To Infidelity and Back Part 2

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

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

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

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

"The rationalist . . . a.s.signs to some superior tribunal the right of determining what (in revelation) is essential to religion and what is not; he claims the privilege of accepting or rejecting any given revelation, wholly or in part, according as it does or does not satisfy the conditions of some higher criterion, to be supplied by human consciousness." Rationalism proceeds "by paring down supposed excrescences. Commencing with a preconceived theory of the purpose of a revelation, and of the form which it ought to a.s.sume, it proceeds to remove or reduce all that will not harmonize with this leading idea."

"Rationalism tends to destroy revealed religion altogether, by obliterating the whole distinction between the human and the divine. If it retain any portion of revealed truth, as such, it does so, not in consequence, but in defiance, of its fundamental principle."

But while many ministers are not much injured apparently by their rationalistic taint, many others are, and all are more or less.

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

Let me give you a few samples of the reasoning of rationalistic criticism as exhibited by its strongest advocates. Where it says that Jesus walked upon the water, we were gravely informed that Jesus did not walk upon the water at all. It happened to be a foggy morning and the disciples were deceived; he was really walking on the sh.o.r.e. Where it says "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side," we were informed that the Greek word here means primarily to p.r.i.c.k as with a pin, to pave the way to belittle the wound of Jesus, despite the fact that the narrative adds, "straightway there came out blood and water."

The purpose of this was to make way for the _theory_ that Christ did not die on the cross, but was simply in a lethargy, and when he came to in the tomb he pushed the stone away, and this so frightened the soldiers that they took to their heels, thinking it was a ghost, while Christ escaped to the mountains, where he lived secretly the rest of his life and finally died a natural death. All this without a sc.r.a.p of historical basis, and despite the express declaration of the narrative that an expert, who was sent by Pilate to ascertain if he was dead, reported that he was. This is so contrary to the facts of the narrative, and the character of Jesus and his disciples, that it is harder to believe it than any miracle recorded in the Bible. Why these ridiculous and absurd conclusions, despite the historical facts? Simply because of the necessity to get rid of the supernatural at the mandates of rationalism. To preserve such puerilities, the ma.n.u.scripts were kept in a fire-proof vault lest fire should destroy them. The claims of destructive criticism are so absurd and ridiculous, when looked at from a truly scientific standpoint, that I confine myself in this book to exposing the erroneous viewpoint of rationalism, believing that when that is done any one can easily see that there is nothing in it.

Besides, its quibblings have been often and ably exposed by competent authors and their works are accessible to all. That any one who claims to believe the Bible should give his time to teaching innocent and uninformed children and adults the conclusions of rationalistic criticism seems almost too absurd to believe; and when it is done under the pretense of honoring the Bible, it is but another ill.u.s.tration of how our moral and intellectual vision can be warped and distorted when we look through the colored gla.s.ses of rationalism and bias.

It is said that a minister kept telling his congregation that different parts of the Bible were myths, legends, etc., and not historical. One of his members cut out of her Bible every section he said was not true.

When he made a pastoral call she showed him her mutilated Bible. Upon his remonstrance, she replied that he had said that these parts were not reliable, and so she did not want them as a part of her Bible. He was shocked at his own vandalism.

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

We have also learned that man has by nature strong religious emotions, which, if exercised, give great joy and peace. Even unguided by revelation, they grope after G.o.d with the help of the finite intellect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER II.

MY PARTING MESSAGE TO THE UNITARIAN SCHOOL.

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

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

The professor of homiletics, who read and criticised all sermons before they were preached, rather took me to task for my bold attack upon Unitarianism, but he admitted to me that, although he had preached and taught it for more than a score of years, there were yearnings in his soul that it did not satisfy. The sermon was listened to with great respect and sympathy, especially by the more conservative students.

About ten years later I received a letter from a young Unitarian minister in Ma.s.sachusetts who referred to the sermon, and said he had never forgotten it, but was often reminded in his experience of how true it was, especially in what I said about the coldness and fruitlessness of Unitarianism.

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

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

Freethinker_.

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

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

_Mr. Liberal_--The great objection to your religion, Mr. Orthodox, is that it violates reason and conscience. To be more specific, let us consider a few instances. There is your doctrine of eternal punishment, in which you ascribe fiendish qualities to our dear heavenly Father such as the most savage human being could not be capable of. Then, take your doctrine of the Trinity, around which most of your dogmas cl.u.s.ter, and we see at once that it violates the simplest postulates of reason.

I know that you will answer that these are all mysteries which are to be accepted on faith. But it is perfectly clear that there is no mystery about it. It is as clear as daylight that three cannot be one.

You talk about mysteries which we must accept by faith, but all such talk is nonsense and ignores our sacred reason. The idea of getting over all difficulties by declaring them mysteries, and exhorting your opponents to leap over them by the exercise of faith, is truly, as some one has said, "a touchstone for whole cla.s.ses of explanations based on no evidence." You orthodox people are the cause of all the infidelity that is afloat in the land. People come in contact with your irrational and ridiculous claims, and, taking them as religion itself, they throw overboard the whole business, the good with the bad. What we need is a pure and simple religion that will satisfy man's reason and conscience as well as his heart. And we do not have to go far for such a religion, for we find it in the liberal faith which it is my privilege to represent. Let us compare our grand, simple and rational beliefs with your irrational, absurd and mysterious products of the Dark Ages, and see what a contrast there is between them. Instead of your "Son is G.o.d, Father is G.o.d, Holy Spirit is G.o.d; yet there are not three G.o.ds, but only one," we have the simple faith in one heavenly Father--all-powerful, all-wise and all-good. No mystery about it. It would be absurd to suppose that such a G.o.d could punish his children to eternity, or that He would require the suffering of the innocent to enable him to forgive the guilty. Then, of course, we reject all the absurd dogmas cl.u.s.tering around your conception of the Trinity. The simple belief in the Fatherhood of G.o.d and the brotherhood of man is enough for us. Instead of your endless punishment, we have the reasonable belief that the Father punishes simply to bring us good, so that our joy may be greater. This is all perfectly simple, and can be understood by the uneducated man as well as by the philosopher.

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

They are largely inscrutable and have always been considered so. And yet all the complex realities of life and death which have defied the theologians and philosophers of all ages, you now tell us are very simple, and you carry the simple solution around with you only too glad to give it free to everybody. Why is it that all of the thousands of worried and distressed souls don't come flocking to you? Why is it that the philosophers and thinkers don't come rushing in from all directions, to get from you the truths they have so long sought after?

Why is it that the uneducated ma.s.ses do not come to you and accept your simple doctrines which they can so easily understand? I know that you are ready with a charge of ignorance, prejudice, self-interest, etc., but I claim that as a rule your charges do not charge. You, believing in an all-wise, all-good and all-powerful G.o.d, who is Truth itself, must believe in the triumph of truth; and here I agree with you. I believe that just as soon as truth is brought in contact with error the latter will have to vanish just as sure as the darkness vanishes when a light is brought into a room. Error may apparently linger because of peculiar circ.u.mstances which we are ignorant of, but as soon as truth has a fair chance of coming directly in contact with error, the victory is won. I claim, therefore, that the reason that your explanations are not accepted, is because they do not explain. Your doctrines offer protection to a small part of the man, but leave all the rest exposed to the cold and inclement weather. The uneducated do not accept your doctrines because they belie their own experiences.

_Mr. Freethinker_--I hope you will pardon me for interrupting you, Mr.

Orthodox. You are getting too hot. I think it will be better for you to cool off before you continue, and in the meantime I will have my say.

That is the greatest objection I have to you religionists--you are all fanatics. You get an idea into your head, and then think that the continuance of the world depends upon you thrusting it into everybody's face. Of course you are willing to suffer for your doctrines, and even to die for them if need be, but that is the way with all fanatics. Your foolish notions give occasion for amus.e.m.e.nt to cool-headed free thinkers, who see perfectly well that they are all the result of self-delusion. I believe in keeping perfectly cool; in always keeping the head as high above the heart as it is in the body. I don't believe in attacking a man from behind while he is engaged by another in front, but, during the time Mr. Orthodox is cooling off, I wish to show you, Mr. Liberal, wherein I differ from you. Your great appeal is to reason, and I agree with you entirely on that point; but I don't arrive at your conclusions. You have been fixing your eyes on the monstrous outrage of reason in your brother's position so steadfastly, and yours is so much more in accordance with reason, that it is not surprising that you should have failed to see the irrationality of your own position.

Furthermore, you have had a great deal of inherited prejudice to overcome, and a man cannot be expected to get rid of all those at once, especially when they have reference to the heart or feelings. You say that your G.o.d is all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. The inevitable, logical conclusion from that is that such a G.o.d would give his children an infinitely small amount of evil and an infinitely large amount of good. But such is not the case; therefore, to keep that jewel of rationalism which is so dear to you, you must give up your belief in such a G.o.d. Just wait a minute! I know that you are ready to give a lot of quibbling that will satisfy some people who follow their prejudices and inherited feelings, but I defy the whole world of logicians to show that such a conclusion is less logical than the claim that there can be three in one. You say that it is in the nature of things that G.o.d must give us evil that we may enjoy good the more afterwards. But if you clear yourself from all prejudice, you will see that this is the old method of the ostrich of putting its head under the sand and imagining that its entire body is protected. Nay, even worse than that, you don't even protect your head. Any man that gives clear sweep to his reason will see that if G.o.d must comply with certain conditions, then he is not all-powerful If he is all-powerful, he can give us all good without any evil, and if he is all-good it would logically follow that he will do so. Then, again, while affirming that man is a free agent, you at the same time claim that every effect must have a cause, or that something cannot come out of nothing. Now, the reconciliation of these two facts has ever defied the reason of mankind. And those that have adopted the belief in free will have confessed that reason did not lead them to that conclusion, but experience. On the other hand, the logical conclusion is inevitable that man cannot be free. I know that people have endeavored to satisfy themselves to the contrary, and I know that some have really succeeded in deceiving themselves so far as to believe that they could logically hold to it; but I declare that they have never succeeded in convincing any unprejudiced mind, and I defy any logician to prove that the conclusion of free will as consistent with eternal causation, is less absurd than that two and two make five.

Again, you preach that what a man sows, that also shall he reap. If that is true, then no person can really give him anything; therefore philanthropy is a delusion. Now, then, Mr. Liberal, you want to be reasonable and drop the false position to which your inherited prejudices have held you, and adopt my views, which are thoroughly simple and entirely consistent and logical. Belief in G.o.d is the product of superst.i.tion, and belief in free will is a self-delusion. I know that you will appeal to intuition in this case, but that is only a scapegoat for deluded and illogical minds to hide behind. You see that my conclusion is not only simple and logical, but it is really more beautiful than your complex affair, and you will see it as such after you succeed in overcoming your inherited prejudices. There is no G.o.d.

The universe is governed by blind law; at least, that is all we know about it. We are evolved from the lowest forms of organic life. What about conscience? Well, that is a matter of education. Of course we should follow it, because it is a safer guide than our present judgment, since it represents the judgment of all our ancestors.

Utility is our only standard of right and wrong in morals, and we follow utility because we are not free and are therefore compelled to do so.

_Mr. Orthodox_--If you are through, Mr. Freethinker, I will now continue. But I must consider myself your opponent as well as Mr.

Liberal's. In the first place, I must admit that you are thoroughly consistent with yourself as far as you go. But, my dear fellow, where does your consistency lead you to? You claim to be a freethinker, and yet you conclude that you are an entire slave and even think as you do because you cannot help it.

I stated at the beginning of my reply to Mr. Liberal that many religious facts must be accepted without thoroughly understanding them, and claimed that it is reasonable to so accept them. I will now endeavor to explain myself more fully. It seems to me that if anything has been proven, it is that our logical reason is not always a safe guide. For example, we cannot conceive of an end to divisibility of s.p.a.ce; and therefore we cannot conceive how we can reach a given point.

Now, practice gives the lie to this conclusion, and if some rationalist should follow his reason here, he would conclude that he can never get a piece of food into his mouth; or, in other words, the logical conclusion would lead to starvation. I know that some will deny this as a logical conclusion to get out of the difficulty. But I could never see it as otherwise than logical, and I have a goodly list of thinkers who have reached the same conclusion before me. Again, it is admitted by all thinkers of all ages that our reason tells us that there cannot be existence without beginning, or, on the other hand, there can be no beginning of existence without something existing before to cause its existence.

The conclusion is that inconceivability is not an infallible proof of the absence of a fact, and that we must follow our experience even if it conflicts with our reason. This is what we claim to do in religion.

Whether experience is the sole source of knowledge is a question we need not discuss here. It is certainly the only safe method in most things. For example, I wish to know what will cure a certain disease.

Suppose that I find a medicine that has cured every case in which it has been administered. Would it not be irrational for me to refuse to use that medicine because I cannot conceive how it effects the cure? Of course it might be possible that the medicine did not effect the cure; that it was the belief in its curative power that produced the effect.

Cases have frequently occurred where a thing was for a long time believed to be the cause, while future investigation proved that it was some other attendant circ.u.mstance that was the real cause. But if our experience is that a given medicine cures a certain disease invariably, and that no other known medicine will cure it, we would be foolish not to use that medicine. The same is true in religion. If we wish to accomplish certain results and we have found a way in which those desirable results can be brought about, and know of no other way to bring them about; it would be irrational not to adopt that way, or follow out the requirements of that theory. I told you, Mr. Liberal, that your theory or doctrine was too simple. This is still more true of our friend, Mr. Freethinker. You claim to hold very broad, liberal and enlightened views. But although they are broad, they are not deep enough. They are stretched out over the surface merely, and thus hide from your view the great ocean of reality below. Yes, you have an abundance of light, but not enough heat. In the polar regions they have six months of light in one stretch, but no one would think of starting a garden there, as there is not enough heat. To the cold reason of some bachelor it is perfectly clear and indisputable that the young lover is a deluded fool and should follow his reason by never marrying. But I fondly believe that young lover sees the true worth of one human soul, and gives us an idea of the worth we shall see in all souls when we shall cease to see through a gla.s.s darkly. As the bachelor does not touch the reality in his case, so I believe that our friend, Mr.

Freethinker, does not touch the great ocean of reality in religion. We are convinced by experience that man is free, and that nevertheless eternal causation does exist. We believe these to be two co-ordinate truths and we are willing to wait until we can solve the mystery; but in the meantime we wish to make use of the practical belief in both truths. People are convinced that there is a G.o.d who deals out exact justice; yet they are also convinced from experience that there is a G.o.d who is love who forgives the penitent sinner. That one G.o.d can possess both of these qualities seems as impossible as that three G.o.ds can be in one G.o.d. And yet people are convinced that no other theory will explain their complex experiences, and that living according to no other theory will enable them to get the desirable results that they know from experience that they do get. They may be mistaken; but it will be time enough to consider that when some one has a theory that will account better for all their various experiences. Well, you see my point and I shall apply it no further. You see it is simply the principle that the empirical school of philosophy claims to employ, but which many of them employ only in the physical realm and fail to carry into the spiritual or religious realm. They must admit that religious convictions are and have been among the strongest, if not the strongest, motive powers in the world's history. And thus their philosophy of life leaves out the greatest pleasures and mightiest incentives to action found in life.

But Mr. Liberal and his friends would tell us that this all refers to theology. That doctrines are of no account. That what we want is works.

Exactly, but don't you see that if after the afore-said experience you should not form the theory that the given medicine cures the given disease and act in accordance with the theory, the result would probably be death instead of health and life? The question is, is it true to experience? Does it accomplish what it purposes to accomplish better than any other theory, and can that result be accomplished only by following the said theory? According to many authorities, most if not all of our physical actions are performed according to a theory based on induction as to facts in the physical world. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that food nourishes our body because it has always been found to do so. In the same way many people have, through experience and facts, come to believe in G.o.d who guides them and nourishes them spiritually.

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

You, Mr. Liberal, talk about making infidels of people and drawing them away from the church, but I believe it would have been fortunate for you if you had not mentioned this subject; because you, according to the confession of your own men, have driven more people from the churches than any religious body having a similar numerical strength.

You tell people to use their reason, and after you have drawn them out of the orthodox churches by that bait, they see that they must go further than your position to satisfy what you call reason, and they find large numbers among you ready to lead them to that logical conclusion. It seems that the advocates of your liberal faith have always believed that they were on the verge of accomplishing great victories by drawing the mult.i.tudes to them; but as with the victim of tuberculosis, who imagines he is getting better all the time, it is always expectancy and never realization. If it is prejudice that prevents the spread of your belief, then it ought to grow most in New England, where it has largely worn away prejudice. But the facts seem to be that there it is growing the least comparatively; while out West, where it is a novelty and meeting with opposition, it is making the most progress. A person is almost tempted to conclude that if it were not for the opposition of some mistaken people, who do not realize your real error, your progress would come to an end at once.

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