,' says Guizot. In
fact is there anything more captivating than the recital of events that we
know to be authentic, and the consequences of which are unrolled before
our eyes from generation to generation f .2 Is there anything better suited
to stimulate our intellectual or spiritual life, than the contempla
tion of a career nobly accomplished and the fruits of which endure ?
This thought forces itself upon us when we trace at the head of this
chapter the name of Livingston. It was he who was the first instru
ment in the hand of God for the execution of the work in which we are
now engaged in this land. Missionary in the service of the London
Society, and established first at Courouman, by the side of his father
in-law, Moffat, later at Mabotsa, then at Colobeng, he was dominated
by a fixed idea: the immensity of Africa, the immensity of its needs,
the imperious obligation of the Christian world to meet these needs,
and the necessity of opening for this purpose a new era of discoveries.
Vol. 29
418
Au Zambeze.
[July,
He expressed the hope that the Society's Committee of Direction, adopt

ing a policy of expansion, would send its native laborers far and wide.
His first expedition had for its object the discovery of a suitable country
from whence could radiate a well-conceived and well-conducted system
of missionary work. He believed he had found such a region at the
confluence of the Leeba and the Zambezi. Later he fixed on the land
of the Makololos, which he regarded as preferable; this, he thought, was
the true center of the negro populations. And this is the country
where the Missionary Society of Paris was led to establish what is
called the Zambezi Mission."
To him who has been so fortunateand so wiseand interested
enough in the evangelization of the pagan world, as to make himself
really familiar with the general history of Gospel missions, the names of
these African tribes in the Zambezi land, the Barotsis, the Bassontos, the
Machonas, the Matabeles, are well known, as also the geography of the
basin of this great river. This opening to us of a good knowledge of
this once unknown territory, is chiefly owing to Livingston and the
French Protestant missionaries. These servants of Christ have been the
real pioneers of Christendom in this part of the Dark Continent, as they
have been elsewhere.
This book gives us some very interesting information relative to the
character, and habits of the negroes of the Zambezi valley. "If these
regions," the author says, "are of great interest to the geographer, the
naturalist, the trader, the travelerwhatever be the object of explora
tionhow much greater must be the interest of the missionary, who is
called to study the character of the people among whom he establishes
himself for the noblest purpose that can inspire man. Every trait of
manner, is for him an object of attention ; in it he finds some point of
support for his teaching, or the indication of some evil inclination to
combat."
Among the Barotsis, as among the Bassontos, several traditions and
practices recall some Jewish customs ; as, for example, certain purifica
tions, circumcision (which is, however, not general), proper names of a
simple and sometimes touching significance. In a neighboring region,
they relate that the tribe descended from a demigod named Loa, who
created all the animals, and sent them out of his house two and two.
They have a city of refuge, where every man who has incurred the
anger of the king can find an asylum. The chief in whose jurisdiction
this city lies must then plead the cause of the refugee before the king.
When a man comes back to his town, or simply to his house, after an
absence, water in a vessel is presented to him which is poured over his
hands. (See 2 Kings 3 : 1 1.)
1898.]
Au Zambeze.
419
"The ablutions practiced by the negroes of the upper classes before

and after meals are simply measures of cleanliness, as the natives eat
with their fingers. If sometimes the negro makes use of a spoon, it is
only to pour with it the broth or milk porridge into the palm of his
hand, which he then carries to his mouth.
"As to their religious ideas and their worship: A horn is fixed
into the ground in the shade of a bush, or in a grove planted for the
purpose, and thither they take their offerings to the manes of their
ancestors before they begin their prayers. The offering is more or less
valuable according to the importance of the request. It may be a little
beer which is poured upon the ground, or a piece of cloth, which is
hung on the horn. Sometimes an ox is offered ; he is killed and the
blood is poured over the horn."
The apostolical zeal and the courageous devotion of the mission
aries who have chosen the Zambezi country for their field of labor, can
be better appreciated when we understand its terrible moral and spirit
ual darkness.
"In the region which we are now describing, and where our mis
sionaries are established, paganism has attained an extraordinary
development; such is the impression of Mons. Coillard, one of our
chief pioneers on the Zambezi. 'I have seen paganism in Lessouto,'
he says, 'among the Zulus and other tribes, and it is horrible, but here
it defies all description.' Theft and cupidity are constant; lying, dis
simulation, cheating, ingratitude, are the daily bread, the mildest sins;
drunkenness, cruelty, superstition, immorality, are the greatest. Pride,
also, is dominant (where is it not?). The distinction between kindness
and unkindness, righteousness and sin, is unknown; it plays no part
in the religion of these peoples; but the position a man holds in this
world is very important. His happiness in a future state is in propor
tion to the respect with which he was surrounded in this life. If he
dies as a chief, he will hereafter remain a chief; if, on the contrary, he
is a slave, his position in the next world will be in the lowest rank.
Hence the distance which the superiors maintain between themselves
and their subordinates. It is humanly impossible to induce a chief or a
free man to place himself on the same level with a slave."
From all this it is easily seen what obstacles the messenger of
Christ meets and will have to overcome to bring these heathens to the
knowledge and acceptance of the Gospel, to make them believe that
with God all men are alike the objects of his love, his grace, and his
purpose of eternal salvation. Our author well says :
"The missionary discovers here the most diabolical sentiments.
His spirit, enlightened by a Christian education, constantly revolts at
420
Au Zambeze.
[July,
what he sees, at what he hears and finds in the manners of those

whom he has made by his free choice his compatriots. And yet he is
aware that in every human heart, however polluted and enfeebled by
sin, there is something of the divine image. What a task this is which
he has accepted, to discover this divine germ, often quite imperceptible,
to cultivate it, to eradicate the thorns which stifle it, and which in so
many cases have attained such gigantic proportions, to cherish it and
nourish it into vigorous growth, that it may bear fruits to the glory of
God!"
And yet this great work has succeeded.
One of the missionaries on the Zambezi writes: "A distinguished
historian, in speaking of George IV of England, says, 'If anyone had
taken the pains to strip off the number of waistcoats in which the king
had the mania to enwrap himself, he would in vain have hoped to find
a man.' I would not precisely say the same of our Zambezians. I
believe that under the odious and hideous mass of everything which I
have seen in paganism, we shall find men, and men whom we can
love."
"In the most degraded slave," says another, "can be found the
nobility of the human soul. Insulted, maltreated, he will say to his
oppressor, while standing up proudly before him: 'Yes, master, you
treat me like a dog; and yet I am not a dog, I am a man.'' And the
dignity you see in this poor creature, all naked as he is, makes a strong
impression upon you."
The reading of this excellent book excites in us a profound admira
tion of the power of Christian faith in God, his Christ and his Gospel,
and in man ; of the valor of soul that defies all terrors, and of the
divine love of humanity, such as Jesus cherished, which inspires and
sustains, and makes heroes of these men of God who have sought out
these darkest and most dangerous regions of the earth, "to seek and
save" these most degraded of our fellow beings.
The Zambezi country is perhaps one of the most fatal to European,
even to African, life. The graves of the missionaries, their wives and
their children, are abundant. Had we space, it would rejoice us to
show, from the pages of this book, that rich harvests have already been
gathered in these fields of missionary labor; fields where these holy
men and women have "sown in tears;" where they have labored and
waited patiently for the earliest sheaves ; where they have rejoiced with
a joy unspeakable when the first fruits were brought in.
Chas. Louis Loos.
1898.]
J.
Der Katholicismus als Princip des Fortschritts.
421
Der Katholicismus als Princip des Fortschritts. Von Dr. Her

man Schell, Professor der Apologetik, und derzeitiger Rektor
der Universitaet Wuerzburg. Sechste Auflage. 1897.
Nachtrag zu den fuenf ersten Auflagen von Der Katholicismus als

Princip des Fortschritts. Von Dr. Herman Schell. 1898.
Catholicism as Principle of Progress. By Dr. Herman Schell, Pro
fessor of Apologetics, and at present Rector of the University of
Wuerzburg. Sixth Edition. 1897.
Supplement to the five first editions of Catholicism as Principle of
Progress. By the same. 1898.
It is quite evident from manifestations here and there in the more
enlightened Catholic countries of Europe, that there is not universal
contentment and quiet within the limits of the Roman Church in the
Old World. Strong expressions of discontent are heard from the bosom
of the Church, made not only by enlightened laymen who are faithful
Catholics, but also by members of the clergy and men in high places in
institutions of learningtheologians and others.
This is natural and inevitable. In such countries as France and
Germany, where enlightenment generally prevails ; where education
abounds ; where institutions of learning of the highest order are exer
cising their mighty influence in leading the human mind steadily forward
in the path of progress in all the fields of inquiry, knowledge, and great
activity, the eyes and ears of all, Catholics as well as Protestants, are
open to see and hear what is going on around them, and the minds and
hearts of men of every faith must be impressed and influenced by the
light and life of human advancement revealed on all sides. Many
Catholics are among the best educated and most enlightened of the
people ; no controlling ecclesiastical influence can keep these men from
seeing what others see of the general progress around them. Moreover,
the spirit and the right of free thought and expression are shared by
them alike with their Protestant fellow-citizens.
Eminent Catholic laymen have been calling attention in the secular
journalistic Catholic press to the inferior role their Church is playing in
Germany in higher education, in the learned professions, in the civil
service, and in other departments of activity opened alike to all citizens,
and in which qualifications are demanded that can be secured only by
proper preparatory culture. These charges of inferiority, of "remaining
in the rear" of others, embrace also the Catholic priesthood in the matter
of their education and their general qualifications for their high office as
compared with the Protestant "clergy." As can readily be supposed
422
[July,
these exposures of Catholic inferiority, of "lagging behind," in respect

to the intellectual culture that fits men for the higher spheres of life,
has aroused indignation and protest from the class of Catholics of all
ranks who can not believe that their Church ranks behind others in every
thing that is good and great. But the misfortune for these protesters is,
that the men who are thus in the freest and most public manner reveal
ing the weakness of "the Church," are supporting their allegations by
hard, authoritative statistics.
Professor Schell, the author of the able brochures at the head of
this notice, is one of the foremost and boldest of these eminent Catholics
who are striving to arouse their Church to a knowledge and conscious
ness of its weakness and failures. Professor Schell, like his coadjutors,
does this as a sincere and devoted Catholic, who believes in his Church
with the deepest convictions, and who is thus striving to open the eyes
of Catholics because he loves his Church and wants to see it in all things
in the front of true, liberal progress. He believes, as the title of his
first production indicates, that Catholicism possesses in its essential
nature the very principle of progress. He speaks with the extremest
frankness and earnestness about the shortcomings of Catholics in society,
in the state, and in all the higher departments of activity. He exposes
without fear the weak places, the evidences of this weakness, and the
causes of it.
"Catholicism," he says, "is, by virtue of its nature and history, a
motive power of progress, precisely because naturally the life-giving
spirit of perpetual perfectionment in all the domains of human culture
proceeds from the faithfully preserved and thoroughly comprehended
and accepted Christian truth. It must, therefore, the more excite sur
prise that the year 1S96 has brought home to Catholics the statistical
proof of an altogether too great inferiority in scientific instruction, a
lagging in the rear (rueckstand) on their part in superior school culture
and the higher callings ; but also the evidence of a serious defect in the
power to resist the delusions of superstition such as Leo Taxil, i. e.
Gabriel JogandPages and his accomplices for twelve years have suc
ceeded in imposing upon Catholics to a wide extent 'in order,' as Leo
Taxil wrote in April, 1897, 'to make fools of the good people who
believe that the laws of nature can be overcome by bad spirits.' "
"It is certainly a duty," Professer Schell continues, "to devote our
selves to a discovery of the inner grounds, the hidden causes, of these
lamentable manifestations ; not in order to bring forth charges and com*This reference is to ihe most stupendous fraud known in our times, practiced on an immense
scale on the Catholics of Central Europe ; a fraud that led captive myriads of Catholics, many of
these of the higher ranks, the clergy not excepted.
C. L. L.
1898.]
Der Katholicismm als Princip des Fortschritts.
423
plaints against Catholics who greviously suffer because of them ; nor

yet to make a public exposure of what has long been known to our
opponents and been exhaustively made use of by them, and with great
exaggerations, to the discredit of Catholics."
"The purpose of this treatise," he says, "was not the substantia
tion of the inferiority, the remaining in the rear, of Catholics in the path
of scientific culture ; this has already been done, as in 1894 in the Fortyfirst General Convention of Catholics at Cologne. In the Bavarian
National Council attention was called last year by the bishops to the
danger of a permanent inferiority of Catholics in Catholic Bavaria.
This has also been done in Catholic journals, and finally in the address
of Baron Dr. von Hertling at the assembly at Constance on the twentyninth of September, 1896. The object of what I have here written was
rather to meet the very earnest desire expressed by the general conven
tion at Cologne, and suggest the means of remedying the present regret
ful condition of things."
Professor Schell gives the statistics of the relative attendance of
Catholics and the students of other confessions at the high schools in
Germany, Wurtemberg excepted. The following is the statistical
record, as given by our author from Dr. von Mayrs' statistics; the pioportion is for each 10,000 of each confession:
In a
In a Real
Without
Gymnasium.
School with Latin.
Latin.
Protestants
27.7
13.2
12.5
Catholics
21.4
3.8
6.7
Dissenters
17.7
13.2
18.7
Jews
173.7
65.8
92.7
The general proportion of Catholics to Protestants is as follows:
Baden (two thirds Catholics) .... 4186
Prussia
2750
Saxony
2340
Bavaria (a Catholic state)
4267
Wurtemberg
5393
Hesse
5067
"The unequal division in the intermediate schools (Gymnasia
and Real Schools) in the Catholic and Protestant parts of Germany is
certainly of significance ; but not for all German lands ; hardly for
Baden and Wurtemberg where the proportion of numbers is very un
favorable. It is therefore for us to consider whether this unequal
division is always only a cause and never and in no respect also effect.
Have we really everywhere done our duty?"
Rector Schell is trying to make known to Catholics the mystery of
their inferior condition in Germany, why they lag behind their fellowcitizens. It lies, in so far as the above statistics show, in their neglect of
the means of intellectual culture, leaning to the side of ignorance rather
424
[July,
than to the side of knowledge. He regards as a result of this the other

statistical fact that Catholics are also behind their fellow-citizens in the
civil administration of the state, in the army, and in the learned pro
fessions. And all this is true not only in the so-called Protestant states
like Prussia, but even in Bavaria, which is overwhelmingly Catholic,
and where the supposition can not be objected that the government
favors Protestants.
Rector Schell calls, indirectly, attention also to the fact that such
countries as France, in which Protestantism is represented by a very
small minority, Catholics show the same lamentable inferiority of in
fluence and power in proportion to their great numbers. Protestants in
France, since the loss of Alsace and Lorraine, are only 1.8 per cent of
the population against 78.5 per cent Catholics.
Yet the Protestants
are incomparably more prominently and more numerously represented
in the administration of civil affairs and in the learned professions.
Indeed it has occurred in the history of the present republic that in the
president's cabinet the Protestants were more numerous than the Catho
lics, and often strong in great disproportion to the latter. What can be
the explanation of this?
But a most significant fact signalized by Professor Schell is the
inferiority in intellectual and scientific culture of the Catholic clergy in
Germany ; the result of which is that they play a very inferior part in
the life of the nation ; and this not only in predominantly Protestant
states, but also in those states which are Catholic, like Bavaria, or in
which the Catholics are in the preponderant majority.
The cause of this deplorable weakness, the author declares, is to be
found in this : that the candidates for the priesthood are educated in
Catholic seminaries only, and consequently do not enjoy the benefits of
the liberal culture in the arts and sciences which the universities afford.
The tendency of the Catholics, he holds, is as much as possible to keep
themselves, and notably their ecclesiastics, away from the intellectual
life of the nation ; and hence their inevitable inferiority as an influence
and a power among the people.
Dr. Doellinger, the eminent Catholic of Munich, in his great
address delivered years ago before the University of Munich (a Catholic
institution) made the same statement concerning the common Catholic
priesthood of Italy, of whom he said Pope Pius the IX once declared to
an eminent Italian statesman that these secular priests were nothing but
fango.* The cause of this low value placed on the Italian clergy is,
that they, too, are as a ruleand immensely more so than the German
*We leave the reader to find the meaning of this word in the Italian dictionary.
C. L. L.
1898. ]
425
educated at little episcopal seminaries, and receive only a narrow theo

logical training. They are, therefore, the objects of the contempt of
really educated men. Here is a lesson that Protestants, too, should take
to heart!
To conclude our notice of Rector Schell's able and epoch-making
brochures. He recommends the following remedies to the Catholics of
Germany :
1. That their clergy be better educated; that they be allowed to
share with others the culture in the higher schools in the liberal arts and
sciences, in order that they may be able to play a better role in religious
and civil life.
2. That the priests pay more attention to their preaching, which is
at present seriously defective.
3. Not to give to the Church, as is now the case, precedence
before the Holy Scriptures, but on the contrary to make common the
reading of the Bible.
4. Not to claim for the Catholic Church a monopoly of morality,
humanity, and philanthropy.
5. Not to attach too much importance to external forms of wor
ship, but to give more attention to the inner man.
6. Not to yield obedience to what Manning calls "officialism,"
which consists in this : that the priest, on every occasion, makes use of
his ecclesiastical dignity as a buckler to protect his person.
7. Not to give themselves up to the spirit of controversy, which
consists chiefly in proving that non-Catholic religions are false.
8. Not to allow the influence of the Jesuits so to grow that they
will control the Church.
It is evident that such a production as this from the professor of
Apologetics of a Catholic university, and indeed, from its actual head,
would excite wide comment and strong hostility among Catholics.
And this has happened. The second production named at the head of
this notice is a bold, strong defense of Professor Schell against his
assailants.
Chas. Louis Loos.
426
The New National Spirit.
TABLE
[July,
TALK.
The New National Spirit.The next day after the battle of Manilla was
the birthday of a new national spirit. There had been preliminary signs of this
great event, but it was not until the signal victory achieved by Commodore
Dewey that a new era dawned upon the American people. The war with Spain,
from the very beginning, was a declaration that old things had passed away, but
the new creation had not been definitely formed until it became evident that the
Philippine Islands might become a possession of the United States. Since the
battle of Manilla it may be safely said America no longer occupies the isolated
position which in the past has characterized her history with respect to inter
national affairs. Wisely or unwisely, righteously or unrighteously, successfully
or unsuccessfully, America must henceforth be reckoned as an important factor
in settling all international questions.
Nor is this all. We have evidently entered upon a policy of territorial ex
pansion. Doubtless many will protest against this somewhat doubtful experi
ment, mainly for the reason that it is contrary to all the traditions of our national
history. Washington's farewell address has had a salutary influence upon the
national spirit, and the consequence has been, our statesmen have generally been
satisfied with attending to our own business and compelling others to let us
alone. The Monroe doctrine has been regarded as a sort of sacred inheritance,
and most well informed persons have felt that in order to be consistent we must
keep our hands off of other nations and other territory, while defending the doc
trine which guards against any foreign interference with American affairs.
But we can not always follow our own theory. There is a divinity which
shapes our ends in national life as well as in individual life. It would perhaps be
difficult to understand exactly how we have drifted from our traditional moorings
into the open sea of territorial conquest and international strife. All the same
we have undoubtedly broken away from our old position and we are practically
committed to a new doctrine which completely stultifies our consistency, if we
still contend for the traditions of the past. Perhaps nothing in all history better
illustrates the saying that "man proposes, but God disposes," than the present
attitude of the American people with respect to the matter under consideration.
What is to come of it all is a very serious question, but it is a question which our
people must face; and now that it is inevitable the more bravely it is done the
better it will be for all concerned. However, it may be well to look carefully at
some of the responsibilities which must be assumed if the new spirit is cultivated
and the new doctrine enforced.
(i) We must at once prepare to maintain a strong navy and standing army.
These, as expenses now run, will entail upon the nation an enormous yearly
expenditure. The military system of Europe is precisely the weakest spot in
European civilization. The whole common people are oppressed in order to
keep in marching order the nine millions of soldiers now enrolled in the stand
ing armies of Europe. Are we prepared for this system of things in a country
where militarism has heretofore had little or no influence?
1898.]
Is an Alliance With England Wise?
427
(2) A second evil must be looked at squarely in the face. From a moral
point of view can we enter upon the scramble for place, power and territory? Is
not statecraft always a selfish thing, and is it not always a despicable thing when
it is engaged in the tricks of diplomacy which are intended to checkmate the
moves of others who are simply playing upon the world's chess-board for the
supremacy of national influence? Tolstoi was not far wrong when he said that
what has been called patriotism is often only another name for the worst kind of
selfishness.
(3) Is not the new spirit likely to lead to the neglect of our best life at
home? Have we not sufficient territory already for all practical purposes in the
line of our own interests? Perhaps there is some excuse for European nations in
their efforts to secure as much outlying territory as they possibly can. Their
"pent up uticas" at home compel them to look beyond their respective boundaries
for expansion. Commercial life is a strong factor in all international relations,
and this must always be reckoned with in considering just such matters as we
have now before us. But commercial influence ought not to be very powerful in
determining the American mind to enter upon the new crusade to which atten
tion has been called. We have so many resources within ourselves that we can be
absolutely independent of all the rest of the world, though I do not say that such
a policy could be justified on economical grounds.
Is there, then, any justification for the new national spirit? In our opinion
there is only one good ground on which we can stand in defending the new
policy of our government. Have we a right to become self-satisfied, self-centered,
and self-contained? Do we not owe something to others? Suppose it does cost
the nation an enormous annual sum would it not be worth while to spend this
sum in compelling respect for the principle of liberty the world over? From
this point of view it is possible that the new national spirit brings with it a new
hope for the world. Nevertheless, it is by no means certain that the new spirit
has its origin in altruism. It is more probable that it comes out of a desire for
national glory. If this is the root of the matter we shall ultimately have to pay a
heavy penalty for the privilege of placing our flag over the ramparts of foreign
fortifications. Already the air is full of echoes which clearly indicate the direc
tion in which things are drifting. No one honors the brave men in our army
and navy more than I do, but I do not believe that we can afford to pay eight hun
dred millions of dollars per year for the glorification of heroism either on the
land or sea. But if we keep to a real benevolent purpose it is probable that
our vast expenditures under the new dominating national spirit may be at least
partially justified.
Is an Alliance With England Wise?In answering this question several
things must be taken into consideration. First of all, is it possible to form such
an alliance as would be workable? Of course much would depend upon both the
spirit and terms of the agreement. That such a combination, if formed in the
right manner, would be immensely strong must be apparent to all who are cap
able of judging with respect to the affairs of the world. England is especially
strong in naval power and in financial stability. The United States has a respect
able fleet, but in view of her coast line this fleet would be of little avail for
defensive purposes in a conflict with a first class power. It is possible for the
United States to develop a very powerful army without resorting to the expensive
methods of European nations. Another important factor must be taken into
428
Is an Alliance With England Wise?
July,
consideration. The United States can not be excelled in supplying army sus
taining products. In these days the commissary department is of the first im
portance in all offensive and defensive operations.
It is certain that the two nations have many things in common, but that
which is perhaps the most important underlying fact in their sympathy for each
other is their mutual love of liberty and its correlative justice or fair play. If
they were to unite their forces for the great end of enforcing a due observance of
human rights throughout the whole world it is more than probable that under
such an inspiration their power would be invincible. Of course such a noble aim
would at once be environed with danger. Human nature is unmistakably weak,
even when it is fighting for the loftiest principles. The main danger would be
in the immense success of such a combination. It would practically revolutionize
the present condition of the world. But before this could be accomplished much
blood and treasure would have to be sacrificed. An alliance between England
and the United States would probably compel Germany to enter the combination.
Already there are signs that the German people are looking favorably toward
such an arrangement. Russia might continue a nominal partner with France,
but would really aim to take care of herself and would never risk much against
the combination of England, America and Germany with the probable addition
of Japan. This would leave the decaying nations of Europe to the certain fate of
either reconstruction or else ultimate destruction.
The notion of an Anglo-Saxon combination is absurd. It has been said that
blood is thicker than water, but it is equally true that principles in these days are
much thicker than blood. Since the reign of Christ dawned upon the world it
has been growing more and more evident that men are ethical brothers rather
than brothers by the ties of blood relationship. Christ said that those who did
his will were his brothers, and this has now become the test of fraternity through
out the world. A common fellowship in principles and aims is the binding link
of humanity to-day. The people of this country, as a whole, have no close
affinity for the English in blood relationship, but they are bound to the English
people by the ties of a common religion, a common language, common commer
cial interests and, what is better and higher, the noble aim of contending for the
equality of human rights.
It may be that a very close political alliance between the two governments i8
not desirable; but he must be a simpleton indeed who does not recognize the
value of a close friendship between this country and the only people of Europe
who practically stand for the same principles for which we are contending. We
should certainly think twice before we become entangled in European politics by
any alliance whatever. But it is certainly possible for us to cultivate good will
toward all men, and especially toward those who are practically of the same
household of faith. There are no doubt some old sores which are not entirely
healed yet, but it is certainly unworthy of the manhood of the civilization which
the two countries respectively represent to allow these old sores to interfere with
the growing fellowship which promises only the best results for humanity in the
oncoming days.
There is the best of reason for believing that anew era is dawning upon the
world. The new century is sure to usher in some startling developments. God
makes the wrath of man to praise him. What if, after all, it should turn out that
war itself shall be made a blessing in the final analysis. Already our war with
Spain has borne some good fruits. The old bitterness between the North and
1898.]
What Has Become of Arbitration?
429
South has been completely extinguished, and now there is not a vestige left of
the feeling engendered by our late civil war. No one can measure how great a
gain this is to our nation. We might afford to suffer some disastrous defeatin order to achieve such a triumph. America united, and contending for the
right, is invincible at home; and when united and in the right, she need not go
away,from home, except in the interests of others. Her altruism may take her to
Cuba, to Porto Rico and to the Philippines, but self-interest can have little to do
with these foreign complications. As has already been intimated we can not
afford to enter upon a crusade for territorial acquirements except for the purpose
of helping the oppressed. The motive then must be carefully considered when
we come to estimate the importance of such alliances as have been suggested.
What Has Become of Arbitration? How little we know of ourselves is
illustrated by passing events. Only a few months ago arbitration was perhaps the
most popular doctrine preached in the United States. Everybody was talking
about the new era of peace, while it was generally conceded that America would
never have another war with a civilized nation. But all is now changed. Look
ing back over the past it is curious to notice the fact that most people are in
favor of arbitration when there is nothing to arbitrate, but as soon as there is a
real case where arbitration could be used there is an immediate appeal to the
sword rather than to statesmanship.
It is not affirmed that our present difficulties with Spain could have been
settled by arbitration. I have already intimated that probably the war was inevi
table, for the reason that Divine Providence may be using this nation for the pur
pose of chastising a people who have long shown little respect for many of the
best qualities of our present day civilization. Nevertheless, it must be admitted
that no very honest effort was made to adjust differences by peaceful arbitration.
The war is undoubtedly the product of the politicians, no matter what may be
the ultimate result, or how it may be overruled for good. Had it not been for
men who have "axes to grind" and newspapers that aim to increase their circu
lation by sensational war bulletins, the final strife might have been averted. But
after all, this is only another way of saying that God makes the wrath of men to
praise him, and he, in all probability, used the very influences which we con
demn to bring about a result which in his providence was necessary.
But those of us who have been preaching peace on earth and good will to
men can not at once adjust ourselves to the present state of things without seem
ing to be inconsistent. Probably our first mistake is in aiming to be consistent.
Perhaps there is no greater influence for evil than that which clamours for con
sistency. We can not be consistent unless we stop growing. Every advance in
life is more or less in conflict with past records and past influences. Each day
has its own responsibilities, and each day must be left to work out its own prob
lem according to the light of that day. Hence we may be constrained to clamor
for war to-day though yesterday we were preaching peace with all our might.
Another curious thing we need to understand, or at least take into the
account, when we are estimating the forces which make up our life work. There
is always a certain preliminary work to be done which is fitly described by the
phrase "making the paths straight." This was the mission of John the Baptist.
He was not the Christ, but he was the forerunner of Christ and came "to prepare
the way of the Lord and to make his paths straight.'' It may be that our present
war will turn out to be the forerunner of a new era of peace. There is always in
430
Walls or Wings Which".
[July,
nature a great convulsion before we reach the gentle springtime of peaceful

development. Possibly we are passing through the winter storms, and that by
and by we shall come to the brighter and calmer days. Anyway it is worth
noting that all human progress has been more or less developed along the lines of
great social, political and religious upheavals, rather than through.the quiet pro
cesses which seem to be more congenial to those who love peace. Let us hope
that when the present war clouds have dissipated that "the stilly hour when
storms are gone" will come in with the sweet realization of permanent peace.
Walls or WingsWhich?The war is teaching us some important lessons.

Among these is the value of wings in comparison with walls. Our navy has been
constructed upon the principle that walls are more valuable than wings, but our
experience with the fleet of Admiral Cervera proves conclusively that wings must
be regarded as important factors in all naval construction for the future. This
is the day of rapid transit. Movement now is nearly everything. A few swift
cruisers, well armed and intelligently manned, can literally play with a hundred
battle ships which represent walls without speed. Of course these battle ships
have a much greater power of resistance than the switt cruisers, but resistance is
not the main element to be considered in the naval forces of the future. As already
intimated rapidity of movement is the most important factor to be regarded.
Is not this true with respect to everything? The gospel itself must be a
swift messenger, if it shall do its work in converting the world. A defensive war
fare for Christ will not overcome the powers of darkness. Hence the great com
mission has the right ring when it says "go into all the world and preach the
gospel to every creature." The need of the world to-day is wings not walls.
The Influence of War.The whole influence of war is not evil. That

there is much evil in it will not be questioned by any one capable of judging of
such a matter. The demoralization of camp life on the soldiers themselves is
enough to condemn war, even if there were no other reasons for its condemnation.
There is a great deal of force as well as humor in what Mr. Lincoln said of the
army chaplains. When asked if he thought the chaplains had converted many of
the soldiers he replied: "I do not know that the chaplains have converted any of
the soldiers, but I am confident that the soldiers have converted many of the
chaplains."
There are other evils of war which need not be enumerated here. Still it
must be conceded that there is another side to this question. It is God's way to
bring good out of evil ; and it would be strange, therefore, if he did not bring
good out of war. It may be interesting to note a few of these good results:
1. War is a great iconoclast. It shivers many of our household gods. This
enlarges our horizon, and usually liberalizes our spirits. We see things in a
broader light. Our outlook becomes more comprehensive.
2. War removes many of the barriers in the way of human progress. Forti
fications which defend the wrong must be demolished before the world can go
forward. When God told the children of Israel to go forward, he opened up a
pathway for them through the Red Sea and destroyed Pharaoh's army which
attempted to follow Israel. The way of progress is often blocked by effete civiliza
tions which must be either broken up or else purified and renewed by some
great social convulsion.
1898.]
The Death, of Mr. Gladstone.
431
3. War is sure to bring to the front a new class of eminent men. It is a cu

rious fact in the history of development that progress will not continue long un
der the direction of the same class of men. * Change is necessary here just as in
other things. In times of peace this change is effected gradually and slowly, but
in times of war the change is sometimes immediate. The old men are retired,
while the new class take charge of public affairs. These new men usually add
vigor and freshness to the public conscience, and generally conduct to a higher
civilization. The law of compensation holds good with respect to war as well as
everything else. While certain alienations are widened and embittered, on
other sides divisions are healed and a closer union is effected. These, with
other considerations which might be mentioned, show that war is not wholly
evil.
The Death of Mr. Gladstone.The great statesman who has just passed
away belonged not to England only but to the whole world. In a few lines it is
impossible to sketch a character like that of Mr. Gladstone. As an all round man
he has perhaps had no equal, and in certain lines of development he stood head
and shoulders above his contemporaries. Nothing, however, distinguished him
more than the simplicity of his faith in Christ. He belonged to the Established
Church, and was a High Churchman in some of his views, but for the most part,
he was a non-conformist in reality. Above all he was a simple hearted Chris
tian according to the light which he had; and it was this fact that most of all
contributed to his unique character. His latest contribution to religious litera
ture was his remarkable introduction to the People's Bible History. In this intro
duction he not only makes a strong plea for the Bible as a Divine Revelation but
he also shows how it has influenced his own life, and why it ought to be the con
stant guide of the statesman as well as the common people.
In an interview which he had with W. T. Stead, Mr. Gladstone emphasizes
the importance of the Christian faith. The following is Mr. Stead's account
which is worthy of preservation among the most precious legacies which great
men have left to the Christian world :
"The very last time I met Mr. Gladstone I asked him, just as we were part
ing, what he regarded as the greatest hope for the future. He did not at first
clearly understand the drift of my question. But when I explained my meaning
he returned an answer which it is well to recall to-day. Speaking with that deep
gravity natural to the man dealing with such a theme, Mr. Gladstone replied in
accents of simple but absolute conviction : 'I should say we must look for that
to the maintainance of faith in the Invisible. This is the great hope of the fu
ture; it is the mainstay of civilization. And by that I mean a living faith in a
personal God. I do not hold with streams of tendency. After sixty years of
public life I hold more strongly than ever this conviction, deepened and strength
ened by long experience of the reality of the nearness of the personality of God.' "
The Bible College of Missouri.It is gratifying to learn that an endow
ment fund, aggregating at least fifty thousand dollars, has been secured for the
Bible College, located at Columbia, Missouri. A lot has also been purchased
whereon suitable college buildings will be erected at an early day. In short, the
enterprise may be regarded as permanently established, though a much larger
endowment fund will be required in order that the institution may reach the
ideal of those who projected it. While it is not organically connected with the
432
A New Incentive to Home Missions.
[July,
University of Missouri it is practically so closely articulated with that institution

as to derive every possible benefit from the association.
This is a somewhat different experiment from those made at other places in
connection with State Universities. The result has been very satisfactory. One
hundred and eighty-two students were enrolled last year in the Bible College,
and though the teaching was mainly by lectures, the final examinations showed a
very comprehensive and accurate understanding of all the subjects discussed.
This experiment will be watched with interest by educators generally while those
who are engaged in religious education will find it an object lesson worthy of
their most careful study. One thing which it suggests is the folly of building
denominational colleges for academical teaching, since all this teaching can be
secured at the universities without money and without price by those who
wish to supplement this teaching with religious instruction, or the study of the
Bible in its history, character and teaching. Undoubtedly the Columbia experi
ment has done much to solve a somewhat vexed educational problem.
A New Incentive to Home Missions.Whatever may be the result of the

present war it is certain that the American people will occupy a new position in
the new century. It has already been intimated that the Rubicon has been crossed
as regards an aggressive policy. The future of the world will have to reckon
with America in a very important sense. This fact makes it evident that a new
responsibility must be assumed and new duties performed. It would be absurd to
say that America has been indifferent to missionary work. The past history of
the United States conclusively demonstrates to the contrary. Next to Englandj
America has been the greatest missionary country in the world. But perhaps the
new era will bring with it a new zeal for home missions, especially among the
most aggressive religious bodies.
This brings me to notice the opportunity which is coming to the Disciples of
Christ. It is an interesting as well as suggestive fact that their ratio of increase
during the last decade has been greater than that of any other religous people.
Nevertheless it is easy to see how it may have been largely increased. The Dis
ciples of Christ have been expending most of their missionary zeal on foreign
fields. This no doubt has been a wise policy during the past twenty years, for
the reason that it has reacted upon the churches at home, and has helped to
make the Disciples distinctly a missionary people. Still it is possible to neg
lect the home field in the interests of foreign work, and this can not be safely done
in the future even in the interests of foreign missions. It has already been sug
gested that America must become a great factor in the moral forces of the world;
and from a religious point of view it is not too much to say that the Disciples of
Christ must necessarily take the lead in evangelizing the nations, if that work is
ever successfully done according to the Scriptures. But the Disciples can not take
the lead until they have won that position at home. While the great west and
northwest (a vast empire of territory which must be an empire of population in the
near future) remain practically untouched by the Disciple movement, it is simply
impossible to hope that the Disciples will keep pace with the new opportunities
which are opening up to the American people. The imperative duty of the hour,
therefore, is to evangelize thoroughly those districts which are now new, but
which will soon become the center of populations that will control the whole of
the North American continent. To be indifferent to the fact just stated is to be
blind to the interests of both home and foreign missions.
THE
Christian Quarterly
OCTOBER, 1898.
THE
TREND
OF MODERN RELIGIOUS THOUGHT.
THERE can be no worthier or loftier theme for human

thought than our relations to God and to the invisible
world. The annals of history do not reach back to the time
anterior to which the minds of men were not grappling with
the problem of human existence in its relation to the great
Source of life and the possibility of life hereafter. It is a pro
foundly interesting study to follow the efforts of the human
mind to solve these great questions concerning the nature of
God and the duties and obligations growing out of man's re
lationship to him. It is not the purpose of this paper, how
ever, to trace the histoiy of religious thought, but simply to
indicate some of the marked characteristics of the religious
thought of our own times. I am to state, not the histoiy, but
simply the Trend of Modern Religious Thought. This task is
sufficiently difficult to cause one to hesitate before under
taking it.
There is room, no doubt, for difference of opinion as to
what are the ruling or controlling religious ideas of our times.
Naturally, however, we would suppose that they must relate to
our conceptions of God his nature, his will and his modes
of manifestation and revelation. Nothing so affects our whole
scheme of religious thought as our ideas concerning God. If
I were asked therefore, to name the three leading thoughts or
ideas which have created, and in an important sense constitute,
Vol. 21.
(4331
434
The Trend of Modern Religious Thought. [October,
the Trend of Modern Religious Thought, I should say they

are: (1) A new conception of God as the universal Father of
man, and as immanent in the world, in all its processes of life
and in all the movements of history; (2) the new concep
tion of Christ as to his nature and his place in our religious
thinking; and (3) the new conception of the Holy Spirit as the
completion of the revelation of (rod, and as the efficient Agent,
through whom Christ is carrying on the conquests of his
kingdom. It is believed that all the more important phases of
modern religious thought may be traced, either directly or in
directly, to these fundamental conceptions concerning the
God-head. To develop the truth of this statement, is the task
I have assigned myself in this paper.
I. Let us consider first, the new conception of God as
against the old, and some of its effects on our religious think
ing. One of the most fruitful conceptions of modern times,
which, after all, is rather a return to the original form of
thought, is that of God's immanence. The old, deistic idea,
which came to be largely accepted by Christian thinkers of the
previous century, laid such emphasis upon the transcendence
of God as to separate him entirely from his material creation.
According to that view, God had little more to do with the
world, after he had created it, than the maker of a watch has
to do with it after he has finished it and set it going. It is not
difficult to imagine what erroneous conclusions would follow
from this false conception of the relation of God to his world.
Pantheism was the opposite of this view, losing sight entirely
of the transcendence of God and identifying him with the
material world. The best modern thought holds to both the
transcendence and the immanence of God, and rejects both
the deistic and the pantheistic notions. God is above the
world and above all worlds, but he is also present in the
movements of the spheres, in all the processes of life and
growth and change, in the on-goings of human history and in
the education and moral development of the race. What
science calls the laws of nature, are but the expressions of
God's will, and the constant out-goings of force from that will
in the government of the material universe. In studying na
ture, therefore, we are studying God's thoughts and God's
1898]
The Trend of Modern Religious Thought.
435
ways of doing things in the material world. This view gives a

dignity and value to science, or to the study of nature, which
it can not have under the old view. It brings God into closer
and more vital relations, not only with nature, but with man.
History, according to this view, is not a series of unrelated
events, without order or design, but the working out of a
Divine purposethe realization, through stages of progressive
development, of a Divine ideal. This view, therefore, makes
history a far more important study than it was once supposed
to be.
It is not difficult to see how this view of God's immanence
in nature, in man, and in human histoiy, would profoundly
affect our ideas of revelation. If God is not some far-away
being, remote from the world that he has created, and from
its inhabitants, but has been working hitherto and is working
in all the manifold activities of nature and of history, what is
more reasonable than to suppose that he has been, through
all these ages, disclosing himself to the human race as it has
been able to receive his revelations? God's desire to bring
man into fellowship with himself would lead him to make
such revelations of himself and of his will to men, from age
to age, as they would be able to bear. This gives us the con
ception of the progressive nature of God's revelation to men
one of the most important ideas in modern religious thought.
It solves many difficulties and removes many obstacles in the
way of faith. Many sincere seekers after truth, have stum
bled over the moral difficulties in the Old Testament records
of God's revelation, because they did not understand that God
was under the necessity of limiting his revelation to the ca
pacity of the race to receive it. For, in the light of the truth we
are now considering, God reveals himself, not simply to men,
but in men and through men. It could not be otherwise and
be adapted to the condition and needs of men. Just as God
must manifest himself in our human nature in order to make
himself known to men, so all his revelations must adapt them
selves to human conditions in order to touch and affect human
life.
And so it is that the thought of God's immanence is
affecting, very profoundly, science, history, and our view of
436
[October,
the Bible. We feel safe, too, in saying that it has affected

each one of these departments of thought most favorably,
and has given to each of them more value and significance.
It is scarcely too much to say that it is revolutionizing the
old view of the Bible which gave equal authority to each
separate book and to each separate text or passage, without
any reference to the question of date or authorship. It is
giving us no less a Divine book, but one that is far more vital
and intelligible. Instead of a dead level, monotonous plane
of mechanically-delivered, and mechanically-received truths,
without historic perspective or the variety that belongs to all
life, we have a wonderfully diversified moral and spiritual
landscape, with its mountain peaks kissing the sky where
heaven and earth seem to unite, and low-lying valleys, green
with living verdure, and such infinite variety as adapts it to
every varying want of our natures. Whatever higher criti
cism may or may not do, it is certain that this conception of
God, as working within humanity and lifting it up to higher
levels of thought and life, has permanently affected our view
of revelation and of the Bible as its literary record.
Again, the recognition of the universal Fatherhood of
God is a view that has vitally affected our modern religious
thinking. It imparts a new dignity to human nature, ands
as a consequence, to all the agencies and instrumentalities
that are working for the salvation of man. The old view was,
that only Christians are children of God in any sense, and
that all the rest of the human race are children of the devil.
This view, it is now seen, at least by many religious thinkers
in evangelical Churches, is out of harmony with Christ's
teaching and with the nature of man. Christ taught his
disciples, when they prayed, to say, "Our Father!" He
taught them to be merciful and just in order that they might
be the children of their Father who is in Heaven. God is the
Father of all men, because they are created in his image and
endowed with his nature. They never can cease to be his
children, but they may, and have, in consequence of sin,
become unworthy children, prodigal sons and daughters.
The object of the Gospel is to restore them to fellowship with
God and to the dignity of sons and daughters of the Lord
1898]
437
Almighty who have not forfeited the Divine patrimony. It is

said by some that, as we are "adopted" into the family of
God, we can not be children of God before that time. But
only a child can be adopted. Adoption is based on sonship.
We do not for a moment, and would not, minimize the moral
and spiritual change men must undergo to bring them into
right relations with God and with their fellowmen. The
necessity of the new birth as taught by our Lord himself, is
a fundamental fact in the Christian religion. But this re-birth,
or being born from above, is itself based on the possession of
faculties, powers and susceptibilities that make man akin to
God, and mark him as a child of God, who, having become
more or less depraved by sin, and his moral nature benumbed
and dwarfed, needs to be revitalized and brought into a loving
relationship with the Divine Father.
This view of man's relation to God as his child, answers
the profound question, "What is man that thou art mindful
of him, or the son of man that thou visitest him?" In other
words it furnishes the motive of the incarnation, as well as
the explanation of its possibility. We can understand why
God should visit man, and how he could do it if man is his
child, made in his image and capable of infinite progress and
development. We can understand, too, why a mere act of
omnipotence would not suffice for man's salvation, but that
he must be won by the sacrifice of the cross and by all the
wondrous manifestations of God's love in Christ. Nor does
the influence of this conception of the Fatherhood of God
end here. It is bound to have important bearings on our
view of eschatology, or the last things. It is evident that the
old idea that the whole heathen world, dying without the
knowledge of Christ, is cut off without hope forever, can hardly
stand in the light of the universal Fatherhood of God. A
Christianized conception of God can never tolerate the view
that millions of human beings, created in his image, are con
signed to everlasting torments because it was their misfortune
to be born, and to live and die, in a land where the Gospel
had never been preached. There was a time when even good
people could believe that only ' 'elect infants, dying in infancy,
are saved," and that all the rest are delivered over to ever
438
The Trend of Modern Religions Thought. [October,
lasting punishment for "the glory of God." All that was

needed to make such a view utterly impossible was a more
ethical conception of God, that is to say, a more Christum
conception. Christ came to "show us the Father." No man
to whom Christ has shown the Father, can possibly hold such
a view of human destiny as many devout people entertained
in the preceding century and in the first half of this. With
this Christian view of God that conceives of him as a Father,
there has come the conviction, in these modern times, that
God's wrath is but the name for the consequences of sin, and
that even sin's punishment is but the other side of God's
love, and that wherever, and whenever, a penitent soul turns
away from its sin, it will meet the pardoning love of God.
No other view seems to harmonize with the highest ethical
conception of the character of God, certainly not with his
Fatherhood. This view of punishment, while opening the
door of hope to penitence, makes the punishment of sin as
certain as the law of cause and effect.
Another important deduction from the Divine Fatherhood,
and one of far-reaching influence in our human relationships,
is that of the brotherhood of man. One of the most marked
tendencies of the religious thinking of our times is the deep
interest in social questions. The Church of to-day is not only
theological but sociological. But these two departments of
thought are very closely related. Men can not hold the view
of the Fatherhood of God without accepting the doctrine of
the brotherhood of man, and out of this doctrine that all men
are brothers springs this new interest in human relationships.
The art of living together as brothers is one which just now is
commanding the best thought of the best minds in the Church.
Any profession of belief in God's Fatherhood which does not
affect our treatment of our brother-man is a hollow mockery.
Any profession of love to God which finds no expression in
love to our fellowmen is pronounced false by that Book whose
authority we all revere. The present deep interest in sociolog
ical questions is not an accident, therefore, but is a legitimate
and inevitable result of our changed view of God in his rela
tion to man. We are beginning to associate together, as we
never had before, the two great commandments, "Thou shalt
1898]
The Trend of Modem Religious Thought
439
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart ******* anci
thy neighbor as thyself." We are coming to see that we can
not even be moral, to say nothing of being Christian, while we
ignore the obligations that grow out of these human relation
ships. "No man liveth unto himself and no man dieth unto
himself." We are so related and inter-related, as children of
a common Father, and members of a common society, that
when one member suffers, all must suffer with him, whether
consciously or unconsciously. We can no longer claim to be
Christians if we heed not the cries of distress that come to our
ears from the struggling poor and unfortunate of our kind
who have been trampled down under the hurrying feet of those
who are in haste to be rich, or who are the victims of tyran
nical oppression. The thunder of our warships at Manila, and
at Santiago, and along the coast of Cuba, is but the vocalized
sentiment of a free Christian people, saying to Spain, in lan
guage she can understand, "Take your tyrannous heel off the
neck of struggling, suffering Cuba, and let her peoplo go free!"
We can not say less and be Christian. We must reach down
helping hands to our brothers and sisters who have heavier
burdens than they can bear.
We are our brother's keeper.
We owe this spirit of helpfulness to every human being be
cause he is our brother, and, like ourselves, bears the image
and superscription of God. The Church can never fulfill its
mission as the Divine agent for the extension of God's king
dom among men, until it teaches and emphasizes and discharges
the duties and obligations that grow out of our relationships to
each other as brothers of a common family and children of a
common Father.
II. The second fruitful idea in modern religious thought
which we wish to mention is the new conception of Christ
which is coming to prevail in the most enlightened minds of
Christendom. In his great work on "The Place of Christ in
Modern Theology," Dr. Fairbairn says, in his introductory
sentence: "The most distinctive and determinative element
in modern theology is, what we may term, a new feeling for
Christ." But this "new feeling for Christ" is, itself, the
product of a new conception of Christ. Never was Christ studied
as he has been in the last quarter of a century. Never has
440
he been studied with so many chances for ascertaining his real

character and place in the Christian system as within the period
just mentioned.
Whatever light science may have thrown
upon the methods of investigation, whatever lessons have been
learned from the mistakes of those who have gone before,
whatever patient research has accumulated in the way of data,
whatever freedom of thought has been gained in the mental
conflicts of the past, whatever widening of the intellectual and
spiritual horizon from the unfolding pages of human history
all this has been laid under contribution in our modern Christological studies. In the first place there has been a noticeable
shifting of ground in the discussion concerning the nature of
Christ, resulting from a change in point of view. The old line
of arguments and the old terminology between the Trinitarian
and Unitarian schools of thought, have largely fallen into dis
use. The effort in our later thinking is to ascertain from the
historical method of study, what Christ thought himself con
cerning his nature and mission. The important matter, in
our modern way of thinking, is to show that God was in
Christ, not only reconciling the world unto himself, but reveal
ing himself unto the world in order to such reconciliation;
that he and the Father are one, and that to know him is to
know the Father, because in him dwells all the fullness of the
God-head bodily; that his mind is an exact reproduction of
the will of God, and is the highest possible ethical standard,
and the supreme authority in all matters of religious faith and
practice. The supreme emphasis is now laid upon the rela
tionships which he sustains to men as Prophet, Priest and King.
He is the world's supreme Teacher from whose decision there
is no appeal. His sacrifice for sin as High Priest, in offering
his life upon the cross, is the highest possible expression of
the love of God for man and his hatred of sin, and makes
possible the salvation of sinful men. As the Son of God, in
a unique sense, he is the King of Truth, the King in the king
dom of the Spirit. It is in this three-fold sense of Prophet,
Priest and King, that he is pre-eminently the Christ, the
Messiah, the Anointed One.
Another change in our modern way of thinking of Christ,
is the emphasis that is laid upon his humanity. There was a
1898]
441
time when so much was said in exaltation of the divinity or

deity of Christ, and such was the tendency to minimize his
human nature, that he was removed at too great a distance
from humanity. He was not felt to be one of us. Men read
of his temptations and trials as if it were mere stage-play in
which there was, and could be, no temptation to a Divine Be
ing. This view created a wide chasm between the Son of God
and the great mass of sorrowing, suffering and sinning
humanity. But Christ has now become, not less Divine, but
far more human. Indeed, may we not say that he is far more
Divine because he is and was the Son of Man, tempted in all
points like as we, yet without sin. This emphasis of Christ's
humanity brings him nearer to our hearts. We feel that he
is one with us, a brother-man, entering into the struggle of
life with us, resisting its temptations, opposing its evils, bear
ing its burdens, sharing its sorrow with us and for us. While
this view does not, and should not be permitted to obscure the
essential divinity of Christ, it makes him more available to
men as a source of strength and comfort in their sorrows and
burden-bearing and struggles against temptation.
Perhaps one of the greatest changes in modern thought
concerning Christ, however, is the place which we are coming
t o give him in our systems of religious thought. Early in the
present century, a religious movement was inaugurated, the
distinctive peculiarity of which was that it made Christ the
center of its religious faith and practice. It found him out on
the circumference, so to speak, classified along with doctrinal
speculations, and brought him to the center and made him
the object of faith, the source of all truth and all authority,
and the bond of fellowship and unity. It said: "We have
been divided in our opinions and speculative views ; let us now
unite in Christ ; let us exalt him above all party names and
party creeds and party lines, and make him alone, our Leader,
and he will bring us out of our divisions, our strifes, our
ecclesiastical conflicts, to unity and victory." The growth of
this feeling, and of the disposition to give Christ the central
and controlling place in our faith and life, is one of the marked
tendencies of modern religious thought. This is the Christocentric view of Christianity as against the former method of
442
making certain doctrinal tenets the centers around which de

nominations have been formed. In his preface to the work
previously mentioned, Dr. Fairbairn says:
"Theology as well as astronomy may be Ptolemaic; it is
so when the interpreter's Church, with its creeds and traditions,
is made the fixed point from which he observes and conceives
the truth and kingdom of God. But theology may also be
Copernican ; and it is so when the standpoint of the interpreter
is, as it were, the consciousness of Jesus Christ, and this
consciousness where it is clearest and most defined, in the be
lief as to God's Fatherhood and his own Sonship. Theology
in the former case is geocentric, in the latter heliocentric; and
only where the Son is the center can our planetary beliefs and
Churches fall info a system which is but made the more com
plete by varying degrees of distance and differences of orbit."
This is a splendid illustration of the change that is being
brought about in the religious world by making Christ, rather
than some denominational watchword or battle-cry, the center
of Christianity. In this way only can the unity for which
Christ prayed be realized. Just in proportion as we are will
ing to adopt a strictly Christo-centric view of Christianity and
act consistently with it, will unity of believers be hastened. It
is evident that much remains yet to be done in this direction,
but it is gratifying to know that the centripetal force is now
predominating over the centrifugal, and that the tendency in
modern religious thought is toward unity rather than toward
division.
It would be strange if this re-discovery of Christ and his
enthronement at the center of our religious thinking, did not
produce results most favorable to the progress of Christianity.
We may note a few of these results as they are manifest in the
Christian life of to-day. We have already referred to the sub
ject of Christian union. Nothing can be more manifest than
the growing disposition of Christians of every name and creed
to fraternize, to minimize their differences, and to magnify the
things they hold in common, and to join hands and hearts, as
far as possible, in pushing forward the conquests of the
Messiah's kingdom. This result is inevitable when Christ is
exalted to his proper place. "And I, if I be lifted up from
1898]
443
the earth, will draw all men to me." He is being lifted up as

never before, at least since the Apostolic age, in sermon, in
literature, in art, in song and in life ; and the more he is lifted
up, so that men behold the beauty of his character and feel the
magnetic power of his Divine personality, the more are men
drawn away from sectarian and worldly attractions, and
brought within the sphere of his influence and life.
Another result of putting Christ at the center of things
religious is the new impulse which has been given to mis
sionary activities. Nothing has been more characteristic of
the past quarter of a century in the religious world than the
growing interest in the subject of missions. What more
natural than this increasing desire to bring the whole world in
subjection to Christ, from the point of view we are now con
sidering? Just as sectarian zeal has abated and denomina
tional dogmas have lost their power, the tide of missionary
fervor has risen until the spirit of universal conquest is
gradually taking possession of the Churches and making larger
demands upon them in the way of talent and resources for the
world's evangelization.
Another gratifying tendency of modern religious thought,
having, as we suppose, a close relation to the "new feeling for
Christ" and to the new place we are disposed to give him, is
a more spiritual conception of Christianity. We are coming to
see more clearly that whatever relation Christianity may bear
to creed and to dogmaand it is not denied here that it does
sustain a very vital relation to the creed of the New Testa
mentit is pre-eminently a life. It is, as Dr. Abbott says,
"The life of God in the soul of man." But it is more than
that. It is the life of God in the soul, controlling the whole
life of man. It is profoundly spiritual. "The kingdom of
God is not eating and drinking," nor is it ordinance, ritual or
liturgy, "but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy
Spirit." Orthodoxy is well enough, but it does not count for so
much as orthopraxy. There is a decided revolt against any
disposition to justify or conceal an unethical or irreligious life
behind an orthodox creed, and to atone for an unsound life by
loud professions of soundness in the faith. This, we take it,
too, is a decidedly healthy sentiment which refuses to accept
444
doctrinal clearness and soundness as a substitute for righteous

conduct and character. It sometimes finds expression in an
extreme statement that "It doesn't make any difference what
a man believes, so his life is right." This saying, unfortu
nately ignores the relation between faith and life, but it is right
in looking upon the life as the important thing.
Again, as Christ is reinstated in his proper place, and the
crown of supreme authority is placed upon the brow that was
pierced with the crown of thorns, we are coming to see that
religion is not only for all men, but that its design is to
regulate and control all the interests and life of man. In other
words, there is a growing tendency to apply Christianity to
our every-day life, and to all the possible relationships of life.
Christ's kingdom is a universal kingdom in the sense that it
means to control, not our religious life only, but our social,
industrial and political life as well.
This tendency has
already been referred to as manifesting itself in the sociolog
ical movements of our time. Christ intends to be the king of
humanity in the sense of having every department of human
thought and activity brought under his dominion. Chris
tianity is ethical as well as spiritual, and much that is tolerated
to-day in the lives of professioned Christians will sooner or
laterand we hope soonercease to be regarded as consistent
with the possession of a Christian character. We mean to say,
the trend of modern religious thought is in the direction of a
higher ethical standard of Christian conduct in all the spheres
of human life, and this is a logical result of the recognition of
the kingship of Jesus Christ. We can not, under this admis
sion, exclude him from any corner of our lives or from any
section of human interests.
The inevitable tendency of the Christo-centric view of
Christianity is to give truth its proper proportion. Many doc
trines and dogmas once given great prominence are dropping
into the background, while others, once overlooked, have
assumed a new value. For every truth, principle, fact or
doctrine, takes its proper place in the Christian system, from
its relation to Christ, and its bearing on his great mission.
This tendency ought to manifest itself most decisively in this
Restoration movement whose distinctive features are due to
1898]
445
the central place which its advocates have assigned to Christ.

That we have always been loyal to this principle in our presen
tation of the Gospel, may well be questioned; but that it is a
controlling factor in the character of our plea and work is
undoubtedly true. The question as to how far we shall be able
to make our practice harmonize with our theory, in this re
spect, is the problem of our future growth and development.
III. This brings us to the third and last of the three
cardinal themes, the new conceptions of which have given the
trend to the modern religious thought according to the theory
laid down in the beginning of this paper. As the Holy Spirit is
the last of the three persons in the God-head to be manifested,
historically, in new relationships with man, so he has been
the last to receive the attention and fuller treatment which he
deserves in view of the important place he occupies as the
completion of God's self-revelation to man. Not but that the
Holy Spirit has been recognized from the beginning as a
Divine personality, sustaining important relations to the work
of human salvation, but that it was not until after other
important problems had been solved, and a certain advance
made in the direction of spiritual development, that this high
theme could be treated in the same spirit and with the same
fullness as the other subjects mentioned.
It should be asked, perhaps, first of all, what new concep
tion or change of view concerning the Holy Spirit and his work
has resulted from the investigations which have been given to
this subject in recent years? It would not be true to say that
the personality of the Holy Spirit had not been recognized
until within modern times, for representative thinkers and
writers in all ages of the Church have regarded the Holy Spirit
as a Person, and this view is involved in the doctrine of the
Trinity. Nevertheless, we feel that we should do no violence
to the facts in saying that much of the popular preaching and
practice, especially in revival meetings, would seem to contra
dict this primary postulate in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit be a Person, a Divine Person, he must be
credited with Divine wisdom and all the other attributes of the
deity, and we must conceive of him as acting in the conversion
and sanctification of men, in harmony with universal laws and
446
principles that govern Divine action in every other sphere of

his operation. We can not conceive of him as acting capri
ciously, manifesting his power in a wonderful way in one com
munity, and withholding it from another, purely on the ground
of his Divine sovereignty. Nor can we rightly conceive of him
violating the rights of the human will, and effecting the con
version and regeneration of men without regard to their con
sent or cooperation.
Just as God the Creator has manifested
himself in an intelligible way in the creation, and God the
Father has declared his Fatherhood by sending his Son into
the world to declare it, and as Christ has communicated his
will and the will of his Father to men in an intelligible reve
lation, consisting of tremendous facts and miracles of power
and a doctrine whose purity and sublimity declare it Divine, so
we must conceive of the Holy Spirit, if he have a distinct mis
sion in the world to accomplish, as going about it in an orderly
and intelligible way, and by methods which are in harmony
with the Divine and human natures.
It is the recognition of these truths as involved in the per
sonality of the Spirit, that has influenced our modern think
ing upon that subject. It is only fair to say that this recog
nition is, as yet, by no means universal or perhaps general,
but it finds a place in the best religious thought of our times,
and is destined to prevail more and more. When it comes to
be universally recognized in the Church that the Holy Spirit,
in fulfilling his mission, moves upon the human soul in har
mony with the laws of man's mental and moral constitution,
and in harmony also with the Divine character, the scenes of
excess and disorder that characterize many modern revivals
must cease, while the absurd claims of many religious enthu
siasts, who profess to be under the special, direct, guidance of
the Spirit, will be discredited. Indeed, this process is now
going on as the work of moral enlightenment proceeds. If
there is to-day, a manifest tendency among the most en
lightened people in all religious bodies to rely more upon the
preaching of the Gospel, and less on the manipulation of a
magnetic evangelist, to appeal to the reason and to the con
science more than to the emotions, it is due in a large meas
ure to a more Scriptural and intelligent view of the Holy Spirit,
1898]
447
who, it is now seen, uses facts, motives, arguments and truths,

in a word, the Gospel, as his instrumentality for conveying,
convicting and regenerating power into the hearts of men.
One of the newer and fresher conceptions of the Holy
Spirit which is coming into more prominence in our modern
religious thought, is that he came on Pentecost in fulfillment
of the Divine plan of the self-revelation of God, and as Christ's
representative or vicegerent to carry on the redemptive work
which he has provided for in his death and resurrection from
the dead. Before he left his Disciples, Christ said to them ;
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that
I go away ; for if I go not away the Comforter will not come
unto you; but if I go I will send him unto you." (John
16:7.) This Comforter is, in another passage from the Savior,
termed "another Comforter." "I will not leave you desolate:
I come unto you." (John 14:18. ) This promise of Jesus to
come unto his Disciples as well as that promise in the commis
sion, "Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world," is generally understood as having its fulfillment in the
coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to inaugurate a new
dispensation, even the dispensation of the Spirit. "The two
pivotal events in historical Christianity," says Rev. Jas. M.
Campbell in his work "After Pentecost, What?" "are the
coming of Christ in the flesh, and the coming of the Spirit;
the one being the beginning of the special manifestation of
God to man, the other the means of its continuance and com
pletion. By the coming of the Spirit, the end of the coming
of Christ is realized." It may be added that, as the coming
of Christ was the incarnation of the deity in a human body,
so the coming of the Spirit was the incarnation of the Spirit
in the Church which is called the body of Christ. Concerning
the mission of the Holy Spirit, Jesus said: "But the Com
forter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your re
membrance all that I said unto you." (John 14:26.) Again
Jesus said, "but when the Comforter is come, whom I will
send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which
proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me."
(John 15:26.) Once more, Jesus said concerning the mission
448
of the Spirit, "And he, when he is come will convict the

world in respect of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment:
of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, be
cause I go to the Father, and ye behold me no more ; of judg
ment, because the Prince of this world hath been judged. I
have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can not
bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is
come, he shall guide you into all the truth ; for he shall not
speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear,
these shall he speak ; and he shall declare unto you the things
that are to come. He shall glorify me ; for he shall take of
mine and shall declare it unto you." (John 16:8-14.)
These luminous statements of our Lord are the very high
est authority on the mission and work of the Holy Spirit.
They clearly and definitely set forth the following things
which the Spirit would accomplish in carrying on the redemp
tive work:
1. "He shall teach you all things"meaning of course,
all things essential to their moral and spiritual well-being
"and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you." It
may be said that this specially applies to his Apostles whom he
had personally instructed and whose memories were to be
quickened so as to recall what he had taught them during his
personal ministry.
2. "He shall bear witness of me." The Holy Spirit was
to be a witness for Christ, testifying of his coronation and
kingship, and of his power to save.
3. "He shall guide you into all truth." Here again we
naturally limit the meaning of the phrase, "all truth," to all
truth needful for their religious development. We see no
occasion for limiting this passage to the Apostles. The Holy
Spirit was promised as a permanent and abiding guest in the
Church and a part of his mission, we may be sure, is in guid
ing the Church into a larger an 1 clearer apprehension of the
truth as it may be needed from age to age.
4. "He shall glorify me, for he shall take of mine and
shall declare it unto you." The mission of the Holy Spirit
then, is not to glorify himself, but to glorify Christ, and the
things which he shall show unto the Church are the things
1898]
449
that relate to Christ and his great work of redemption. Is it

not to this fact that we are indebted for the increasing glory
and power of Jesus Christ in the world, as, in spite of opposi
tion and misrepresentation, he rises steadily toward the zenith,
and sheds his benignant influence over an ever-widening area
of human life and thought ?
5. "And he, when he is come will convict the world in
respect of sin and of righteousness and of judgment." The
work of convicting men of sin, and especially the sin of re
jecting Christ, is the work of the Holy Spirit throughout this
dispensation. He does it chiefly, as the context indicates,
through the use of the great facts of the Gospel. But it should
be none the less recognized as the work of the Holy Spirit.
He it is that is the efficient agent in every case of regenera
tion.
It would be strange if the growing apprehension and ap
propriation of these truths concerning the Holy Spirit were
not producing noticeable results in our modern religious
thought. These results are manifest with more or less dis
tinctness in the following direction :
1. The tendency, more and more manifest, to recognize
Christ as a potential factor in the life of the Church, and in all
the movements of human history. He has not left us
orphans. He is spiritually and potentially present in the
Church in the person of the Holy Spirit. He walks among
the golden candlesticks, and holdeth the stars in his right
hand. His increasing influence upon the world is due to the
fact, that he is so ably represented by the Paraclete who takes
of the things of Christ and shows them unto his Church.
2. The waning power of human creeds is evidence that
the Church is coming to a fuller and clearer apprehension of
truth, under the guidance of the indwelling Spirit. Many of
these creeds are little more than dead letters, because the
living Spirit, abiding in the Church has given a wider view of
the truth. It matters less and less whether creeds are revised
or not, for they can never again exert the power.over the human
conscience that they once did, because the Spirit is making
men free from the bondage of human formulations of doc
trine. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
Vol. 22.
450
The Trend of Modern Eeligious Thought. [October,
3. The majestic figure of Christ's personality stands out

with a distinctness to-day that it has never possessed before,
because the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into a truer
and more spiritual apprehension of his nature, character and
work. It is a distinct feature of the Spirit's work to glorify
Christ, and this clearer apprehension of his true nature and
relationships to God and man, and of the mighty revolution
he is working out in human society, is tending to glorify him
as the centuries go by.
4. We have already referred to the influence of this
clearer knowledge of the Holy Spirit on evangelistic methods
and on the whole line of Church work. More and more, as
this truth grows upon the Church, will it rely upon the power
of the Holy Spirit for its success, and less and less upon mere
ecclesiastical machinery and mechanical contrivances which,
at best, are but channels through which the Spirit may work
in accomplishing his mission. The more the Church relies
upon the Spirit, the more faithful it will be in the proclama
tion of the truth through which the Spirit specially carries on
his work ; the more earnest will be its prayers, because the
Spirit helpeth our infirmities and teaches us how to pray; the
more loyal it will be to Jesus Christ, because it is the purpose
of the Spirit to glorify him.
5. Summing up a number of phenomena associated, as
we believe, with a clearer apprehension of the personality and
work of the Holy Spirit, we would mention the longing after
a deeper spiritual life on the part of so many Christians, the
disposition to exalt Christ above all creeds and party names
and leaders, the fresh interest in Bible study which has swept
over the country during the past few years, the spirit of toler
ation and charity among Christians of different creeds, the
manifest desire to realize the unity for which Jesus prayed,
and the spirit of hopefulness which prevails in the Church as
to its future conquests and ultimate triumph, and last but not
least, the readiness of so many loyal followers of Christ to
receive whatever new truth he may be willing to disclose to
them as the Church goes forward on its high mission of bring
ing the world in subjection to him.
1898]
451
This last point we feel to be sufficiently important to

justify still greater emphasis. One ofjthe reasons our Lord
assigns for sending the Holy Spirit was, "I have yet many
things to say unto you, but ye can not bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come he shall guide
you into all truth." We know no authority or reason for
limiting the enlarging view of truth to the Apostolic age. If
the Holy Spirit was to abide in the Church forever, are we
not justified in supposing that a part of his mission is to
promote an ever-widening knowledge of truth, and especially
of the truth concerning Christ and his salvation? Accepting
this view of the Spirit's mission in the Church, we are not
loyal to his teaching and influence unless our minds and
hearts are always open to every new truth. Of course, we do
not mean by new truth, something that has been originated
by the mind of man and recently brought into existence, for
truth is not of that nature. It is reality. By new truth we
mean a clearer apprehension of certain realities than we had
before. Every advance which we make in the knowledge of
the truth gives us a clearer and wider vision for understanding
other truths. But one of the most important conditions for
increasing spiritual knowledge, is that of moral conformity to
the will of God. As we become like him, more and more,
we are able better to understand him. "Blessed are the pure
in heart for they shall see God." It is at this point, probably,
that the Holy Spirit is an efficient agent in clarifying our
vision, and in deepening our views of truth and duty.
We trust it will not be out of harmony with the general
scope of this paper to apply this particular principle to the
religious movement, in whose progress and welfare a majority
of our readers are most deeply interested.
Some of the
questions which our most thoughtful men have asked con
cerning the future of this movement are: "Will we crystallize,
as -other religious reformations have done before us?" "Will
we be able to maintain hospitality for new truth and to wel
come new light from whatever source it may shine upon God's
Word to illuminate it?" "Will we be ready to adjust our
teaching and our methods to the ever-enlarging views of truth
which the growth of the Kingdom of God is sure to witness,
452
Religious Humbug.
[October,
and to the changing conditions of the world in which we

live?" In other words, will we be loyal to the leading of
Divine Providence and of the Holy Spirit? or shall we reach
a time when we shall formulate our conclusions and seek to
enforce them as tests of fellowship, as others have done
before us?
These are questions of weighty import that have to do
vitally with our future growth and development. So far as
we are able to apprehend the spirit of those who, without dis
paragement to others, may be called leaders among us, the
conviction is steadily deepening that we can not fulfill our
mission as a religious body without holding ourselves in readi
ness to accept and to utilize the new light that may break
forth from God's Word or from God's world, and that we
should do this while holding on, steadfastly, to the great
fundamentals of faith and doctrine upon which we have built
from the beginning. This attitude will enable us to maintain
the place which the character of our plea demands that we
should occupy, in the vanguard of that great army of loyal
souls who are seeking to know the truth and to obey the truth,
that they may be free indeed.
In this way we shall be able
in the future, as in the past, to exercise a very decisive influ
ence upon the trend of religious thought, "till we all attain
unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son
of God, unto a full grown man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fullness of Christ."
J. H. Garrison.
RELIGIOUS HUMBUG.
THE origin of the word humbug is somewhat in doubt:
Webster says it is from hum to deceive, and bug, a bug
bear. This would seem to the unlearned to be evident, for if
you should let the word drop, it would break into these two
parts. Others derive it from Hamburg, a city noted years ago
for the use of coins deficient in weight. In either case its
meaning is plain ; "apiece of trickery; one who deceives or
hoaxes."
1898]
Religious Humbug.
453
From the number of humbugs in the market, it is evident

that man likes both to humbug and to be humbugged. On
the one hand, the truth is not always acceptable. It is hard,
relentless, pitiless. It often cuts like a knife and kills like a
bullet. It separates friends, embroils nations in war, fills a
dying bed with scorpions, and will add to the horrors of hell.
Truth is a tool or a weapon according as it is used. On the
other hand, a humbug is often very acceptable, they are more
in demand and usually bring a higher price. It is easier to
amass wealth through a skillful use of humbug than by hard
and honest toil. It is often better that a dying man should be
humbugged with sugar pills and bright hopes; better that a
jealous husband should be humbugged into the belief that his
wife is faithful than that he should become a double mur
derer; better that nations should be deceived by humbug
honor and diplomacy than that they should go into the busi
ness of throat-cutting. Of course, we know what will become
of all liars; but a humbug is not a lie, though it may be a
near relative. The prussic acid in a lie is malice, the very
venom of the old devil ; take away the poison and the humbug
may be harmless, even a needed opiate or a healing medicine.
Man has an aptitude for humbug. He likes to invent
and use them, while the masses of mankind take to humbugs
as a fish does to water. The law of correlatives applies here.
If there are eyes, there is also light; if ears, there are sound
waves in the air; if hunger, food to appease it; and if hum
bugs, gullibility to receive and appropriate them; if one wise
man, then ten thousand fools as an offset.
Under this aptitude for humbug there lies a deep philos
ophy. The a priori method may help us here ; it may pry up
the lid and help us to see the reasons for humbuggery as well
as for truth. What we fear or hope for we easily believe. We
dwell upon hopes and fears, till the conception of them becomes
almost a perception, and we see them in the near future ; belief
in this case is almost a belief of our senses. We easily believe
what we like to have true and refuse what would be unpleasant ;
this opens a wide door through which the biggest humbugs
may enter. We all have theories, and accept what will con
firm them, but reject the contrary. Our theories are our
454
Religious Humbug.
[October,
children and we love and defend them however lame and

deformed, or even foolish, they may be. Selfishness and an
over or under self-estimate are two demons which stand ready
to blind us to the truth. We are conscious of guilt and the
voice of conscience makes cowards of us all ; and who so liable
to humbug as a guilty coward !
The facts in the case conform to this philosophy. We
find humbugs everywhere ; they grow in all soils, are borne on
all winds, are fished out of all waters, and hatched in all
brains. We have humbug coffee, humbug quinine, humbug
shoes, humbug news, humbug sermons, and humbug science.
Look at patent medicines and the diseases they will cure.
Read over the list of symptoms, and you have them all.
"Wonder if it would not cure me, and here is the money for a
bottle or a box." The great daily papers are given up to the
Spanish war and patent medicines. Which is printed in
largest letters it would be hard, at sight, to tell. These patent
humbugs have invaded the religious papers as well, and here
they stand on the first page, while the religious news will be
found on a lower one. What humbugs in business! Labor
is painful and most men want to get rich without it. They
wish to be very rich, and this early in life, so that their money
may be enjoyed. Earning and saving are slow and late; steal
ing is the quick process. Steal a little from everybody, con
stantly, and in a legal way; this is safe, sure, and popular.
Stock up the pseudo gold mine, water the stock of the rail
road, get up a syndicate, send a strong lobby to congress,
combine and put up prices and fees, get a city franchise,
bribe legislators ; humbug, humbug, and let the people suffer!
And none are humbugged so easily as those who entertain the
same purpose. The gambler plays on the desire to get some
thing for nothing in those whom he would rob. The mounte
bank at the circus plays on the avarice of the congregated
fools by first giving away money himself.
So willing are men to be humbugged that, if their fellowmen do not do it for them, they will humbug themselves.
Indeed, in this matter a man has need to fear himself more
than anybody else. He swindles himself with the greatest
alacrity. He will show up a bad enterprise in the most favor
1898]
Religious Humbug.
455
able light as though he were the Devil's attorney paid to

ruin himself. It is curious to see how a man will humbug
himself, for instance, into doing more for the world than he
means to. His real wants are few and simple, yet how many
artificial wants he will improvise and enslave himself to meet
them. He finds work necessary for health; he forms the
habit of saving; pride and rivalry impel him to raise the pile
higher and higher; he lays up for a rainy day, provides
for old age; desiring to live a hundred years, he believes he
may, and so makes large provisions for these helpless years ;
but he is humbugged to the last ; for, cut off at three score
years and ten, all his unnecessary accumulations are added to
the world's wealth, and he has made himself a packhorse in
vain.
So much I have written to impress the fact that humbugs
are not uncommon, and that, if we find them everywhere else,
it will not be strange, if we shall find them in religion ; in the
pulpit and in the pew, in the creed and in the worship. The
facts will bear a stronger statement : Religious humbugs are
more common and more pernicious than any other. The rea
sons for this are not far to seek. The religious nature of man
is the highest, and hence religious hopes and fears are the
most powerful. We can not test our humbug theories in this
world and so they pass for theological science. We are wont
to see facts through our theories and, of course, facts and
theories seem to support each other. It seems sacriligious to
look into holy things, into the ark of the covenant. It seems
blasphemy to question the fact and meaning of religious ex
periences. We dare not lift our hand from the wound sin has
made lest the life-blood flow. We dare not face the realities
of eternity. We dare not lean over the battlements and look
down into the abyss. The truth is ugly; the humbug is beau
tiful and hence is received as an angel of light.
Remembering this weakness of human nature itself, it is
the purpose of this paper to discuss some religious humbugs
freely and fearlessly, and yet honestly and seriously. This
will be done more in sorrow than in contempt for mankind,
and with the prayer that no one may be humbugged thereby.
456
Religious Humbug.
[October,
I. First, let us look at some pagan humbugs. In the

childhood of the race men were more easily deceived than
now. Then, seemingly, "the heavens were closer to us and
the gods were more familiar." Then the wisest men were
more credulous than the children of later times. We go back
to the mists and darkness of primeval times for the origin of
myths, and superstitions, and for beliefs that are well nigh
hereditary.
An idol was a senseless, hideous humbug. It is marvel
ous that men and nations should consult and worship them.
Who would not say "impossible." But the testimony is too
strong; missionaries bring them home to illustrate their ser
mons, and they are now freely manufactured and offered for
sale. If the returned missionary has failed to bring one from
its native land wherewith to enlighten the people, he can buy
one in Paris or London. With what oppressive power these
false gods have controlled and tortured millions of our
race. Imagine a man, a mother, a departing soul, praying
to a stone or wooden humbug. What strange psychological
forces, what priestly cunning, what fears and hopes, must
have brought them to their knees. I shall not offend any
civilized man by pasting on the backs of all these Molochs
the word, "humbug." Should not all modern humbugs
be labeled the same way? Elijah was fully justified in
mocking the worshipers of Baal. "Cry aloud; for he is a god;
either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or
peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked."
Sacrifice to these idols was an amazing humbug, very
comforting to the worshipers and very profitable to the priest
hood. Nearly all these enormous sacrifices of temples, gold
and silver, animals without blemish, and the fruits of the
earth, went to the swarming priests, and through them to the
gods themselves. The bread-and-butter argument was a suffi
cient warrant for all pious humbugs ; not that the priests were
all dishonest, but that they also were victims of longstanding
and venerable trickery.
Burial customs and expenses were maintained by systems
of humbuggery. All faith in the gods, all fears of punishment,
all belief in a future life, all love of kindred, and all dread of
1898]
Religious Humbug.
457
the grave, were made subservient to these customs. Death

was made more awful by human sacrifices and cannibalism ; the
widow was reduced to extreme poverty to pay the traveling
expenses of her weird and wandering husband. An Egyptian
soul was forever lost, if his body was not thoroughly mummyfied.
The few who knew that idols and priests, sacrifices and
funeral customs, were a sham having no justification in reason,
still thought it wise and benevolent to humbug the people.
Greek and Roman statesmen and philosophers built temples
and offered sacrifices, while in their hearts and in private they
reviled the gods. Roman generals consulted the oracles,
watched the flight of birds, and stood by while the augurs
inspected the entrails of sheep and oxen to find what liver or
spleen might prognosticate concerning an impending battle,
not that they had any faith in these senseless things, but to
humbug the soldiers into fighting well, or into acquiescence
in a retreat. Watching the stars and all the wisdom of
astrology, and studying to do our work in the right sign of
the zodiac, both then and now, are as much a humbug as
poking among the entrails of a sheep to find indications of the
future. But this is enough concerning the pagan world.
Such thoughts are not profitable, for one grows ashamed of
his ancestry, and doubtful of his way. So gullible is man
that none of us are perfectly sure of safety.
II. Papal humbugs shall next receive our attention. The
Roman Catholic church seems to have inherited many of the
humbugs of heathenism and to have invented many of its
own.
That there must be a pope and that he is the vicar of
Christ on earth, is one of them. There is no hint of such an
officer in the New Testament. Christ is the head of the
church both in Heaven and on earth.
The apostles were
equal in authority. Pagan Rome gave this plan of organiza
tion to the semi-pagan and apostate church. The pope, as a
pope, is a humbug, and has no more right to send out his
envoys to lord it over the church and interfere with national
affairs, than has Sam Jones of modern fame. The pope him
self, and all the Roman clergy, down to the lowest intelligent
458
Religious Humbug.
[October,
priest, know that this is so ; but they all belong to the great
hierarchy, and are all interested in its success ; not that all are
guilty, but that all are humbugs or the victims of humbug.
The dogma of papal infallibility is another. Whether in
fallibility is to be understood in its absolute sense, that God
will not permit a pope to err when he speaks ex cathedra, or
whether it means only that the pope is the court of last appeal,
that when he has spoken that is the end of it, in either sense
it is a hoax. It is so evidently a humbug that no one seriously
undertakes to refute it. This dogma swallows itself; for if
any man puts forth the claim of infallibility, he shows at once
that he is exceedingly fallible, if not insane on that subject.
And yet how obsequiously the millions bow in meek submis
sion!
So the next item in this enumeration, auricular confession
will come into the mind of any reader. In bold, black letters
over the confessional box, and on the foreheads of priest and
penitent should be stamped the word humbug, and the prayer
of the priest for the poor deluded sinner should end with the
same word, and not with the solemn "amen." None but God
can forgive sin. None but he who knows the heart can justly
pardon sin. What right has the young priest, or any priest,
to know the secrets of homes and hearts? Why has he a right
to tempt comparatively pure souls to lie rather than tell all?
Why should the priest have this satanic power to take advan
tage of the weaknesses and sins of his victims? Are not these
priests men of like passions with others ? Why are they called
"fathers," if not for the good reason that fornication and
adultery, like murder, "will out," for they are not permitted
to marry and a father would not treat his own children so.
Humbug! and yet see the long procession going to the con
fessional; blushing maidens and young wives, mothers and
ignorant men ; and see them returning, not absolved from a
single sin and minus self-respect and cash.
Purgatory is another and a profitable humbug. Neither
Moses nor Christ, neither prophet nor apostle, seem to have
known of such a place. There are but few passages in the
Bible that even suggest its existence. And yet do not bad
men go there? Are not prayers offered for their release? Is
1898]
Religious Humbug.
459
not money paid for these prayers? And does not this money
go to maintain the splendors and pretensions of the papal
hierarchy? What devilish advantage is taken of poor human
nature! Faith in a future life, veneration for the church, the
holiest religious sentiments, sorrow for the dead, and the de
sire to meet them in Heaven, a thing impossible unless they
are purged from sin, all unite to give plausibility and support
to this flimsy subterfuge. O, wretched mourner, how gullible
thou art, and how the eye of the priest must brighten at the
gleam of thy gold and silver!
Transubstantiation, or the "real presence" in theeucharist,
must not be omitted. It is asserted that the bread becomes
the real flesh and the wine the real blood of Christ. What the
Savior gave as a simple memorial of himself is converted into
a perpetual miracle. A common figure of rhetoric is exalted
into a record of fact, and made a promise of endless reproduc
tion. That Luther and his followers accepted this humbug
only shows how difficult it is to get some men to see what they
do not want to see.
How strong must be the faith of an
honest priest who believes and teaches this dogma! Is it not
suggestive, to say the least, that the wafer goes to the laity,
but the ruddy wine to the jolly priests?
A word still further in regard to shrines and sacred relics.
The learned men and scientists of the Roman Church do know
that these are all humbugs. The "holy coat" of Treves is not
the seamless robe of Christ ; the arm of St. Ann, if there ever
was such a saint, has not been preserved; and these shrines do
not work miracles. Archbishop Ireland and Bishop Spaulding,
for example, are not so daft as to think otherwise. Why then
do these men and hosts of others abet these impostures and
help to humbug the common membership of that church.
There is only one answer to this question. If they do not re
pent of this wicked deception, they will need to pass through
the fires of, not a sham, but a real purgatory.
It is instructive to study this system of religious humbugs ;
to see how little is needed to give them a start, how they are
sanctioned by religious customs, defended by high authorities,
and how blindly the people accept them. It is also instructive
to note the marks of priestcraft ; its institutions and its hum
460
Meligious Humbug.
[October,
bugs are so fashioned as to tighten the grasp of the church

and extort revenues from the unsuspecting people. The poor
sinners have to make prompt payment and the priest can hold
the dying soul over purgatory and threaten to drop it in un
less the "last will and testament" is acceptable to the church.
The reader may rightly judge that the writer of this paper is
not a Roman Catholic, and perhaps milder words would be
more effective; but when Gideon and his ten men destroyed
the altar and the groves of Baal they did it with axes, and not
with soft words.
III. Protestant humbugs. The Protestant must now take
his place in the witness chair, remembering that he is oathbound to tell the truth and nothing but the truth; but not the
whole truth, for this would be impossible.
The dogma of Original Sin is the original theological
humbug; original because it started with the beginning of
things. This dogma teaches that all men that have lived or
ever will live were potentially present in Adam and that all
sinned when he did ; that all are guilty of that first sin and are
all condemned to eternal death on account of it. Now, it is
not denied that we inherit from Adam a great many physical,
mental, and moral weaknesses and liabilities to temptations,
and especially to humbugs, but transmission of sin is quite
another matter. He who knows what sin is, knows that the idea
that sin can be transmitted from one moral agent to another is
absurd.
What is sin? Many a preacher does not know, and yet
he is perpetually talking and writing about it. Sin is not an
accident, not a mistake, not a condition, not a matter of
heredity. "Sin is the transgression of law," but not all trans
gression, nor of all law. A law may be transgressed by mis
take, when this is not a sin; or rightfully, when there is no
sin. A moral law can not be transgressed without a purpose
to do so ; other laws can. Strictly speaking, there is no such
thing as physical sin, political sin, social sin, or intellectual
sin. All sin is the transgression of moral law; of the intui
tive command "Do right;" and this transgression is not
possible without the purpose to do so ; sin is the transgression
of a definite law and in a definite way. It is the choice to do
1898]
Religious Humbug.
461
what one honestly thinks is wrong. His own judgment of

what is right is the only possible standard of right to any
moral being. Sin being a choice, is an act of the will, and of
the sinner's own will. It is of the individual, is inalienable,
and not transmissible. How many volumes have been written
on Original Sin, when if the writer had o*ly scratched the
subject but a little, he would have seen that it is a gilded
humbug, a sort of theological idol, but not a harmless one.
If fathers transmit their sins to their children, what a burden
of sins will the last man be compelled to carry.
Akin to this humbug is that of total depravity. It has
been, and still is, maintained that man is not only depraved
on account of his relation to Adam but that this is moral
depravity, that it is total, and that it is hereditary. Man is
inclined to all evil and incapable of any good. He is dead to
righteousness, but alive to sin. This mother humbug has
been very prolific of minor humbugs and there seems to be no
prospect that the race will ever become extinct. Thence have
proceeded "election and reprobation," "a limited atone
ment," the "effectual call," "supernatural regeneration," and
"final perseverance," in logical order. It is unfortunate that
man has no ability on the side of goodness but has on the side of
evil. Who could blame a being thus constituted ; unfortunate
that the one thing in regard to which he is total depravity and
perfect weakness is religion, the most important of all. He can
understand science but not the word of God ; he can love man
but not the Father in Heaven; he can change his political
views and life, but not his moral and religious character!
This humbug has no warrant in Scripture, in fact, in psychol
ogy, nor in common sense. A man who needs to have it re
futed could not understand the refutation however clearly
presented. To the man who accepts this doctrine religion is
different from everything else. He does not get it as a matter
of reason and science. He regards himself as but clay, and
very poor clay at that, in the hands of the potter; he lies on
the wheel and lets it go round and round, waiting to see
whether he will come out a vessel unto honor or dishonor.
The greatest of Protestant humbug is that of supernatural
regeneration ; the greatest because it has to do with the salva
462
Religious Humbug.
[October,
tion of the soul, because it is accepted by so many millions of

Christians, because it underlies most of the creeds of Christen
dom, and because it is not a mere theological abstraction but a
"working hypothesis," embodying the process by which all
men are supposed to get religion. It is a serious thing to
knock away the prop which sustains any man's religious hope,
and yet it may be a blessing to remove the false supports and
substitute for them the true ones. Sustained by this thought
and granting the honesty of those who accept this sacred hum
bug, let us proceed to its investigation.
First, what is meant by this supernatural regeneration?
It is that change in man's depraved moral nature which is
supposed to be produced by the immediate and creative power
of God, and which is called "getting religion," or regeneration.
It is in addition to all faith, repentance, prayer, confession
and obedience to the Gospel, and a change without which all
these would be impossible or useless. It comes in answer to
prayer and is more or less instantaneous. The process by
which this change is supposed to be experienced will make it
plain. A sinner comes to believe in Christ and truly repents
of his sins. He asks what he shall do, and is invited to join
with the preachers in prayer for his conversion. The prayer is
long and earnest, and often continued from night to night. If
Heaven seems to be unwilling to grant the petition, it is explained
that prayer must be importunate and persistent, that often an
immediate answer is deferred for the suppliant's good : or that
the heart of the penitent may not be right, that he is unwill
ing to give up some darling sin, and has not yielded his will
to God's will
The preacher examines him to find out and
remove these hindrances. He is told to believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, by which is not meant the faith without which
he would not pray at all, but a thrusting of the soul into the
hands of Jesus by a sheer mental act. At length the preacher
begins to persuade the praying man that he has already re
ceived the blessing. Does he not feel relieved? Does he not
love the brethren? The least favorable symptom is a cause
of rejoicing on the part of the praying group, in which rejoic
ing the penitent joins, and another soul is said to be born
again, born of God. This method of "getting religion" is ex-
1898]
Religious Humbug.
463
hibited with more or less fullness in all so-called orthodox re

vival meetings.
Second, it is admitted that the change of feelings in this
method of getting religion is an actual experience, very slight
in many cases, but in many others a wonderful change. The
greatness of the revulsion of feeling will depend upon the age
of the person, the peculiar mental constitution, the heinousness of his sins, and the stubbornness with which he has
resisted his convictions of duty. It will also depend much on
the character of the preaching and the degree of excitement
which the meeting has reached. He has taken the first step,
he has humbled his pride, he is confessing his sins, he is deeply
wrought upon by the sympathy of his praying friends, and
who can go through all this and not have an "experience?"
Now these new feelings are not a humbug, but the false inter
pretation of them is. What do they mean? Do they indicate
a divine interposition? Are they proof of a regeneration of
the moral nature? Are they evidence of pardon? Are they
the change, the salvation, which was so earnestly sought?
Third, this so-called "experience of religion" is only a
coincidence which may or may not be present in a true con
version, and is no evidence of pardon. (1) Many are inca
pable of such an experience, as children who have no power
of spiritual analysis and men who are too clear-headed to be
deceived. (2) These experiences are of every possible variety
and hence one man's experience throws no light on that of
another. (3) They have no value as evidence of conversion
and pardon. Children and those mentally weak, can not
apply such a test. The new feelings shade off into others and
hence are difficult of identification. What degree of intensity
should they possess and by what thermometer shall they be
measured? States of feeling are hard to remember and hence
they are forgotten, or they grow on the imagination till they
become remarkable indeed. (4) These feelings supposed to
be a change of heart and to be produced by the immediate
power of God, can be otherwise accounted for. The following
inquiry was once made of several Christian people: "Were
you conscious of any mental experience in your conversion
which you can not account for on the ground of what you be
464
Religious Humbug.
[October,
lieved and did?" The educated and clear-headed people

answered in the negative; but the unlearned believed them
selves Christians and, of course, had had an orthodox conver
sion. (5) The Bible cases of conversion present no account
of such a miraculous regeneration. The Lord appeared to
Saul to make him an apostle. Lydia's heart was "opened"
by what she heard so that she "attended" to what the preacher
commanded. (6) In this method of becoming a Christian
there may be a true conversion founded on true faith and true
repentance, but this revulsion of feeling is no part of the
conversion, but an "experience" which may or may not be
present. (7) We can see how so many millions come to
believe in this supernatural regeneration. Both Calvinism
and Armenianism teach its necessity. It is proclaimed from all
the pulpits. Elders and deacons, fathers and mothers, relate
these experiences. New converts have similar experiences,
and the illogical inference is drawn that God must be present
and work these changes. (8) And yet the confidence that
God has miraculously revealed himself is not very strong, as
it can not be, for if it was, no better proof that Christianity is
divine could be obtained than to put about fifty Christians
under oath and have them testify what God has miraculously
done for their souls. (9) People thus converted often find
that they were mistaken, and that they have no religion, after
all.
Fourth, the evil done by this religious humbug is in the
fact that it so often takes the place of a true conversion. The
new birth, the rising of the soul out of the animal and above
the merely intellectual into the moral and the spiritual ; the
apprehension of man's true mission in life; the bringing of
the soul into harmony with the great law of love, and into
confiding cooperation with God, is something more than a
mere nervous thrill however it may have been produced.
Another religious humbug, like the one just considered,
is that of instantaneous and miraculous sanctification, or the
"second blessing," as it is called. In the Bible, sanctification
is two-fold: one is pardoned and sanctified, or set apart to a
holy life, when he is converted, when he is baptized; again he
is said to be sanctified when he makes his life conform to his
1898]
Religious Humbug.
465
profession. He is said to "put on Christ" in these two senses;

when he becomes a Christian, and when, through growth in
grace, he becomes Christlike. But this humbug sanctification
is a quick process. Through importunate and agonizing
prayer it is supposed that God will make men holy by an im
mediate exertion of divine power. It is claimed that this
blessing will enable one to live without sin during a whole
life, or until the power of the blessing is dissipated, when it
may be renewed. What are called "holiness meetings" are
held to secure this sanctification for all who desire it.
It must be confessed that, if this is not a humbug, it is a
most important matter. If it is possible, at once and forever,
to end the fight against sin and to become perfectly holy, who
would not desire it ? If it is possible to have a wicked son, or
an obstreperous husband, made over in a moment, what a
blessing it would be to many a home! If this can, in fact, be
done, and so quickly, the "holiness camp-meeting" would be
the most wonderful place in all the world.
But there are reasons to question the value of this sancti
fication. It is difficult to see how the exertion of sheer power
of any kind can make a moral change, which implies con
science and moral choice. If divine power can do this, why
does not God at once revolutionize human nature itself and at
once make all men, for all time and eternity, perfectly holy
and happy.' It is impossible to prove by an induction of re
sults that any sinner is made holy and harmless in this way.
The world is suspicious of one who claims to have experienced
such a blessing. If any man says he has no sin he is deceived,
if not worse, and the truth is not in him. Evidently the Holy
Spirit has nothing to do with this unholy process. In these
days when psychology, hypnotism, and the interactions of
mind and body, are better understood, it is not difficult to ex
plain these "camp-meeting" phenomena. Look at the routine
of camp life! rising early to take part in the sunrise prayer
meeting; a hurried breakfast; prayer meeting at eight ; preach
ing from nine to ten; prayer meeting till dinner; preaching at
2 p. m. ; prayer for sanctification till supper; preaching at
night, followed by agonizing prayer for the second blessing,
and this kept up till midnight, and from day to day, perhaps
Vol. 23.
46C
Religious Humbug.
[October,
for weeks. Is it any wonder that many are exhausted, have

"the power," and become unconscious. Poor human nature
can not endure everything. The leaders do not believe the
Holy Spirit is doing these things, for they will sing down the
shouting and put an end to the disorder when they choose.
To one who understands the excitability of nerves and brain
there is no mystery in all this.
It is not asserted that the people who seek sanctification
in this or any other way are not benefited, that they do not
obtain a blessing. The desire for it is a blessing; the preach
ing and the worship will intensify this desire and increase the
effort to become more holy. But the blessing is not of the
kind, nor does it come from the source, which they suppose.
What they think is the blessing is a positive hindrance, nor
does it produce the results which they expect.
These twin humbugs of "miraculous regeneration" and
"miraculous sanctification" are exceedingly wonderful, so
many believe in them and so many are deceived ! What a
commentary is this on the gullibility of mankind in religious
matters !
One more will be named, the humbug of so-called
Christian Science, one of the most unchristian crazes of these
crazy times. Here also there are some facts : sickness real or
supposed of body or of mind ; hypnotic influence ; influence of
the mind on the body, which is greater than many think ;
prayer offered for the healing of the sick ; failures which are
unnoticed, forgotten, or not counted because some condition
was not observed; some cases of apparent cure; and in ex
planation of the cases of cure, which are by far the exception
and not the rule, the inference that the healing was by im
mediate divine power. The inference is the humbug part of
the proceeding. This inference is propped up by the absurd
philosophy that disease is not anything; it is a negation, a
zero, though not exactly so in the case of broken limbs or the
loss of life. James is also supposed to be the apostle of
"Christian Science;" whereas his directions are perfectly
normal; "use the most approved remedies, do this as you do
1898]
The Supply of Preachers.
467
everything else in the name of the Lord, and pray for success ; "
just as the farmer sows the seed and prays for a good harvest.
It is evidently man's prerogative to blunder!
A humbug is sometimes a good thing. It would be terri
ble if one could not humbug himself into the belief that he is
a good fellow and thought well of by his fellowmen. Some
tell us in deeply philosophical style that we know phenomena
only and that space and time are not things but laws of
thought, only the ways in which we are compelled to think of
things and events. But the belief in realities is a blessed
humbug, if such it be. It is well that we believe there are two
sides to the street and that two bodies can not occupy the
same place at the same time. If Christianity is false and
therefore a humbug, it is also a most blessed one. If there is
no God, no forgiveness, no love, and no life beyond, do not
prove it. Let me cherish the pleasing dream till my eyelids
close in death.
H. W. Everest.
THE SUPPLY OF PREACHERS.

0 long as it shall please God "by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe," the subject of an ade
quate supply of competent preachers will be one of vital
importance. It was so in the time of Jesus; for when, after the
death of John, he saw the people of Israel scattered like sheep
without a shepherd, he said to his disciples, "The harvest truly
is plenteous, but the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the
Lord of the harvest, that he send forth laborers into his har
vest." It is so with us; as witness the calls from strong
Churches, the calls from weak Churches, the calls from mission
fields, which grow louder, and remain unanswered.
We
find it difficult to collect the money necessary to carry on the
work of the Lord ; but it is more difficult to find the men ;
and if our treasuries were now all full to overflowing, much of
the money would lie idle for want of competent men to receive
it in wages. How can we increase the supply of preachers?
When this question is propounded, some men's minds
turn at once to colleges; and they cry out, Let us build more
v_)
468
[October,
colleges for the education of our young men, and we shall

then have a better supply of acceptable preachers. It is doubt
less true, that establishing a college, in a community stimu
lates the desire for higher education in that community, and
it is doubtless also true that a college, in the hands of earnest
Christian teachers, is a means of turning the minds of some of
its students in the direction of preaching; but the increase from
this source is infinitesimal when compared with its cost, and
with the demand. Colleges can educate preachers, but they
can not make them in any considerable number. We must
look in some other direction then for the source of supply.
From another class of brethren the answer comes, Not
more colleges, but a great university: let us have a university
equal to the greatest and the best, to which young men will
come from all Churches, and from all countries, to obtain a
finished education. This source would be even more inade
quate than the former; for while such an institution would
certainly stimulate the desire for extensive learning on the
part of a few, it could still only educate preachers; it could
not make them ; and those whom it would educate would be
fewer in number as its courses of study were lengthened.
From still another class we hear the answer, Give
preachers better salaries ; and free .them from the hardship of
moving frequently from place to place ; then the number will
be greater. I am inclined to think there is truth in this. I
think that in this money loving and ease loving age, the num
ber of young men who would choose the ministry for a pro
fession, if they could be certain of always receiving a good
salary, and of being guarded against all the hardships of a
preacher's life, is quite large. Indeed there is scarcely any
limit to the number of good, easy, good-for-nothing young
sters in this country, who would accept such a prospect on
very little persuasion. But what kind of a ministry would
this give to the Church of God? Go to the established
Churches of the old world, and see.
I think that for the true answer to our question we are to
look in a direction quite different from any of these. When a
farmer desires to increase the produce of his lands, he ascer
tains what modes of cultivation, and what fertilizers, have
1898]
469
secured the best results in the past, and then he applies the
former with greater diligence, and the latter in greater quanti
ties. So, when we wish to increase the supply of preachers,
we should inquire what causes have led men to this work in
the past ; and when we find these we should seek to stimulate
them. We should also search for any hindrances which
have obstructed the action of these causes, and try to remove
them.
I turn first to the Scriptures, to see what it was that led
men to give their lives to this work in the beginning. I find
that the Twelve, the Seventy, and Paul, were moved by a
desire to obey the Lord who commanded them to go and
preach. I find Paul saying to Timothy, "The things which
thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same
commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach
others also" (2 Tim. 2:2); and while the reference of this
precept is directly to teaching these faithful men it implies
also that he was to persuade them, if persuasion were neces
sary, to impart to others the instruction he gave. Thus we
find the persuasions of those who are already preachers, one
of the causes then at work. I think I find, too, that parental
influence had much to do in making Timothy a preacher; for
although there is no direct evidence that his mother or his
grandmother actually advised him to preach, we do find that
they taught him the Scriptures from his infancy, and every
man who is full of the word of God finds relief and delight in
telling it to others. Stephen and Philip, the two deacons who
became preachers, were influenced by neither of these con
siderations, so far as we are informed; but they seem to have
been led into the work by the pressure of circumstances.
Stephen, being a member of the Synagogue of foreign Jews,
could not refrain from declaring to his fellow-members the
true meaning of the Messianic prophecies as they were read
from Sabbath to Sabbath, and this, combined with native
talent, brought him into the front rank of the early preachers.
Philip, deprived of his deaconship and of his home by the
dispersion of the Church, could find nothing else to do that
was worthy of his high calling in Christ, except to preach;
and so, without call or consultation he went at it like a man.
470
[October,
Doubtless all of these were moved also, if not in the beginning,

certainly in the progress of their work, by the judgment which
Paul pronounces, when he says: "The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all,
therefore all died; and he died for all, that they who live
should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for
their sakes died and rose again" (2 Cor. 5:14, 15). The
only way to live unto Him, is to live for the good of those for
whom he died ; and the best way to do this is to preach to
them the Gospel of their salvation. Last of all, I notice a
method of increasing the supply of preachers, formally em
bodied in a precept by Jesus himself. It is, to pray for them.
"Pray ye the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth laborers
into his harvest." This precept recognizes God as the being
who sends the laborers, and it teaches those who are already
at work in the field to call on him for needed helpers. Here,
if my induction is not at fault, are the Scriptural methods of
supplying preachers. They are, first, the authoritative call of
Christ himself; second, the persuasion of other teachers;
third, parental influence, molding aright the mind and heart ;
fourth, the pressure of circumstances pointing in that direc
tion; fifth, a sense of obligation incurred by the death of Christ
for the redemption of men; and, last, the prayers of godly
persons.
Are these the causes and motives which still lead men to
become preachers? After I had accepted the call to prepare
this paper, and had conceived my method of treating the
subject, I sought an answer to this question in a very practical
way. I had before me about one hundred and twenty-five
young men who had decided to give their lives to this work,
and were struggling to obtain the necessary education. They
were in the midst of the closing examinations of the college
session, when every moment was precious to them, but I
requested every one who could spare the time, to write out for
me a statement of the considerations and influences which led
him to give his life to preaching. I asked them especially to
mention all influences purposely brought to bear on them by
other persons, both for and against their final decision. I
gave them no intimation of the use which I intended to make
1898]
471
of the information, and I promised privacy as respects their

names. Fifty of them found time to respond, and the revela
tions which they make are rich in experiences of which the
on-looking world has little thought.
Of the fifty, no less than thirty-seven mentioned, as the
controlling cause of their becoming preachers, an oppressive
sense of duty to God and man, which, however much they
resisted it, or tried to ignore it, and this many of them did for
a series of years, they were never able to shake off. Fifteen
of this class expressed it as a desire to do goodthe greatest
good in their power; ten, as a conviction that God would hold
them accountable for the best use of the talents which he had
given them; six, as a zeal for the cause of righteousness,
aroused by seeing so much wickedness around them ; four, as
a zeal for true teaching aroused by the prevalence of false
teaching about them; and two, as a zeal stirred up by the
feeble condition of the Christian Church in the regions where
they resided. In all these we see a combination of three of
the Scriptural causes enumerated above, viz., a desire to obey
Christ, the pressure of surrounding circumstances, and a
general sense of obligation to repay, by seeking to save men,
the debt we owe to him who died for us.
Next in number come those of the fifty who mention
among the influences brought to bear on them, the persua
sions and encouragement of preachers and elders. Twentyfive make mention of preachers, and eight of elders, who thus
influenced them. In some instances this encouragement was
given when they were little boys, as when a preacher would
take notice of them, and tell them that they must grow up to
be preachers. In other instances the suggestion was made at
the time of baptism.
One says that when the preacher
who baptized him handed him to his mother on coming out of
the water, he said to her, "There is a preacher." Others were
persuaded and admonished on the subject from time to time
as they advanced in Christian life. Thus we find, that about
two thirds of the fifty were induced to take up this work by
the appointed teachers in the Church, whose duty it is to thus
watch for the propagation of the Gospel.
472
The Supply of Preachers-
[October,
Next in order are those who make prominent parental influ

ence.
Five were greatly influenced by the persuasion of their
mothers ; the same number by that of their fathers. This was
a surprise to me, for I had supposed that mothers did much
more in this way than fathers or than any other persons. Still,
there were eight who ascribed their turn in life to the indirect
influence of a mother's piety. Thus the whole number who
were influenced directly or indirectly by their parents was
eighteen. It is interesting to remark, that of these eighteen,
thirteen had felt a warm desire to be preachers from early
childhood ; and doubtless this was due to the influence of god
liness in the home.
The class next in number is composed of those who
ascribe their decision largely to the circumstance of having
been called into active work in the Sunday School, and in the
social meetings of the Church. There were twelve of these, or
about one fourth of the whole number. This shows that
while the Sunday School is the nursery of the Church as re
spects private members, it is largely so as respects preachers.
I have now mentioned the principal causes which led these
fifty young men to the ministry; but there are several others
which had effect on some. One was encouraged by a sister;
another was strongly opposed by a sister who was ambitious
for him to be a lawyer. Two had infidel fathers. One of the
two was dissuaded, and the other, strange to say, was per
suaded by his father. One was greatly influenced by his
Sunday School teachers. How strange that it was only one.
One was influenced by reading religious papers. Who would
have supposed it ? I mean, who would have supposed it was
one, and not twenty? One was turned toward the ministry by
disgust for law and politics, into which he had entered for a
time. One was brought to the turning point by his wife. He
was a blacksmith, with a good patronage, a wife, and two
babies. He had long halted between two opinions, and
resisted many persuasions; until at last, he said to his wife, "I
believe I ought to sell out and go to college, and study for the
ministry." To his surprise, she answered, "Why don't you do
it then? I will go with you, and help you all I can." He made
the move at once ; he spent all he had during his stay at col
1898]
473
lege ; and he graduated with the second honor in a class of

eighteen. Two of the fifty were influenced by the advice of
good women in the Church ; one by reading good biographies ;
two by reading the Bible, and especially the accounts of the
crucifixion ; one by the associations of college life ; and one
had the candor to acknowledge, after mentioning other excel
lent reasons, that he was somewhat influenced by an unwil
lingness to live and die unknown except in his own little
neighborhood. Not one of the fifty mentioned the prayers of
preachers, or others, as a moving cause; not one said that he
had ever heard a prayer to this end ; but how many were indi
rectly led by prayers that they never heard, and of the
utterance of which they knew nothing, we shall learn only by
the revelations of the last day. I may add, that not one of the
fifty spoke of having heard a sermon in which the duty to
preach was enjoined upon those to whom God has given the
necessary talents.
I must now enumerate and classify the adverse influences
against which these fifty young brethren had to struggle in
reaching their final decision. Twenty-three of them met with
positive dissuasion at the hands of relatives and friends.
Eight of the twenty-three were entreated to prefer law, medi
cine, or farming, on the exclusive ground of these callings
being more lucrative. Eight were warned against preaching
by a portrayal of the poverty, the homelessness, and the other
hardships which inevitably attend the life of the average
preacher. These sixteen may be grouped as a single class,
being all dissuaded by the plea of poverty. Two were made
subjects of positive ridicule; and two met bitter opposition
from every member of their families. Through much tribula
tion we must enter the kingdom of God. One was dissuaded
from the work by a deacon of the Church to which he belonged ;
one was almost driven to give up the thought of preaching,
by considering the conduct of two preachers in his vicinity
who disgraced themselves; and one was discouraged by his
father, himself a preacher, who said to him, "keep out of the
pulpit if you can." That father should have qualified his
words by saying, keep out of the pulpit, unless you are drawn
into it by a positive sense of duty, after mature reflection.
474
[October,
While only twenty-three of my respondents spoke of

positive dissuasions, nearly all of thein mentioned unfavorable
circumstances which stood in the way of their becoming
preachers, after their minds had been made up to it. The
want of early mental training, and of the means for obtaining
the requisite special education characterized nearly all. Indeed,
only one of the whole number had been educated from early
boyhood with this object in view on the part of his parents ;
and he, though the youngest of all, stood highest of all in his
classesan illustration of the inestimable advantage of such
early training. Nearly all the rest, when the final decision was
made, were engaged in other callings, and they had gone
into these with little education. They were farmers, black
smiths, carpenters, bricklayers, clerks, drummers, country
school teachers, and young lawyers. The last two classes, of
course, had a better education. Very few of them received
from their parents any help to attend college. They sold
what they had; or, if they had nothing when an education
was determined upon, they spent precious years in hard toil,
and entered college on their meagre savings. Sad to say,
these savings, and the proceeds of these sales, are usually so
meagre, that the struggling student is most frequently com
pelled to leave college for want of means, before he has com
pleted a satisfactory course of study. Perhaps I should not
say compelled, for the compulsion is not absolute; but it is so
nearly so as to be practically the same thing. The poor fel
low is discouraged by the roughness of the way ; some Church
says to him, "You can preach already well enough for us;"
some girl has waited long enough; and so, college days are
ended, and preaching days begin too soon.
When I think of all these hardships and hindrances which
have to be heroically encountered and overcome by almost
every young preacher who struggles through a college course,
and then read the diatribes against college-bred preachers
which a few men are fond of writing, I am sometimes at a loss
whether to laugh, or to cry, or to get mad.
The induction which I have now placed before you would
not, perhaps, present very different results, if it were made to
include a larger number of individual cases ; but it is defective
1898]
475
at one point in which I did not have an opportunity to com

plete it. I should have addressed an inquiry to fifty students
who have determined not to be preachers, and ascertained
from them the considerations and persuasions which led them
to their negative decision. Their answers would have been
very instructive, no doubt, and we could then have appreciated
more highly the strength of will and of conscience which led
our first fifty in triumph through the obstacles which were too
great for the latter fifty.
We now see, I think, the causes which have made preach
ers hitherto ; how shall we increase the supply, except by
stimulating and intensifying the action of these causes? We
have seen at least some of the hindrances ; what can we do to
remove them? The lack of early advantages by so many
young men, and the opposition of selfish and wicked persons,
are obstacles which we can not hope to remove until righteous
ness shall be more prevalent in the land, and the education of
the poor more nearly universal. We can, however, put the
special education needful for a preacher within the reach of a
much larger, and an ever-increasing number. This we can
best do, not by multiplying colleges, of which we have an
ample supply for several generations to come ; but by more
fully equipping the real colleges which we have ; and especially
by providing funds to help to a good education the poor
young candidates for the ministry who can not, without losing
many precious years in the attempt, help themselves. We of
the State of Kentucky have demonstrated the utility of such
a fund by more than forty years of successful experience.
Our Education Society, founded under the wise foresight of
such men as William Morton, Philip S. Fall, John T. John
son, and other pioneers of our cause in Kentucky, with an
income of but little more than two thousand dollars per annum,
has in the last forty years helped to an education more than
four hundred preachers, at an expenditure of about $100,000.
Many of these are among the most eminent and useful men in
our own state, and in almost every state of our Union, besides
a large number who were reared and are now laboring in
foreign lands. A similar fund, in any State of our Union,
476
[October,
would do more toward the supply of preachers for that State

than a college with an endowment of five times the amount of
money. I wish I could speak so as to be heard by the lead
ing men in every State, while I exhort them to lay aside the
thought of founding more standing colleges and misnamed
universities, while they devote their energies to this much
more effective and economical method of supplying education
to our young preachers.
As regards an increase of the action of the causes which I
have enumerated, I am sure that the facts recited will inspire
us who are preachers to exert ourselves more than ever before
in pressing upon all the bright boys that we meet, even when
they are very little fellows, and more especially when we have
baptized them into the Christ, the duty of devoting their lives
to the work of saving sinners. Let us tax our brains to deter
mine the best method of persuading them, and let us be
instant in season, out of season, in urging it upon them. Let
us urge, as the next most hopeful means of success, the exer
cise of parental advice and influence in this direction. In our
preaching, and in our private conversations, let us endeavor
to make fathers and mothers see that the noblest service they
can render to God and to their sons is to persuade them to be
preachers. What nobler prayer or vow was ever offered by a
woman than that of Hannah, when she said: "O Lord of
Hosts, if thou wilt indeed look upon the affliction of thine
handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid,
but wilt give unto thine handmaid a manchild, then I will give
him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no
razor come upon his head." And what more precious answer
to prayer did woman ever receive than when God blessed her
with that son who became not only one of the most illustrious
'of prophets, but also a king-maker in Israel, and the founder
of that splendid line of prophets which is the chief glory of
ancient Israel ! The woman who bears and gives to the Lord
such a son, is a queen among women. All mothers love to
anticipate a blessed future for their sons ; what can be more
blessed than to behold in them in the last day an exemplifica
tion of that heavenly oracle, "They that be wise shall shine as
1898]
477
the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to

righteousness as the stars forever and ever!" Let us also be
diligent and watchful, to call into activity in the Sunday School
and in the social meetings of the Church all of our worthy
young men. If you can make of them nothing more than
ushers at first, do that ; and call upon them for every service
which they can render to the Church until they become inter
ested in the work, and fired with zeal to be more useful still.
Let us preach on the subject, often ; if not a whole sermon, at
least a part of one ; and let us, in obedience to the Master,
make it very often a subject of prayer, both in public and in
private. Let our editors write about it; let Sunday School
teachers talk to their classes about it ; and let the whole Church
be aroused to the importance of bringing to bear all her power
for her own self-multiplication by the multiplication of those
who preach the truth.
I especially insist, that we shall not allow the fact that a
preacher is called to a life of self-denial and hardship to be
used by the enemy to deprive us of a single preacher who is
fit for the high calling. Let us not extenuate the fact, but let
us hold it up in all its reality before our aspiring youth. Young
men of noble natures love to be called to deeds of toil and
conflict in a worthy cause. Witness the ever-recurring moun
tains which they climb, stormy oceans which they cross, and
bloody battles which they fight in their college essays and
their graduating speeches. Let us seize upon this heroic
element in their natures, and make it the high incentive to a
life of consecration to God and humanity. This our Saviour
did with the Twelve, in that ever-memorable sermon, begin
ning, "I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves."
This Paul did, when he said to Timothy, "Endure hardness as
a good soldier of Jesus Christ;" and when he said, "All that
would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
Fire them with the spirit that dwelt in Paul ! Yes, with the
spirit that dwelt in our own pioneers and in the old time circuit
riders, with whom a song now forgotten and dropped out of
our recent hymnals, was so great a favorite. I can almost see
them now, as they rode on horseback along the rough high
478
[October,
way to some log cabin appointment, and I hear them as they

made the woods ring with the words :
And let this feeble body fail,
And let it faint and die:
My soul shall quit this mournful vale,
And soar to worlds on high;
Shall join the disembodied saints,
And find its long sought rest,
The only bliss for which it pants,
In the Redeemer's breast.
In hope of that immortal crown,
I now the cross sustain,
And gladly wander up and down,
And smile at toil and pain ;
I suffer on my three score years,
Till my deliverer come,
To wipe away his servant's tears,
And take his exile home.
Oh, what are all my sufferings here,
If, Lord, thou count me meet,
With that enraptured host t' appear,
And worship at thy feet?
Give joy or grief, give ease or pain,
Take life or friends away,
But give me life and friends again,
In that eternal day.
As an illustration of the heroic spirit of which I speak, I
may refer to Samuel Rogers, "Uncle Sammy," as we still call
him in Kentucky, the father of Wm. C. and John I. I shall
never forget a speech which I heard him deliver at one of our
State conventions in Lexington, when he was above eighty
years of age, very deaf and nearly blind. He recounted some
of the scenes of hardship and suffering through which he had
passed in a ministry of nearly sixty years ; he spoke of the
poverty of his old age ; and then he declared that notwith
standing it all, if he had seventy sons he would wish them all
to be preachers. After this he made a journey to various
parts of Kentucky and Missouri, where he had preached and
planted Churches in his early days, that he might bid a final
farewell to his old fellow soldiers who still lingered on the
shores of time ; and when he returned he penned these lines,
the last of the few that he left behind him: "I have now
well nigh spoken all my farewells on earth, and shall soon
1898]
Alexander Campbell and Millennial Harbinger.
479
begin shaking hands with the loved ones gone before. And,
though I know not where those greetings shall end, yet I know
where they shall begin. 1 shall greet, first of all, my Father,
whose hand has led me all the journey through, and my
Savior, whose grace has been sufficient for me in every day
of trial and suffering here. And next, I shall look around for
her whose love and goodness have imposed on me a debt of
gratitude to God I can never repay. When we meet, shall we
not gather up the children and grandchildren, and sit down
under the shadow of the throne, and rest?"
J. W. McGarvey.
ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND THE MILLENNIAL

HARBINGER.
IT is the purpose of this essay to consider especially Alexan
der Campbell and his work for the thirty-four years during
which he was the responsible editor of the Millennial
Harbinger.
The seven years of the Christian Baptist, the immediate
predecessor of the Millennial Harbinger, were largely devoted
to the work of the destruction of whatever in Mr. Campbell's
judgment was in the way of the "free course" of the word
of God. He had committed his entire personality to the
reproduction in spirit and in fact of the primitive Apostolic
faith and practice in all the essentials of Christian life and
character.
His position antagonized in a greater or less degree all of
the religious theories of his time; and the practice of the
various sects or denominations were as obnoxious to him as
their theories.
Every idol that stood before him, no matter how old or
venerated, he smote with his thunder hammer.
This condition of affairs threw him mainly on the negative
side of nearly all of the great religious controversies of his
time, and while he took a decided stand and advocated his
position with consummate ability, and gave good reasons for
480
Alexander Campbell and Millennial Harbinger. [October,
his faith, still his work was largely of a negative character and
devoted to pulling down rather than building up. His pur
pose was to destroy the squadrons of the enemy rather than to
build up a navy for himself.
But in 1830 he entered upon an era of construction
instead of destruction and the Millennial Harbinger was made
the great agency to accomplish the work.
THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.
In the "Prospectus" which he issued announcing his new
work Mr. Campbell said: "This work shall be devoted to the
destruction of sectarianism, infidelity, and anti-christian
doctrine and practice. It shall have for its object the develop
ment and introduction of that religious order of society called
"The Millenium," which will be the consummation of that ulti
mate amelioration of society proposed in the Christian Scrip
tures."
He declared the utter incompatibility of any sectarian es
tablishment, then known on earth, with the genius of the glori
ous age to come. He determined to disentangle the Holy
Scriptures from "the perplexities of the commentators and
system-makers of the dark ages." This led the way for the
analysis of the books of the New Testament, especially, and
"disquisitions upon the appropriated sense of the leading terms
and phrases in the Holy Scriptures and in religious systems. ' '
In short he proposed to notice in the new publication "all things
of universal interest to all engaged in the proclamation of the
Ancient Gospel, and a Restoration of the Ancient Order of
Things,"
Such a publication had never before been proposed in the
annals of journalism. Such a work had never before been
undertaken by the boldest and the bravest of Cod's great
children.
Mr. Campbell was a firm believer in the doctrine that the
best way to drive out darkness physically, mentally, morally,
and spiritually was to introduce light, hence he said in his
opening editorial in the Millennial Harbinger, "The first
step toward the introduction of this glorious age is to dissipate
the darkness which covers the people and hides from their
1898J
481
eyes the sun, the quickening, renewing and animating Sun of

Mercy. We expect no new sun, no new revelation of the
Spirit, no other than the same Gospel and the same religion,
only that it shall be disinterred from the rubbish of the dark
ages, and made to assume its former simplicity, sublimity
and majesty. The demons of party must be dispossessed and
the false spirits cast out, the human mind must be emanci
pated from the bondage of error, and information not only
augmented but extended to all the community."
The mighty agent, or rather the successful means, of this
most desirable revolution must be the "Ancient Gospel." The
Gospels of the various sects were different from each other, and
something different from the Apostolic. There could be, in
truth, but one Gospel; but there might be many new-modified
and perverted Gospels. "Some men invent their own God and
worship him; and all who create a new God invent a Gospel
to suit his character. Surely no man of good common sense
can imagine that the God of the Calvinists and the God of the
Armenians are the same God. He that fancies that the God
of the Trinitarians and the God of the Unitarians are one and
the same divinity, can easily believe in transubstantiation."
Mr. Campbell's confidence in the "Ancient Gospel" as the
great agency for pulling down all the strongholds of infidelity,
profanity, atheism, deism and sectarianism, was strongly ex
pressed in these words: "The wisdom and the power of God
when combined will be surely adequate to accomplish the most
extraordinary promises on record. Now the placing of all na
tions under the dominion of his Son, under the reign of favor,
under the influence of all that is pure, amiable and heavenly
is promised ; and by what means so likely to be accomplished
as by that instrument which is emphatically called the wisdom
and power of the Almighty? That instrument is the old Gos
pel preached by the Apostles. This is almighty, through God,
to the pulling down all the strongholds of infidelity and pro
fanity, to the subversion of atheism, deism and sectarianism.
It proved its power upon the nations once, and it begins to
prove its power again. The sword of the Spirit has been muf
fled with the filthy rags of philosophy and mysticism, until it
can not cut through the ranks of the aliens. But so soon as
Vol.
482
this Gospel is promulged in its old simplicity and in its native

majesty, it will prove itself to be of God, and as adequate as
in days of yore. It will pierce the hearts of the King's ene
mies ; and while it slays their enmity, it will reconcile them to
the authority and government of the Prince of Peace."
"The ancient Gospel spoke by facts, and said little about
principles of action of any sort. The facts when realized or
believed, carried principles into the heart without naming
them; and there was an object presented which soon called
them into action. It was the true philosophy, without the
name, and made all the philosophy of the world sublimated
folly. It was ridiculous to hear Epicureans and Stoics reason
ing against Paul. While they were talking about atoms of mat
ter and refined principles, about virtue and vice, Paul took
hold of the resurrection of the dead and buried them in their
own dreams."
"The ancient Gospel left no man in a reasoning mode about
any principle of action. It left him in no doubt about the
qualities or attributes of faith. It called for the obedience of
faith ; and by giving every man an opportunity of testing and
showing his own faith by his works it made no provision for
cases of consciences, nor room for philosophic doubting."
As to the reception that should be given to his arguments
and facts Mr. Campbell said that he would not ask a "single
concession upon trust." What he could not evince and dem
onstrate, he hoped all would reject ; and what he could enforce
with authority and evidence, he hoped that the thoughtful and
the devout, the rational and the inquisitive, the candid and the
sincere, would espouse and carry into practice. He desired
that whatever could not "console the unhappy, cheer the dis
consolate, confirm the weak, reform the transgressor, purify
the ungodly, save the world and ennoble the human character, ' '
should be repudiated.
With this frank declaration of purpose, Mr. Campbell en
tered upon the discussion of all the great questions of faith
and practice that made the next third of a century memorable
in the annals of religious journalism.
1898]
483
THE ANCIENT GOSPEL.

It is interesting to notice Mr. Campbell's method in the
discussion of all Scriptural questions. He found it impossible
to discuss to a complete finish many of the great subjects
which were forced upon his attention by the religious parties
of the time. He would therefore, add one or more elaborate
theses in the form of an "Extra" to the current volumes of
the Millennial Harbinger. His first "Extra" is on "Remission
of Sins," and is found at the close of the first volume of the
Harbinger. In this "Extra" Mr. Campbell presents his argu
ment in the form of a series of propositions, cumulative in their
nature, which enabled him to speak comprehensively and at
the same time to analyze very minutely.
The first paragraph of this great essay is as follows:
"Luther said that the doctrine of justification, or forgiveness,
was the test of a standing or falling Church. If right in this,
she could not be very far wrong in anything else ; but if wrong
here, it was not easy to suppose her right in anything.
I
quote from memory, but this was the idea of that great re
former. We agree with him in this as well as in many other
sentiments. Emerging from the smoke of the great city of
mystical Babylon, he saw as clearly and as far into these mat
ters as any person could in such a hazy atmosphere. Many
of his views only require to be carried out to their legitimate
issue, and we should have the ancient Gospel as the result."
"The doctrine of remission is the doctrine of salvation;
for to talk of salvation without the knowledge of remission of
sins is to talk without meaning. To give to the Jews 'a
knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins' was the
mission of John the Immerser, as said the Holy Spirit. In
this way he prepared a people for the Lord. The doctrine of for
giveness was gradually opened to the people during the minis
try of John and Jesus, but was not fully developed until Pen
tecost, when the secrets of the Reign of Heaven were fully
opened to men."
Without attempting a detail of his argument the follow
ing propositions were presented successively and the Scriptures
484
rightly divided laid under tribute for proof: "The Apostles

taught their disciples or converts that their sins were forgiven,
and uniformly addressed them as pardoned or justified per
sons. ' ' "The Apostolic converts were addressed by their teach
ers as justified persons." "The ancient Christians were
addressed by the Apostles as sanctified persons. " ' 'The ancient
Christians, the Apostolic converts, were addressed as 'reconciled
to God.' " "The first Disciples were considered and addressed
by the Apostles, as adopted into the 'family of God.' " "The
first Christians were taught by the inspired teachers to con
sider themselves as saved persons." After he had summoned
the most "explicit testimonies from the most illustrious wit
nesses" in proof of his six propositions he reduced the six to
one proposition: "The converts made to Jesus Christ by the
Apostles were taught to consider themselves pardoned, justified,
sanctified, reconciled, adopted and saved ; and were addressed
as pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted and
saved persons, by all who first preached the Gospel of Christ."
These terms were not expressive of any quality of mind, nor
of any personal attribute of body, soul or spirit ; but each of
them represents, and all of them together represent, a state or
condition. But though these terms represent state and not
character there is a relation between state and character, or
an influence which state has upon character, which makes the
state of immense importance in a moral and religious point of
view.
The reasons why Christians are urged forward by the
strongest appeals in the cultivation and display of all the
moral and religious excellencies of character, are drawn from
the meaning and value of the state in which they are placed.
"Because forgiven they should forgive; because justified they
should live righteously ; because sanctified, they should live
holily and unblamably; because reconciled to God they should
cultivate peace with all men, and act benevolently toward all ;
because adopted they should walk in the dignity and purity of
sons of God; because saved, they should abound in thanks
givings, praises, and rejoicings, living soberly, righteously
and godly, looking forward to the blessed hope."
1898]
485
To be "in Christ" or "under Christ" is to stand in a new

state or relation to God, angels and men ; and to be out of
Christ, or not under his mediatorship or government is to be
in "the state of nature," unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified,
unreconciled and an alien from the family of God.
But there must be a time when this change of state is
effected, or a time when persons come into Christ; for "no
person is in a house, in a ship, in a state, in a kingdom, but
he that has gone or is introduced into a house, into a ship,
into a state, into a kingdom ; so no person is in Christ but he
who has been introduced into Christ." The words "in Christ"
and the words "into Christ" are often repeated in the Christian
Scriptures ; but in no one place can the one phrase be sub
stituted for the other. When a person is said to be "in
Christ" it refers not to his conversion, regeneration, or putting
on Christ, but to a state of rest or privilege subsequent to con
version or putting on Christ. But the phrase "into Christ" is
always connected with conversion, regeneration, baptism, or
putting on Christ. "To change a state is to pass into a new
relation, and relation is not sentiment nor feeling. Some act,
then, constitutional, by stipulation proposed, sensible, and
manifest must be performed by one or both the parties before
such a change can be accomplished. Hence, always, in
ancient times, the proclamation of the Gospel was accompanied
by some instituted act proposed to those who changed their
views, by which their state was to be changed, and by which
they were to stand in a new relation to Jesus Christ."
"A change of heart, though it necessarily precedes, is in
no case equivalent to and never to be identified with, a change
of state." To "obey the Gospel" and "to become obedient to
the faith" were common phrases in the Apostolic discourses
and writings; hence "the Gospel has in it a command, and as
such must be obeyed," and "it is not faith but an act result
ing from faith which changes our state."
Baptism in the Christian system is the act commanded in
order to "a change of state" or introduction into a new mode
of living; therefore remission of sins, or coming into a state of
acceptance, being one of the present immunities of the King
dom of Heaven, can not be enjoyed by any person before
486
baptism. "The Apostles in all their speeches and replies to

interrogatories never commanded an inquirer to pray, read or
sing as preliminary to coming; but always commanded and
proclaimed immersion as the first duty, or the first thing to be
done after a belief of the testimony. Hence, neither praying,
singing, reading, repenting, sorrowing, resolving, nor waiting
to be better, was the converting act. Immersion alone was
that act of turning to God. Hence in the commission to con
vert the nations, the only institution mentioned after proclaim
ing the Gospel, was the immersion of the believers, as the
divinely authorized way of carrying out and completing the
work."
To the truth of these propositions and the conclusions
reached Mr. Campbell without fear of contradiction invoked
the testimony of the New Testament from "the Day of Pente
cost to the final amen in the revelation of Jesus Christ," and
contended that "no person was said to be converted, or to turn
to God, until he was buried in and raised up out of the
water."
At the time Mr. Campbell took these positions and so ably
maintained them they were considered revolutionary, and the
hand of every defender of sect or denomination was raised
against them, but it is a rare thing in these days for any
person intelligent in the New Testament to deny their sub
stantial truth.
THE BREAKING OF BREAD.
Mr. Campbell's second "extra" was on the "Breaking of
the Loaf." In developing this ordinance he stated, illustrated
and sustained several propositions :
"There is a house on earth called the house of God;" "in
the house of God there is always the table of the Lord;" "on
the Lord's table there is of necessity but one loaf;" "all Chris
tians are members of the house or family of God, are called
and constituted a holy and royal priesthood, and may, there
fore, bless God for the Lord's table, its loaf and cup, approach
it without fear, and partake of it with joy, as often as they
please in remembrance of the death of their Lord and
Savior;" "the one loaf must be broken before the saints feast
1898]
487
upon it, which has obtained for this institution the name of
'the breaking of the loaf;' " "the breaking of the loaf and the
drinking of the cup are commemorative of the Lord's death."
"The breaking of the one loaf, and the joint participation of
the cup of the Lord, in commemoration of the Lord's death,
usually called 'the Lord's Supper,' is an instituted part of the
worship and edification of all Christian congregations in all
their stated meetings."
Upon the loaf and upon the cup of the Lord, in letters
which speak not to the eye, but to the heart, of every disciple is
inscribed :
"When this you see, remember me."
Indeed the Lord says to each disciple when he receives
the symbols in his hands, "this is my body broken for you,"
"this is my blood shed for you." The loaf is thus constituted
a representation of his bodyfirst whole then wounded for
our sins. The cup is thus instituted a representation of his
bloodonce his life, but now poured out to cleanse us from
our sins.
To every disciple he says, for you my body was
wounded ; for you my life was taken. In receiving it the disciple
says, "Lord I believe it, my life springs from your sufferings;
my joy from your sorrows; and my hope of glory from your
humiliation and abasement unto death."
Each' disciple in
handing the symbols to his fellow disciple, says, in effect,
"You, my brother, once an alien, are now a citizen of Heaven,
once a stranger, are now brought home to the family of Go/i.
You have owned my Lord as your Lord, my people as your
people.
Under Jesus the Messiah we are one, mutually
embraced in the everlasting arms ; I embrace you in mine, thy
sorrows shall be my sorrows, and thy joys my joys."
This institution commemorates the love which reconciled us
to God and always furnishes us with a new argument to live to
him who died for us. Him who feels not the eloquence and power
of this argument, all other arguments assail in vain. God's
goodness, developed in creation and in his providence, is well
designed to lead men to reformation. But the heart on which
these fail, and to which Calvary appeals in vain, is past feel
ing, obdurate, and irreclaimable, beyond the operation of any
488
moral power known to mortal man. Every time the disciples

assemble around the Lord's table they are furnished with a
new argument also against sin, as well as with a new proof of
the love of (rod. It is as well intended to crucify the world in
our hearts, and to crucify our hearts to the world, as to quicken
us to God and to diffuse his love within us. Hence it must in
reason be a stated part of the Christian worship, in all Chris
tian assemblies.
Mr. Campbell's arguments for the weekly observance of
the ordinance were strongly stated: "The first Christian con
gregation which met in Jerusalem, and which was constituted
by the twelve Apostles, did as statedly attend upon the break
ing of the loaf in their public meetings as they did upon any
other part of the Christian worship." "The Apostles taught
the churches to do all the Lord commanded.
Whatever,
then, the churches did by the appointment or concurrence of
the Apostles, they did by the commandment of Jesus Christ.
Whatever acts of religious worship the Apostles taught or
sanctioned, in one Christian congregation they taught and
sanctioned in all Christian congregations, because all under the
same government of one and the same king. But the church
in Troas met upon the first day of the week, consequently all
the churches met upon the first day of the week for religious
purposes." "The congregation in Corinth met every first day
or the first day of every week for showing forth the Lord's
death." "No example can be adduced from the New Testa
ment of any Christian congregation assembling on the first
day of the week unless for the breaking of the loaf." "If it is
not the duty and privilege of every Christian congregation on
every first day of the week to assemble to show forth the
Lord's death, it will be difficult, if not impossible from either
Scripture or reason, to show that it is their duty or privilege to
meet monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually, or indeed, at
all, for this purpose." "Spiritual health, as well as corporeal
health, is dependent on food. It is requisite for corporeal
health that the food not only be salutary in its nature and
sufficient in its quantity, but that it be received at proper inter
vals, and these regular and fixed. Is it otherwise with moral
health! Is there no analogy between the bread which perishes
1898]
489
and the bread of life? Is there no analogy between natural and

moral lifebetween natural and moral health ; and if there be
does it not follow that if the primitive disciples only enjoyed
good moral health when they assembled weekly to show forth
the Lord's death that they can not enjoy good moral health who
only meet quarterly or semi-annually for this purpose?" "But
what commemorative institution, in any age, under any relig
ious economy, was ordained by Divine authority, which had
not a fixed time for its observance? Is there a single institu
tion commemorative of anything the meaning or frequency of
the observance of which is not distinctly, either by precept or
example, laid down in the Holy Scriptures? Not one of a
social character, and scarcely one of an individual character.
The commemoration of the Lord's death must then be a
weekly institutionan institution in all the meetings of the
disciples for Christian worship ; or it must be an anomalya
thing sui generisan institution like no other of Divine origin.
And can anyone tell why Christians should celebrate the Lord's
resurrection fifty-two times in a year, and his death only once,
twice, or twelve times? He that can do this, will not be lack
ing in a lively imagination, however defective he may be in
judgment or in an acquaintance with the New Testament." In
all his arguments Mr. Campbell instituted a careful and often
critical examination of every passage in the New Testament
remotely, or nearly, bearing on the subject. This left little to
be said when he had finished unless an effort was made to
break the force of his Scripture references.
MISSIONS, MISSIONARIES AMD MISSIONARY SOCIETIES.
With Mr. Campbell's understanding of the purpose and
scope of the Gospel of Christ he could not be otherwise than
interested and anxious concerning its world-wide proclamation.
Hence from the beginning of his career to its close he was
continually interested in Gospel missions, and the men and the
methods by which they should be prosecuted. But, perhaps,
there is no part of Mr. Campbell's writings which has been
more persistently perverted than that part which relates to
missions and especially missionary methods.
490
On the subject of Gospel missions in general most sincere

disciples of Christ were in accord with his position.
The character and ability of the men who should proclaim
the Gospel or carry on the work of missions was a subject on
which there was no substantial difference between Mr. Camp
bell and his contemporaries or successors. But when he came
to speak of the agencies, methods or societies formed and
used for the purposes of evangelization, the when, where and
why must be carefully considered to do him justice.
On the subject of missions and missionaries the following
are some of his earlier and later utterances : At the close of
his debate with Rev. W. L. McCalla, October 21, 1823, Mr.
Campbell was accused by his opponent of being "an enemy to
all morality, to the observance of the Sabbath, and to the
good cause of sending the Gospel to the heathen." In his
vigorous reply he said: "I am no enemy to morals, but that I
had remonstrated against those little, persecuting, fining, con
fining, anti-republican confederations, called moral associa
tions. That I advocated the best means, as I conceived, of
sending the Gospel to the heathen, and was conscientiously
opposed to the present popular, moneyed, speculating schemes of
hiring missionaries. That I religiously regarded the first day
of the week to the Lord, not as a Jewish Sabbath, but according
to the spirit and scope of the religion of our Lord."
In the Christian Baptist* he discusses at some length
"Missionaries," "The capital mistake of modern missionary
schemes" and "How is the Gospel to spread through the
world?"
On the first of these topics Mr. Campbell wrote: "For
three hundred years great exertions have been made to convert
the whole world to the Christian religion. Much zeal has been
exhibited, many privations have been endured and great
dangers have been braved by missionaries to heathen lands.
In this laudable object the most ignorant and most supersti
tious sect in Christendom has been most active, and, if we can
credit its reports, by far the most successful. The Portugese
and Spaniards of the Holy See of Rome, in the sixteenth
century, spread (what they call) the Gospel, through large
Pages 13-17, Burnet's edition.
1898]
491
districts in Asia, Africa and America. Different orders of

monks, particularly the Dominicans, Franciscans, and, above
all, the Jesuits, displayed astonishing zeal, and spent immense
sums in reclaiming African, Asian and American pagans."
* * * . *"The Jesuits claimed the first rank as due to their
zeal, learning and devotedness to the Holy See. The Domin
icans, Franciscans, and others, disputed the palm with them.
The new world and the Asiatic regions were the chief fields of
their labors. They penetrated into the uncultivated recesses
of America. They visited the untried regions of Siam, Tonkin
and Cochin China. They entered the vast empire of China
itself, and numbered millions among their converts. They
dared to confront the dangers of the tyrannical government of
Japan. In India they assumed the garb and austerities of the
Brahmans, and boasted, on the coast of Malabar, of a thou
sand converts baptized in one year by a single missionary.
Their sufferings, however, were very great; and in China and
Japan they were exposed to the most dreadful persecutions,
and many thousands were cut off, with, at last, a final expul
sion from the empires."
Concerning the facts stated in the foregoing paragraphs
Mr. Campbell wrote as follows: "We all, who call ourselves
Protestants, hesitate not to say, that those missionaries, not
withstanding their zeal, their privations, and their sufferings
in the missionary cause, left the heathen no better than they
found them; nay, in some instances, they left them much
worse ; and, that there is as much need for their conversion
from the religion of those missionaries, as there was from the
religion of idols. It may be worthy of the serious considera
tion of many of the zealous advocates of the various sectarian
missions in our day, whether, in a few years, the same things
may not be said of their favorite projects which they them
selves affirm of the Catholic missions and missionaries."
The capital mistake of modern missionary schemes, was,
in Mr. Campbell's judgment, in attempting to do God's work
in their own way, and in palming off on the heathen a Gospel
which was not the Gospel of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
"All the missionaries, sent from Heaven, were authorized and
'Buck's Theological Dictionary as quoted by .Mr. Campbell.
492
empowered to confirm their doctrine with signs and wonders

sufficient to awe opposition, to subdue the deepest rooted
prejudices, and to satisfy the most inquisitive of the origin of
their doctrine. ' ' This the modern missionary schemes could not
do; though "they have in some instances succeeded in
persuading some individuals to put on a sectarian profession
of Christianity. As the different philosophers, in ancient na
tions, succeeded in obtaining a few disciples to their respective
systems, each new one making some inroads upon his prede
cessors, so have the modern missionaries succeeded in making
a few proselytes to their systems, from among the disciples of
the different pagan systems of theology. But that anything
can be produced, of a credible character, resembling the suc
cess of the Divine missionaries, narrated in the New Testa
ment, is impossible; or, that a church, resembling that at
Jerusalem, Samaria, Cesarea, Antioch or Rome, has been
founded in any pagan land, by the efforts of our missionaries,
we believe incapable of proof. Is, then, the attempt to con
vert the heathen by means of modern missionaries an un
authorized and a hopeless one ? It seems to be unauthorized,
and, if so, then it is a hopeless one."
"How then, is the Gospel to spread through the world?"
This was the great question left to be answered. To the New
Testament Mr. Campbell made his appeal for the answer.
"The New Testament is the only source of information on this
topic. It teaches us that the association called the Church of
Jesus Christ is, in propria forma, the only institution of God
left on earth to illuminate and reform the world. That is, to
speak in the most definitive and intelligible manner, a society
of men and women having in their hands the oracles of God ;
believing in their hearts the Gospel of Jesus Christ; confessing
the truth of Christ with their lips; exhibiting in their lives the
morality of the Gospel and walking in all the commandments
and ordinances of the Lord, blamelessly, in the sight of all men.
When spiritual men, i. e., men having spiritual gifts, or, as
now termed, miraculous gifts, were withdrawn, this institution
was left on earth, as the grand scheme of Heaven to enlighten
and reform the world. An organized society of this kind,
modeled after the plan taught in the New Testament, is the
1898]
493
consummation of the manifold wisdom of God, to exhibit to

the world the civilizing, the moralizing, the saving light,
which renovates the human heart, which elevates human
character, and which prostrates in the dust all the boasted
expedients of ancient and modern times.
The Christian
religion is a social religion, and can not be exhibited to the
full conviction of the world, only when it appears in this said
character. An individual or two in a pagan land may talk
about the Christian religion, and may exhibit its morality, as
far as respects mankind in general ; but it is impossible to
give a clear, a satisfactory, a convincing, exhibition of it in
any other way than by exhibiting a church, not on paper, but
in actual existence and operation, as Divinely appointed. The
ambassadors of Christ, or his missionaries to the world, were
commissioned to go to all nations in quest of materials to build
this pillar of truth, this house of the living God; and then to
place and cement these materials in such a way as to bear the
inscription of the blessed Gospel, and to exhibit it in such con
spicuous and legible characters as to be known and read of all
men. This work the Apostles accomplished in having made of
twain one new man, i. e., of Jew and Gentile one new institu
tion, or associated body, the Church; and having placed this
in all nations, in the most conspicuous and elevated situations ;
in the most populous countries, the most commercial states,
and in the most renowned cities, they were taken to Heaven,
and left the Church, by its doctrine and example, to Chris
tianize the world. All that has been necessary ever since was
to hold fast the Apostles' doctrine and commandments. If
this had been faithfully done there would have been no need,
at this moment, to talk of converting the heathen." * * *
"If, in the present day, and among all those who talk so
much of a missionary spirit, there could be found such a
society, though it were composed of but twenty, willing to
emigrate to some heathen land, where they would support
themselves like the natives, wear the same garb, adopt the
country as their own, and profess nothing like a missionary
project; should such a society sit down and hold forth in
word and deed the saving truth not deriding the gods nor the
religion of the nations, but allowing their own works and
494
example to speak for their religion, and practicing as above

hinted ; we are persuaded that in the process of time, a more
solid foundation for the conversion of the natives would be
laid, and more actual success resulting than from all the mis
sionaries employed for twenty-five years. We do not intend to
dwell muah on this topic. We have thought the above remarks
were due to the great interest manifested by many in those
enterprizes. We know many of the well-disposed are engaged
in these projects; nay, it is not long since we ourselves were
enthusiastic in the missionary spirit. Let the reader remem
ber our mottolet him 'prove all things, and hold fast that
which is good.' "
In 1830 Mr. Campbell published an extract from Madden's
travels in Turkey, Egypt, Nubia and Palestine on which he
wrote the following preface :
*"The following excerpt exhibits one of the most serious
objections we have felt to the proselyting schemes of an apos
tate Church, now eulogized by the leaders of the missionary
projects of the day, that the heathen can be converted to
Jesus by an apostate Church and by the new gospels of the
sects, is, to my mind, as improbable and impossible, as that
the Jews will convert the Pope, his cardinals and the See of
Rome to Judaism:"
"It is in vain to delude ourselves with the belief that we are
largely contributing to the civilization of the east by assisting
the Bible Society in the 'conversion of the heathen.' The
knight-errants of Christianity, indeed, pervade every corner of
the kingdom. The Scriptures, indeed, have been translated
into a hundred mutilated tongues ; and vast sacrifices of money
and of truth have been made in the cause of eastern proselytism. To convert, it is thought, is to civilize. In my appre
hension, to civilize is the most likely method to convert. Our
missionaries have been totally unsuccessful, for they com
menced at the wrong end. I speak on this point from much
observation and a long acquaintance with the subject. They
relied on the abstruse dogmas of the Church, rather than on
the mild doctrine of Christianity, for persuasion. The Turk
had to digest the Trinity before he was acquainted with the
*Millennial Harbinger, Vol. l,page \t<j.
1898]
495
beautiful morality of the Gospel. The Greek had to stomach

the abuse of 'the holy fire,' before he was made sensible of the
advantages of a purer worship. The Catholic had to listen to
the defamation of his creed before he was convinced of a
more rational religion; and if they were so successful as to
shake him in his faith, he had then to decide whether he would
be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian, or a Calvinist, or an
English Protestant, or a German Lutheran ; for our mission
aries in Egypt and Syria are of as many conflicting sects.
But such is the perversity of the human heart, those wretched
Arabs, morally as well as physically blind, continue 'to walk
in darkness and the shadow of death,' obstinately refusing the
light we fain would force upon them; and when they are
reproved they have the audacity to say, 'we have the faith
which our fathers followed and we are satisfied with it.' "
THE COOPERATION OF CHURCHES AND PLANS OR METHODS.
In 1831 Mr. Campbell published a series of four articles
on "The Cooperation of Churches," with the distinct purpose
to answer these questions, "Are Christians to use any means
to reform the world?" "And if they ought what should they
be?"* No one who has any regard for his own character as a
truthful, candid person, will say of these articles, "They were
written in Mr. Campbell's dotage." Rather they were written
in the very strength of his superb intelligence. He was fortythree years of age and his mental and moral machinery was
capable of its very best work. To these questions he gave
his "profound and serious consideration." He realized that
the decision of these questions must influence the practice of
every disciple and be of paramount importance to the whole
community. "Philanthropy is the principle from which
salvation flowed and this is the principle which it imparts to
all who are reconciled to God. Hence every Christian desires
the reformation and salvation of men. And surely the religion
of Jesus Christ imparts no principle of action which ought
not to be obeyed; no desire which ought not to be gratified.
But has the Lord committed the salvation of men to the
agency of his Spirit or to the agency of man, or to both united 1
'Millennial Harbinger, Vol. II, pages 235, 241, 243, 435.
496
Not to the agency of his spirit alone, else men ought not to
speak, or pray or think for the salvation of men. Nor has he
committed it to the agency of angels, for none are now em
ployed to preach the Gospel. Nor to the agency of the word
alone, else Christians in that word would not be commanded
to endeavor to save themselves and others from the wrath to
come, or to win others over to the Gospel by their good
behavior. * * * If Jesus Christ had contemplated the
salvation of men by his Spirit, or by angels, he would not have
employed any human agents or human means either in the
commencement or in the prosecution of this great and glo
rious undertaking. He has now left it to the Church to convert
the world. He gave Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors
ami teachers, supernaturally qualified for this work after his
ascension. They were to announce the word of life, the
Gospel of salvation, and to fit the disciples for carrying on
this work in all time coming. These have long since died ;
but by the means which they set on foot, corrupted and
impeded as they have been by mistaken and designing men,
the Gospel has reached us, and we are now sitting in the king
dom of Heaven by the operation of those means, which the
author of this religion originated. Greatly, indeed, have these
means been corrupted and perverted; yet through them we
are now rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God to be
revealed at the resurrection of the just. But the abuse of any
means is no argument against the use of them. * * *
"But the question \s,how is the Church to use this word for
the conversion of the world f
11 a. Christians are to teach it to their children. Parents
bring up your children in the 'nurture and discipline of the Lord.'
"6. In the public meetings of the brethren the word is
read and proclaimed, in all their worship, in the social insti
tutions of Christianity.
"c. Many who frequent not the meetings of the Christian
congregations ; many who are brought up in families where
the fear of God is not taught, still remain objects of Christian
commiseration and enterprise. Every Christian in his inter
coms with these will do all he can to imbue their minds with
the doctrine of God our Savior.
1898]
497
"But a question arises, Does not society, as now constituted,

require still greater exertions than these ; and ought not Christians
to select such agents as can have the greatest influence in convert
ing men, and employ them for that purpose?
"But then it will be asked, How is this to be done without
falling into the vices and abuses of the sectarian world? Every
thing, it is admitted, can be abused. The author of the
Christian religion himself could not, because he did not, in
troduce a system of things incapable of abuse. But this is a
very different economy from that of the popular institutions
of the sects. This contemplates the placing of every Christian
congregation directly and exclusively under the tuition of the
Apostles, and recognizes every disciple as one of the Lord's
freedmen and priests. * * * It provides for the reform
ation of those without, or for the gathering of disciples out of
the world into such a relation and institution as will place
them also distinctly under the government of Jesus Christ and
the Apostles. In achieving this, it will require the coopera
tion of the brotherhood not only of one congregation, but
sometimes of more than one congregation ; nay, of all the con
gregations in a given district. In other words it will require,
on some occasions, all the talents, all the means possessed by
all the disciples in a given district, to wage a successful war
against infidelity, atheism, sensuality, and all that leads men
captive to destruction."
THE DUTY OF CHURCHES.
That it is the duty of churches to cooperate in everything
beyond the individual achievements of a particular congrega
tion, we shall now attempt to illustrate and sustain.
"A church can do what an individual disciple can not, and
so can a district of churches do what a single congregation
can not. But although reason and the nature of things make
this apparent, it must pass for nothing as respects the con
science, if we can not show that in the Apostolic churches such
cooperation existed, and that it was a part of the means
adopted by the authority of the Lord for the furtherance of
the Gospel. This we hope to make very apparent in stating
and illustrating a few propositions:
Vol.. 25.
498
"1. The churches were districted in the age of the Apos

tles. This is evident from the classifications so frequently
mentioned in the epistles. For example, 'the Churches of Galatia,' mentioned I Cor. 16:1; 'The Churches of Macedonia,'
mentioned II Cor. 8:1; 'The Churches of Judea,' named in
Gal. 1:22; 'The Churches of Asia,' spoken of I Cor. 16:9.
That they were so districted with reference to some object, or
for some cause, must be obvious. The question now is, for
what cause were they so districted? This we answer in the
form of a separate proposition.
"2. The churches planted in those districts of country, be
cause of some local and discriminating interest, as well as be
cause of their cooperation for certain specified purposes, were
denominated from the districts of country in which they lived.
That churches of certain districts had peculiar interests, aris
ing from their own peculiar circumstances, is evinced on sun
dry occasions. Hence all the churches of the Gentiles gave
thanks to Priscilla and Aquila because they hazarded their
lives to save the life of Paul. The Gentile churches show their
deep interest in Paul, because he was their Apostle. Particular
districts also cooperated in contributing to the necessities of
those who lived in another district of country, because of
some consideration which called forth their peculiar energies,
and made it their duty more than others to assist them. Hence
Paul gave orders to all the 'Churches in Galatia,' and to some
if not all, 'in Achaia,' to make collections and contributions
for the suffering poor in the 'Churches of Judea.'
"3. The primitive churches in certain districts did co
operate in choosing certain persons for the work of the Lord,
and these persons when chosen were called the 'messengers of
the churches.' We are expressly told II Cor. 8:19, that a cer
tain person was chosen by the churches to accompany the
Apostles in ministering to the saints ; and that persons so
chosen were 'messengers of the churches' who cooperated
in employing them for certain purposes. It is now shown
from the authoritative book that the ancient churches did, in
certain districts, unite in choosing and appointing certain per
sons for religious purposes and that these persons, chosen by
the churches of any district, were the messengers of the
1898]
499
churches of that district. All that we infer from this is, that
we have good authority, when occasion requires to go and do like
wise."
One of the propositions which Mr. Campbell defended
was this: "The first churches did exercise the right of select
ing from among themselves brethren for the accomplishment
of special purposes"matters which regard the conversion of
the world and the welfare of the churches.
At the conclusion of his second essay on the "Coopera
tion of Churches," he wrote: "Having thus stated, defined,
illustrated, and proved our proposition, we now hold ourselves
in readiness to defend it against all oppugners ; and concluded
by saying that the circumstances of the Church at this time
call imperiously for the application of this principle, or right,
for the accomplishment of some of the most important pur
poses for which the Church herself was set up in the world ;
but now-a-days our apprehensions of cooperation are so ex
ceedingly morbid, that the brethren of an individual church
would almost leave wholly undone the most important duties
for fear of sinning in the choice of brethren to discharge
them."
Mr. Campbell maintained "that to teach and to preach
are strictly and properly duties of the Church." The message
preached must be "the Gospel itself as Christ preached it, as
the Apostles preached it, as the evangelists preached it, both
in matter and in formI mean that the Church must have
proclaimed to men in the flesh the same facts in the same
words which the evangelists, Apostles, and Jesus employed."
"iphg churcheg must have the Gospel preached to
their fellowmen in substance, and in words as the Scriptures
direct; for if she do^s not preach, how shall she increase her
members, and if she does not have teaching, how will her con
verts grow in knowledge?"
* * * "During his life it
was the great business of our Lord Jesus Christ to preach and
to teach. He first made disciples and then taught them."
*
* * "Of the Apostles it is said, 'they ceased not to
teach and to preach Jesus Christ.' The Apostles soon found it
necessary to associate with themselves in these great matters
other men ; some of them styled evangelists, others pastors,
500
teachers, bishops, etc. ; so that in some instances we have a

picture of the Apostle Paul, pretty much resembling a great
military chief standing in the midst of his aids, surrounded
with Timothy, Titus, Erastus, Silas, Mark, Zenas, Apollos,
Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gains, Tychicus, Trophimus,
Epaphroditus, Luke, Eubulus, fellow prisoners and fellow
laborers, messengers of the Churches some of them, and the
very boast of the Christian religion. But now Jesus and the
Apostles have left the field, on whom, then, devolves the duty
of teaching and preaching but the Church ? There is no other
institution on earth to attend to these matters. It was first
the business of our blessed Lord; then it became the duty of the
Apostles; and finally it was intrusted to the Divine institution
called the congregation, the body of Christ, the Church of thliving God.''''
HOW SHALL THE WORK BE DONE TO THE BEST ADVANTAGE?
Having established the proposition that "the Lord has
left it now to the Church to convert the world," Mr. Campbell
in the closing essay of the series asks this question: "How
shall this be done to the best advantage?"
The most of the essay which follows is in answer to this
question. To those who have accustomed themselves to speak
of the New Testament as a book of law or statutes for work or
method, the following paragraphs are commended as worthy
of their consideration.
"The New Testament furnishes the principles which call
forth our energies, but suggest no plan. This it could not
have done unless the geographical, political, pecuniary and
literary circumstances of every state, county, canton, or
parish in all the world, and in all generations, had been
located and described in the manner of a Universal Atlas, with
directions varying with the soil, climate, government, etc.
But this would be as unnecessary as to have furnished us with
a list of all the crimes toabe avoided and all the virtues to be
practiced, which should, in after times, arise in the ever-chang
ing habits, circumstances, and relations of society. Hence, we
do not think it necessary to find horse-racing, cock-fighting,
1898]
501
bull-baiting, balls, card playing and theatres, etc., described

and denounced in the New Testament, to enable us to condemn
themnor to find all the honest and virtuous trades, manners
and customs, defined and enforced, in order to our practicing
them. But we find a finally in the New Testament, that justi
fies and condemns us, with as much point and perspicuity as
a liturgy, a manual or even a broad precept: "Finally,
brethren, whatsover things are true, venerable, just, pure,
benevolent, and of good fame, attentively consider and prac
tice and the God of peace will be with you. This, at the side
of all goodness, and, 'such like,' at the side of a catalogue of
vices, is enough for all virtue and all vice."*
"The churches in every county, have from Scripture and
reason, all authority to bring their combined energies upon
their own vicinity first, and when all is done at home, they
may and ought to cooperate with their weaker neighbors in
the same state and so on increasing the circle of their cooper
ations as they fill up the interior, with all light and goodness,
until the knowledge of the glory of the Lord covers the whole
earth.
Whether then they shall all meet annually, semi
annually or quarterly, in one place in each county; or whether
they shall appoint persons to visit all the churches in the same
bounds, and to call forth all their means to enlighten and
reform society at large, are questions which their own discre
tion must decide. They may as rationally expect to find a
law or rule on such subjects in the New Testament, as to find
a rule for the size and material of the house in which they
ought to meet, and the hour of the day at which they shall
commence or adjourn, and a hundred other things, purely cir
cumstantial, which have no more faith nor morality in them
than in the colors, blue, black or brown.
"Some weak but honest minds are for converting the New
Testament into a ritual, and expecting to find a code of laws
concerning everything about economy, and cooperation, as if
these were parts of Christian faith and morals. Some have
even thought it a sin to enumerate or enroll the names of the
members of one congregation because David was punished for
enumerating Israel and Judah ; and because others have writ*Millennhi! Harbinger, Vol. II, page 436.
502
ten down articles of belief and bound them on the consciences

of men, they are afraid to write down their own names; or to
ascertain how many members compose the church of any one
place. Such eccentricities of mind, resemble the conduct of a
man who because his father was drowned, would not pass a
shallow ford, and of another, who, because he had been
burned when a child, would never approach a fire to warm
by it.
"We have neither Achaia, Macedonia, Galatia, Philippi, or
Thessalonica in these United States ; but we have Pennsyl
vania, Virginia and Ohio, and we have the counties of Ohio,
Brooke, Trumbull, Portage and Jefferson ; and all the reason
in the world why churches in these districts should know one
another as well, and cooperate as fully now, as in the times
of the Apostles. * * * Let the churches of Brooke pro
voke to emulation and arouse to jealousy the churches of
Trumbull in Ohio, and let the churches of Trumbull provoke
to emulation the churches in Portage, and so on till the praises
of the Lord resound from thousands of tongues, which are
now mute in the moral creation. A cooperation of this kind
is worth all the speculations of the day on regeneration, faith
and repentance."*
In 1835, in reply to objections Mr. Campbell wrote:
"Cooperation among Christian churches in all the affairs of
the common salvation, is not only inscribed on every page of
Apostolic history but is itself of the very essence of the Chris
tian institution."
"There is too much squeamishness about the manner of
cooperation. Some are looking for a model similar to that
which Moses gave for building the tabernacle. These seem
not to understand that this is as impossible as it would be
incompatible with the genius of the Gospel." "If the prin
ciple is clearly recognized and the fact established, that the
primitive Christian congregations did consult together, and
cooperate in all the affairs pertaining to the conversion of the
world, and the prosperity, peace and happiness of the kingdom
of Jesus; then we have sufficient authority to proceed in
devising ways and means to further the interests of our
Savior's cause, in every possible way, and by all lawful means. ' '
'.Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VI, payes 120, 121, 163,
1898]
503
These extracts from Mr. Campbell's writings in the Mil

lennial Harbinger could be duplicated many times. From them
all one lesson is clear and distinct, viz: That the Church must
see that the Gospel is now preached in the world; that coopera
tion of churches is as legitimate as the cooperation of individ
uals for this work ; that meetings for consultation on the subject
of ways and means is proper and necessary ; that these meet
ings may be mass meetings or delegate meetings ; that they
may be organized in any lawful way according to the judg
ment of the delegates or "messengers of the churches;" that
the method by which the Church shall carry the Gospel into
foreign parts is wholly a matter of human judgment according
to the rules, "Let everything be done decently and in order,"
and "Whatever you do in word or deed do all in the name of
the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."
In 1849 he accepted the presidency of the American Christian
Missionaiy Society and remained its president by successive
annual elections until his death in 1866. When he was first
elected president of the society he was sixty-one years of age.
He had carefully studied this question and his words are the
sober, intelligent words of his mature judgment. None but
those of great "eccentricities of mind" would think of placing
the earlier utterances of Mr. Campbell on this question against
his later utterances. He gave good reasons for his first posi
tions, and he gave good reasons for his last ones, and no man
has ever yet arisen able to overthrow them.
BETHANY COLLEGE.
November 2, 1841, Bethany College was organized and
education became one of the great themes to which Mr. Camp
bell gave the august powers of his wonderful mind. For many
years he devoted a large part of his thought and time to build
ing up this institution. How well he succeeded is a matter of
history. It became the center of an interest in educational
matters which has widened and deepened as the Disciples of
Christ have increased in numbers and in ability.
DEBATES.
In 1837 Mr. Campbell held two debates, one of which has
left a lasting impression on the age, and will be felt for ages to
504
Alexander Campbell and Millennial Harbinger . [October,
come. One of these was a written discussion on Universalism

with Rev. David Skinner and one an oral discussion with Rev.
John B. Purcell, "Bishop of Cincinnati, Ohio," on "The Roman
Catholic Religion." The debate with Mr. Purcell was a great
debate, and Mr. Campbell's assaults on Roman Catholicism
were mighty and his defense of Protestantism never surpassed.
In 1843 his eighteen days' debate with Rev. N. L. Rice was
held in Lexington, Kentucky.
GENERAL.
On all questions of current interest Mr. Campbell has left
on the pages of the Millennial Harbinger the product of his
thought. It is a wonderful revelation of his power and dialectic
skill simply to examine the index to each succeeding volume
of the Harbinger.
Questions of fact, questions of religious casuistry, ques
tions of life, questions of propriety, questions relating to the
present, questions relating to the future, questions of organiza
tion, questions of faith, questions of politics, questions of civil
government, questions of the government of churches, and a
great multitude of other questions received his attention and
were disposed of with the courtesy of a gentleman, the exact
ness of a thorough student, and the sweep of an emperor.
CONCLUSION.
It is of course impossible within the reasonable limits of a
single essay less than a volume, to even present in loose detail
the labors of thirty-four years of such a man as Alexander
Campbell. With the volume of the Millennial Harbinger for
1864 Mr. Campbell laid down the responsibilities of an editor
and waited like a patriarch in the midst of his children for the
end which came on March 4, 18(36, when "the long empire of
his imperious will" was closed.
Many of the subjects he discussed were of more than pass
ing interest and will amply repay careful study, but they must
be left for future analysis and consideration. It is a joy in
expressible to be permitted to walk with one whose name is
written so large among the majestic characters of history.
Kent, Ohio.
F. M. Green.
1898]
Isaac Errett and our Later History.
505
ISAAC ERRETT AND OUR LATER HISTORY.

1 ' ""PHE test of every religious, political or educational sys1
tem," says Amiel, "is the man that it forms." One
greater than Amiel asks, "Do men gather grapes of thorns
or figs of thistles?" Our restoration movement has grown to
be a great tree and it has no reason to be ashamed of its fruit.
The men that it forms are true men. In political life we
point with pride to James A. Garfield as "the man that it
forms." In the midst of and towering above our preach
ers, educators and editors we present Isaac Errett and ask to
be tested by him. The man Christ Jesus is our copy and these
at present are our best lines.
Some rise suddenly into great prominence. They flash
and leap like rockets and shine in lofty grandeur. Others
rise slowly and steadily. Isaac Errett came not like the
meteor but like a star. ' ' How modestly and unostentatiously, ' '
says his biographer, "he rose to prominencecoming up like
the queen of night, without noise or parade, and like her,
ascending higher and higher into the firmament, until the
whole land was flooded with his light, and every eye was
attracted by the brightness of his shining." Vol. 2, p. 301.
The events of his busy and fruitful life may be gathered and
presented in three groups.
1851 AND PREVIOUS YEARS.
In 1851 J. S. Lamar sums up his life as follows: "Mr.
Errett was not thirty-one years old. He had begun his public
life early ; he had been a hard student ; he had spent much
time in reading the best books; and he had written a great
deal. He was a full man, apt, accurate, ready." Vol. 1, p.
118. Yes, ready for a great life work. He was baptized in
his thirteenth year near Pittsburg in 1833. He preached his
first sermon in 1839. From 1840 to 1844 he rounds out his
first pastorate with one hundred added to the Lord. This
was in Pittsburg. Then follow five years of good work in
New Lisbon, Ohio. During this pastorate he travels in other
506
[October,
states and begins that wide personal acquaintance, so valuable

to him and to our cause in later years. For a short time, in
1849 and 1850, he is stationed in North Bloomfield, Ohio. It
was during this pastorate that he was called to Warren,
January, 1849, by the death of Mrs. Julia A. King, the wife
of Judge Leicester King. Like the Marys, who ministered to
Christ and stood close to his cross, this woman was a true
Disciple. And Isaac Errett took her husband from her new
made grave to the baptismal waters and buried him with his
Lord. The tenderness of the ties which bound these two men
can not be put into words. Only let it be remembered that
in the Errett home a little son, for a few brief years on earth,
bore the name of Leicester King, and that Isaac Errett's
fourth and longest pastorate was in Warren, the home of
Judge King.
February 9, 1851, he delivered a sermon upon the Design
of Civil Government. In it he antagonized Alexander Camp
bell on the slavery question and was reviewed by the sage of
Bethany. In this review are these words: "I have just read
a very beautiful, rhetorical discourse from a brother of high
intellectual and moral worth, in Ohio, whose praise is in all
the Churches in Northern Ohio, for good sense, sound doctrine
and exemplary Christian character. Our much esteemed
brother, Isaac Errett, has with a manly independence and
with all decorum, animadverted upon some of my positions,
for which he deserves my admiration and respect, as well as
that of all his readers." Vol. 1, pp. 117, 118. This is a beauti
ful picture. It shows an independent young man in his
thirty-first year criticising an old man in his sixty-fourth
year. Yet winning from the old man these beautiful tributes
of worth and loving excellence. In this incident both shine
in the light of true greatness.
Isaac Errett became concious of a large measure of influ
ence during his second pastorate. I quote from his diary for
March, 1849, "During the time I lived in New Lisbon I saw
my influence daily increasing and my usefulness extending,
and I thanked Cod and took courage." From a retrospect
full of thanksgiving to Cod, I add one more sentence: "I
have an extensive influence of which I feel that I am un
1898]
Isaac JErrett and our Later History.
507
worthy." Vol. 1, pp. 96, 97. Thus between his twentyfourth and thirty-first years we find that holy consciousness
of real greatness and coming prominence which God gives to
deserving ones. When God's prophet, Abijah, met Jeroboam
and took from his shoulders the new garment and tore it into
twelve fragments and gave back to him ten, this mighty man of
valor took with him the consciousness of a great destiny. In
the house of Jesse, when seven sons had passed before Samuel
and the youngest, the keeper of the sheep of the flock, came
in with beautiful face and ruddy countenance, "the Lord said,
Arise anoint him; for this is he." From that hour David
also carried the consciousness of a great destiny. Greatness
crushed Jeroboam but immortalized David. With one, glory
waned and faded and perished ; with the other it grew greater
with every century. Jeroboam did not put his destiny into
the care and keeping of the God who gave it. David did.
He did it at once. He waited on the Lord. His power of
patient waiting was sublime. His faith stood firm. His
strong ambition and great purposes, surging like the ocean
tides, were given into the strong hands of God. We find
Isaac Errett also in his young manhood with ten pieces of a
new garment in his hand. What does he do '. He turns from
the folly of Jeroboam. He prays for the anointing by Samuel.
With David he waits on the Lord.
1851 to 1866.
Fifteen years later, at the age of 46, he began "the
crowning work of his life," his work on the Standard. This
decade and a half is filled with positive proofs of an influence
not only brilliant but abiding and permanent. At its close he
contributes a sermon for the volume issued by W. T. Moore
and known as the Living Pulpit. In the sketch accompanying
that sermon are these words by the author: "Among the
preachers and writers of the nineteenth century, who have
plead for a return to primitive Christianity, the subject of this
notice stands pre-eminently among the most distinguished."
His debate with Mr. Tiffany, the Goliath of Spiritualism,
in 1855, was a clear demonstration of a powerful influence.
This debate was published and widely circulated and eagerly
508
[October,
read. Gen. J. D. Cox, ex-governor of Ohio, in a letter says

of it, "There can be no doubt that the debate marked the
turning point in the delusion, so far as the Western Reserve
was concerned, and gave Mr. Errett high repute for breadth of
mind and strong grasp of sound principles, as well as for great
ability in courteous but talented debate." Vol. 1, p. 171.
His fourth pastorate, Warren, Ohio, began in 1850. His
biographer speaks of the change from his third to his fourth
charge as follows: "He was too large a man to be confined
to a small community like North Bloomfield." His work in
Warren closed in 1856. It was saddened by the death of little
Leicester, the son named for Judge King. From 1856 to 1862
he resided at Lyons, Michigan. Why he went to Michigan,
rather than to Springfield, Illinois, is not easy to determine.
Certain it is that he refused a salary of $2,000 offered by the
capital city of Abraham Lincoln's own state. He went into
the wilderness over the pleadings and protests of Springfield
and Warren and of all his most intimate friends. These were
years of wandering and evangelism. In them he visited all
the states where the Disciples had-a foothold and some in
which they had not. These were fruitful years, both in Mich
igan, which had but fragments of his time, and in the states
south, east and west. Three of these years were given to the
American Christian Missionary Society. He was correspond
ing secretary and field agent in 1857-8-9. In 1860 he was
elected co-editor of the Harbinger and acted as field agent for
Bethany College until the war made it impossible to do any
thing for that school. In 1863 and 4 he was pastor in Detroit
whither he removed from Lyons. In Detroit he became dis
tinctly marked by his conservative brethren. Here that battle
began which lasted beyond the death of Benjamin Franklin
in 1878 and nearly to the death of Mr. Errett, ten years later.
These matters and political differences shortened the Detroit
pastorate, but did not prevent its success or fruitfulness.
During this period Mr. Errett's literary labors were varied
and of a high order. So much so that they united a host of
leading brethren upon himself and compelled him at last to
become the editor of the Standard. We have already referred
to the publication of his debate with Mr. Tiffany. He was
1898]
509
twice invited by the American Bible Union to deliver ad

dresses. He accepted both. He spoke in New York City in
1855 and in Philadelphia in 1864. Thousands of people heard
him gladly. He met such men as Dr. Conant and other lead
ers among the Baptist hosts. In 1857 he published, "A Brief
View of Missions" and in 1859 "Walks About Jerusalem."
For the first of these books he was the editor chosen by Ben
jamin Franklin. Both were widely circulated and highly
prized. I saw the latter one in 1889 in the Sunday School
library of the Oskaloosa Simpson Charge M. E. Church. For
several years he wrote elegantly and forcibly for the Harbinger
as co-editor. In 1865 he was chairman of the committee
revising the hymn book. "The work produced," says J. S.
Lamar, "was perhaps the best and most complete in the
world." Vol. 1, p. 291.
His missionary efforts during this period were no less
marked than his literary achievements. In 1852 he was promi
nent in the organization of the Ohio Christian Missionary
Society. The question of slavery had been raised by the
American Christian Missionary Society choosing a former
slave holder, Dr. Barclay, and sending him to Jerusalem.
This discussion grew exceedingly warm and made organization
in Ohio not only stormy but difficult. In it all Isaac Errett
showed great moderation and wisdom. State societies were
organized in Indiana (1849), Illinois (1856), New York (1861),
and in Missouri (1866). All these, as well as Ohio, had Mr.
Errett's approval and some of them his personal assistance.
Mention has already been made of his three years' service as
secretary of the A. C. M., S. Again the slavery question came
to the front. It created much bitterness and resulted in a
split. For awhile there were two societies. And for years
Brethren John Boggs and Pardee Butler with others were
alienated from Isaac Errett. All these years our missionary
societies were under constant obligation to Mr. Errett.
This part of Mr. Errett's life was a period of educational
activity. In 1865 he served in Hiram as lecturer in the Bible
department. At this time also both Kentucky University and
Northwestern University were striving to secure his services.
510
[October,
1866 to 1888.
His editorial career on the Christian Standard began in
1866 and closed with his death in 1888covering a period of
almost twenty-three years. In these few years of intense toil
he lived more than most men do in sixty easy years. Bailey,
the Englishman, never spoke truer words than these, "We
live in deeds, not in years ; in thoughts not breaths ; in feelings
not in figures on the dial. We should count time by heart
throbs. He lives most who thinks most, feels noblest and acts
best. ' ' These busy years were the most influential of his whole
life. I quote from Charles Louis Loos(Feb. 14, 1898) : "The
most prominent man among those who arose during the forties
and fifties was undoubtedly Isaac Errett. He became so not
chiefly as a preacher * * * but as an editor and writer of
books. I know no man among us whose influence can measuie with that of Isaac Errett. ' This influence began to be
come wide and strong from the day he became editor of the
Christian Standard in 1866."
In 1884 he was chosen to represent the Disciples on the
International Sunday School Lesson Committee. He delivered
several notable addresses before audiences composed of our
religious neighbors. One at Cornell University, another at
the Southern Chautauqua, and a third before the American
Institute of Christian Philosophy. After the latter, Chas. F.
Deems, President of the Institute, said to a friend of Isaac
Errett's: "Where have you been keeping your man Errett all
these years? He was a perfect surprise to the members of our
Institute. They were not prepared at all for such a treat as
he gave them. He is really a powerful man." Vol. 2, p. 224.
In 1880 came the greatest sorrow of his lifethe probable
assassination of his son Harry in the far-away city of Paris.
He tasted the bitter cup in 1856 when little Leicester died.
Again in 1872 death scourged his loving heart most cruelly.
In that year two of his brothers and his son Wyckliffe were
taken. But these were light afflictions compared with the
awful sorrow of 1880. That wealth of deep affection which
Browning lavished upon his wife while living and upon her
1898]
511
tomb and her foot-prints when dead, Isaac Errett possessed

and bestowed upon his children. Harry was to him what the
Apostle John was to Jesus. He was good and very talented.
His mysterious and awful death was such a trial as seldom
falls to the lot of good men. It is unutterable. Through this
fiery trialthis cruciblecame the pure metal of a true char
acter. Dross was burned away and in liquid depths could be
seen the image of him who "sits as a refiner of silver."
Through it all Isaac Errett walked by faith; he could not see,
he did not try, he only believed. His words to crushed and
broken-hearted sorrow about this time are pure gems of faith.
In rapid succession we note a few of the events of these
years. He was called by all our leading educational institu
tions to serve them in one capacity or another. He completed
his lectureship in the Bible Department of Hiram College. He
was for a time President of Alliance College. He placed the
subscription list of the Standard up to 6,000 in 1868 and four
years later, to 15,000. For one week's work in Atlanta, Georgia,
he received a free-will offering amounting to $1,000. The
pastorate of the Central Christian Church of Chicago was
thrust upon him, with a salary of $5,000. He was called to
deliver the oration over the body of President James A. Gar
field, "his best and best beloved friend." In 1886 came that
tidal wave of life-long friendship and holy Christian enthusi
asm and well founded admiration which arose in Kansas City
and carried Isaac Errett not only to Jerusalem and the Holy
Land, but also into a mountain of transfiguration, where he
heard from open Heavens, "well pleased in thee"where he
saw the face of friendship above the brightness of the sun and
where the robes of brotherhood were brighter than the light.
It was at this time his friends made up a purse of $1,500 for
his trip to Palestine and the old worlda trip which hastened
his entry into the New Jerusalem.
At his death the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette said, and
said truly: "This earth has known few stronger, truer, braver
men than Isaac Errett." Vol. 2, p. 291. At the same time
B. J. Radford wrote these words (Vol. 2, p. 291): "In the
period of reconstruction, Isaac Errett was our wisest masterbuilder, and, when we shall have wiped away the tears of be
512
[October,
reavement, we shall find that he has clone his worklaid the

foundations of a broad fellowship, a system of Christian cul
ture and of foreign conquest." His biographer gives him a
lofty place, and fearing lest some might think his judgment
warped by friendship, adds: "Persons less friendly, and even
his bitterest opponents, were constrained to recognize his ex
traordinary power and the surprising fullness of his mental
equipment; while the greatest men of his times, whatever
their calling or profession even those filling the highest sta
tionscontemplated with amazement and delight the perfect
balance of his faculties and his readiness and skill in using
them." Vol. 2, p. 295.
TEN YEARS LATER.
Nearly ten years have expired since the death of Isaac
Errett. For several months I have been making a special
study of his character and influence. This question confronts
me: Among a host of influential men what rank shall be
allotted to Isaac Errett? Wishing to be historically just and
to make this address as valuable as possible, I have consulted
a goodly number of thinkers among us. To these I sent this
with other questions: "In that generation which succeeded
Alexander Campbell and his co-laborers, who were our most
influential leaders? Name six or eight in order." You have
already heard the answer of Charles Louis Loos. Responses
came from sixteen men and the tabulated answers result in
giving first place almost unanimously to Isaac Errett and
second place to Benj. Franklin. Isaac Errett's influence was
the prevailing force and is now the predominant power in our
later history. This is to me as clear as day. It can not be
doubted. It is a gulf stream and students can not map the
ocean of our history without giving it first place. I do not
mean that he prevailed single handed or alone. There were
many like him. About him they gathered. They chose him
as their captain. Against him was centered the fire from the
opposition. To wound him in battle was to injure all. For
him to charge upon the enemy meant the advance of the whole
column. Where his plume waved there the hottest battle
raged. He was the most perfect embodiment of the spirit
1898]
513
and purpose of his party. While therefore I speak of his

influence, it is more than his and yet he wields it all, he sus
tains and inspires it all. In a deep sense, therefore, it is all his.
To complete our estimate, we must ask another question
also: How does Isaac Errett stand in comparison with Alex
ander Campbell? "It is yet perhaps too soon," says T. W.
Grafton (p. 232) "to assign Mr. Campbell his proper place
among the world's religious leaders. A figure so colossal can
only be rightly estimated when viewed through the perspec
tive of advancing generations." While this is true it is inter
esting to know that Kerr B. Tupperof Denver in or near 1892
attempted to do so. He placed him as one of "Seven great
lights." These are the seven in order: Martin Luther,
Thomas Cranmer, John Knox, John Wesley, Jonathan
Edwards, Alexander Campbell, Charles Spurgeon. Mr.
Campbell was a member of the Constitutional Convention of
Virginia in 1829-30. He served with two ex-presidents, Mad
ison and Monroe; nine ex-governors of his state; Chief Jus
tices Marshall, Benjamin Watkins Leigh and John Randolph
of Roanoke. It is called (Christian Evangelist, March 10, 1898)
"the most distinguished assemblyof men ever convened to frame
a constitution in any state in the Union." One of this company,
Pres. Madison, said (Grafton, p. 181) : "It was my privilege to
hear him (Mr. C. ) very often as a preacher of the Gospel and I
regard him as the ablest expounder of the Word I have ever
heard."
Without doubt, Isaac Errett stands next to Alexander
Campbell in rank and also very nearly on the same level.
One question sent by me to leading thinkers among us was
this: "The founders of this restoration movement and the
generation which followed: Was their influence equally impor
tant or not?" Benjamin L. Smith says "the first generation
were the more important." F. D. Power and N. S. Haynes
agree with him. A. McLean says, "The part played by the
second generation was not second in importance to that played
by the first." "The work of the second generation," says
R. H. Johnson, "was as important as that of the first." H. W.
Everest adds, "The work of the second generation is equally
important and often more difficult because more complicated."
Vol. 20.
514
[October,
Chas. A. Young agrees with these three and says "although,

none named are so great as Alexander Campbell." G. A.
Hoffman finds it difficult to say which is the more important.
While J. J. Haley states that, "The second and third genera
tions are almost as important as the first."
In view of all the facts I place the subject of this address
next and but little below that great man, "Whose mind
would have educated itself had he spent his life in solitude on
an island in the midst of the ocean. Who would have drawn
conclusions from the leaves of the trees, made the stare tell
him their story, have inferred God from the heavens, and built
for himself wise and abstruse theories of his works and ways,
had there been no book in his world."
OUR LATER HISTORY.
If I were dividing our history into periods, I would drive
four stakes; one in 1809 for the Declaration and Address
issued by Thomas Campbell ; one in 1830 when our Baptist
brethren crowded us out of the nest and when Walter Scott
rejected organized cooperation ; one in 1849 for the organiza
tion of the American Christian Missionary Society ; and one
in 1881 for the assassination and death of Pres. James A.
Garfield. I would name these periods as follows:
1. Period of Emancipation.
2. The New Doctrine and its Crusade.
3. Perilous Times and Re-adjustment.
4. Present Period: Unnamed.
The last two periods constitute our later history. Isaac
Errett's life work lies almost wholly within its limits. What
has the man done? What are his most important contribu
tions?
SAVED FROM EXTREMES.
He saved a great plea from destructive narrowness and
bigotry. H. W. Everest, Dean of Drake University Bible
College, says, "There was no one man who should have the
glory of saving the reformation." This is true, yet it is the
Errett influence which saved it. G. A. Hoffman says, "Had
it not been for men like Isaac Errett, we would to-day be a
1898]
515
sect." A. McLean says, "My own belief is that if it had not

been for Mr. Errett's work and influence the restoration
movement would not be anything like it is to-day. I think it
would have shriveled into a narrow and bigoted sect." J. J.
Haley says, "Paul himself was an Errett, so to speak. Isaac
Errett stood in about the same relation to Alexander Camp
bell that Paul did to Christ. Paul saved Christianity from
being strangled to death by legalism and Jewish narrowness.
And this is precisely what the latter did for the movements of
the Campbells. If the Franklin type of thought had pre
vailed our reformation would have perished in its cradle, as
Christianity would have done had it not been for the Apostle
Paul."
J. S. Lamar corroborates this position: "As I think of
him in his holy work, I can but associate him with the great
Apostle to the Gentiles, rescuing the cause of truth and of
Christ from the ruinous influence of Judaizing zealots and
blind and bigoted legalizers." Vol. 2, p. 87.
J. W. Monser says, "Mr. Errett broke up our already
crystalizing tendency." This tendency to narrowness and
fossilization is inherent in human nature. It is manifest in
all ages. Christ fought a great battle with it and by it was
nailed to his cross. Paul carried on that battle in his own
heart as well as in the Roman Empire. Martin Luther rose
up and came against it like a tornado. And from heaven saw
his whole army led captive by it. The Puritan fathers rebelled
against it, fled across the ocean from it and then on the soil
of this new world crowned the ghost of it king and themselves
served under the old scepter. So loyal was this serfdom that
one of the most distinguished judges on the United States
bench said, "The fall of Adam and the landing of the Mayflower
are the two greatest disasters that have befallen the world."
(Black's Biog., p. 96). It is, therefore, not strange that Mr.
Campbell himself should sow seeds of Phariseeism or that
these tares should grow up with the wheat. It was all but
inevitable. But in this land of liberty it was not insurmount
able. In any other part of the world it would have been. I
believe God foresaw this and led the Campbells into the only
corner of the earth where a new movement could at the time
516
[October,
be born and come quickly to great growth without being

strangled in its cradle. Campbell and Errett were children of
Providence in a Jand of promise.
WAR TIMES AND CHAOS.
The war of the Rebellion precipitated a multitude of
questions both moral and political and all mixed and jumbled
and worse tangled than any skein of silk or hank of yarn.
All truth seemed paradoxical, nothing was clear. When some
genius arises and gives the world a clear and orderly concep
tion of chaos, then ask him for a history of men and motives
for the years 1856 to 1866. It is doubtful if Herbert Spencer
or all the philosophers of our day could unravel these com
plicated questions and get out of them any unity or consist
ency whatever. In this great storm, men's heads went all to
pieces. Their hearts ruled and God ruled or overruled for
good. Political parties and churches and mission societies
and charitable institutions split and went to pieces. Old time
precedents were stranded bottom side up. Almost everybody
by unanimous consent abandoned consistency. The (Quaker
exchanged his broad brim for a soldier's cap and his staff for
a musket. Some of our own brethren, north, declared they
would die martyrs rather than bear arms against brethren in the
south.
Yet they prayed that the north might whip and they
published their prayers! God seemed to be first on this then
on that side ; and eternal right seemed arrayed against itself.
Men were forced to act and think afterwards. The fountains
of a great deep were broken up and a deluge was come. And
naturally enough the more consistent leaders got little or no
following. For once the Providence of God was leading the
hearts of men in a realj revolution and those who were his
captains among the people abandoned old time canons and
became inconsistent. Among these were Abraham Lincoln,
Jas. A. Garfield, Benjamin Franklin and Isaac Errett.
The war broke upon us a dividing people. We were no
exception to the rule. In spite of our plea for unity and the
human wisdom of our great strong leaders who foresaw and
fortified against it we were sundered. Our people, our con
gregations, our press, our colleges and our missionary society
1898]
517
were divided. This division is not wholly healed to this day.

One third of a century has not been sufficient. The only
advantage we have to boast over our religious neighbors is
that our "denominational machinery" was not authoritative
while theirs was. Hence we stood the shock better and sur
vived it so readily that many of us are teaching our children
the pious falsehood that we were never divided.
In 1859 the American Christian Missionary Society
refused to assist Kansas by employing Pardee Butler as
evangelist for that region. He was rejected on the ground of
his rabid anti-slavery sentiments and because it was alleged
the society must preserve neutrality on that question. And
to employ him would be to take sides with the anti-slavery
men. This gave rise to a split in the society and a second
was organized. For a time it supported Pardee Butler in the
Kansas work. We went into the war period with a divided
society, we came out with a united society or with one society.
Tsaac Errett's part in this was colored somewhat as Joseph's
coat. The society was built in 1849 so as not to hurt or dis
please a pro-slavery man and not to help or please an aboli
tionist. Mr. Errett, before the war, was not an abolitionist
but wished with Garfield, to be known as anti-slavery. When
Mr. Butler was denied support, Isaac Errett was the secretary
of the society, outlined the course pursued and did the corre
sponding. In other words he occasioned the division. Or,
according to the fifth conjugation of Hebrew verbs, he caused
the division. Very early in the war period Mr. Errett became
an abolitionist and an anti-slavery man in action as well as in
name. Then both the radicals and the conservatives expected
him to take hold of the new society and push it and make the
division more serious. J. W. McOarvey feared that he
would be the leader of "a serious division of the Churches in
the north." He saw in Mr. Errett at this time a leader able
to take up the division and make it far worse, if not incurable.
Mr. Errett's radical friends expected of him such leadership.
But the expected did not happen. He went so far as to make
political speeches and to offer himself to the governor of
Michigan for army service, but he would not lead a faction.
Instead he doubly insured its death and made its resurrection
518
[October,
impossible. Without him it could not live through the war.

And lest it should revive after the war, he brought the old
society out of the rut so pleasing to pro-slavery men and made
it anti-slavery. Hence it is due to him that at the close of the
war we had one, rather than two, societies.
Just here Mr. Errett's position was not only historic but
thrillingly dramatic. He was an ambitious man. God had
fitted him for leadership. Already on the Jordan banks from
opened heavens he and his friends had heard a voice of appro
bation. Here we find him in the chaotic wilderness of war
times. Leadership is offered him. He spurns it as if offered
by Satan. He would rather go hungry and be a peacemaker
than to turn stones into bread. His choice here and his after
life made him worthy of the coming and the ministry of
Christ's wilderness angels.
It is a sublime sight to see a powerful man faithful to his
people when others as good as he are persuading him into a
doubtful course, declaring that to be for the best interests of
his people. Gen. U. S. Grant in his tour around the world
met the great Viceroy of China and pronounced him not only
the ablest man in China but also one of the greatest statesmen
he ever met. This man, Li Hung Chang, invited Chinese
Gordon, the famous soldier and martyr of Khartoum, to take
charge of his armies in the Tae Ping Rebellion. Gordon did
so and after becoming familiar with the country and its gov
ernment, saw an opportunity for a strong man to overthrow
the dynasty, establish a better government and exalt himself
while bettering the lot of his people. He selected the Viceroy
as the man to do it and offered his help to bring it about. It
was such an opportunity as comes but once in a life-time, a
temptation which but one in a thousand ever resists and that
one is a great onegreat in heart. In like manner Errett's
ambition was subject to a good and honest heart.
He could have punished all our conservative leaders for
not following his more ultra views on the slavery question.
And a smaller man, with his power and such an opportunity
would have done so. Instead of that he adopted the motto
of the seventh Earl of Shaftsbury, viz: "Love, serve."
Instead of ostracizing Campbell, Pendleton, Franklin and
1898]
519
other supporters of slavery he loved them and saved them in

the love of others more radical than himself. He showed real
greatness in his service to all. H. W. Everest has well said
that Isaac Errett "did much to hold the north to Campbell
and Bethany." Herod and the tyrants of all ages slew their
rivals to assure their own ascendency. In this Christian age
the true ascendency shines with the glory of the Lord. Fran
cis Willard, like Mr. Errett, walked on the king's high-way.
The crowning act of her life was witnessed last fall at the
Toronto World's Convention of the W. C. T. U. A great
woman, Lady Henry Somerset, had drawn upon herself a world
of condemnation. She had taken a wrong position and, not
having yet seen her wrong, could not retract. According to
the logic of the best history she must be cast out of the Syna
gogue. How to save her the logic of love did not know.
Then came the queen of American womanhood and, without
the sacrifice of one single principle, without the approval or
sanction of any mistakes of her friend and comrade, she held
the delegates of all nations and saved the only woman in the
world likely a few months previous to outrank herself. Let
the angel of the resurrection crown Francis Willard and Isaac
Errett children of God, for they were makers of peace in times
of fierce contention.
BROKEN SHACKLES AND SEEDS OF STRIFE.
At the time Fort Sumter was fired upon Alexander
Campbell was 73 years old and within five years of his death.
His life work was ended but his body was not buried. The
man of influence, who then overtopped all others or came so
near it that to-day he stands second to Isaac Errett, was
Benjamin Franklin. A man whose worth is not yet fully
realized and whose biographer has not yet appeared. He was
then in the zenith of his power. His paper was the leading
one among us. He and Isaac Errett came up to the year 1859
or later in cordial friendship. After the war there was a
chasm between them which widened and deepened. They
waged a war for life, a battle of the giants. The seeds of this
strife were first visible during Mr. Errett's Detroit pastorate in
1863 and 4. At first Mr. Errett was known as anti-slavery
520
[October,
and Mr. Franklin was not. But these attitudes had made no
difference up to 1859. In that year both agreed perfectly in
the Pardee Butler case. The estrangement began shortly
after to show itself. Mr. Franklin could not approve of Mr.
Errett's war speeches.
He taught in his paper that it was
wrong to go to war and Mr. Errett would have gone if Gov.
Blair had consented. About this time also Mr. Errett was
suggested as the man to start another paper, the tone of which
was to be an improvement upon the American Christian Review.
But greater than all these considerations combined were certain
resolutions passed by the A. C. M. S. resolutions favored by
Mr. Errett and passed while he was chairman, but considered
as rank heresy and sacrilege by Mr. Franklin. In 1862 or 3
(J. S. Lamar says 1863 and Joseph Franklin, 1862) the society
passed resolutions of loyalty to the government. Mr. Lamar
says of it (p. 271, Vol. 1): "Of course everybody under
stands now that the action was unauthorized by the organic
law of the society * * * and that * * * it was
wholly illegitimate and unwarranted." Moreover such action
was wholly inconsistent with the position taken in 1859 in the
Pardee Butler case. It was Errett vs. Erretta problem
which his biographer strives hard to solve without repudiating
the precedent set in 1849a problem which I shall solve in a
different manner. Its final result, however, as I believe, was
Franklin vs. Franklin. He was never afterwards satisfied
with the society and in a few years was its most inveterate
enemy. And he sowed seeds of this enmity in the south.
Before the war, Benjamin Franklin was popular among our
brethren of the south. During the war he drew large
audiences south of the Mason and Dixon Line. After the war
the southern brethren had nothing in him to forgive. Very
naturally therefore these brethren were more inclined to fol
low his lead than that of Isaac Errett. So while they forgave
Mr. Errett, most of them followed Mr. Franklin and the
Review. When therefore the Review turned against the
Missionary Society the south largely followed and to this day
has not been so thoroughly won to its support as the north and
west. The wound of war times is not yet wholly healed.
1898]
521
Garfield once said, "Unsettled questions have no mercy

on the peace of nations." And we may add, nor upon the
peace of New Testament congregations or wisely built mis
sionary societies. It is doubtful if any body of men in 1849
was wise enough to build a missionary society which could
have gone through the war period unchanged. And was it not
best for the men of 1849 to dictate the policy for the society of
1849 and best for the men of 1863 to suit the policy of the
society to 1863 ? Is not this a good governing principle for
all time to come? I assume that between 1859 and 1863 Isaac
Errett saw this and acted upon it. If so, he should be hailed
as the emancipator of our missionary societies. Is not a mis
sionary society a human expedient? Why then should fallible
men pass a decree as unalterable as Persian law and as lasting
as time, making its unity as sacred as that of a congregation,
Divinely instituted ? Did Jesus pray for the unity of human
expedients? Why then do we label questions of God's
eternal righteousness with the word "political" and degrade
them from first place and enthrone unity of a man-made
institution into sacred places? Does not unity in Divine
institutions sometimes come too dear? Would Jesus pay any
price asked for unity? What wisdom is there in building a
sacred retreat for political-moral or moral-political sinners and
saying to them at this altar you can not be touched on certain
hours of certain days? By what authority should a man bind
himself by rules not to attack unrighteousness, either slavery
or rum or any evil, during certain hours of a day or certain
days of a week?
In order to carry the gospel to all the
world, is it necessary to padlock our mouths by unalterable
rules against questions of righteousness? Is the gospel bought
and sent out at the cost of righteousness worth much to the
heathens who hear it or to those who sent it? What is the
gospel and have we not unwittingly narrowed it down to the
limits of ancient Phariseeism ? Was not the gospel of Jesus
Christ always ethical as well as doctrinal? Have we not lost
the art of preaching repentance? In the days of John the
Baptist, Heaven's whole force was turned on for almost four
years, in a national campaign of repentance. In this cam
paign institutions constructed for doctrine first and national
522
[October,
righteousness next or never, went to pieces by Divine sanction

and new ones with the emphasis properly adjusted took their
places. Did not Mr. Errett see the true emphasis in 1863? If
so, was not his inconsistency a glorious conversion !
FOUNDING OF THE STANDARD.
In a sense this whole address deals with the Christian
Standard, for that paper was a part of Mr. Errett. HeDce I
devote a few paragraphs directly to it. I am tempted here to
treat of the power of the press, but space and time forbid.
Our marvelous growth for the last twenty years is the best
single sentence comment on the value of our press. It is gen
erally conceded that the English political daily and the Ameri
can religious weekly compose the dual crown of modern jour
nalism. When the history of the world's religious journals
for the nineteenth century is written, our leading papers will
compel admiration and hold no mean rank. The chief diadems
in our journalistic crown will be, if confined to two papers,
The Millennial Harbinger and The Christian Standard. I mean
of course those papers during their best estate. One single
century rarely produces many editors like Mr. Campbell and
Mr. Errett. Where can you find their superiors in American
religious journalism ? Our journalism of the twentieth century
may count itself fortunate if it produces three or four editors
as nearly ideal as these. And the press of the future can do
no better than to copy the spirit and leading ideals of the
Standard and Mr. Errett.
The founding of this paper presents in wonderful lights
the great influence, the marvelous insight, the unshaken faith
and Providence in Mr. Errett's life and character.
Most of our editors are self appointed, not so with Mr.
Errett. He was called and chosen by distinguished men. The
honor was thrust upon him. It took these brethren, includ
ing James A. Garfield and the Philips Brothers of Pennsyl
vania, six or eight years to get Mr. Errett's consent. Any
reasonable interpretation of this one fact works out an answer
which marks the real greatness of the man.
The time for beginning the enterprise was either well
chosen or providential or both. Mr. Errett's insight was mar
1898]
323
velous. He considered it utter folly for himself alone and un

aided financially to attempt the establishment of such a jour
nal as the interests of a great cause then required. Without
such aid he never would have begun. He knew the nature of
the difficulties in the way and the waiting time till success
could crown his efforts. He knew that capital, for a time,
must be sunk. He was a wiser business man than the splendid
business men who backed him with a stock company. He had
correctly counted the cost; they had not. Therefore inside of
two years they abandon the boat and leave in it the man they
persuaded to sail with them.
It was not long, only about a year, till the crisis came.
He could not go any farther. He made his last call for help
before a council of brethren in Cincinnati in 1869. It was in
vain as far as man could see. The meeting closed. He walked
to the depot with W. T. Moore and said, "I shall issue only
one more number of the paper, I will write my valedictory as
soon as I reach home and in this I shall propose to return the
subscription money to all who have paid for the paper in ad
vance. 1 see before me a heavy loss, but this is nothing com
pared with my sorrow that the paper must stop. Nevertheless
we must have the courage to meet defeat, if defeat must come,
and I shall try to accept the whole situation with calmness,
and act as becometh a man." Pestalozzi once said, "I never
was more convinced of the truth of my undertakings than
when I seemed to have failed." Mr. Errett had failed to find
help. Men had failed him and God had no relief in sight. He
was alone in the loneliest spot a soul can enter. It was his
Gethsemane. Yet he believed in God and in himself and in
the need of his paper. It was a dark hour of trial and his faith
and manhood shine out in strength and beauty. Such hours as
these make men's souls. In them faith is tempered like Dam
ascus steel and God's providence becomes as real and tangible
as the trees or the stars. In them is laid the rock-ribbed
foundations of history and friendship shines in resurrection
glory. And a deeper, Diviner sympathy for suffering is born.
Failures may be fountains of blessing. "The man who has
never failed must be indeed himself a failure."
524
[October,
Who saved the Standard? Some one, a few years before

the death of Harriet Beecher Stowe, desirous of meeting and
greeting the author of one of the greatest books of the century,
sought her out and found her among the flowers of her gar
den. "Are you the author of 'Uncle Tom's Cabin?'" said
the hero worshiper. "No," said Mrs. Stowe. He could not
be mistaken in the identity of the person before him, so he
said, "Who did write it?" "God wrote it," said she. God
saved the Standard and gave Isaac Errett a new consciousness.
He stands on holy ground. He has a commission in his life's
remaining work as vivid, as Divine, as that of Moses at the
burning bush.
W. T. Moore went from Mr. Errett at the railroad station
and induced R. W. Carroll to assume the risks for one year in
publishing the Standard. As an inducement, he promised
Mr. Carroll to pay half of any loss which might arise in the
venture. Fortunately it cost Mr. Moore nothing in money.
But no doubt it has yielded him more than an hundred fold
here and is written to his credit in God's great books up
yonder.
WHO AEE THESE PEOPLE!
I have been asked to state Mr. Errett's influence upon
other religious bodies. The limits of this paper forbid any
thing but a brief generalization. In fact, that is a subject not
sufficiently developed to be treated now as it can be in twenty
years. His influence in that direction had only begun to tell
extensively when he passed away. Wagner's experience with
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony has been paralleled in our his
tory. The score of that Symphony was copied out and a piano
forte arrangement made of it. It was given into the hands of
German bandsmen in Leipsic. Expectation was great, but
doomed to utter disappointment. Wagner was so disheartened
that he doubted Beethoven's musical ability and turned his
back upon him. In 1839 Wagner heard the unfortunate Sym
phony rendered in Paris bv the Conservatoire Orchestra con
ducted by Habeneck. "The beauty of that rendering," said
he, "I still am unable to describe." To the Germans that piece
of music was "an abstraction, across between syntax, arith
1898]
525
metic and gymnastics."

The French orchestra sang it.
Habeneck found the proper tempo for every beat. He caught
the proper conception of the melody. He won Wagner once
more over to Beethoven. Errett, all along, saw the melody of
our plea and the possible rendering of it. But the people at
large had heard it poorly rendered and were disgusted. Among
them some excellent brethren. Milwaukee, Toronto, Canada,
and other cities tell the sad story. McMaster's University is a
great monument of our loss and Baptist gain. Many turned
their backs upon us and our plea. They saw in our music
syntax, arithmetic and gymnastics. Mr. Errett bided his time,
took Habenck's place as conductor, trained his own orchestra
and made such music out of it that the nation is now glad to
hear. Or in other words he gave us a favorable introduction
to our own nation and to the world.
This introduction came in 1880 and 1881. The sudden
rise of J. A. Garfield, followed so soon by his tragic death, un
covered and presented to all the people a marvelous Christian
life, pure, noble, strong, devoted to Christ and as free from
fault or flaw as that of a missionary. The people wanted to
know more of that which produced such a life. They were
pleased with the spirit of our work, the tone of our literature,
the aim of our schools. Our simple New Testament plea was
music to them. In 1896, Dr. Van Dyke of New York City,
author of "The Gospel for an Age of Doubt," his Yale lec
tures for 1896, and also of "Starlight Sermons" delivered to
young men in the Universities of Yale, Harvard and Prince
ton, said: "I am a warm admirer of the general tenor and
teachings of the Disciples of Christ and have no doubt that
they have a grand mission in the world. Their simplicity of
faith and worship, their exaltation of Christ the Son of God
and their broad Christian democracy all contribute to their
marvelous growth and increasing popularity in the United
States." Mr. Errett prepared us for this more than any other
one man.
The year 1881 marks a new era in the east and in the west.
At that time our cause in the cities of the Atlantic sea board re
ceived a new and powerful impulse. From that time the
trans-Mississippi states date a new era. Our own Iowa, and
526
[October,
especially its beautiful capital city, are forcibly in evidence.

Drake University was founded. Des Moines has multiplied
her membership by five and her Church and college property
by twenty-six. From 1880 to 1890, while the population in
creased about twenty-four per cent and the total membership
of the United States made a net gain of forty-two per cent, the
Disciples of Christ increased eighty-three per cent.
The
Chautauqua Magazine and other standard publications spoke
of this as "remarkable," "astonishing," "unprecedented,"
and "unaccountable." In 1880 we were increasing at the
rate of 10,000 per year ; now it is 35,000. In the last seventeen
or eighteen years we have augmented our forces two hundred
per cent or multiplied them by three. Or in seventeen years
we made twice as much progress as in the fifty years previous.
In some states and large cities we have already outranked our
Methodist brethren. In ten years we will number two millions
in the United States alone. The dangers of rapid growth are
real and many. Our development in spirituality must keep
pace and lead our growth in numbers. Our leaders see these
things clearly. We are being schooled in spirituality rather
than in theology. Our interest in the ethical side of the Gospel is
deep and intelligent. Our missionary enterprises are leav
ening the whole mass. The new recruits yield their hearts
more readily to these influences than some of the old guard.
We are ready for rapid growth. Such growth from 1840 to
1870 would have been a calamity; now it is a providence.
May God keep us humble and prayerful and full of the fruits
of the Spirit.
ISAAC EKRETT'S OPUS MAGNUM.
J. S. Lamar (Vol. 2, p. 147) says: "I regard the prepara
tion for and the final formation of the Foreign Christian Mis
sionary Society as being in some respects Mr. Errett's most
important work for the cause he loved." This is very near
the truth but it does not go far enough. It should go deeper
and wider. The Christian Woman's Board of Missions is
hardly second and must be included. It is, in a large sense, a
part of Mr. Errett's work. The American Christian Mission
ary Society must not be left out. He was interested in its
1898]
527
foundation and defended it from the attacks of Mr. Franklin

and the Review. Underneath all our mission work, state and
general, lies the great principle of cooperation. This is the
law of gravity in our world of usefulness and Mr. Errett is our
Newton. This is the center of light and power in Millennial
Astronomy and Mr. Errett is our Copernicus. To grasp
strongly and clearly that principle, to wrest it from spiritual
Saracens, after years of fierce battle and to build about it a
great people, heirs to the crown of Destinythis, by all odds,
is Isaac Errett's Opus Magnum.
The magnitude of this work can not be apprehended save
in the light of almost eighty years of history. I must crowd a
volume into a sentence or two. In 1804 Barton W. Stone and
his captains marked organized cooperation of churches as a sin
before God and abjured it with the zeal of a Luther. In 1824
Alexander Campbell made some unfortunate statements which
were set up as an altar in Mt. Gerezim for the enemies of coop
eration. In 1830 Walter Scott made the mistake of his noble
grand life and led the whole brotherhood, in spite of Mr. Camp
bell, who then saw the error, in the overthrow of the altar of
Jerusalem. From 1830 to 1849 the enemies of cooperation re
joiced over its death and burial. After its resurrection in 1849,
for years it was under suspicion. It was not doctored but
doped and blistered and broken and splinted and carved on the
surgeon's table, until, in an unguarded moment, it got on its
feet and grew stronger. Then war was declared, and, like
David, it fought its way to the throne. Isaac Errett was its
chief captain and, when he died, served as its prime minister.
Our attitude on cooperation in missions from 1830 to 1849
and later is astonishing. It is phenomenal and paradoxical.
As a prophesy it has been a complete and blessed failure. We
had our backs turned on our own destiny and were marching
straight to oblivion and decay. In the first place the century
has been a missionary century. Aside from the first century,
with Paul the greatest of missionaries, there is nothing with
which to compare it. Cary and Judson and Livingston and
Morrison and Coan with others have wrought marvelously
under God. Not without warrant has Arthur T. Pierson writ
ten down their deeds in a book called the "New Acts of the
528
[October,
Apostles." "Go ye therefore, teach all nations" and "Go ye

into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"
these two sentences never took deeper hold on Paul and John
than upon the choicest souls of the denominations in this
century.
Those who could not go, organized cooperative
bands to sustain those at the front. And without this cooper
ation the marvelous work could not have been accomplished.
Now in the thirties and forties, while Coan was in a Pente
costal harvest in the Sandwich Islands, what was our attitude?
We were a people in the heart of a missionary age teaching the
great commission, with mission activity left out and barred
out S Our religious neighbors were a mighty host in love with
the world-wide element in the commission and auxiliary to it,
and what did we ask of them? To unite in answer to the
prayer of Christ in the night of betrayal. True, but on what
basis,' Upon Christ and one half of the great commission!
And what were our terms of union? That they disband all
cooperative associations for home and foreign missionsdraw
the pillars of support from their half of the great commission.
Christ and one half of his heart inviting Christ to abandon the
other half of his heart! Imagine some one inviting us to
union on condition that we disband our societies and call in
McLean and Benj. Smith!
But some one will say, "We were evangelistic and were
sweeping everything before us." Yes, we were. We were
somewhat like a prairie fire. Before us was an almost bound
less stretch of dead, dry and inflammable material. The winds
of liberty and reform were high and we swept on. But what
did we leave behind us '. A prairie fire leaves the roots of life
fertilized by new ashes and verdure soon drives away the
blackness and apparent ruin. Not so with us at that time.
We were not satisfied to burn the dead stalks and brushwood,
we struck at the roots of life and would have dug them up but
for the providence of God. The congregation which is aux
iliary to the world-wide element in the great commission, in its
Sunday School, among its women, in its pulpit and in its lit
erature has a vitality a life force which heat can not wither,
which cold can not destroy. Nay, more, which all the mistakes
of sectarian names and creeds can not wholly suppress. A life
1898]
529
which ultimately will destroy sectarianism. Like the acorn

beneath the great stone which the angels were forbidden to
move, this life will burst the solid ecclesiasticism of a millen
nium of years. What were the results of our hostility to this
vitality ? A lot of dead churches, some of them dead yet and
some of them badly rotten at the core. That denomination or
that congregation which makes war upon or neglects the world
wide element in the great commission pierces the heart of
Christ with a sharper spear than Roman soldier ever bore.
And whosoever sets himself against the Christ heart is doomed
to perish. In the forties and fifties while blazing like forest
fires we were perishing. We had excluded the oxygen from
the great commission and could hardly breathe. Many regions
are full of dead stumps instead of living trees.
All this is now changed. We are now, most of us, as
heartily back of the world-wide element of the commission as
the Apostles and their churches.
We no longer teach the
commission with missions left out. We sweep on like a fire
but we see an ocean of verdure in our rear. We have grown
large in a large country and have spoken and will be heard in
the twentieth century, because we livewe have vitality from
God. We are now consistent embassadors for union upon
Christ and the whole commission and we plead with the lovers
of the world-wide element in that commission to come with us
to the conquest of the world. That conquest is only well begun.
Its great battles lie in the future. In that future one lessou of
the present century will come to its full harvest of fruitage,
viz: The needs of an age shall dominate its methods and ap
pliances. The mechanical inventions of a century teach this
lesson. The Y. M. C. A. and the W. C. T. U. and the
Y. P. S. C. E. are institutions as truly adapted to the great
needs of the age as a steam engine or an electric dynamo.
Whatever the work of the world needs, inspires men to supply
that need.
There is one need in the kingdom of Christ to-day above
all others. If supplied, it will satisfy a hundred minor needs
and insure the Millennial reign of Christ our Lord. Pere
Hyacinthe expressed it a few years since. Charles F. Deems,
Vol. 27.
530
[October,
on his way to the Holy Land, called upon this great Protestant
Catholic reformer in Paris. As the American pilgrim was de
parting from his door, this old man with tears in his eyes
and Christ in his heart, besought him to kneel beside the
Holy Sepulchre and pray. For what?
"The unity of all
Christians." More and more this need of the kingdom of
Christ is pressing upon the hearts of Christian men and
women. Especially is this true in heathen lands where brave
missionaries and their consecrated converts are struggling
against great odds. In this larger portion of God's vineyard
this need is greatly felt and the cry for relief is already loud.
When this need rests as heavily upon a few hearts as it did
upon Christ in the night of betrayal, and it will, then it will
be met, it will be supplied. The prayer of our Lord is a
prophecy of Cod. All who believe in him through the word
of the Apostles will be one. And the world will believe on the
Christ. Isaac Errett saw this. God revealed it to him. He
found us blind and with our backs turned on our own destiny.
He touched our eyes and the scales fell off. We trained under
him and we are a missionary host. We are marching to the
great reunion which Christ saw like a star from the depths of
darkness that night of his betrayal and crucifixion. Our route
is by the way of the great commission, by the way of the heart
of the Lord Jesusthe heart which uttered the greatest word
of the ages, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptiz
ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things what
soever I have commanded you ; and, lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Alfred Martin Haggard.
1898]
Human Volition and Responsibility.
531
HUMAN VOLITION AND RESPONSIBILITY.

THE human mind has ever been busy endeavoring to
harmonize its own conscious powers with the thought of
a supreme, all-controlling intelligence supervising the opera
tions of the Universe. Within certain broad limitations, I
find myself able to control my conduct in accordance with the
moral laws under which I am placed, and am therefore re
sponsible for the good or the evil that I do. This has been
the general verdict of mankind in all ages, and, in accordance
with this principle, all the laws for the govern ment of society
have been enacted, and pains and penalties have been justly
annexed for violations.
But the philosophers and theologians of the world have
been greatly perplexed in their efforts to harmonize this
conscious human responsibility with what they have assumed
as the infinite attributes of the Creator. They have often
questioned the verity of what appears to be human volition in
the conduct of life, and have attributed every apparent decision
of the mind, and act of the person, to the operation of cer
tain immutable, predetermined arrangements or laws, preclud
ing the possibility of any other decision or act by the person
than such as actually transpires. Among the ancient heathen
philosophers this, with various modifications, was the doctrine
of the Stoics, of which Zeno was the founder.
In consideration of the fact that there was no revelation
from the Living God controlling their thoughts, that the
beams from the moon and stars of Israel's firmament shone
but dimly, and that the light of the "Sun of Righteousness"
had not yet been shed on the path of philosophy, that its
votaries were guided solely by the experiences and observations
of nature, it is no matter of wonder that unaided finite intelli
gence should arrive at such conclusions within the narrow
range of its powers to measure the relation of infinite attributes
to finite capabilities. They were drifting on a boundless,
fathomless ocean without chart or compass, "having no hope
532
[October,
and without God in the world." This is apparent in all the

ancient controversy.
The questions involved are beyond the scope of philoso
phy, as has been demonstrated by the unsatisfactory results it
has achieved, with all the long line of cultivated minds that
have attempted solutions. From Zeno the founder of the
school three hundred years before the Christian era, and his
numerous successors, the thinkers of antiquity, to Marcus
Aurelius in the second century, when the doctrine of the
Nazarene was diffusing itself through human society and a
revolution in philosophy and Theology was in progress, we
may trace, in the works that have been transmitted, every
shade of speculative thought the philosophers have conceived
as throwing light on the subject, with no definite, satisfactory
results. They left the world still in the dark, the questions
still unsettled.
This speculative philosophy, in its various modifications,
continued to cast its diverse roots into the various ramifications
of Grecian and Roman civilizations, until it met the advanc
ing current of Christian faith, in the early centuries of its era,
and gradually infused itself into Christian thought, paralyzing
the faith in many of its professed defenders, until it culmi
nated in the production in the fourth and fifth centuries of that
potential Theological system of which the great Augustine
was the reputed founder, and which, also, engrafts one of the
distinguishing features of the Stoical philosophy on the
Christian stock. But this too is only the continuous, fruitless
struggle of the finite to comprehend and measure the infinite.
However, the effort in this form continues through the suc
ceeding centuries of the papal domination, and crops out
with increased potentiality in the Theological system formu
lated by John Calvin, without doubt, the most influential of
the reformation leaders of the sixteenth century, and whose
system of doctrine, in some of its modifications, has given
direction to the teaching and practices of a large majority of
the anti-papal denominations. The philosophy of this leader
bases itself on a single sentiment afterwards briefly expressed
in the Westminster Confession of Faith thus: "God from all
1898]
533
eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will,
freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass."
To the logic of human intelligence this leads to the inev
itable conclusion that there can be no sinno violation of
law in human conduct. Every act is fated, the infinite power
and character of the Creator being the source of all law, moral
and physical. This, too, notwithstanding the attempted
modification of its harshness by the illogical, explanatory sen
tences that follow the statement thus: "Yet so as thereby
neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the
will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of
second causes taken away, but rather established."
I pause in the presence of the momentous questions here
involved and think. Unaided by revelation from God, I can
conceive of the universe in no other light than as a boundless
expanse existing in eternal duration, governed and controlled
by an Infinite Eternal Intelligence, the causes and relations of
all of which, I realize, that I have no intuitive powers to com
prehend or appreciate. In the presence of this vast com
bination of mystery, I am conscious of my own utter insignifi
cance. I am only the creature of a span, the worm of
an hour in the midst of this vast immensity. But I find
myself adapted to the little sphere in which I have evidently
been ordained to move. I am here to remain a few years by
the operation of physical causes that control all animated
nature, and then to pass away. In the developments of this
short career, I am conscious of mental and moral endowments
that constitute me superior to material nature around me.
Whether intuitively, or by suggestion from without, I think
of the causes of things ; I speculate as to how this universe
came, and how it is sustained in its operations ; during all my
career I am constantly looking to the future in hope, I am
filled with wonder at the vastness of the universe of which I
am so insignificant a part, as my contracted powers are able to
contemplate it. I am possessed of a lively sense of justice
in intercourse with my fellows, and when the thought of a
supreme intelligence controlling all things is presented, I am
only able to entertain it by supposing my own mental and
moral powers expanded to infinity. This is the loftiest alti
534
[October,
tude I am able to reach. But when I consider the grades of

intelligence which we call instinct, exhibited in the phenomena
ot the living beings beneath me in the scale each adapted to the
plane on which it moves, arising from the most insignificant
of living organisms, and ascending through all their grades,
until human intelligence, with all its splendid combinations of
power, occupies the upper plane and outer circle ; and looking
upward and outward through the regions of Divine revelation,
I discover there are planes and grades still unexplored and in
comprehensible to human thought, I conclude that, being a
little lower than the angels, I am necessarily below them in
the regions of mentality in which I have been ordained to
move, and that beyond and above all there is the supreme
infinite intelligence of the universe utterly incomprehensible
to me. Thus there may be heights and depths in the attri
butes of the Infinite Creator, running parallel with eternity,
which, in comparison with human intelligence, there can be
no possible illustration. Differing perhaps in kind, as well as
in power and magnitude, the nearest approach, imaginable, to
human thought, might be the relation of the instinct of the
most insignificant living creature of earth, to the grandest and
most expanded of human intelligences; and even here man
realizes his utter incapacity. I reason thus: The Infinite
Creator necessarily possesses infinite foreknowledge. He has
created a finite creature and has endowed him with intelli
gence that recognizes the absolute necessity of infinite fore
knowledge in an Infinite Creator. Nevertheless, the Creator
has infallibly revealed his foreknowledge to his finite creature,
in numerous instances, as conditional.* The creature is inca
pable of perceiving the consistency of this conditional fore
knowledge with infinity. The finite creature, reposing implicit
faith in the Infinite Creator, and the revelation he has made,
is left to the conclusion that there are infinite powers in the
mind of God, not appreciable by the finite mind, differing
from it, not only in power and magnitude, but also in kind,
by which he accommodates himself, as occasion demands, to
the powers of the creature he has made; and which calls into
exercise the very faith in the unseen and eternal upon which
the hopes of the finite creature necessarily depend.
*Gen. 6:5-7; 18:20-21, 26; 22:12-16; Judges 2:21-22; Ex. 32:14.
1898]
535
So the infinite God our Creator condescends to enter the

sphere of our finite intelligence and responsibility, and mov
ing within its environment, by ways and means incomprehen
sible to us, accommodates his communications to its narrow
limits, and speaking as face to face to man, conducts his pur
poses to their accomplishment on the plane of human intel
ligence. I conclude therefore, as infinity in any matter is
necessarily incomprehensible to finite powers, it may so limit
itself on occasion as to be consistent with its own revelations
to the finite creature.
Thus we escape the logical necessity of attributing all the
vileness and crime of human history to the foreordination of
God from all eternity so contradicting his loving utterances in
the Gospel wherein he proclaims himself as "No respecter of
persons, but that in every nation he that feareth him and
worketh righteousness is accepted of him;" and that, "He is
not willing that any should perish but that all should turn and
live."
This conclusion is logically supported by the utter failure
of human intelligence in its highest culture to sound the depths
of any of the avenues of scientific investigation which it pre
sumes to enter, thus making it inevitable that powers superior
in kind to those accorded to man are indispensable to their
comprehension.
It is therefore no matter of wonder that the philosophy of
faith covers so large a space in the volume of inspiration, and
that it demands acceptance by such a mighty array of palpable
miracles all utterly beyond the scope of the most highly cul
tured human powers ; and again no wonder that in specialty,
this faith triumphantly defies the assaults of the world's
philosophy of life and death in the crowning miracle of the
ages, sitting before the empty sepulcher of the Hero of Calvary
and in tones that have revolutionized the spiritual empire of
the world proclaiming, "He is not here, he is risen."
With such a boundless outlook, from such a narrowly
circumscribed position, there comes to me a succession of com
munications purporting to reveal to me through human
agencies the creation of the universe of which I form a part.
536
[October,
The first message opens with an announcement suited to my

limited powers thus:
"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth."
And, after a detailed statement of their order and arrange
ment, it informs me that he made my great primogenitor in
his own image and likeness, and in imparting to him this
image, obviously conferred on him the powers of volition
and decision in regard to every legal enactment his Creator
might impose upon him, and of which he immediately be
came conscious, which consciousness has been transmitted by
inheritance to his posterity, thus rendering us all cognizant of
moral responsibility.
Without any reference to intervening contingencies or
unconditional discriminating eternal decrees, all communica
tions from the Creator, designed for the conduct of human
life, presented to the human race from that hour to this, have
recognized their entire freedom and responsibility, and have
appealed to man's volition in every law enacted without refer
ence to foreordained classes. In the exercise of this volition,
and conscious of this responsibility, our first parents trans
gressed the law and brought death upon themselves and on all
their posterity, and the entire race by actual transgressions
have followed in the footsteps of their great primogenitor.
In the full development of the purposes of the Creator
with reference to the eternal destiny of man, Jesus of Nazareth
the Son of God was put to death on a Roman cross, which
death has been published to the world by Divine authority as
a sacrificial offering for the redemption of man from sin and
death. In regard to the effect of this sacrifice on the destiny
of man, the fatalism of the ancient philosophers transmitted
through Christian channels, formulates the subject thus:
"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy
counsel of his own will freely and unchangeably ordain what
soever comes to pass."
"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory,
some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life,
and others foreordained to everlasting death."*
If God did foreordain, unconditionally, whatsoever comes
to pass, how can there be any violation of the real law, moral
"'Westminster Contession of i'aith. Chap. Ill, to the end.
1898]
537
or physical, by which he controls the universe? As he is the

immaculate source of both, and all things are arranged ac
cording to his will, and there can be no contingency of second
causes, every circumstance in the chain to the consummation of
the purpose being in the original decree. Thus the recognition
of the free volition, and consequent personal responsibility of
the creature in published statutes and ordinances commanding
and forbidding, appear only as pretense, but are really only the
foreordained means of accomplishing the eternal unconditional
purpose of saving some and rejecting others. And so the
assumption of a contingency of second causes appears accord
ing to this theory only as a subterfuge to conceal from obser
vation the unreasonableness and injustice of the original decree.
All these statements regarding unconditional decrees are at
variance with the doctrine of man's moral responsibility for
his final destiny, notwithstanding the repeated statements to
the contrary to conceal the harshness of the original doctrine
that underlies them.
To briefly summarize this philosophy, and exhibit its
bearing on the origin and history of man in all its boldness it
would read thus: I. The Creator decreed in the beginning
to make man a creature liable to sin, and to place him in such
conditions that he would surely sin and bring on himself the
condemnation that resulted, and that has been transmitted to
all his posterity. II. Inasmuch as his fall results in his utter
inability to do any good, ''being wholly defiled in all the facul
ties and parts of soul and body" there is no moral power in
him capable of being affected by the Gospel. III. Therefore,
before any moral impression can be effected in him, there must
be an abstract influence of the Holy Spirit on the spirit of the
man to change his moral nature, to "make him able and will
ing" to hear and attend to the word of the Gospel, before he
can believe it; and that without this anterior influence, the
Gospel can have no effect on him. IV. Those who become
the subjects of this mystic influence are so impressed by it
that they are infallibly assured, by a mental miracle, of their
election, and no irregularities of after life can prevent their
final perseverance and salvation.
538
[October,
This entire theory, in all its parts, is as purely a system of

extra Christian speculative philosophy as can well be imagined.
It is little else than the fatalism of the ancient heathen philos
ophers applied to the facts of revelation and expressed in
Christian verbiage. None of its parts is found in the Gospel
record either by the personal teaching of the Savior, or in
the subsequent proclamation of the Gospel to the world under
his commission. Indeed, its every prominent point is con
tradicted by declarations of the inspired word, either in direct
terms or by reasonable inference.
The predestination of the Gospel reads thus: "God so
loved the world" (not a definite favored part of the world)
"that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth
in him" (all being free to choose) "might not perish but have
everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to
condemn the world but that the world" (the whole world)
"through him might be saved."
It reads again: "Go ye into all the world and preach the
Oospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned."
They all stand perfectly equal in this foreordination.
It reads again: "To them who by patient continuance
in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eter
nal life, but to them who are contentious, and do not obey the
truth but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribu
lation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil."
"But glory, honor and peace to every man that worketh good."
All again equally foreordained and predestinated, but condi
tionally. "For there is no respect of persons with God."
The predestination and foreordination are universal and
conditional and recognize the natural power of the creature to
accept or reject, and as before quoted, "there is no respect of
persons with God."
And again, the mystery in the predestinated purposes of
God "is now made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the
prophets according to the commandment of the everlasting
God, made known unto all nations for the obedience of faith"
and again there is no respect of persons.
1898]
539
The foregoing being the conditions of the predestination

to justification and eternal life, there is no call for imaginary
abstract spiritual influences on the human soul to renovate its
natural powers to identify the elect, for the regenerating power
of the Holy Spirit is in the Gospel itself, and not anterior to
it, which when apprehended and accepted by the natural
powers of man produces in him the new creature in Christ
Jesus. The change is not in the nature of his powers but in
the direction given them.
This Calvinistic philosophy of total hereditary depravity,
and its logical necessity, regeneration before faith, or in order
to produce faith, is an ecclesiastical delusion, and is the source
of most of the mystical vagaries in regard to conversion in
popular religious customs and antagonizes wherever its influ
ence is exerted the primitive, Apostolic methods of preaching
and accepting the Gospel. Indeed, it is the fruitful source of
much of the ecclesiastical delusion in dreams and visions and
imaginary sights and sounds and peculiar sensuous impressions
which the ignorant are led to think are the workings of the Spirit
of God and the Divine agencies to effect this abstract regen
eration, while, in numerous instances, the subject is left with
no intelligent appreciation of Gospel requirements.
The position here assumed is evident in the continuous
argument of the Apostle Paul in the letter to the Romans, the
capital proposition of which in the first chapter and sixteenth
verse states "The Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth." And the Holy Spirit
is that power in the Gospel, and his power in conversion is
exerted in no other way revealed by God. All the power of
God as the Father, of God as the Son and of God as the Holy
Spirit is in this blessed Gospel, and the argument of the
Apostle throughout admits of no prefixes or affixes in order to
its complete efficiency upon him who exercises his God-given
powers in believing and obeying it. So Christ in his life and
miracles, Christ in his sufferings and sacrificial death and
Christ in his resurrection and ascension and mediatorial work
is the potential energy of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for
the salvation of man.
540
[October,
The universality of the results of the fall, the recognized

universality of human freedom of volition and moral respon
sibility, and the universality of the Gospel proclamation of
the love of God to man preclude the possibility of any un
conditional election to salvation or rejection to damnation by
a decree of the God of the Gospel from all eternity. What
decrees there were in the Infinite Mind from all eternity in
regard to human redemption are not known to man except as
they are now revealed in the Gospel. This is one of the features
of the subject the human mind is not competent to consider
except as the Gospel reveals the mystery. The expression
in any other light is a futile attempt of the finite to explain
the operations of the infinite. In some small degree it may
be compared to the ant attempting to comprehend the man.
Are the foregoing expressions of universality only a sham and
pretense so far as the great mass of those who are "passed
by from all eternity" are concerned; and shall the attitude
of the Creator to these in his professions of love be that of
hypocrisy? Nay verily. Shall we represent the Infinite One
peering through the dense drapery of his eternal decrees at the
lost ones whom he has irretrievably doomed to destruction,
while his pretended love invites them to accept the Gospel call
which his eternal decree makes impossible? Oh nol no! ! no! ! !
Every appeal and exhortation to promiscuous sin-cursed
humanity forbids such a blasphemous conclusion, they are all
addressed lovingly in good faith recognizing their ability to
accept or reject.
How this revelation of Divine goodness and love and
mercy and justice universal is to harmonize with the workings
of the infinite attributes of the Creator in his eternal purposes
prior to man's creation is doubtless beyond the scope of
human intelligence. It is because the philosophers and theo
logians in their systems and creeds have attempted to measure
the powers of the Infinite Creator by finite human standards
that the Gospel system has been mystified, and the exercise of
faith in God neutralized: to illustrate:
On the outer boundaries of human observation in the
material heavens astronomers discover perturbations for which
they can not account, except on the supposition that there
1898]
541
are forces beyond the sphere of their observation producing

the phenomena, and occasionally this is demonstrated to be
true by the ingenious employment of means for still further
extended observation ; as was evinced by Leverrier in the dis
covery of the planet Neptune.
So, also, in the Spiritual heavens. In the outer circle of
human comprehension there are mysteries concerning the
attributes of God undiscoverable through the lenses of philos
ophy and it is only when, with the eye of faith, human intel
ligence turns the Gospel telescope up and looks beyond the
regions of human speculation, and discovers, in the very heart
of the Infinite One himself, the revolving forces of Divine phil
anthropy, that light is thrown upon these mysteries and their
significance made known. We know that God did not fore
ordain any portion of humanity unconditionally to destruction,
because he has demonstrated by the Gospel and its mighty
miracles that he loves them all, and the Gospel, having been
demonstrated to be true by these palpable miracles, all the
speculative vagaries of philosophy on the subject go for
naught.
Who that attempts to study the diverse speculations in
mental abstractions of the philosophers of the ages pertaining
to the relations of the finite to the infinite, can realize other
wise than that they have been led into the winding, tortuous
mazes of a vast, intricate, metaphysical labyrinth, into which
the further they penetrate the more confusing and distracting
becomes the way.
This condition is nowhere more obvious than in the lifework, history, and influence of some of the leaders of thought
in the transition period from paganism to Christianity in the
early centuries of the Christian era. Conspicuous among
these was Origin, the most distinguished Theological philoso
pher of the early part of the third century, who employed his
vast mental resources in the application of the doctrines and
principles of the Grecian philosophers to the elucidation and
explanation of the facts of Christianity. It was in him a life
conflict between faith and philosophy, between miracle and
natural law. And the contentions among the leading intel
lects of succeeding centuries over the significance of his doc
542
[October,
trine only prove that he was, in much of his work, attempting

to explain the inexplicable. He was a leader into this inextri
cable labyrinth and he has had and continues to have many
successors.
And indeed the heathen philosophers of all schools seem
to have combined their systems and forces in those early cen
turies under the title of Neo-Platonism to compete with
Christianity for the conquest of the world; and although it
nominally failed in the final contest, it was measurably suc
cessful in the corruptions it wrought, in that it infused its own
principles into the very heart of the Christian system itself,
and continues its work thus to the present hour, as the present
controversy distinctly shows. Galvanism may justly be re
garded as the legitimate lineal descendant of ancient heathen
philosophy wearing a Christian mantle.
In this condition the only direct pathway out of the com
plex environment is by way of a pure and active faith in the
signs and wonders and mighty miracles of God free from the
entanglements of the world's philosophy.
But it has somehow come to pass with many modern
students of nature in the pride of their intellectual power, that
finding themselves entangled in this inextricable labyrinth,
they have concluded, rather than accept this direct pathway
out, to lie down with the ox and the ass and perish forever.
As appropriate to this discussion I here paraphrase in
common parlance the words of Paul in the first epistle to the
Corinthians, first chapter: "The Jews depend on miracles and
the Greeks on Philosophy, but we preach salvation by a cru
cified Christ, to the Jews most offensive and to the Greeks an
absurdity, but to them who accept the call, both Jews and
Greeks, Christ the miraculous power of God and the phil
osophy of God." And again: "For after that, according to
the Divine philosophy the world by its philosophy could not
know God, it pleased God by the preaching of an apparent
absurdity to save them that believe." To a Greek philosopher
salvation in the name of a Jewish criminal was the most con
temptible of all absurdities.
Again, the following from Ephesians 2:11-12 is in point:
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in
1898]
543
the flesh who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called

Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye
were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having
no hope, and ivithout God in the world."
So declares the spirit of God by the pen of the Apostle
commissioned to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches
of Christ in the Gospel. When he penned the foregoing sen
tences there was in the broad angle of his mental vision the
speculations and deductions of the distinguished sages and
philosophers of the ancient heathen world, to the time in
which he lived, as well as the abundant resources of
learning of Jewish history and literature and law he had ac
quired at the feet of Gamaliel. We assume therefore, that he
was familiar with the doctrine of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and
Zeno and their numerous followers of the Gentiles to his own
time, and yet, with all this array of cultivated intelligence,
and its various abstruse deductions from the phenomena of
nature in regard to the nature and attributes of God and man,
he declared to these people, with whom he had lived for two
years in this radiating center of Asiatic culture and refine
ment, and who had been trained under the teaching of these
philosophers, "ye were without God and without hope in the
world." I imagine the curling lip and the contemptuous sneer
of some of the Apostle's philosophical, egotistic opponents of
Ephesus or Corinth or Athens as they might be in the Ephesian Church assembled when this letter was read from the
humble Jew who had spent two years in the city supporting
himself by manual labor, and disseminating in the meantime
a new superstition concerning the pretended resurrection of a
criminal of his own nation executed in Jerusalem twenty years
before, which culminated in a riotous disturbance here before
he left, and who was now in Rome awaiting trial before the
Emperor on similar charges of disturbing the peace in his own
city of Jerusalem. With what contempt would these worship
ers of Diana and votaries of heathen philosophy listen to the
allusions to the degraded antecedents of this company of fa
natics, and the depreciating references to the speculations of
their great philosophers in this letter. And how little did the
544
[October,
Apostle suppose when he wrote the expressive sentences in

which the dignity and majesty of the Son of God are so grandly
portrayed, and in which are set forth the degraded spiritual
antecedents of these Gentile Christians that two centuries
would not elapse before the most distinguished among the
leaders of the faith would be invoking the shades of these
very philosophers to whom he had reference to expound the
mysteries of that faith, and to harmonize the claims of our Lord
as he had set them forth, with the very theories which in this
letter, and that to the Colossians, in the same district, he al
ludes to as considerations to be avoided, being detrimental to
the stability of their faith in Christ. "Beware," said he,
"lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world
and not after Christ. For in him dwellech all the fullness of
the Godhead bodily."
Man has no need of the theories and mental abstractions
about God and humanity and the universe of philosophers,
ancient or modern, to appreciate the God of Israel and the Man
of Nazareth, or to accept and appropriate the facts of Divine
revelation and its miraculous basis, so as to understand all his
legitimate relations to this life and the life to come. Men of
excessive intellectual development monomaniacs of thought
may amuse themselves by efforts to improve on each other's
theories in their high aspirations for the ultimate in matters
infinite, and in fruitless attempts to reach the depths of the
unfathomable; and theologians may endeavor to harmonize
the Bible facts and miracles with philosophical speculations,
but the experience of the world demonstrates that the inevita
ble result in the end is to neutralize human faith in the super
natural and to reduce religion to a purely rationalistic basis.
The history of Christian heroism bears witness that Jesus of
Nazareth and Saul of Tarsus need none of the light of the
scholastic philosophy of the ages to give them potency over
the hearts and consciences and lives of mankind.
M. C. Tiers.
1898]
The Laws of Analysis and Synthesis.
545
THE LAWS OF ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS APPLIED

TO THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE.
GOD intends that nations shall be cast in the mold of
Divine truth. Humanity is in the hand of the teacher
much as the clay in the hands of the potter. Charac
ters formed depend much upon the shape of the mold into
which they were cast. The mold may be formed of the best
material but if imperfect in shape, the imperfection will ap
pear in the vessel. Many of the vessels, constituting the
Church of Christ, are largely imperfect. May it not be well
for the teachers of the Word to examine and see if there does
not exist a striking similarity between these characters and
the mold into which they were cast?
Truth as such, does not develop; but is a factor, a force,
that causes development. The shaping that we, as ministers,
give to the Bible is the key that must unlock the future pros
perity and harmony of the Church of Christ. Ministerial
thought is one of the greatest forces extant that is shaping
the affairs of men. Ignorance in the pulpit is more dangerous
to the Church than are the combined forces of Satan with
out. The well equipped mind of the minister may be filled
with the truth contained in Divine revelation ; but he only is
a wise minister who is able to rightly apply this truth.
A correct understanding of the Bible is dependent, alike,
upon a correct analysis and synthesis. The laws of interpre
tation will fail, and a correct exegesis prove insufficient, unless
they shall be applied to a correct division of the Word.
The Bible as a library is composed of sixty-six books.
These books are as susceptible of classification as are books
treating on the science of numbers. The Bible has two grand
divisions which may be called: the libraries of the "Old and
New Covenants."
The thirty-nine books composing the old library, contain
the revelation that God made to the world through the Hebrew
nation. He was thus preparing the governments of the world
for that larger revelation, which he made through Jesus
Vol. 28.
546
[October,
Christ. This Old Library naturally divides itself into four

sections.
The first section contains the five books of Moses com
monly called the "Pentateuch." The major part of these
books contained laws for the government of Israel, in political,
social, and religious affairs. This section contains the books
of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.
The second section is composed of twelve books called:
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, two books of Samuel, two books of
Kings, two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.
This section contains largely the history of the Hebrews, and
should be called: books of history, as the former should be
called : the books of the law.
The third section contains the books of poetry. They are
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and the
Song of Solomon. Besides these, individual poems are to be
found, both in the historical and prophetical writings.
The fourth section is composed of the seventeen remain
ing books, which are rightly called: the books of the proph
ets. The prophets who flourished previously to the Babylo
nian captivity were: Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Joel,
Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk. The last three
of these prophets seem to have belonged to the age closely
connected with Josiah's reform. Those who prophesied near
and during the Babylonian captivity were: Jeremiah, Daniel,
Obadiah, and Ezekiel. Those who flourished after the return
of the Jews from Babylon were: Haggai, Zachariah, and
Malachi. It may be noted that some critics assign Habakkuk
to a later period. To the books composing this section of the
library, have been given the names of the various prophets.
Each book contains the teaching of the prophet, and the
history of the people during his reign.
THE RELATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES TO THE
CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION.
This is a problem that must be solved in the mind of every
Bible teacher, before he shall be able to apply correctly, its
truth, to the people of this or any age. This is not a question
of the "Inspiration" of these Scriptures. If it were we would
1898]
547
turn to the expression: "And the Lord said unto Moses,"

which occurs one hundred and thirty-seven times in the three
middle books of the Pentateuch ; and to the two hundred and
sixty-three direct quotations in the New Testament taken from
the Old, together with the statement of Jesus, that: "All
things must be fulfilled which are written, in the law of Moses,
and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me."
Destructive criticism may continue to hurl itself against the
truth of "Inspiration," and it will prove as futile as the beat
ing of the waves against Gibraltar. The efforts of him who
would dam up the Niagara with chaff, would prove not less
ineffectual, than the effort of him who would destroy the
thought and belief of the inspiration of either the Old or New
Testament.
In our study of the books, in the old library, we observe
that it is impossible that all the laws given to the Hebrews
are to be obeyed by us.
In what light, then, are the Old Testament Scriptures to
be viewed by us? We read in Gal. 3:19, "What then is the
Law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed
should come, to whom the promise hath been made." "So
that the law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that
we might be justified by faith." (V. 24.) And in the twentyfifth verse, we learn that after that faith in Christ came, that
we were no longer under this tutor. "For we are all sons of
God through faith in Christ Jesus. "
In the eighth chapter of the Hebrew letter we learn : that
the Levitical priesthood was abolished by the eternal Priest
hood of Christ. In chapters nine and ten of this same letter,
we are taught that the sacrifice which consisted in the offer
ings of the blood of animals was imperfect, and therefore
supplanted by a perfect sacrifice found in the person of Christ.
Therefore we conclude that the Old Law in its entirety is not
binding upon the people of the Christian dispensation. How
ever, concerning these Scriptures, Jesus said: "That all
things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of
Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning
me." Luke 24:44. Whatever in the Old points to the Christ,
must have its fulfillment in the Christ of the New. God at
548
[October,
the Mount of Transfiguration, rejected not only the authority

of Moses but also that of the prophets in commanding that we
should hear Christ. And when the Disciples looked, they saw
Jesus only. Jesus but emphasized this point when he said: "All
authority is given unto me, in Heaven and in earth." Do we
not therefore make void the "Ten Commandments" as such.'
Certainly. They contain the very essence of the old law, and
form a part of its foundation. We are not, however, to
understand that these were destroyed by Christ. He said:
"I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." Christ was not given
power to destroy principles that were eternal. Love, truth
and righteousness are taught in the Old Scriptures, and these
can never be destroyed.
Christ was the incarnation of
living principles, and as he lives, these must survive.
The dispensation came when Cod saw fit to relieve the
Hebrews from the bondage of the old law and to establish a
universal law, that henceforth there might be neither male or
female, Jew or Gentile, bond or free, but that all might be
one in Christ. When the teachings contained in the Old
Scripture are embodied in the New, they are to be considered
binding upon us, by virtue of their being incorporated in the
law, of this dispensation. The "Ten Commandments" though
given to Moses direct from God, are to be considered binding
upon this age, only to the extent that they have been incor
porated into the New Testament, which contains God's will
and testament to this dispensation.
THE NEW LIBRARY OR TESTAMENT
is composed of twenty-seven books, and like the "Old" sepa
rates itself into four natural sections. This library contains
God's law and revelation needful to the development of the
race under the "New Dispensation." This age recognizes
three great needs of humanity. First. Belief in Christ.
Second. That we may know how to enter into covenant and
spiritual relation with Christ. Third. That we may know
how, in a Godly and spiritual life, to sustain this relation.
That we may believe in Christ, we have the "Gospel" as
recorded by the four evangelists. Concerning this Gospel,
1898]
549
John says: "These (things) are written, that ye might

believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.'' Section 1
includes the four books called the Gospels.
Section 2 contains the "Acts" of the Apostles, and sup
plies the second need. It is the gateway between the Church
and the world. In it we are taught how to enter the King
dom of God. Dr. Albert Barnes rightly denominates it: "The
book of conversions."
Section 3 embraces the letters written to the Churches
and to the individuals. In these Christians have teachings
and exhortations concerning Godly living. In this the third
great need is supplied.
Section 4 contains the revelation made to JohnonPatmos.
This revelation is a picture in prophecy, portraying the
struggles through which the Church must pass, and it por
tends its ultimate and final victory.
A correct analysis of these books is necessary to a correct
interpretation. Any book may be robbed of its beauty and
harmony of thought by severing a section from its context in
a manner that will cause or create a meaning that was not
intended by the author. Paul charged Timothy that he
should "Rightly divide the word of truth." (Old Version. )
"Handling aright the word of truth." (Revised Version.) "Cut
ting straight the word of truth." (Emphatic Diaglot.)
That method of sermonizing, or teaching, that uses Scrip
ture without a strict observance of the laws, both of analysis
a nd synthesis creates discoid instead of bringing out the har
mony of the teachers through whom God made this revela
tion. Minds have been confused, and caused to believe the
Bible a book of mysteries, because ministers many times have
been unable to point to that portion of Scripture directly
applicable to the case in hand.
A right application of the "Word," demands a critical
discrimination between teaching applicable only to those ad
dressed, and that which admits of a general application. The
Savior gave many positive commandments, that were intended
only for those addressed. He commanded certain Disciples to
"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and cast out
550
[October,
devils." An effort upon the part of expositors, to make a

present and personal application of this, and many other like
Scriptures, breeds confusion and discord within the Church.
Jesus taught many things that admit only of a special ap
plication. To the sick of the palsy, he said: "Arise, take
up thy bed and walk;" to the blind man, "Go wash;" while
to certain Disciples he said: "Take no thought of what ye
shall say, for it shall be given you that same hour;" to the
fishermen he said: "Cast your net on the right side."
An attempt to make a present and personal application of
these and many other like commands, given by the Savior, is
to distort the word of God, and confuse the hearer.
Jesus also taught many things that were general and farreaching in their application. The Beatitudes, and indeed
nearly the entire Sermon on the Mount, will always admit of a
present and personal application.
A difficulty that confronts even the most careful student,
is to make the right application of those teachings that in con
struction are special, while they demand a general application.
Or when the reverse is true.
When Jesus gave what is known to us as: "The Lord's
Supper," whether at the same time or not, at least under
similar circumstances, and with the same persons present, he
washed the Disciples' feet. No honest student should be satis
fied to accept the one and reject the other, unless he can find
some law, in the canon of interpretation, that will justify such
a disposition. In developing the fact that such a law exists,
we call attention (1) to the direct personal teaching of Jesus,
and (2) to the teaching of the Apostles under the illumination
of the Holy Spirit.
We recognize the fact that the Apostles were inspired
when they wrote the four books of the Gospel. The Holy
Spirit was promised to serve as a reminder, as well as a
revelator. These men must have had the aid of the Spirit, to
reproduce correctly the teaching of Jesus. But with the first
four books of the New Testament the personal teaching of
Jesus ends, and the teaching of the Holy Spirit begins.
The last commandment that Jesus gave to his Disciples,
in person, was the commission which closes with these words:
1898]
551
"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com

manded you* to teach."
Jesus left to these chosen men
this promise, concerning the Spirit: "He shall teach you all
things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever
I have said unto you." Jno. 14:26. Jesus said to Peter:
"Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."
We believe that these men, under inspiration, bound upon us
the things Jesus intended should be bound.
In the personal teachings of Jesus, only those to which he
gave a general application, are to be considered binding upon
us, except when the Holy Spirit directs that certain special
teaching is to be considered general and lasting. The "Com
munion" was given to the Apostles by the Savior, to which
he gave no general application. The same may be truthfully
said of "feet washing." Were it not for the fact that the
Apostles bound upon us the "Communion" there would be
no just cause for a continuation of its observance.
The
reason that this institution has been perpetuated as a "Church
Ordinance," is because the Apostle said: "For I have received
from the Lord that which I also delivered unto you." I Cor.
11:23.
He then proceeds to tell how, and for what purpose, this
was given.
Feet washing is nowhere mentioned by the Holy Spirit
save once where a passing mention is made concerning it
in connection with a list of good works. I Tim. 5:10.t A
law that we may well observe, in the application of the
special teachings of Jesus is, that only such teachings, to
which Jesus does not give a general import, are to be consid
ered as applicable now, when so applied by the teaching of the
Holy Spirit, which begins with the book of Acts. This law
strictly observed, by the student of the Gospels, will destroy
the necessity of much spiritualization, that will always appear
necessary in the interpretation of parts of the Gospels, when
said law is disregarded.
Concerning that teaching of Jesus, to which he gave a
general import, there need be no comment. To Nicodemus
*"To teach," understood.
fThe Spirit simply records, in the Gospels, what Jesus taught.
552
[October,
he said: "Except a man be born again, he can not enter into

the kingdom of God." In the commission he said: "Who
soever believeth and is baptized shall be saved." These
expressions are not hedged about by circumstances, neither
are they confined by the limits of time, but are universal as
applied to men, and far-reaching in their relation to time.
The same law will correctly govern all like statements.
THE LAW OF SYNTHESIS APPLIED TO BIBLE STUDY.
That a correct interpretation and application may be
made, of God's revelation, it is necessary that the expositor
conform strictly to the law of synthesis. This law must not
only be observed in the study of chapters, and sentences, but
must be applied to the study of the Bible as a whole. Writers
are many times misunderstood, and misinterpreted, because
statements made by them are severed from their context, and
in so doing a meaning is created that was not in the mind of
the author. Distorted truth is hard to be comprehended even
by the stronger minds, and all but impossible to an ordinary
mind. The teacher of the Bible should be able to so unite its
truths, that the ordinary mind can and must understand.
This however is impossible for the instructor who is
unable to grasp the truths of the Bible, as sublime utterances
of great facts and principles that bear the relation of comple
ments. There is a disease of the nerves of vision called:
"Hemopia." This disease makes it impossible for the patient
to see an entire object at the same time. Teachers whose
mental vision is distorted by this disease will continually make
confusion out of harmony. When the judge asked the wit
ness if he had told the whole truth, he said: "Yes, your
honor, and more too." It is none the less disastrous to with
hold part of the truth, than to make additions to it.
The position of a writer, upon any subject, can not be
understood, fully, unless we take all that he has written upon
that subject. When we have gleaned all the facts, to these
we may apply the law of synthesis, thus placing said facts in
right relation to each other, and in so doing secure a
correct knowledge of the author's position. This same law
1898]
553
should be applied to the writings in the New Testament,

recognizing one author, not many. For by one Spirit, Paul
is led to emphasize faith, while by the same Spirit James is
led to emphasize works and John inspired by the same Spirit
dwells more largely upon love.
The law of synthesis applied to the teaching, concerning
entering the Church, will insure harmony, while to dis
regard such law, discord must of a necessity follow. The
following quotations will serve to illustrate the point in ques
tion.
1 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be
saved." Acts 16:31.
2"With the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
Rom. 10:10.
3"And put no difference between us and them, purify
ing their hearts by faith." Acts 15:9.
4"Repent and be baptized every one of you." Acts
2:38.
5"The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now
save us." 1 Pet. 3:21.
6"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified,
and not by faith only." Jas. 2:24.
To emphasize one or more of these statements, and disre
gard the remainder is to do violence to the teaching of the
Holy Spirit, but to recognize each as a law of the Spirit and by
the law of synthesis combining them, we have, in brief, the
law of induction, and with it perfect harmony.
It is only when we have embraced all that God has
revealed upon a subject, that it is possible to draw right con
clusions. The man who predicates salvation upon any one of
the above statements, omitting other conditions laid down
concerning the Remedial System, must disregard well estab
lished laws in the canon of interpretation. It is only when
we have united, by this same synthetical law, the revelation
concerning induction, with the revelation to the life inducted,
that we have a complete formula of the Remedial System.
The careful student must observe that God predicates salvation
not less upon the law of development and continuance than
upon the law of induction. When teachers shall observe and
554
[October,
apply, in their study of Revelation, the laws governing analy

sis and synthesis, much of our present confusion and denomi
national strife will be healed. Then would we recognize, that:
"We are all one in Christ Jesus."
We are not to conclude, even by the most accurate observ
ance of these laws, that a perfect creed could be formulated.
If all should recognize, as many now do, that Christ is the
Universal Creed, it would not of a necessity follow, that we
held identically to the same creed. The creed, in reality, of
every man is his conception of the object recognized as his
creed. Unless we possess perfect conceptions of Christ our creed
is yet imperfect. To have a perfect conception of Christ we
must comprehend him. To comprehend him we must be equal
with him. If then we be equal with Christ, there remains no
incentive to worship him. The fact that no human mind can
comprehend him is one of the strong proofs of his divinity.
The life that Cod designed in us is one of development.
That conception of life that demands in this world a full
fruition is alike unscriptural and unnatural. A continuous
development in this life naturally follows a continuous enlarge
ment of one's conception of his creed. To secure a larger
spiritual development in the Church, we must expand the con
ception the Church holds concerning its creed. The more of
revealed truth accepted and applied by the Church , the greater
will be its expansion. The Church that emphasizes the laws of
induction, to the neglect of the laws concerning spiritual
development, will be continually hindered in its progress. But
the Church that is able by the laws of analysis to extract the
truth from revelation, and by the laws of synthesis to unite
and formulate them, making a present and personal applica
tion possible, will have a continuous expansion, in spiritual
life, and labor.
D. A. Wickizer.
1898]
The Everlasting Kingdom.
555
THE EVERLASTING KINGDOM.

Matt. 16: 28.
"Verily I say unto you, there be some of them that stand here, which shall in
no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
The Scriptures view the Kingdom of Christ as both present and
future,as entered and enjoyed now, and as to be entered and enjoyed
hereafter. "Who * * * translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of
His love? " (Col. 1 : 13). " For thus shall be richly supplied unto you
the entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ." (2 Peter 1:11.) Perhaps we may with propriety regard the
subject as embracing two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Grace and the
Kingdom of Glory. Viewing the matter from this standpoint, which
one of these Kingdoms does the Master allude to in the foregoing text ?
The expression, "Some of them that stand here," seems to preclude
the idea that the reference is to the Kingdom that came on Pentecost,
for a vast majority of those that heard the Savior lived to see that
event, whereas only some of them were to live to see the translation
spoken of.
The first three verses of the next chapter furnishes the key to the
situation. "After six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James,
and John, his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain
apart : and he was transfigured before them : and his face did shine as
the sun, and his garments became white as the light. And behold,
there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him."
Of course the Teacher said and did many things during those inter
vening six days, but Matthew, Mark and Luke all omit those interven
ing things, and place the transfiguration next to the statement under
consideration. This could scarcely have been by accident. These
writers seem to have thought that the transfiguration fulfilled the
declaration made by the Savior that some of those present should not
die till they should see the " Son of Man coming in His Kingdom."
It seems to follow from these premises that the reference is to the
" Everlasting Kingdom"the " Kingdom of Glory."
This leads us to an inquiry as to the essential elements of that
Kingdom. Analysis shows the Kingdom to consist of: (1) Christ in
his glorified state; (2) that class of its citizens who reach it through
556
The Everlasting Kingdom.
[October,
death and the resurrection, and (3) that class who shall not sleep, but
be changed (1 Cor. 15:51-52). The transfiguration exhibits this
kingdom in miniature. Christ was there arrayed for the time being in
his future glory. Elijah, who had been translated, was there to repre
sent those who shall be "changed" without dying. Moses, who had
died, was there to represent those who shall be clothed in resurrection
bodies. In this group, and in this environment, Peter, James and John
"some of those that stood there"saw the "Son of Man coming in
his Kingdom."
Did Moses appear in that glorious scene in his resurrection body?
I think he did, and I believe that we here find the key to the meaning
of that passage in Jude which has given rise to many and conflicting
interpretations: "But Michael, the archangel, when contending with
the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses," etc. Satan has always
striven to thwart the purpose of Christ and his Kingdom, and has endeav
ored to throw into the region of doubt and confusion the cardinal doctrines
of the Gospel, one of which is the resurrection and glorification of the
righteous dead. In harmony with this persistent purpose Satan did not
want the doctrine of the resurrection of the body to be concreted in such
a realistic way as to amount to an ocular demonstration. Moses had
been dead for fifteen hundred years, and if his body should be raised
from the dead after the lapse of so many years there would be no diffi
culty in believing that the bodies of all saints might be raised notwith
standing any number of years that might intervene between death and
the resurrection. Such a demonstration would enable believers to lay
hold of the idea of the resurrection and hold on to it with a firm grasp.
When Michael invaded the domain of the deadin a sense the dominion
of the devilhis satanic majesty met him upon the threshhold and dis
puted his right to bear away the body of Moses as a trophy. Such a
ijact would indicate the final overthrow of the kingdon of Satan, and the
recovery of all his victims from the grasp of death. Moreover, it would
become an important stone in the foundation of human faith in the
triumphant outcome of the scheme of human redemption embraced in
the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
No wonder this dispute and contention arose about the body of
Moses. His grave was a strategic point in the great warfare between
he kingdom of Satan and that of the Son of God, and it was important
to the devil that it remain in his possession, while it was important to
the interests of the Kingdom of God that it be taken and despoiled of
its victory. In my opinion, the latter occurred, and in the transfigura
tion we see the "Son of Man coming in his Kingdom," coming in
triumph over death and the grave.
J. B. Briney.
1898]
The Perfect Life.
557
THE PERFECT LIFE.

Matt. 5:48.
Translation: "Ye, therefore, shall become perfect, even as your heavenly
father is perfect."
This passage has been forced into a service where it does not legi
timately belong. Some have supposed that it teaches the doctrine of a
perfect life, in all respects equal to that of our heavenly father. Others
have thought that it simply indicates the highest ideal, but it takes for
granted that no one will ever be able to realize that ideal. This view
is certainly untenable from almost every point of view. God would
certainly not enjoin upon any of his creatures an impossibility. How
ever, this view has been accentuated through the ages by a wrong
translation. As the verse stands in the old version, it is in the nature
of a command. But this must seem at once harsh and unnecessary to
all enlightened criticism. The very idea of commanding perfectness is
at once repulsive, and it is not too much to say that perfectness can
never be attained in that way.
But really the whole passage has been misunderstood. It is a
promise rather than a command. It is a future end rather than a pres
ent attainment. It is a benediction conferred, and not an ideal to be
realized through human effort. We do not mean by this that human
effort is not involved. The promises are all conditional ; they depend upon
the fulfillment of human obligation, and consequently we can not hope
for the perfection of character which is the end of all our struggles
without the struggles which lead up to it.
Let us now notice some special points which are essential to a
clear understanding of the passage:
(1) The Greek word esesthe is the future indicative, and can not,
therefore, be properly translated as it is in the authorized version, but
should have a future signification. It should also be noticed that
teleioi, which is construed with esesthe, literally means an end, a clos
ing act, a consummation, fully accomplished, brought to completion;
hence perfect, or without shortcoming in any respect of a certain stand
ard. Taken altogether the phrase " esesthe oun humeis teleioi"
should be rendered as we have translated it. The revised version is
almost identical with ours.
(2) A second consideration is very important. What is the sub
ject under discussion ? Christ is evidently teaching his Disciples how
they should act with respect to those who are not friends. He brings
before them the fact that their Heavenly Father makes the sun to rise
558
The Shortness of the Years.
[October,
on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and unjust. He
then promises that they shall be like him in this respect. The promise
does not necessarily have a wider significance. It ought not to be
pressed further than the particular point to which special attention is
called. The idea is this: if the Disciples should simply render evil for
evil or good for good they would do no better than the heathens ; and,
to encourage them to a better life, the Master assures them that, in the
respect urged, they shall become like their Heavenly Father.
(3) This suggests an important possible attainment of character.
When Christ delivered his Sermon on the Mount his Disciples had made
very little progress in the Divine life. They were yet babes, and knew
little or nothing of the real manhood to which they should come in the
future years. Indeed, his Apostles never did manifest much strength of
character until the Day of Pentecost and afterwards. When they re
ceived the "endowment from on high" they ceased to be weaklings
and became courageous, flaming heralds, bearing the message of salva
tion to a lost world. Furthermore, after the descent of the Holy Spirit
they seemed to have a new disposition. Practically they began to live
in harmony with the promise which Christ made in the text under
consideration.
If our view of the passage is correct then it is evident that the
indwelling Holy Spirit is an essential condition to any proper manifes
tation of a perfect life. All our efforts at self-restraint, or the cultivation
of the highest graces, must necessarily come to naught unless we have
the constant help of the Divine Paraclete. Hence, it will be seen that a
proper understanding of the passage, to which we have called attention,
will greatly assist us in aproper conception of growth in the Divine life.
THE SHORTNESS OF THE YEARS.

Ps. 90:4-7.
Translation: " Surely a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday; for it
passeth away as a watch of the night. Thou earnest them away as with a flood ;
they are as a sleep in the morning; they are like grass which groweth up; in the
morning it flourisheth, then fadeth; towards evening it will be cut down and
withered."
The chief difficulty in this passage, as it appears in all the versions
we have noticed, is the punctuation. In all these versions there is some
kind of a stop placed after sleep. In the revised version it is a colon;
consequently the latter part of the fifth verse reads as follows: "they
are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up."
Now it must be evident to anyone who will take the time to think a
1898]
The Shortness of the Years.
559
little, that this punctuation is ridiculous, and the whole beauty of the
simile is confused if not destroyed. The psalmist is trying to enforce
the shortness of the years. Hence he declares that a thousand years in
the sight of God are but as yesterday, or as a watch in the night. This
of itself is a strong metaphor, but it might not appeal to everyone's
experience ; so he hits upon something that no one can fail to under
stand, for everyone has, at some time or other, experienced just what
is clearly indicated. A thousand years with God are as a sleep in the
morning; or to put it in a still more modern phrase, "they are as a
morning nap." Everyone knows how short this seems. The idea is
that there is first an awakening, and then the falling to sleep again,
then a second awakening, the time between being what is referred to.
This is what the years are in the rapidity of their passing. But what
sense is there in saying, "in the morning they are like grass which
groweth up?" Are they not always like grass which groweth up,
whether in the morning or evening? When, however, the adjunct "in
the morning" is construed with "they are as a sleep," then that which
follows is perfectly consistent with the new idea which is introduced.
In the morning the grass groweth up or flourisheth, then fadeth, while
towards evening it is cut down and withered.
It is well that the punctuation of the Bible is not regarded as
inspired ; and in our judgment there is nothing needs a more careful
revision than the punctuation of both the old and revised versions.
Indeed, it may be safely said that a wrong punctuation is responsible
for much of the misinterpretation of Scripture which has become canon
ized in the popular mind.
The New Testament furnishes many illustrations of this false
punctuation. To some of the most striking of these cases attention
may be called in subsequent issues of the Quarterly.
560
Nave's Topical Bible.
[October,
LITERARY REVIEWS.
AMERICAN AND ENGLISH.

i.
Nave's Topical Bible; a Digest of the Holy Scriptures. By

Orvii.le J. Nave, A. M., D. D., LL. D. (New York Interna
tional Bible Agency.)
The topical study of the word of God is not only quite interesting
and instructive but it gives men a grasp and a thoroughness of the vari
ous subjects treated that can not easily be secured by any other method.
A number of helps have been published to aid the student in his inves
tigations. All are more or less helpful. We find, however, that
Nave's Topical Bible is far superior to any we have examined. It is a
book of 1615 pages and presents the topics of the Bible in a most thor
ough and comprehensive form. Chaplain Nave has been exceedingly
careful to properly classify his subjects. Many books of this kind are
of little value on account of the theological bias of the compiler. This
work seems to be free from these inaccuracies. It can be trusted by
the busy pastor who may have but little time to consult all the passages
in the word of God on any given subject. Such a work is of great
value to any student of the Scriptures and is worthy of a place in every
library.
G. A. Hoffmann.
2.
Life of Alexander Campbell. By Thomas W. Grafton, with

an introduction by Herbert L. Willett. (Christian Publishing
Company, St. Louis.)
Any life of Alexander Campbell written so soon after his death

must of necessity be limited and take a somewhat narrow range of the
work that this great bishop has done for mankind. Another century
must pass before men can appreciate and understand the marvelous
work of this great man. His work is deepening and broadening now
more than ever before. Campbell is influencing more men to-day than
he did at any time during his wonderful career. The memoirs of A.
Campbell by Robert Richardson, published in two volumes of over
twelve hundred pages, present this life as well as it could be done at its
close. These memoirs simply lay the foundation for the historian. A
book has been needed for several years by the great mass of readers
1898]
The Emphasized New Testament.
561
that would be interesting, comprehensive, and readable. Thomas W.

Grafton has given us this volume of two hundred and fifty pages in a
most delightful and instructive manner. He has shown himself a mas
ter by making his story most interesting, attractive, and at the same
time crowding the pages with the work and incidents of the life he por
trays. This book properly exhalts the life of Mr. Campbell and will
increase men's appreciation of the work he did. We have read no
book that held our attention and brought more satisfaction than this. It
is a book for the masses and a book for the teacher and a book for the
busy minister of the Gospel of Christ.
G. A. Hoffmann.
3.
The Emphasized New Testament . A new translation designed to

set forth the exact meaning, the proper terminology, and the
graphic style of the sacred original ; arranged to show at a glance
narrative, speech, parallelism, and logical analysis; and emphasized
throughout after the idioms of the Greek tongue. With select
references and an appendix of notes. This version has been
adjusted to the critical text ("formed exclusively on documentary
evidence") of Drs. Westcott and Hort. By Joseph Bryant
Bothekham, translator of "The New Testament Critically
Emphasized."
(London:
H. R. Allenson, 30 Paternoster
Row, E. C.)
This is a new edition and practically a new translation of a work

which has, since
held an important place among the translations
of the New Testament.
While many of the features of the old work are retained, a new
Greek text has been used and a new system of notation of emphasis
takes the place of the old underscoring which was not altogether pleasant
to the eye. Another decided improvement for general reading has been
made.
The Greek idiom is not so rigidly followed as in the former
translations; and the consequence is the literary style is much more in
harmony with the best specimens of modern English. Nor have these
changes in the slightest degree reduced the critical value of the work.
The older version was perhaps the most literal rendering of the New
Testament that has ever been made. It was an attempt to reproduce in
English almost the exact idiom of the Greek. The present version is
still quite literal enough. The translator has availed himself of all the
helps of modern scholarship, and the result is perhaps the best transla
tion for all purposes that has ever been made of the Greek New Testa
ment.
Vol. 29.
562
Organic Evolution Considered.
[October,
Had we space it might be profitable to make a number of quota

tions of passages wherein the excellent judgment of the translator is
unmistakably shown. But to do this to any extent is impossible in this
notice. Hence, we must content ourselves with a somewhat general
notice of the character of the work. However, we can not refrain from
calling attention to the fact that the translator has, in many instances,
discarded the old terminology of the schools and has substituted in its
place terms which are largely free from a purely theological meaning.
For instance, he uses the term "assembly" for church. He also gives
us "the joyful message" for gospel, "age-abiding" for the Greek
aionios. These are only a few specimens of the freedom used by the
translator. He has aimed as far as seemed advisable to render the
Greek by English terms which are intelligible to the common people.
There can be no doubt about the scholarly character of the work.
In our judgment the translation is far superior to the new version
recently made under the auspices of the English and American revisers.
The former is in every respect a more exact representation of the original
Greek, while its English dress is often charming for its very simplicity
and perspicuity. For preachers of the Gospel this translation must be a
great help. It often gives an entirely fresh view of the most familiar
passages. Besides, one feels a constant charm in the rhythmic propor
tion while following its emphasized phrases. Taken altogether we do
not hesitate to say that it is the best translation of the New Testament
to be found anywhere in the English language.
4.
Organic Evolution Considered. By Alfred Fairhurst, A. M.,

Professor of Natural Science in Kentucky University. (St. Louis:
Christian Publishing Co.)
It is a pity that the literary style of this book is not on a level with
its important facts. The style is jerky, sometimes involved. The
sentences often lack coherence. There is constantly an absence of that
ease and grace which always lend to scientific discussions a peculiar
charm. If the style were equal to that of Prof. Drummond's Ascent of
Man, the book would doubtless have a very wide circulation. As it is,
however, its circulation will be limited, for the very reason that the
only attractions the volume possess are its hard facts and strong logic.
These, though important, do not promise much for the popularity of the
book at the present time.
Apart from its lack of literary style the volume has a certain value
which is all its own. We know of no other work even similar to it.
The author is evidently an original thinker. His views are for the most
1898]
Organic Evolution Considered.
563
part conservative, but he is no slave to conservatism, right or wrong.

He is evidently well informed with respect to all the questions in con
troversy- He is also a scientist first and last. It is true that his aim is
to overthrow evolution as a theory, and it is also unmistakable that he
writes in the interests of theism. However, he admits that evolutionists
may be theists, atheists, agnostics, pantheists or materialists. He does
not, therefore, attempt to overthrow evolution from simply a theistic
standpoint, although he believes that the theistic standpoint is the best.
Furthermore, he believes that a propogation of evolution has a tendency
to weaken theism. Hence he acknowledges that his contention is in the
interests of theism, because theism, he believes, is the only proper
alternative to evolution.
It is well also to emphasize the fact that Prof. Fairhurst writes
wholly from a scientific point of view. While he constantly keeps
before him the ultimate end of the controversy, it must be said to his
credit that he does not allow this end to influence his conclusions. He
follows strictly his facts, and reaches only such conclusions as he
believes these facts clearly establish. It may be too much to say that
he never allows, in any case, the end which he has in view to color his
facts, but it must be admitted that he has, as far as could be reasonably
expected, allowed his facts to speak for themselves.
In a general way it may be stated that he holds very rigidly to the
notion that science, when properly understood, does not contradict the
Bible, when the latter is properly interpreted. He finds no irreconcilable
conflict between Genesis and Nature. Indeed, he holds vigorously the
notion that the first chapter of Genesis, though not intended to be a
treatise on geology, is, nevertheless, a fine statement of acknowledged
geological facts. This is really the test question under consideration,
and this is the crucial point to be settled between revelation and science.
It is interesting to know that many of the best thinkers of the pres
ent day are rapidly receding from the extreme notions of some geologists.
It is no longer doubtful that the difficulties in the way of the belief that
Genesis does not scientifically state the doctrine of creation are much
greater than any assumption that declares Genesis to be a veritable
history. For instance, how can any one believe that the first chapter of
Genesis was written, even as late as Josiah, by some one who knew
nothing at all about geology? Nevertheless, if we suppose that these
statements are simply guesses at the order of creation, then we must
reach the monstrous conclusion that the guesses are all practically right.
But who can believe that the first chapter of Genesis could have been
written by even a hundred of the wisest men of antiquity, if they were
not guided by some Divine inspiration? It may be that the story of that
564
Horace Mann and the Common School Revival. [October,
chapter contains difficulties which are not yet fully explained by the facts
of science, but, as already intimated, these difficulties are nothing com
pared with the monstrous conclusion which we are compelled to accept
if we discard the notion entirely that the chapter was written by some
one who had either the facts of creation before him, or else was guided
by some unerring mind. In short, Genesis, as it stands, is a greater
miracle than any that would have to be accepted in a belief that the
account of creation was indited by inspiration.
Prof. Fairhurst has done a most excellent work in giving us what
we may not inappropriately call the science of revelation. His book is
sure to create a profound impression upon all who study it with
unprejudiced minds.
j.
Horace Mann and The Common School Revival in the United

States. By B. A. Hinsdale, Ph. D., LL. D. Professor of
Science and the Art of Teaching in the University of Michigan.
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.)
It was fitting that Prof. Hinsdale should write the life of Horace
Mann. The former is an educator with a distinguished record. He
has been connected with the educational interests of the country for
many years, and the position which he now holds in Michigan Univer
sity is proof that he has exceptional abilities for dealing with educational
problems. Horace Mann was far and away the ablest educator of his
country in his day. Indeed, it is safe to say that he is practically the
father of popular education in the United States, at least in its best
sense. It is not meant by this that he originated the system, but he
certainly did contribute to its development in a way exceeding that of
any other man.
The volume before us is more than a biography. It is a clear,
philosophic discussion of the great educational questions which have for
years agitated the people of the United States. Horace Mann is simply
the central figure around which Prof. Hinsdale groups the history of
educational development. The book is readable from beginning to end,
and contains an amount of well digested information which can not be
found anywhere else.
It would be interesting to notice the progress of the common school
system of the United States which is clearly indicated in the discussions
of this book, but our present space will not permit. It is sufficient to
say that no educator can afford to neglect the reading of Prof. Hins
dale's carefully prepared volume. It is full of meat of a very excellent
quality. Indeed, we may return to it in a subsequent issue of the
Quarterly, when we hope to give it a much more extensive review.
1898]
6.
The Veracity of the Hexateuch.
565
The Veracity of the Hexateuch. A Defense of the Historic Char

acter of the First Six Books of the Bible. By Samuel Calcord
Bartlett, D. D., LL. D., Ex-Professor of Dartmouth College.
(New York: Flemming & Revel.)
It is well known that Professor Bartlett belongs to the conservative

school of criticism ; and it is fortunate for that school that it has such a
scholarly, able man as its defender. For a long time the advanced
higher critics had everything very much their own way. This was to be
reasonably expected. All such onslaughts as that of the higher critics
have a tendency to daze those who do not accept the conclusions
reached. When the recent attack was made upon conservative criticism,
it was so vehement, so persistent, and directed with so much scholar
ship and strength that it was some time before the conservatives could
rally, and even when they did their generalship was for the most part
bad ; while the result of their defense was little more than a sort of
guerilla warfare without any very satisfactory results. Time, however,
is sometimes the best general. It has proved to be such in the present
case. Already a very decided reaction is setting in against the advanced
higher critics. In Germany some of the ablest scholars are now hedg
ing against the advanced conclusions, while in England and the United
States thoughtful men are everywhere reconsidering even matters which
two or three years ago were supposed to be practically settled.
Dr. Bartlett's contribution is timely. It does not concern itself
with the problems of authorship, but the whole strength of the discussion
is concentrated upon the important question of historical veracity.
Starting with the book of Joshua, Dr. Bartlett reasons backward to the
creation, and it is difficult to follow him in his searching inquiries with
out sympathizing with him in his conclusions. Throughout the whole
of his investigation he makes everything turn upon important points,
leaving the minor difficulties to take care of themselves, or to the tender
mercies of those higher critics who imagine that these little things are
of special value. His argument is particularly strong in showing up the
folly of the higher critics in resting their conclusions upon assertions
which are generally taken for granted without proof. Undoubtedly this
is one of the features of the discussion which has not received sufficient
attention. We are very far from condemning the higher critics in every
respect. Many of these have done a good work for the cause of truth.
They have sifted much of the chaff from the wheat, and they have
helped to an honest understanding of the origin, genuineness and author
ity of the Bible. But they have frequently gone to extremes, and gen
erally when they have done so, they have based their conclusions upon
566
Les Origines de la Compagnie de Jesus.
[October,
insufficient evidence, and frequently upon no evidence at all except what

is purely guesswork. Dr. Bartlett deals mercilessly with these critics,
and if anyone wishes to examine what can be said in defense of the con
servative view, he will find in this volume one of the ablest statements
of the case that has yet been made.
FOREIGN.
i.
Lcs Origines de la Compagnie de Jesus; Ignace et Lainez.

Hermann Mueller.
The Origin of the Company of Jesus; Ignatius and Lainez.

Hermann Mueller. Paris, Fischbacher, 1898.
Par
By
This stout duodecimo volume is a very valuable contribution to a

large literature to which the interest of our times in the history, charac
ter, and activity of the Society of Jesus has given birth. Such is the
remarkable character of the past and present history of the Jesuits that
they are to-day, as they have been in the past of their existence, a
mighty problem to all the nations of Christendom. No order in the
Roman Church has exercised so powerful and extended an influence in
the Catholic world, and beyond itperhaps, it might be said, not all
the other orders of the Roman Church togetherduring the last three
and a half centuries as that of the Society founded by Ignatius of
Loyola. Nor has any other one had so extraordinary a history of such
strange vicissitudes.
"The Company of Jesus," says our author in the introduction to
his book, "founded in the sixteenth century by Ignatius of Loyola,
excited immediately after its birth enthusiastic admirations and vehe
ment antagonisms; devotions resting upon the sincerest conviction, and
most violent hatreds. It was at one time the object of exceptional
favors, and at another time of severities because of distrust, from the
popes. Banished often by different states, both Catholic and Protes
tant, it has been the counselor and master of princes, and enrolled
emperors and kings among its lay members. It has covered Europe
with its domiciles and its colleges, sent its missionaries to China, to
Japan, to the Indies, to Paraguay, and to Canada, while the accusation
which assailed it at its birth ceased not to resound behind its triumphal
car. It succumbed at last, when at the very zenith of its power, to the
blows of these very accusations. Rejected by the peoples, abandoned
by the kings to whom it had furnished confessors, and condemned by
the pope who declared that the peace of the Church was impossible as
long as this sign of contradiction and this brand of discord existed."
1898]
Les Origines de la Compugnie de Jesus.
567
Pope Clement XIV by an apostolic brief abolished the order in

1773; and its enemies believed that their triumph was complete. But
Pius VII, in 1801, revoked the brief of Clement, and the dreaded Com
pany of Jesus sprang forth again from its grave, "organized, armed;
and its name was legion."
"The hour was propitious for this resurrection, lately so unlikely.
The revolution had obliterated the memory of the peoples as of the
governments; and it might have been believed for the moment that the
oppositions excited against the Company of Jesus had disappeared with
the ancient order of things. And yet, from the first hour of its re-estab
lishment, an attentive observer might have distinguished, in the midst
of the acclamations which greeted it, hollow, sullen murmurs, subdued
protestations, a sort of rumbling that was the precursor of a storm.
"Soon, in fact, it was no longer murmurs. * * * In France,
where the conflict with the Jesuits has confounded itself with political
and dynastic opposition, the public tribune has not ceased to resound
with the denunciations of former days. Proscribed time after time in
Germany, in Switzerland, in Spain, in Italy, the sons of Ignatius seem
to-day, as at the time of their suppression, to bring peace or war,
above all, war! in the folds of these black robes, which they under
stand so well, as occasion may demand to exchange for the embroid
ered robe of a mandarin or the mantle of a Saracen.
"It is here, in this situation, truly without precedent and without
analogy, that the problem consists of which I have already spoken.
Never, at any period of historythe Templars excepted whose destiny
however offers but very remote analogiesnever, I say, has a religious
order as a constituted body, whatever may in other respects have been
its services or its faults, played a role like that of the Company of
Jesus."
No religious order in the Catholic Church has ever to so remarka
ble a degree excited on the one side the enthusiastic admiration and
devotion, and on the other side the intense, sometimes unbridled, hos
tility and hatred of the people, Catholic as well as Protestant, as the
Society of Jesus.
"Much has been written," says M. Mueller,
"touching the Company of Jesus; everything has been written either
for or against it; everything, except, perhaps, the truth without passion
and unvarnished. 'It seems,' wrote Lacordaire in 1846, 'it seems that
the Jesuits have the talent of making insane both those who attack them
and those who defend them.'
"The Jesuits, taken en bloc, are neither perfect saints nor consum
mate hypocrites; they are simply men, men like others, capable of vir
tue and heroism, but subject also to error and to weakness. I believe
568
[October,
that I shall have made a great step towards the light if I succeed in
establishing a truth so simple and so free from artifice."
The object of this book is to trace carefully and thoroughly, and
without parti priswithout prejudice, the facts that constitute the
origin of the history of this famous society. The author thinks that
this has really never been done, in spite of all the abundant literature
we have on the Jesuits. A sort of mystery has always hung like a
cloud over the order. "The Jesuits hold their Institute far above all
other monastic congregations, past, present, or future. In the seven
teenth century, when Parliaments, whose office it was, in a superior
way, to inquire into the character and aims of institutions and orders,
insisted on obliging the Jesuits to define themselves, Fathers Coton,
Lallemand, and La Tour simply answered that they would have to be
accepted as they were, tels quels, without definition ; and no further
enlightenment could be extorted from them. From this fact, their per
sistent reticence as to their character and aims, they were for a long
time afterwards called in France Messieurs Tales Quales."
The Jesuits have always to this day tenaciously maintained that
the Rules and Spiritual Exercises, which constitute the very constitu
tion and life of their order, are not of human origin, but were revealed
to Ignatius directly from Heaven while he was in a state of ecstasy and
visions; being wholly illiterate he could not have originated and written
them out himself. This these astute "fathers" have boldly and per
sistently maintained before popes and the world. But strict investiga
tion throws some extraordinary light on the "origins" of these Rules
and the Spiritual Exercises of the Order.
The Mohammedans have also orders analogous to those of the
Catholic Church ; and it is very remarkable that the rules of some of
these orders, which were antecedent to that of Ignatius, contain the very
identical regulations found in those of the Jesuits ; and these Moham
1898]
569
medan orders had existed in Spain. M. Mueller gives extracts from

the two sources, setting forth these identical rules, in parallel columns:
MUSSULMAN TEXTS.
"You shall be in the hands of your
Sheik like a corpse in the hands of the
washer of the dead." (Book of His
Helps, by the Sheik Si-Shoussi. )
"The brothers shall have for their

Sheik a passive obedience, and at
every moment they shall be in his
hands like a corpse in the hands of the
washer of the dead." (Last Recommen
dation dictated to his successor by the
Sheik MooleyAl-el-Djemal, founder of
the congregation of the Derqaoua, a
branch of the Chadelya. )
"Obey jour Sheik in all which he
commands, for it is God himself who
commands by his voice; to disobey him
is to incur the wrath of God. Forget
not that you are his slave, and that you
must not do anything without his or
ders. (Rules of the Balmania. )
TEXTS OP LOTALA.
"Those who live in obedience must
let themselves be led and conducted
by their superior like the corpse which
allows itself to be turned and handled
in every way." (Constitutions of the
Society of Jesus.)
"I must commit myself to the hands
of God, and of the Superior who gov
erns me in his name, like a corpse
which has neither intelligence nor will,
like the staff in the hands of the old
man." (Last recommendations dic
tated by Loyola a few days before his
death, as his spiritual testament.)
"The means of subjecting one's
thought, is to imagine that all which
the Superior commands is the command
and will of God. * * * He that de
pends on another must be a servant,
docile and obedient, in order that the
virtue of him who commands passes
over into him and fills him." (Letter
of Ignatius to the Portugese Jesuits on
obedience.)
It is most striking to observe the exact coincidence between the

constitutions of the Mussulman orders and that of the Jesuits. '-The
power of the Sheik of the Mussulman congregations is absolutely that
of the General of the Society of Jesus. It is prescribed to the Moham
medan Superior 'to use it as he pleases;' this is word for word the 'as
he pleases' of the Constitutions of Ignatius.
"Saint Paul recommends to Christians a reasonable obedience;
Ignatius of Loyola has discovered in Islam a superior obedience, that
of the understanding and of the intelligence.
"To come to this 'very perfect' obedience, the member of the
order, says the Mussulman, 'must remove from his mind all reasoning,
good or bad, without analyzing it or seeking for its bearing, for fear
lest the free course given to our meditations should lead to error. * *
He must have for his superiors a passive obedience in all things. * * *
Keep his heart chained to his Sheik * * * fill his thoughts with the
thoughts and the image of his Sheik ; see only him, believe only in
570
[October,
himhim always; banish from his mind everything that has not God
and his Sheik for its object."
"This is what Ignatius calls 'breaking his spirit,' that is, as the
Jesuits have themselves interpreted this saying, 'sacrificing his reason.'
" 'He that would without reserve immolate himself to God,' wrote
Loyola to the Portuguese Jesuits, 'must, besides his will, offer to him
also his intelligence, which is the third and supreme degree of obedi
ence ; so that he not only wills but also thinks the same as his Superior,
and submits his judgment to his judgment, as much as a will, entirely
surrendered, can make the intelligence also yield. * * * We must
persuade ourselves that everything is right which the Superior ordains.
By a sort of blind obedience let us reject every idea, every sentiment
contrary to his orders.' "
Now this identity so evident in the two rules of conduct and life,
the Mohammedan and the Jesuitic, can not be mere coincidence ; anyunprejudiced mind will decide at once that the latter is derived from
the former ; especially when we know that the Mussulman monastic
orders, which were governed by the Rules above quoted, were anterior
to that of Loyola, and were known in Spain.
But besides all this, it is a historic fact that Ignatius did come into
personal contact with these Saracen monks at a time when he was med
itating the creation of his new order of "warriors of Jesus."
In the early part of the year 1522 he journeyed from Loyola, his
home, towards Montserrat. On the road he met a SaracenSaracens
and Jews were then free to live in Catalonia and Aragon. This Mus
sulman was a member of one of the religious orders of Islam. Their
conversation and discussion turned on religious matters. This incident
did not lose its effect on Ignatius.
Nothing is clearer, then, than that Jesuitism, instead of receiving
its constitution and rules of life by revelation from heaven, borrowed
some of the most essential parts of them from the orders of Islam. The
famous perinde ac cadaver, that the members of the order shall be as
absolutely passive in the hands of the Superior as a corpse, which is
the supreme characteristic rule of the Jesuits, as we have seen, is bor
rowed verbatim from the rules of the Chadelya, the Moslem orders.
M. Mueller has done an excellent service to our age in thus con
scientiously and thoroughly tracing the Origins of the famous order of
the Jesuits, whose influence has again become so mighty in the Cath
olic world and in Christendom. The Black Pope, i. e., the General of
the Jesuits, has more than once mastered the White Pope, who rules in
1898]
Le Danger Moral de VEvolutionisme Beligieux.
571
the Vatican; he triumphed in the Vatican Oecumenical Council which

imposed on the Catholic Church the dogma of papal infallibility.
Chas. Louis Loos.
2.
Le Danger Moral de P Evolutionisme Religieux.

Frommel, Professeur a l'Universite de Geneve.
Par Gaston
The Moral Danger of Religious Evolutionism. By Gaston From

mel, Professor at the University of Geneva. Lausanne, 1898.
Evolution in the domain of nature, as the law of physical develop
ment, has conquered a wide dominion. It has become the rule for the
scientific explanation of all the processes and productions, the forms of
life and being in the natural world. If there is a God which is un
certain, for evolution itself may be the occult genetic power of the
Universe but if there is a God, his method of working, exclusive and
universal, is that of evolution.
But shall we stop here, with this determination and fixation of this
supreme universal law in physical nature ? Oh no, no ! When we
have discovered this law for the material world, the sublime instinct for
scientific and philosophical speculation urges us irresistibly to establish
the evolutional principle as the norma also for the explanation of all
phenomena in the immaterial world. Evolution shall be and must be
the law of universal genetic action; it shall be enthroned and pro
claimed as the only scientific explanation, the philosophy of all life.
And then what ? Why this, of course : as the systemization of
things, i. e. philosophy, must sit and rule as universal sovereign with
undisputed sway, this law must be at once with swift speed carried also
into the domain of theology and religion. For has it not been a longestablished rule to subordinate theology to philosophy ? first to adopt a
philosophy and then formulate and expound theology rigorously accord
ing to its dictates ? And what charm would there be in a theology
without a philosophy ? Hence philosophies many and theologies many.
And if philosophy is the formulator and expounder of theology,
why not also of religion, *. e. of the method according to which the
processes of Divine grace, the action of religious work in the human
soul? Just so ; and nothing is more reasonable, more natural. And
what a fascination, what a magic there is in a " scientific, philosophical
religion?" How far above the unrefined, vulgar conception of this
Divine thing in man !
Evolution is supreme, in theology and religion, as elsewhere.
572
Le Danger Moral de V Evolutionisme Religieux. [October,
We have here now a new " idol," that of the theological cathedra
and of the pulpit!
Professor Frommel is a sober-minded, wise man; were he not we
should not have noticed his book. It is the habit of certain men, those
whom the French call bornes, narrow-minded zealots, to run to extremes
always ; to deny all where they can not accept all. M. Frommel, we
are glad to know, is not of this sort.
In his brief preface he sets forth the purpose of his book. " The
following pages," he says, "reproduce the text of lectures recently
delivered, in whole or in part, at Sainte-Croix, Geneva, Lausanne, and
Paris. Their intention is not to engage in a polemic of parties or to
sharpen personal rivalries, as some have believed, but simply to put the
Churches on their guard against an alteration of evangelical Christian
ity, to which a certain class of believers are in danger of yielding too
easily and which the author holds to be disastrous.
" The writer does not pretend to pronounce against a scientific
evolutionism; he does in no respect prejudge its explicative value in
the domain of nature, and does not aim to determine in this sphere the
limits of its legitimate use. This is above his competence and outside
of his design. Yet still less does he think of contesting the fact itself
of evolution ; this would be to deny history, its exact synonym."
Our author's object in the lectures reproduced in this book was to
set before his hearers the moral danger of the theological, and especi
ally the religious, evolutionism which is becoming more and more
prevalent and is sustained by eminent names in the Protestant Churches.
It is this sort of evolutionism, preached constantly in theological chairs,
in pulpits, and in religious journals of high rank, that M. Frommel
proposes to expose and warn against.
"It will be difficult to maintain," he says, "that the controlling
tendencies which at present give direction to an important fraction of
Christian theology, do not proceed in a straight line from the religious
evolutionism as it is conceived in the following pages."
M. Frommel answers a very common remark made in relation to
matters of this sort, namely that such ideas as those of evolution taught
by theologians are mere speculative notions and entirely harmless in
themselves. This is always the easy judgment of careless, indifferent
spirits of the numerous laissez-aller class. Poor guardians of truth are
these men who "make light" of everything, "thoughtless Galatians."
Our author quotes with trenchant force against such "easy souls" the
following admirable words of the great Vinet: "The extreme logic of
an idea is its true name. It is to its extreme logical effect that we
ought at once to carry an idea in order to know it well. Very often,
1898]
Le Danger Moral de V Evolutionisme Religieux.
573
by halting on the declivity, by imposing on ourselves arbitrary restric

tions, and, to tell the plain truth, by lying to ourselves about them, we
have allowed great errors, which, had their final logical effect been
frankly revealed, would have scandalized the whole world, to become
almost edifying by keeping silent about their last logical issue.
" Set these errors once in circulation, and they will, like the truth,
live an independent life. It will be no longer in the power of anybody,
least of all of those who have sent them forth, to fix a limit to their
activity or to stay their progress. No principle, true or false, rests in
active. It operates either in quiet or it acts with noise and tumult; it
makes its way slowly or rapidly, but it does not remain inert for a mo
ment from the day that someone has committed it to the spirits of men.
It matters not even whether the principle has been fully developed and
properly stated ; before it has found its formulation it will have found
its conclusion."
Admirable words these, if men would only ponder and accept their
salutary wisdom !
" The theory of evolution," says our author, "applied at first to
the natural sciences, is constantly gaining ground, and has affected also
the moral and religious sciences. Sociology serves it as a bridge from
the former to the latter, and Christianity is the object of its supreme
effort. Of this there can be no more doubt to-day with anyone. For
about half a century it might be said perhaps since the appearance of
the Hegelian philosophyGerman theology inclines to this side. Like
those powers which are determined to govern rather than to reign, evo
lutionism, proceeding at one time by bold, brilliant strokes, and again
by means of quiet, insensible infiltrations, yielding to circumstances,
taking for its points of support the very obstacles which oppose it,
selecting for its attacks the most refractory situations, and triumphing
over the most vigorous resistances, it has invaded every place and pen
etrated to its very heart. Neither England, nor France, nor Switzer
land have resisted this contagion.*"
"If I am asked the reason of the universal sympathy which the
doctrine of evolution (in theology) has met among our contemporaries,
I would answer that it proceeds to a considerable extent, if not decis
ively, from the scientific education which our age has given to the
minds of men.
" This education fashions the human mind almost from the cradle
by its processes, which are those of induction. It detaches it from met
aphysics and leads it to experiment ; it accustoms it to the notion of
*It has already reached our own country and been hospitably received by "liberal'' theologians.
C. L. L.
574
Le Danger Moral de V Evohitionisme Religieux. [October,
relations; it entertains it only with secondary causes. Above all it

opens to the minds of students the historical perspectives. It teaches
them to observe how phenomena succeed each other, are connected,
and are derived the ones from the others. From these lessons men
retain more than mere memory or recollection ; a disposition and
method of mind result and abide never to be effaced, which predispose
the mind incontestably in favor of the evolutional conception."
This is a correct solution of the mystery of the prevalence of the
idea of evolution. One of the most, if really not the most, magisterial
advocates of the principle of evolution in theology and religion is A.
Sabatier, dean of the Faculty of Protestant Theology in the University
of Paris. M. Sabatier is a man of extraordinary gifts and a writer of
great power. He explains his own case as follows:
" It is true that I like to use the word evolution, and to consider
all phenomena in their natural succession. But this is not a meta
physical doctrine, it is a process of study, a method which consists in
these two essential rules: to observe each fact as it presents itself, and
to observe it in its order, that is in the conditions in which it offers
itself ; because a fact has its truth and its value only in this order and
this connection." We have read M. Sabatier for years, and very often
with profit. But this eminent theologian is absolutely drowned in the
passion of philosophizing; he can hardly write a few lines without the
words science, scientific and philosophy. All theological and religious
conceptions must be cast in a scientific and philosophical mold, and ex
pressed in scientific and philosophical terms. How far away this is
from the New Testament spirit and method, is obvious to every one
who can think; the speech of these gentlemen, in the constant reitera
tion of these terms in theological and religious discourse, becomes really
"a jargon of the schools."
That the principle of evolution does not apply to the doctrine and
facts of the Gospel, and can not explain the facts of Christian experi
ence in conversion and sanctification and in the Divine life of the soul,
is so clear that it is beyond dispute. M. Frommel's demonstration of
this in his book is strong and triumphant.
'The Gospel has introduced and maintained in the religious
language of men special terms, which before its advent were altogether
unknown, or of a sporadic and unsettled signification; the words con
version, justification, and regeneration. It has given to them a new
and always identical sense. After having created them, it has con
stantly vivified them, so that, invariable and fixed, they have become an
integral part of Christian terminology across the centuries.
"But what is their meaning? They signify that man has not
' 1898]
Le Danger Moral de VEvolutionisms Religieux.
575
reached Christianity by natural development; that the line which has

brought him there is not a straight but broken one ; that between the
point of departure and the point of arrival 'a very great change' (as
our liturgy expresses it) must take place, a change which is a rupture,
a rupture which is a death. 'If anyone will come after me,' said the
Master, 'he must deny himself and follow me.' How far? Appar
ently even unto the death through which the Lord desired to pass.
'For whosoever will save his life will lose it, and whosoever will lose it
for my sake shall find it.' And Saint Paul adds that the Christian,
having 'become the same plant with Christ by a death like his,' our old
man is crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be
destroyed.' "
"But this rupture, this renunciation, this death form only the neg
ative condition of the access of the believer to the Christian life. It has
its positive and blessed counterpart in a Divine, sovereign act, by means
of which the converted believer, renouncing the realization of his moral
destiny by his own strength, reaches it by the hand of God himself.
'You are saved by grace, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift
of God.' * * * Our Lord says, 'What is born of the flesh is flesh, what
is born of the Spirit is spirit. * * * You must be born again.' * * *
There must be always a rupture with an anterior condition, and always
also a point of new commencement."
As to the "moral danger" of religious evolutionism, M. Frommel
says :
"What do these Christian evolutionists teach? A morality alto
gether relative, which we reach by good desires and good intentions,
and for which suffice some intermittent efforts towards what is good,
the most exterior reforms of conduct, and which hardly surpass the de
mands of the public law. The formidable strictness of the Divine holi
ness frightens no one ; under the name of grace and of Divine love, an
indulgent weakness, an indefinite tolerance kill the sting of the law and
paralyze the consciences. The easy impulses of a religious sentimentalism and the illusions of one's own virtue, still more frequent and
more fatal, take the place almost everywhere of the inexorable necessity
of a new birth. To become better, to improve little by little one's
character, this is the ideal, all in all! As to perfection, as to absolute
consecration to God our Savior, why this is a revolutionary folly that
would compromise irreparably all the interests of our existence. And
then besides, it is a pure impossibility. No one is held to do what is
impossible; and the good God, who knows this very well, is not so
strict in his demands."
Yes, this is evolutional Christianity in its spiritual and moral
effect; not as we may imagine it, but as it is before us a wide historic
fact. It is the old rationalistic religion over again, that desolated old
Protestant Europe for generations.
Our sincere thanks are due to M. Frommel for his admirable and
timous book.
Chas. Louis Loos.
576
Apologetic and Explanatory .
[October.
TABLE TALK.
Apologetic and Explanatory.Our readers will find less editorial work
in the present issue than in former numbers. This may be regarded by some as
an improvement since it has allowed more space for leading articles. Neverthe
less, it is believed that most of our readers would not care to have less of the
Exegetical, Literary, and Table Talk departments. In the present case the non
appearance of the usual quantity in these departments has been a necessity. The
absence of the editor in England, during the summer, and the great rush of work
upon him since his return have made it impossible for him to supply the usual
amount of matter for these departments. He has done all he could, and conse
quently he feels confident the readers of the Quarterly will be satisfied.
However, this failure furnishes an occasion to urge the friends of the Quar
terly to write for the important departments to which attention is called. Are
there not among our readers able scholars and thinkers who can help with the
Exegetical department? If the testimony we have received is worth anything,
then it is certain that the Exegetical feature is altogether the most useful and
popular that has been introduced into the Quarterly. We, therefore, heartily
invite such of our readers as may have something fresh and helpful to say
with regard to difficult passages of Scripture to send us their contributions.
While we are discussing the general character of the Bible in its origin, growth,
and character, it may be that we will forget what the Bible really contains, or we
may cease to investigate the great truths it reveals. Do not hesitate; but send us
your best thoughts upon important passages of God's Word.
Two Epoch-Making Events. Since our last issue the war between the
United States and Spain has ceased. The protocol under which hostilities were
suspended provides for a commission, which must settle all the points of a per
manent peace between the two countries. This commission has already begun
its work, and it is hoped that ere long the spirit of the protocol will be carried
into effect. We do not wish to anticipate what the commission may do. In any
case, the result will certainly be that Spain must practically retire from the
Western world; and it is now more than probable that the United States will
contend for the control of the Philippine Islands. Anyway, it is not difficult to
see that the United States is fairly launched upon some new and important enter
prises. America will become a potent factor in the affairs of the world as she
has never before been. This much is inevitable. This fact will greatly enlarge
our influence upon the world for good or evil. We trust it will be for good.
The other important epoch-making event is the great British victory on the
Nile. This victory must lead to consequences which few would dare predict at
the present time. Nevertheless, whoever can put two and two together ought to
be able to see in this victory an immense advance in Africa for modern ideas.
Practically a new highway has been opened up for missionary enterprise, for
wherever the British flag floats there the Bible and the missionary will soon be
found. Possibly some evils may also be counted in the train of British progress,
but these are infinitesimal compared with the good which is assured. We are
heartily thankful for the success which has attended the British arms, and now
that the two great Anglo-Saxon nations have gained the triumphs indicated, it is
worth while to consider that a still much greater triumph might be achieved if
these two nations could practically unite their moral and material forces in evan
gelizing and civilizing the world.
THE
Christian
Quarterly.
(new series.)
No. 8.
OCTOBER,
1898.
EDITOR.
W. T. MOORE,
Dean op the Bible College of Missouri.
ASSOCIATE EDITORS.
CHAS. LOUIS LOOS,
BURKK A. HINSDALE,
Professor of Pedagogics, Michigan University
President of Kentucky University.
HERBERT L. WILLETT,
JAMES H. GARRISON,
Lecturer in Biblical History in Chicago
Editor of the Christian Evangelist.
University.
JOHN W. McGARVEY,
H. W. EVEREST.
President of the College of tu Bible of
Dean of the Bible College of Draee Uni
Kentucky.
versity.
J. VV. MONSER,
Late Librarian of the Missouri State University.
COLUMBIA, MISSOURI.
Q. A. HOFFMANN, Publisher.
CINCINNATI, OHIO.
Standard Pub. Co.
LONDON, ENGLAND.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.
Christian Commonwealth Pub. Co.
Christian Pub. Co.
73 Ludgate Hill.
Entered at Columbia, Mo., postoffice as second class matter.
Single Number, SO Cts.

Per Annum, $2.00.
If not paid till end of the vear, $2.50.
Prtts of E. If. Sltfikent, Colmmiia, Mo.
Cor
I. THE TREND OF MODERN RELIGIOUS thuluht,
J. H. Garrison, St. Louis, Missouri.
II. RELIGIOUS HUMBUG,
H. W. Everest, Des Moines, Iowa.
III. THE SUPPLY OF PREACHERS,
J. W. McGarvey, Lexington, Kentucky.
IV. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND THE MILLENNIAL MAKBl.\ut,R,
F. M. Green, LL. D., Kent, Ohio.
V. ISAAC ERRETT AND OUR LATER HISTORY,
Alfred Martin Haggard, Oskaloosa, Iowa.
VI. HUMAN VOLITION AND RESPONSIBILITY,
M. C. Tiers, New York.
VII. THE LAWS OF ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS APPLIED TO THE BIBLE,
D. A. Wickizer, Des Moines, Iowa.
Exegetical Department. The Everlasting KingdomThe Perfect LifeThe Shortness of the Years.
LITERARY REVIEWS.
American and English,
.............
1. Nave's Topical Ilible2. Life of Alexander Campbell -3. The Emphasized New Testament
4. Organic Evolution Considered;. Horace .Mann and the Common School Revival in the
UnitedStates6. The Veracity of tne Hexateuch.
Foreign.
------1. Les Origines de la Compagnie de Jesus 2. Le Danger Moral de l'Evolutionisme Religieux.
Round Table.
...............
Apologetic and ExplanatoryTwo Epoch-Making Events.
The
Bible College
of
Hissouri.
, <-
; ;
545
560
566
Regular lectures on the following subjects:

1. Old Testament History.
2. The Law of Moses.
3. Historical Study of the Life of Christ.
Rise, Progress, and Characteristics of the Church.
(a) The Church Organized.
(l>) The Church at Worship,
(r) The Church at Work.
(</) Church History Under the Roman Empire.
5. Henneneutics, or Biblical Interpretation.
6. Homiletics, or Preparation and Delivery of
7. Pastoral Work.
[Sermons.
Special lectures are also given by eminent men upon important

subjects connected with Bible Study.
First Semester Begins Seprember 13, 1898.

For Calendars, Inaugural Addresses, or any Other Information, Address
W. T. HOORE, LL. D., Dean,
Columbia, Missouri.
Illustrated
Sermons.
Pastors can add greatly to the interest
and bring out the people in greater numbers
by using the Magic Lantern in their evening
sermons and lectures. Truths presented
through the medium of the eye as well as
the ear produce a double impression. One
remembers a thing SEEN far better than if
heard only. Sunday School entertainments
can also be thus easily provided. Hundreds of pastors attest the desira
bility of the plan.
We can rent slides to you for change of subjects. Write for catalogue
and special terms to pastors.
Mcintosh Battery St Optical Co.,
521=531 Wabash Ave.
Chicago, Illinois.
FORTY-EIGHTH
Christian College and Schoojof Music
YEAK
Forty-one students won diplomas at the close of

1897-9S.
Attendance from ten states of the Union.
Splendid facilities in Letters, Music, Art, Elocu
tion, etc.
Campus of twenty-six acres.
College beautifully furnished.
Buildings heated with hot water system and lighted
with electricity.
The Leading School

For Young Women
In the Southwest.
MRS. W. T. MOORE.
Columbia, Missouri.
I'ine Faculty of Specialist.. Next term begins September 7, 1S0S.

Send for handsomely illustrated Catalogue and terms to
MRS. W. T. MOORE, President.
Bankers
Life
of
Kansas
City.
A Western Life Insurance Company. Protective Life

Insurance. Modern Policy. One-half paid on permanent
total disability.
Absolute security. Women insured
on same terms as men. Limited payment policy. No
advance of rates on account of age. New line insur
ance. Premiums uniform, annually, semi-annually
and quarterly.
Kansas City, Mo.. April 14, iSg6.
Hon. C. W. Clarke, Manager Bankers Life Asso
MAJ. WM. WARNER, President.
ciation :
J. H. NORTH, ist Vice-President.
Dear Sir: It gives roe sincere pleasure to say that
C. W. CLARKE, 2d Vice-President and Mgr.
X am personally acquainted wiih nearly every one of
your board of directors and know the others well bv
S. E. RUMBLE, Secretary.
reputation, and am quite certain that there is no more
competent and reliable company of gentlemen in
ROBERT M. SNYDER, Treasurer.
this city. Any business, therefore, intrusted to them,
DR. J. P.JACKSON, Medical Director.
will be wisely and honestly managed. If I were of
insurable age, and wanted insurance, I should not
DR. H. C. CROVVELL,
DR. ROBERT SLOAN, ( Medical Board.
hesitate to place the risk with the Bankers Life.
Very truly,
ALBERT MARTY, Director.
THOS. P. HALEY.
HOriE OFFICE:
8KANSAS CITY, MO.
716 Delaware Street,
TELEPHONE JI50.
C.
Type
H.
HAUGHTON,
Writers,
* Office Supplies,
CARBON PAPER.
414 Commercial Building, St. Louis, ilo.
Rapthexrust
Break the Combine.
Blickensderfer
Equal to any $100 Machine for $35.
Send 10 cents in postage for samples of the Breham Patent Pen, with which
500 words, can be written with one dip in the ink.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Hi
3 9015 07465 5849
MP
3 901 5 07465 584M
3 9015 07465 5849

Christian Quarterly

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Christian Quarterly

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized

by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the

lldvTa. SoztpLaCere' to xaXbv xaTi^ere.1 Theus. v, 21.

Single Number, 6O Cts.

New SeriesJanuary, 1S98.

New SeriesApril, 1898.

I. A PLEA FOR A NEW REFORMATION,

New SeriesJuly, iSgS.

I. THE TREND OF MODERN RELIGIOUS THOUGHT,

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION; THE FUNDAMENTAL

very first importance that baptism should be assigned its

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

it is only necessary to call attention to the bitter controversies

the acknowledged teachings of evangelicals concerning regen

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

the Nonconformist bodies. It is true that some of these,

of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,

The Fun dame tal Error af Christendon.

to say, that from Barnabas down to the Council of Nice, and

ogy as original sin, as well as personal sins, it is not difficult

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

with the sacraments, continually gained ground, the theory was

of such a practice, nor made it so general, nor given it such

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

repenting, receiving the remission of sins, or salvation, etc.

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

notion, therefore, that infants must be baptized, in order to

of love for their parents, and would show a sort of disrespect

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

pie hold on to Infant Baptism, even after they are convinced

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

striking and perpetual proof of Christ's resurrection. By

their fleshly relationship to those from whom they are de

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

may logically follow. That it has followed with terrible effect

of our help in dealing with the evil of sacerdotalism. He is

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

priest and laity finds no countenance in the Word of God. In

Now if we turn to Romans vi. 4, we can scarcely fail to

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

"kindgdom of God?" If it means the everlasting or heavenly

Baptism of which Paul speaks is a Baptism in two elements,

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

when we come to consider the obligations involved in all that

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

manded, and substitutes what is just as clearly not com

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

extreme, indifference to baptism, is equally dangerous. In our

mate regard for both the antecedents and consequents of bap

The Fundamental Error of Christendom.

former, then a large portion of Christendom is practicing

Dr. Martineau and His Times.

DR. MARTINEAU AND HIS TIMES.

Dr. Martineau and His Times.

making the essential estimate of his views, to avoid exaggera

Dr. Martineau and His Times.

substance fell with it. We delude ourselves, he says, so soon

Dr. Martineau and His Times.

This, then, was the nature and contents of the arena

Dr. Martineau and His Times.

and truth attainable. If there was anything on which, in this

Dr. Martineau and His Times.

light obscured by the priest's candles. He considered the

Dr. Martineau and His Times.